Over a month ago, TeamLiquid announce a map contest to find the very best that the community could offer. With Blizzard over looking the contest, the possibility of a community made map reaching the ladder was particularly tantalising. The maps that we received were of exceptional quality. Picking the very best maps were very difficult, but after many play tests, we have decided on seven 1v1 maps that we believe offer unique and fun gameplay. We also have three team play maps which are also fun to play on.
But first, let me introduce the people who judged the contest:
Plexa: You know him as an admin on this site. He hosted this contest and kept you informed about what was going on. He is a Masters rated Protoss player who watches more replays than what is good for him.
Nightmarjoo: He once was the voice of foreign BW mapping and ran the website broodwarmaps.net. Now retired as a mapper, he spends his time laddering on the NA server. He is a high rated Masters Terran player.
Zelniq: Not only is he a banling on this website, but he is also a very talented Zerg who has reached GM level. He has been very vocal about various aspects of Starcraft 2 and knows what he is talking about when it comes to the game.
We would also like to thank Ares[Effort], Trueredemption and Odal for their assistance in playtesting these maps and for their feedback and Empyrean for his assistance in sorting through the entries. Special thanks to iGrok for checking the maps for any doodad or terrain errors.
So what were the judges looking for? Our primary focus was on how well the map played and whether or not it was a map players liked to play on. Even if a map was strictly speaking balanced, if it isn't fun to play on then it isn't a successful map. We also restricted the finalists so that map concepts weren't repeated. The judges believe we have 7 maps which play really well and are enjoyable to play on.
Of course there were more than 7 maps which fulfilled this requirement. So the point which separated out the maps is which maps followed Blizzard's mantra of "easy to learn, hard to master". In other words, which maps could be played on by anyone and still enjoy playing on the map and reward players for taking advantage of the maps features. The maps which achieved this the best we have chosen as our finalists.
Without further delay, in alphabetical order, the maps we have chosen are as follows:
The Finalists
Burning Altar
by Samro225am and TPW
- Features 3 bases per main, all spawn points enabled - Xel'Naga towers do not give away too much information, a careful opponent can avoid its reach but a lazy opponent will walk in plain view - When destroyed, rocks shorten attack paths to your opponents third, but also allow you to defend your own third quicker - Map allows for both aggressive play and long macro games which means no strategies are eliminated on this map
Cloud Kingdom
by Superouman and ESV
- 2 player map with an easy to defend natural - Many variations in terrain make deciding where to battle a pivotal decision - Expansions become progressively more difficult to take as the game progresses - Allows for clever tactical troop management and makes for long macro games - Affectionally named "Bobby's Flying Castle" during test games, upon playing the map this name should be clear
Haven's Lagoon
by Timetwister22
- Map increases in height as more and more expansions are taken - Map emphasises exploiting the height differences to gain an advantage - Rewards players for controlling their units well and taking slightly longer paths for better position - Allows for a variety of playstyles including air and harass based play due to the large space between mains - One of the most enjoyed maps by playtesters
Korhal Compound
by monitor and ESV
- Formerly known as Daggoth Crater - Features a natural flow to taking expansions - Often results in split map situations where careful navigation around the middle is required - The towers are useful in defence, but can easily be acquired by an attacker - Usually results in long macro games
Ohana
by IronManSC and TPW
- Extremely technical map with many features - Backdoor doesn't prove to be imbalanced as the second ramp allows you a second chance to defend - Expansion layout only allows you to claim 4 bases with ease, you really have to work for the last base - Many back passageways to allow players to do surprise attacks and counter attacks with ease
Sanctuary
by Grebliv and ESV
- Three player rotation symmetry with minimal positional imbalance - Controlling the other main allows you to get an extra base in a split map scenario - Map allows for standard macro play and key chokepoints around your third allow for good defensive positions - An aggressive player can hold the Xel'Naga Watchtower and gain vision of the entire center, making this an important point to control - Movement around the sides of the map can lead to surprise flanks
Twilight Peaks
by Ragoo and LoS
- 4 Player map with 3 bases per main, rotational symmetry with minimal positional imbalance - The third look easy to take on this map, but the towers give you a false sense of security and can lead to aggressive play off of two or three bases - Once aggression has settled, players can easily obtain 5 bases and fight over the remaining 2 bases - Allows for a diverse number of strategies to be played
Teamplay Maps: Honourable Mentions
Citadel of Gaia
by prodiG and ESV
- Inspired by Twilight Fortress - Innovative third base can be taken defensively, but only provide minerals, or offensively which gives both minerals and gas - Ramp can be defended by two forcefields, but you risk being caught out of position by doing so
Fields of Strife
by Apom
- Described by one playtester as 'like Xel'Naga Caverns, but bigger and better' - Multiple attack paths can be opened up by destroying the rocks - Towers are located in very useful locations, controlling them is a good idea - Single backdoor expo allows for new strategies to emerge
Hipster Heaven
by Mashmed
- Unique '3 Player' 2v2 map (three spawn possibilities for teams) - Teams start of more separated than on traditional 2v2 maps, allows more mobile forces to exploit weaknesses in one player - Each spawn has 5 bases between two players, making the remaining spawn extremely valuable in long games Understandably, some of you may be upset with these results. We would like to stress the high level of entries that we received and that this decision was not easy. Some of you may feel cheated that we only decided to go with 7 maps, but we felt that there were no more maps that were of the same level as the ones we selected. Plexa is happy to answer any questions about the contest and provide feedback on your entries. Hopefully that will illuminate the judges decision for you.
While originally we had planned a Progamer Invite tournament, we felt that this would limit player contact with the maps. As such, the voting for these maps will take place after a special TL Open held at the end of this month. To be precise, on the weekend of the 26th-27th, the weekend following MLG Providence and before the NASL Grand Finals.
Until then, you can playtest these maps by searching for [TLMC] on NA/SEA/EU. We are eager to hear your feedback on the maps and a thread in the mapping forum will be create for you to post feedback.
It has been our pleasure organising this contest, and we hope we can do another one some time soon.
I'm going to pre-empt some mappers criticising the choice of Haven. The focus of this contest was to find maps which played the best, not look the best. I can appreciate that it may not be as pretty as some of the other entries, and I can appreciate that it doesn't look like something most of you would create. But during test games this map was constantly mentioned as one of the players favorite maps - that's the kind of feedback the judges can't ignore and the reason that this map has done so well.
Suprising choises. I think all the maps have really great layouts and will play out really well.
Some of the maps have some problems with the aesthetics though. Not just being bad or dull, they have some pretty critical flaws in them which just looks terrible. One of the maps have too small borders for example, which means that there is a black edge all the way around the map. I hope these will be corrected though.
On November 10 2011 00:34 Archvil3 wrote: Suprising choises. I think all the maps have really great layouts and will play out really well.
Some of the maps have some problems with the aesthetics though. Not just being bad or dull, they have some pretty critical flaws in them which just looks terrible. One of the maps have too small borders for example, which means that there is a black edge all the way around the map. I hope these will be corrected though.
Anyways grats to the winners, job well done!
Don't judge the map borders from these pictures, some where adjusted so I could get a decent picture.
On November 10 2011 00:35 Zaphid wrote: The only one I don't like from the get go is Haven's Lagoon. Any chance we get to see all the maps submitted or are they already posted somewhere ?
I won't be publicly releasing a list, people are welcome to post their entries.
Plexa, I found out by looking at the map ingame using the TLMC upload. I can PM you pics of the map in question if you like. I think the map in question could use a couple of hours in the hand of an experienced map maker to fix all the small errors on it.
I will say I'm not surprised to see The Planetary Workshop, prodiG, Monitor, Superouman, and ESV in this list, but all of these maps look fantastic.
I've seen some gameplay on ESV Cloud Kingdom in the ESV Korean Weekly, and it seems to play very nicely. I really like the color scheme of Cloud Kingdom as well, it's different and refreshing.
I also really like the look of Sanctuary, it looks almost like a 3-Player Terminus, except the removal of the very easy third looks like a huge positive for early and mid-game flow. I like how the center bases are dangerous, yet much more feasible than say, the middle bases on Daybreak.
Ohana looks very interesting to me, and I'm interested to see how the dynamic with the empty low-ground behind the rocks plays out. It looks like a very obvious location for Proxy shenanigans, so I'd expect players to ALWAYS scout, or park an overlord there. It also looks like a great place to drop a Macro Hatch as Zerg. I also am interested to see how the "5th" on Ohana plays out, that could be very interesting, especially in TvT.
I'm not crazy about Burning Altar from the looks of it, I don't like how every expansion save your natural is on the lowest level of terrain. Other than that, I think the map layout is nice, and I like the counter-ability that the map looks to enable. I'm not liking about the Browdering though.
I'm having a hard time remembering if I've seen Daggoth Crater before, but I REALLY like the way the bases are laid out, especially with the high-ground 4th, with a LARGE ledge behind it. This is another map I can imagine some amazing TvT's on. I also really like how the Xel'Naga towers aren't on the High Ground, I think that's much better for almost any scenario (from a balance standpoint).
Twilight Peaks is interesting to me as well, at first glance I though "Oh lord, another map that will cause Dual Sight Syndrome", but upon closer inspection, I realized that while the third isn't necessarily EASY to take, with proper army positioning and awareness, your army can be nearby, while not leaving the main/natural area defenseless. I like the way it provides defensible areas for aware players, while still holding the threat of run-bys and counters to catch you off guard/out of position.
I can't wait to see how any of these maps play out
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing. i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
Congrats to all the winners. Also remember if you're disappointed that none of your maps was chosen, there's always someone out there who would've deserved it more than you (bigger fish principle)
Looking forward to that TL Open!
Also thanks again for putting so much effort into this, hosts and participants.
Will there be more detailed feedback on the submissions that didn't made it? As Mereel i'm also a little bit disappointed the a actual judge panel was that kinda small. MotM at least always used 5. Still some decent picks in there, others are questionable and i hope you just judged the Layout and ignored the design to a huge degree (else we'll get more devolvement in terms of design in the map pool).
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
On November 10 2011 00:53 FlopTurnReaver wrote:Also thanks again for putting so much effort into this, hosts and participants.
Definitely seconding this.
Also, people should remember that these aren't necessarily the maps that will be picked for Ladder. I believe the statement on that is that Blizzard would pick from any of the entries (possibly none!).
On November 10 2011 00:53 dezi wrote: Will there be more detailed feedback on the submissions that didn't made it? As Mereel i'm also a little bit disappointed the a actual judge panel was that kinda small. MotM at least always used 5. Still some decent picks in there, others are questionable and i hope you just judged the Layout and ignored the design to a huge degree (else we'll get more devolvement in terms of design in the map pool).
I'm more than happy to sit down and take some time explaining where we thought your maps weaknesses were. Please shoot me a PM if you want it.
On November 10 2011 01:00 a176 wrote: what is the difference between twilight peaks and burning altar?
While both are three base per main, the biggest difference is a) in xnt usage b) how easy it is to hold your third on TP holding your third is a lot harder than on BA and as a result plays a bit more dynamic. BA is more macro oriented. I can give more detail if you want, but that is the crux of it - how each map deals with taking a third.
Nice! Shame that none of the winners chose to use the desert tileset, though. Seems like ages since we've seen any games played on a desert map (in fact, was Blistering Sands the last Mar Sara-style map to be used in tourneys?) Seems like most things these days are some variant of Jungle or Shakuras.
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
There's a difference between losing gracefully and losing like a child. Sure, it might not sit well with you having lost to someone that clearly didn't put as much time into aesthetic design, but you should be mature enough to say "Win some, lose some, better refine my maps for the IPL Map Contest" or something.
Don't attempt to ruin someone else's accomplishment just because you didn't win. I'm sure Plexa would be more than willing to explain why your map(s) wasn't(weren't) chosen if you PM him and ask nicely.
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
You gotta understand that this is like pro gaming. If IdrA failed to qualify for a tournament, he's not gonna be happy because Huk and Puma made it. Everyone wants to see their own maps. Also it's easier to like your own maps since you know every little detail about it, where on other maps you've maybe only seen a picture or like a couple games. Although the judges had their reason to pick the maps they did, frustration is obviously huge with so many submissions. Also there were a lot of different assumptions about what the contest was looking for.
So please be understanding of any mapmaker who's a bit angry and frustrated about this.
I'm a bit disappointed, all these 4 player maps look the same to me. Mappers did a good job reproducing the Blizzard pattern but I don't think the TL contest will increase the variety of maps in the ladder. I don't think they'll play differently than already existing maps.
On November 10 2011 01:04 Optimism wrote: Nice! Shame that none of the winners chose to use the desert tileset, though. Seems like ages since we've seen any games played on a desert map (in fact, was Blistering Sands the last Mar Sara-style map to be used in tourneys?) Seems like most things these days are some variant of Jungle or Shakuras.
Daggoth, this is the only map i think that blizzard would ever accept on the ladder, plus looks like the only map with real balance, the rest have so many ramps and rocks that its just force field heaven or seige up and camp lol.
They look pretty but you have to provide balance on a map?
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
There's a difference between losing gracefully and losing like a child. Sure, it might not sit well with you having lost to someone that clearly didn't put as much time into aesthetic design, but you should be mature enough to say "Win some, lose some, better refine my maps for the IPL Map Contest" or something.
Don't attempt to ruin someone else's accomplishment just because you didn't win. I'm sure Plexa would be more than willing to explain why your map(s) wasn't(weren't) chosen if you PM him and ask nicely.
On November 10 2011 01:04 Optimism wrote: Nice! Shame that none of the winners chose to use the desert tileset, though. Seems like ages since we've seen any games played on a desert map (in fact, was Blistering Sands the last Mar Sara-style map to be used in tourneys?) Seems like most things these days are some variant of Jungle or Shakuras.
These maps look really nice. I would like to see some high profile games on them though. It takes some time to figure out the imbalances, how well they hold up to various aggressive openings, etc. I remember at first Jungle Basin looked interesting, but soon enough it was shown to be virtually impossible for Z. I would like to think we are passed those days though ...
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
Its very clear why the map was chosen. The judges had fun games on the map.
I actually had no idea that people actually care how "nice" a map looks. I just think it's more important to how a map plays. Haven's Lagoon looks sick for gameplay!
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
There's a difference between losing gracefully and losing like a child. Sure, it might not sit well with you having lost to someone that clearly didn't put as much time into aesthetic design, but you should be mature enough to say "Win some, lose some, better refine my maps for the IPL Map Contest" or something.
Don't attempt to ruin someone else's accomplishment just because you didn't win. I'm sure Plexa would be more than willing to explain why your map(s) wasn't(weren't) chosen if you PM him and ask nicely.
well, not all of us over the years i have learned that at the end of the day all the matters is the result, not the amount of work you put in. while i might have picked different maps, i can see why these maps were picked and congratulations to the winners!
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
You gotta understand that this is like pro gaming. If IdrA failed to qualify for a tournament, he's not gonna be happy because Huk and Puma made it. Everyone wants to see their own maps. Also it's easier to like your own maps since you know every little detail about it, where on other maps you've maybe only seen a picture or like a couple games. Although the judges had their reason to pick the maps they did, frustration is obviously huge with so many submissions. Also there were a lot of different assumptions about what the contest was looking for.
So please be understanding of any mapmaker who's a bit angry and frustrated about this.
I can understand losing, and not being happy. It's another thing to lose, and have outbursts about it. If IdrA fails to qualify, and HuK and PuMa make it, IdrA may not be happy, but he can at least be composed enough to not get frustrated and have an outburst at the tournament organizers.
I refuse to believe you had the time to play enough games on every map submitted to justify saying these maps unanimously play better than some of the ones that didn't make it. Having a "fun game" is also incredibly subjective. If I played a game right after getting head, I'd probably have a lot more fun than testing maps the next day after my girlfriend dumped me, for example. It's subjective bullshit.
On November 10 2011 01:10 mbr2321 wrote: I actually had no idea that people actually care how "nice" a map looks. I just think it's more important to how a map plays. Haven's Lagoon looks sick for gameplay!
+1
Looking nice should be secondary to fun gameplay. Obviously mapmakers who spent a lot of effort on their maps in putting in the little details may be upset, but acting like a child won't help your chances.
On November 10 2011 01:10 mbr2321 wrote: I actually had no idea that people actually care how "nice" a map looks. I just think it's more important to how a map plays. Haven's Lagoon looks sick for gameplay!
+1
Looking nice should be secondary to fun gameplay. Obviously mapmakers who spent a lot of effort on their maps in putting in the little details may be upset, but acting like a child won't help your chances.
You should check out the first couple pages of the Bel'Shir Beach thread then.
Now that I´ve flipped a few tables I can understand the reasoning behind the selection. Like trying to write a hit song; you can work really hard and do everything right, and still see people go for another tune. Dedication, talent will only take you so far. A bit of luck and fun-factor is something you need but can´t control.
I'm not a big fan of contests where the winner is chosen subjectively because many times things other than the true qualities the map is offering get put into consideration.
For instance if you know someone is a good map maker or even a friend you may give them more lenience than other people. Or if you know someone is an ass (func) you may more quickly disregard their choice.
The best way to do subjective contests of 'art' is to do them where the judges do not know who's map they are playing. This would be pretty easy to set up and would the most fair way of judging maps.
I am honourably mentioned ! <3 (by the way, I did some very minor cosmetic changes since last week, could not do them earlier due to me being away - is there any chance to integrate them now ?)
Haven's Lagoon looks like a smart map. A mirrored map, rather than rotational, would be a nice addition to the ladder pool now that Scrap Station is (understandably) out. As Plexa pointed out, the aesthetics are not as technically elaborate as the other six finalists, but I still think it efficiently follows the theme it set for itself. It's also the one selected entry that was not produced by a map-making team, which automatically qualifies it for the title of dark horse.
Overall I feel like the judges did a really good job at offering a large array of set-ups : we have 2p rotational, 2p mirrored, 3p rotational and 4p rotational. I guess ideally there would have been a 4p mirrored as well, but it seems like map-makers are progressively abandoning this idea.
This contest is something really great for the community especially for me as 99% spectator only xD I would really like to see such a thing regulary, maybe with a streamed show introducing and playtesting the contending maps (maybe from Ro32 onwards or so) but of course not too often, it should still feel epic like maybe quarter yearly. Really good looking maps im looking forward too see lots of matches on them =D
Dear Timetwister22, author of the playtesters' favourite Haven's Lagoon,
if you are interested I would love to help you make your map better looking, either by giving you a visual design coaching via Skype or by working over your textures (and doodads) myself. Also it seems my teammates have a lot of energy and I hope their energy can be put into something usefull (hi team, i know you are up to it! you do not want to leave aesthetics to ESV )
on another note: did you copy and rotate Ride of Valkyries?
-
Dear Judges, it is the third time I get in a "MotM" final and I am really happy that my simple, functional layout was chosen, although I misinterpret the rules and mixed a tileset for badassvisuals (;
-
Mereel, I understand your point and share your opinion (partly) regarding some map's visual design, but you can't accuse the judges of not presenting ''the very best that the community could offer.'' while you present yourself like an embittered looser.
-
Team ESV, congratulation beating us 3:2. Next time we will make more 2v2 maps for easy bonuspoints
-
Looking forward to the tournament and stream.This is were the really good playing and good looking maps shine
Ah, Now I'm a bit regretful I did not submit my 'Shrubberies of Ni'. It had a similar idea to Haven's lagoon nudged 90 degrees. But I didn't because I couldn't make it pretty enough, oh well.
I personally like the look of all the maps quite a bit. Less interested in the traditional maps that make for long macro games
Hope there is another contest sometime in the future!
Gameplay should always outweight aesthetics. Haven is the only map to me that has a fun, refreshing concept.
Other than that ALL of the maps look like they have really hard to take 3rds. I thought we wanted to go away from the old blizzard style that everyone agrees on it did not create to many fun games.
i am fine with gameplay getting more focus than aesthetics. as long as the aesthetics fulfill some minimum requirements in that case i kidna wish it would have been given a little more attention in judging. but it is also something that can be improved at any time.
I don't know why so many people are bitching about the aesthetics (Haven's lagoon). It's not really important because it can be improved later on anyway. What is important is if the gameplay of the map is interesting or not, and Haven's lagoon looks really cool to play, definitly worthy to be there.
All of the maps look pretty sweet its going to be interesting to see how things play out in the special TL Open! I know i'm going to jump at the chance to cast epic games on these new maps! ^^
On November 10 2011 01:37 Samro225am wrote: Dear Timetwister22, author of the playtesters' favourite Haven's Lagoon,
if you are interested I would love to help you make your map better looking, either by giving you a visual design coaching via Skype or by working over your textures (and doodads) myself. Also it seems my teammates have a lot of energy and I hope their energy can be put into something usefull (hi team, i know you are up to it! you do not want to leave aesthetics to ESV )
on another note: did you copy and rotate Ride of Valkyries?
-
Dear Judges, it is the third time I get in a "MotM" final and I am really happy that my simple, functional layout was chosen, although I misinterpret the rules and mixed a tileset for badassvisuals (;
-
Mereel, I understand your point and share your opinion (partly) regarding some map's visual design, but you can't accuse the judges of not presenting ''the very best that the community could offer.'' while you present yourself like an embittered looser.
-
Team ESV, congratulation beating us 3:2. Next time we will make more 2v2 maps for easy bonuspoints
-
Looking forward to the tournament and stream.This is were the really good playing and good looking maps shine
On November 10 2011 01:47 dudecrush wrote: Calling it now: Burning Altar is gonna win because blizz loves destructible rocks...
did you check the mapthread or play the map? do you understand how the rocks work?
I tried to find a concept to make rocks work in a way they do not destroy, but help gameplay. With advancing matches both sides (attacker, defender) want to break the rocks, some races more, some less, dependaning on playstyle and army composition.
rocks are not an instant win with blizz and should not be an instant loss for people caring for SC2. We jsut have to show blizz how to make better or at least different use of it.
It is clearly one of the top maps of the group. Map making is not about creating this beautiful landscape to fight on. Top players do not pay attention to that shit. The best map is one that is most enjoyable to play. Which is something he created by coming up with a whole new way using a map to change the way SC2 is played.
On November 10 2011 01:29 Johanaz wrote: Now that I´ve flipped a few tables I can understand the reasoning behind the selection. Like trying to write a hit song; you can work really hard and do everything right, and still see people go for another tune. Dedication, talent will only take you so far. A bit of luck and fun-factor is something you need but can´t control.
I see you are so full of yourself you still don't understand the reasoning of the selection. Dedication and talent is all you need to succeed. But you didn't have the 'talent' to come up with a concept like Haven's Lagoon. There was no luck involved. And fun-factor is something you can control - it requires a little imagination and happens to be the most important part in map making.
I think Team Liquid should hold a weekend seminar in conjunction with Blizzard, we can call it the Dustin Browder 'Players Improving Maps Program' or Dustin Browder, P.I.M.P. for short.
It can be all about effectively implementing Destructible Rocks, with a primer for the release of Heart of the Swarm, after which there can be another seminar for the use of Collapsible Rocks.
To people hating on Burning Altar because of the rocks : there are just as many destructible rocks on Cloud Kingdom (although not entirely blocking). And even more on Fields of Strife.
I understand that the first impression left by those rocks where on Blistering Sands, which certainly does not score positive points... But why the indsicriminate rage ? I personnally believe that rocks can add to gameplay value when put in sensible places.
On November 10 2011 01:54 Barrin wrote: Congratulations to the winners! :D
-----
As happy I am for the winners, believe me I was as nervous waiting for announcement and thoroughly disappointed for losing as anyone else. But for me that is quickly replaced with a desire to become better and learn from my mistakes.
I understand that the judges were putting heavy emphasis on layout and gameplay. Even though I feel Alysaar Deluge does far better at this than most maps, I also understand it's problems and felt that it's greatest weakness as I was finishing it up. It's gameplay problems seem hardly worth discussing, it really only comes from experience and the important thing is that I understand them. But if this was a contest of overall execution this map probably should have been a finalist ^^
It's not really that this experience has left me "enlightened"... "refreshed" would be a better word. I have not really learned anything that I did not already know - only perhaps forgotten. Both in gameplay and aesthetics I get so bogged down in all the complex intricacies that I sometimes get carried away and forget fundamentals, spending so much time trying to revise it to the point where I should have just started over or got it right to begin with. Simplicity is the answer, everything else should be second-nature; this sensation is familiar to me.
Lul, look at me babbling on. I guess all I'm saying is that something good will come of the motivation I gained from this. Grats again to winners
Would you actually mind expounding upon what the gameplay issues are? This looks like a really awesome map, and I'd like to weigh in on it, after knowing what you already know. It's not too late to refine it for the IPL Map Contest! :D
Wow people are really pissed about this. I get it's never fun to lose, but there's no need to be agressive like that since it's their rules and they are the judges. They said they would choose the best playing maps acording to their skills and opinion. If you think the maps should be voted by the community or top players then you people shouldn't have applied.
The maps look great for me and i don't have any skill to say it otherwise(playing and map making) so they look good to me, i will try them if i can.
On November 10 2011 01:54 Barrin wrote: Congratulations to the winners! :D
-----
As happy I am for the winners, believe me I was as nervous waiting for announcement and thoroughly disappointed for losing as anyone else. But for me that is quickly replaced with a desire to become better and learn from my mistakes.
I understand that the judges were putting heavy emphasis on layout and gameplay. Even though I feel Alysaar Deluge does far better at this than most maps, I also understand it's problems and felt that it's greatest weakness as I was finishing it up. It's gameplay problems seem hardly worth discussing, it really only comes from experience and the important thing is that I understand them. But if this was a contest of overall execution this map probably should have been a finalist ^^
It's not really that this experience has left me "enlightened"... "refreshed" would be a better word. I have not really learned anything that I did not already know - only perhaps forgotten. Both in gameplay and aesthetics I get so bogged down in all the complex intricacies that I sometimes get carried away and forget fundamentals, spending so much time trying to revise it to the point where I should have just started over or got it right to begin with. Simplicity is the answer, everything else should be second-nature; this sensation is familiar to me.
Lul, look at me babbling on. I guess all I'm saying is that something good will come of the motivation I gained from this. Grats again to winners
Well, I personnaly don't really like your map (the distances feel weird and I really hate standard rocks). But well, its only my opinion at first sight, didnt play it or anything.
Cloud Kingdom and Haven's lagoon are my favourites here. Being a daily spectator I could see right away these will show some new ways to play, and in my opinion is exactly what is needed to keep the interest up.
And what's up with people going apeshit over the aesthetics? That can easily be fixed later if it is to be used in something like the GSL.
I see you are so full of yourself you still don't understand the reasoning of the selection. Dedication and talent is all you need to succeed. But you didn't have the 'talent' to come up with a concept like Haven's Lagoon. There was no luck involved. And fun-factor is something you can control - it requires a little imagination and happens to be the most important part in map making.
Before you get into a personal attack you should make sure you understood correctly what was being said. Clearly you didn´t!
On November 10 2011 01:53 Snijjer wrote: Also to all the people hating on Haven's Lagoon:
It is clearly one of the top maps of the group. Map making is not about creating this beautiful landscape to fight on. Top players do not pay attention to that shit. The best map is one that is most enjoyable to play. Which is something he created by coming up with a whole new way using a map to change the way SC2 is played.
On November 10 2011 01:29 Johanaz wrote: Now that I´ve flipped a few tables I can understand the reasoning behind the selection. Like trying to write a hit song; you can work really hard and do everything right, and still see people go for another tune. Dedication, talent will only take you so far. A bit of luck and fun-factor is something you need but can´t control.
I see you are so full of yourself you still don't understand the reasoning of the selection. Dedication and talent is all you need to succeed. But you didn't have the 'talent' to come up with a concept like Haven's Lagoon. There was no luck involved. And fun-factor is something you can control - it requires a little imagination and happens to be the most important part in map making.
At this point I would like to interject that some players on the lower end of the skill scale care a lot about aesthetics. I have a friend in gold league who made me play ten games in a row on Bel'Shir Beach after I showed him the map being played on GSL, and he just laughs at me whenever I say that a map is imbalanced because so and so.
I do not intend to criticize or disrespect Timetwister at all ; quite the contrary, I think highly of his map. But, Blizzard has to care for an entire spectrum of players and their varying priorities, and I certainly hope that Timetwister accepts one of the proposals he has received for improving the technical aspects of his map (even if it's just coaching if he wants to retain credit as sole author, which I would understand).
I love the maps. Pretty awesome. Im lookling forward to play Haven. Sounds very interesting. + props for all the intelligent mapfeatures ppl send in :>
Before you get into a personal attack you should make sure you understood correctly what was being said. Clearly you didn´t!
That post wasn't aimed directly at you though I did quote you, it was more to everyone who was flabbergasted that a noob map like Haven got picked. But...
I thought this statement was pretty clear allusion to Haven's Lagoon.
"Dedication, talent will only take you so far. A bit of luck and fun-factor is something you need but can´t control."
Which is totally dismissing the map creators talent for making fun maps as something no one can control or luck. Am I missing something?
Alright, would like to share 2 of my submissions with the correspondig feedback so everyone see how and what they judged.
One Must Fall pic: http://i.imgur.com/tOvHZ.jpg (large) Feedback: One Must Fall had the problem of isolating too many bases in easily defendable positions - except for the low mineral base in the center (which would have had to be changed anyway ). Essentially you are able to zone out lots of these bases with minimal units. Things like PFs, mass cannons/sentry etc become a lot stronger in these situations. Further, while the multiple paths was a good idea, personally I think they could be emphasized more - for me there isn't too much reason to kill the rocks since (in most cases) I can get around without doing so just fine. Map Thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=192107
Lunar Station pic: http://i.imgur.com/aAYXN.jpg (large) Feedback: Lunar Station is a very good map. The first issue was the gold, where it's located makes it similar (in a way) to XNC i.e. planting a PF there is very very good for a Terran - more so than on XNC. The expansion layout, otherwise, was very well done. The split down the middle in addition to forcing you to expand outwards we felt would lead too much towards a counter attacking/base racey type game. That was basically the reason we didn't take it. But like I said, it did very well.
So i would assume Layout >>> rest. That's why this Lagoon map everyone is complaing about is in
Daggoth Crater reminds me of a squished Dual Sight for some reason
I really like the looks of the maps, and hope I can try a few of them soon. Sanctuary may be the first 3-player map I like (damn you XNF and Testbug...)
I have a quick question about the voting though. How will the 2v2 maps be given the same show? Will it be part of the TL Open, and if so, how will it play into the format?
On November 10 2011 02:18 dezi wrote: Alright, would like to share 2 of my submissions with the correspondig feedback so everyone see how and what they judged.
One Must Fall pic: http://i.imgur.com/tOvHZ.jpg (large) Feedback: One Must Fall had the problem of isolating too many bases in easily defendable positions - except for the low mineral base in the center (which would have had to be changed anyway ). Essentially you are able to zone out lots of these bases with minimal units. Things like PFs, mass cannons/sentry etc become a lot stronger in these situations. Further, while the multiple paths was a good idea, personally I think they could be emphasized more - for me there isn't too much reason to kill the rocks since (in most cases) I can get around without doing so just fine. Map Thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=192107
Lunar Station pic: http://i.imgur.com/aAYXN.jpg (large) Feedback: Lunar Station is a very good map. The first issue was the gold, where it's located makes it similar (in a way) to XNC i.e. planting a PF there is very very good for a Terran - more so than on XNC. The expansion layout, otherwise, was very well done. The split down the middle in addition to forcing you to expand outwards we felt would lead too much towards a counter attacking/base racey type game. That was basically the reason we didn't take it. But like I said, it did very well.
So i would assume Layout >>> rest. That's why this Lagoon map everyone is complaing about is in
Well yea, of course the layout is the most important factor, because that's what determines if the map is correctly balanced or not.
This contest feels like another iteration of the Motm contest : nothing new under the sun. Ever wondered why people are bored with the ladder maps ? Because they kind of all play the same. Then why pick maps in the same vein ? Blizzard asked Teamliquid to find new concepts and innovative gameplay, maps with insight. Instead TL just picked maps that look standard, which is what Blizzard could already do.
Making people vote for bland maps is useless, I don't think I'll take part in the vote. Or I'll just vote for Superouman because he's french.
I really like Haven's Lagoon a lot. It seems like most of the other maps could of came straight from blizzard. Not saying that's bad by any means of course. I just really like the feel and new idea of Havens. It seems fresh and new to me. Sad to see some of the sore losers but good job to all the finalist.
Omg these map look amazing my 2 fav (without having played any of them mind you) would have to be Sanctuary and dragoth, but they all look really nice gj :-)
Also Blizzard should really take some more advantage of these map makers potential :-)
I think it would be very revealing and interesting for each of the finalists to say a couple words about the thought process behind creating their maps and how the creation of the map happened.
Gratz to everyone, and I am so glad a non-teamed mapper got in the finals, it's good for all the aspiring mappers!
+1
On November 10 2011 02:22 chuky500 wrote: This contest feels like another iteration of the Motm contest : nothing new under the sun. Ever wondered why people are bored with the ladder maps ? Because they kind of all play the same. Then why pick maps in the same vein ? Blizzard asked Teamliquid to find new concepts and innovative gameplay, maps with insight. Instead TL just picked maps that look standard, which is what Blizzard could already do.
Making people vote for bland maps is useless, I don't think I'll take part in the vote. Or I'll just vote for Superouman because he's french.
considering the wide audience (not only spectators, but also players - pro and casual alike) you do not need revolutionary maps, but small steps and evolve the game a little bit with each custom maps that is excepted in tournaments. this is especially true when aiming at designing a map that can become part of the official ladder.
sometimes (i count myself in here) mappers tend to thing about maps and their importance too highly. i the end every architect has to build a house, not a sculpture (albeit many so-called star architects tend to forget this).
Following in the steps of dezi, I too would like to share my feedback on my submitted map, Sump! + Show Spoiler +
Feedback: Aesthetically it was one of the most memorable maps, I think you did a god job on that. One thing that didn't help was the forced locked start positions - in Blizzards hands who knows what would happen. So we were weary of picking anything with locked SPs. We also felt that the golds would imbalance that map against Protoss quite heavily. Another thing is that the backdoor concept was pretty cool, but with locked SPs we felt it's value would be a bit lesser than if that were not the case. Lastly, we thought the third was a bit too inaccessible - it would be just as good taking the gold as your third and trying to hold it most of the time (unless you were protoss...).
Lets hope this wasnt a total waste of time and we see few of these maps on ladder/tournaments. They are simply amazing and way better than what we play on atm.
Pretty interesting maps, though haven's lagoon ain't pretty, as long it's balanced, it looks like it's a very interesting map to play and watch games on.
I feel maps' layouts and balance are most important, aesthetics can always be added or mproved upon.
On November 10 2011 00:44 Mereel wrote: i dont know...im pretty speechless now.
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing. i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
propably more later FUCK OFF
User was temp banned for this post.
Somebody is bitter that their map covered in pretty things didnt get chosen? - The maps can be remodelled for aesthetic looks, its the way they play that matters -_- To be honest havens lagoon looks to hold the most interesting gameplay, if anything the way all maps seem to take the same shape makes it a bore for me (talking about all maps, not just this contest), there were many oddly shaped maps like this in age of empires and it made it extremely interesting.
I would want to see something like havens lagoon and a 3 way map in the ladder pool - would make it more interesting for me ^_^
I loved all the maps, although its pretty difficult for me to read the birds eye view of them so i thought a few of them looked kinda odd.
... there is this thing I like to call "mapmaking progression philosophy". I've been meaning to make a thread for it for a loong time, but it really is little more than this: I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map. Interestingly enough this same concept can be (and is) applied to "player progression philosophy" as well. It is a well known theory that given a long enough timeframe, the player who chooses to focus on early aggression/cheesing almost every game (strategy b) is going to eventually be an overall worse player than the person who focuses on improving their late-game mechanics and surviving the early game (strategy A). + Show Spoiler +
(disclaimer: at least in mapmaking, Strategy A and B are not mutually exclusive (indeed it makes sense to do B while doing A); it is the degrees of focus on either one that I am addressing.)
If you don't consider yourself very experienced in mapmaking (2+ years; yes, into the BW days), and if you're not learning a lot from almost every map you make, then you're probably doing it wrong (probably not receiving/comprehending enough feedback - put yourself out there - do not be afraid to be wrong, be afraid of being wrong and never realizing it).
you know barrin; between burning altar and twilight peak, they also satisfy my requirement of changing the army movement and general layout quite a bit. i dont know if the TL squad were aware of that but its good to see nevertheless.
There are some cool maps here I'm excited to see which ones Blizz adopts into the ladder. At first I was a little turned off from Haven's Lagoon because of the aesthetics, but thinking more and more about how it would play out leads me to believe it would be really fun to play on.
On November 10 2011 02:22 chuky500 wrote: This contest feels like another iteration of the Motm contest : nothing new under the sun. Ever wondered why people are bored with the ladder maps ? Because they kind of all play the same. Then why pick maps in the same vein ? Blizzard asked Teamliquid to find new concepts and innovative gameplay, maps with insight. Instead TL just picked maps that look standard, which is what Blizzard could already do.
Making people vote for bland maps is useless, I don't think I'll take part in the vote. Or I'll just vote for Superouman because he's french.
What ? The rocks on Burning Altar showcase an approach to destructibles that is unexistant on ladder. The cliff/ramp layout on Cloud Kingdom is equally new, no map on ladder offers that many tactically different places to engage a fight. Haven's Lagon is, well, totally different from anything else. Sanctuarium is a 3p map, which Blizzard never makes (well they did Elysium...). Isn't that enough innovation ?
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
A well-informed person whispered me that a number of well-established mapmaking teams have begun a six-digit bidding war to enlist TimeTwister before the final results are published. For real.
Haven's Lagoon looks super fun to play on. I love maps with a ton of elevations, Match point was always one of my favorites for that reason, it played out really fun. =)
It would have been better if judges are people that everybody knows who they are. That there is a balance of judges: 2 accomplished Mapmakers, 2 Pros, 2 Commentaters. Then everyone of them talks a bit about every map. So the Mapmakers say something about the Layout + Aesthetics, Pros about how it actually plays out and Commentaters if it is fun to play and watch. Now it just looks like you took some guys you know to choose your favorite maps.
Nevertheless i do not think the chosen maps are bad. Every map is quite standard with the exception of Haven's Lagoon. My personal favourite to make it into the Ladderpool though is Burning Altar.
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
This. This contest is awesome and while amazing it's the very first tournament mappers have ever had (that matters, sorry MoTM) and losing this must be how everyone that did not win the first MLG last year felt.
I understand why mappers are upset, but let's remember there's lots of great things here. All 3 major teams (ESV, TPW, LoS) all have representation, a random non teamed mapper got in, and all in all this does nothing but help the map making community as a whole !
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
You have to realize that the good mapmakers (mainly those who are in TPW, ESV or LoS, but also some others like Barrin) spend between 15 and 30 hours for each map (I just made that up, might be more) so we are REALLY disappointed each time our maps aren't picked in any competition. Cos not being picked basically means the map will never ever be played and all the effort is wasted , except of course that it makes you a better mapmaker in the end.
I'm -really- happy I made top7 seeing that I never was top5 in any MotM and only recently joined a team and became more involved in the mapmaking community!
Congrats to all the other mapmakers who made top7 and a big thank you for everyone else who makes good maps: You are such an inspiration, you make this community awesome and even if your maps weren't picked in this event, you still remain top top mapmakers and in future events I'm sure we will see your maps among the winners again (especially to funcmode, but also all the other TPW/ESV/LoS guys and Barrin).
Btw I contacted Timetwister22 about the aesthetics on Haven's Lagoon and one or more of the experienced mapmakers here will take care of redoing them to achieve an all around top quality map that can be used in tournaments/ladder. Cos even tho layout is the most important part, there should be a certain standard for aesthetics. And Blizzard's map are the minimum!
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
It seems Plexa may as well have insulted your children. "I'm sorry but little Johnny just doesn't have the charm we were looking for"
On November 10 2011 02:53 Apoo wrote: It would have been better if judges are people that everybody knows about who they are. That there is a balance of judges: 2 accomplished Mapmakers, 2 Pros, 2 Commentaters. Then everyone of them talks a bit about every map. So the Mapmakers say something about the Layout + Aesthetics, Pros about how it actually plays out and Commentaters if it is fun to play and watch. Now it just looks like you took some guys you know to choose your favorite maps.
Nevertheless i do not think the chosen maps are bad. Every map is quite standard with the exception of Haven's Lagoon. My personal favourite to make it into the Ladderpool though is Burning Altar.
Honestly I don't think that any recognized mapmaker would have accepted to be a judge for that contest, which would have automatically prevented him from participating. That would be like Huk saying he will organize the next MLG and watch from the front row who takes first place.
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
A well-informed person whispered me that a number of well-established mapmaking teams have begun a six-digit bidding war to enlist TimeTwister before the final results are published. For real.
I upped the ante. I offered him 40 trillion E-Sports dollars a month*!
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
A well-informed person whispered me that a number of well-established mapmaking teams have begun a six-digit bidding war to enlist TimeTwister before the final results are published. For real.
I upped the ante. I offered him 40 trillion E-Sports dollars a month*!
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
A well-informed person whispered me that a number of well-established mapmaking teams have begun a six-digit bidding war to enlist TimeTwister before the final results are published. For real.
I upped the ante. I offered him 40 trillion E-Sports dollars a month*!
On November 10 2011 02:42 Thauleris wrote: Wow, didn't realize people took these kind of things so seriously. What happened to friendly competition? :p
Oh yes. It's not nearly as serious as progaming itself, but we are disproportionately starved for recognition. ^^
A well-informed person whispered me that a number of well-established mapmaking teams have begun a six-digit bidding war to enlist TimeTwister before the final results are published. For real.
I upped the ante. I offered him 40 trillion E-Sports dollars a month*!
On November 10 2011 00:44 Mereel wrote: i dont know...im pretty speechless now.
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing.+ Show Spoiler +
i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
propably more later FUCK OFF
User was temp banned for this post.
Look I know some of the people that tested the map. You've just insulted and put them down without even knowing them! What the hell! Sorry if TLOpen contestants are good enough for you. Next time I'm sure TL will get MC, MVP and Nestea to have FFAs on all the maps just to test them! -_-;;
Personally I think these maps are AWESOME and want to personally thank every single contestant, regardless of who was chosen, for producing such amazing maps and showing how kick ass our map making community is!
I haven´t even commented on any of the maps or map makers. Nor have I said anything negative. It is you who read negativity and animosity towards Haven´s Lagoon into my posts. My post was directed at all the dissapointed top map makers: you need a little magic sprinkled on top of your work in order to make a hit. Call it divine inspiration, grace from God or luck. Timetwister22 obviously has talent and certainly a good deal of magic was sprinkled on top of his creation since it was the most interesting and fun map to play on.
I´m a peace loving hippie - you can go through my entire 260 posts history and find ZERO negativity or personal attacks.
This map is too macro oriented and too advanced for beginning players.
Pft, the go-to answer to all good maps, eh? You don't have to lie, I understand if the furrowed brows and gleaming beady eyes make you choke-up, paralyzed by that stare that can only be compared to a piercing spear of good looks and a reflective head.
Does his beard intimidate you, make you plead with God to have body-hair grow as fast as him?
Before you get into a personal attack you should make sure you understood correctly what was being said. Clearly you didn´t!
I thought this statement was pretty clear allusion to Haven's Lagoon.
"Dedication, talent will only take you so far. A bit of luck and fun-factor is something you need but can´t control."
Am I missing something?
¨ Dedication & talent will take you 90% of the way. In order to create a hit you need something extra, something you can´t control.
I think this is the most important thing for all the mappers (and everyone else for that matter) to realize. You can't design every component of a map in sequence as by a formula or by brute rationality and expect perfection. The very things that make gameplay fun and exciting are unpredictability and variety. You won't know what you've got until it's all done, like carving a statue. Diligent study of the craft, and some genius, will help you see the figure in the stone, but you can never create a hit by sheer artistic will. You can only provide the best of circumstances for an accident like that to happen.
Congratulating the winners, of course! In addition, I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of the people who are running this project! It is really hard to judge maps. It might even be harder than making them. It is an inexact science. It is rife with errors of varying proportion. Despite this we have 7 very different maps that all look eminently playable, and I know everyone can see one or two maps they would love to play. What's more, all of these maps could plausibly be condoned by Blizzard. This is the first community map contest with a real possibility of connecting to the ladder pool; let's prove the concept and next time around we'll throw some curveballs.
I especially want to applaud the inclusion of a successful layout despite below average aesthetics. The layout first attitude should be more prevalent.
On November 10 2011 02:22 chuky500 wrote: This contest feels like another iteration of the Motm contest : nothing new under the sun.
I'm usually not a fan of judging people and their posts harshly, but this statement is just plain stupid, sorry.
I think you don't quite understand the meaning of playable on ladder. It's actually not "make a map so creative and wicked that anyone below masters will insta downvote it!". No, it's about doing something that everyone is already familiar with and integrate some original features if it fits with the overall concept. Also if you call maps like Burning Altar and Cloud Kingdom you don't know the first thing about maps and probably should keep to your statement and don't vote.
On November 10 2011 02:22 chuky500 wrote: Ever wondered why people are bored with the ladder maps ? Because they kind of all play the same. Then why pick maps in the same vein ?
Ever wondered why the majority of feedback on the return of Metalopolis was positive? And please don't even think about saying "because it's a good map". We're under "experts" here and you don't wanna make yourself look silly now do you?
On November 10 2011 02:22 chuky500 wrote: Blizzard asked Teamliquid to find new concepts and innovative gameplay, maps with insight. Instead TL just picked maps that look standard, which is what Blizzard could already do.
Wow you must be a pretty hard insider. You apparently know more about this than TL itself :o + Show Spoiler +
The hidden message in this actually is: don't spread BS you just made up yourself.
Also my estimation about why everyone's only praising Haven's Lagoon: It's the only map that's simple enough to understand for most people by just looking at an overview picture?
This map is too macro oriented and too advanced for beginning players.
Pft, the go-to answer to all good maps, eh? You don't have to lie, I understand if the furrowed brows and gleaming beady eyes make you choke-up, paralyzed by that stare that can only be compared to a piercing spear of good looks and a reflective head.
Does his beard intimidate you, make you plead with God to have body-hair grow as fast as him?
I bet Ironman shit bricks & I'm glad Monitor got a map in the top 7 because he's a boss.
Anyway, some thoughts from me: I still feel a good chunk of these maps will be too hard to take a 3rd and thus allow terran and zerg to flourish. Looking at GSL, all the map changes they've done and all the modifications to maps they've done, is all to make it easier for a protoss. With these 7 maps though, I feel Burning Alter, Sanctuary & Twilight Peaks being waaay too difficult to secure a 3rd for protoss.
It also doesn't make much sense when "if taking a 3rd is too easy, that creates turtle games which isn't good" is a main excuse yet looking at Haven, what's stopping a terran from putting a p-fort on the 4th or a protoss from cannoning up the 4th, which easily secures his 3rd and he can sit his army by his natural, thus allowing an easy "turtle" on 4 bases.
Haven't really been following this contest at all, but the final maps look pretty fun to play. I'm quite surprised at the very bitter attitudes exhibited by some of the contestants. I was not expecting that at all.
I hope there will be some great games on these maps in the next TL Open! I'm excited to see.
Torte's map should totally be in the ladder. Although I don't understand why you get a free main. Should totally have rocks on that too.
Can't wait to play them, and gl with promoting them to more tournaments. From just looks, I loved Fields of Strife and Haven's Lagoon. No idea why the latter should be criticized for looks. Maybe it's something that's only seen when zoomed in, and when playing it. From the top view it actually looks fantastic. GG everyone, and to those who didn't win, this probably won't be the last map contest in the community, so cheer up!
Although concept and how the map be played out should be favored over aesthetic, a ladder/tournament-worthy map that represents the whole community should be able to satisfy both criterias. We all love how GSL maps are so aesthetically impressive and awesome in gameplay at the same time, dont we ? That said, only Daggoth, Haven and (to some extent) Sanctuary need adjustment in aesthetic details. The rest seems very quality imo
Hi, Congratulations to the other winners, and for ESV taking 3:2 over TPW.
Plexa, I would like feedback on the other two maps that I submitted. I would prefer the more technical feedback on Antiga Prime than Scars of Aiur however. Please send me a PM with your feedback =)
t's actually not "make a map so creative and wicked that anyone below masters will insta downvote it!". No, it's about doing something that everyone is already familiar with and integrate some original features if it fits with the overall concept.
Wait why is everyone so sure that everybody not skilled enough to become one of the top 3% of active players hate creative and wicked maps? Can't people not experts at the game enjoy new elements that give some variety to the game also? I mean who says "this map is to wicked for me to enjoy with my not professional skill set at this game". Especially since blizzard defines changing the rocks hp as to creative and wicked it will blow up a gold player's brain.
t's actually not "make a map so creative and wicked that anyone below masters will insta downvote it!". No, it's about doing something that everyone is already familiar with and integrate some original features if it fits with the overall concept.
Wait why is everyone so sure that everybody not skilled enough to become one of the top 3% of active players hate creative and wicked maps? Can't people not experts at the game enjoy new elements that give some variety to the game also? I mean who says "this map is to wicked for me to enjoy with my not professional skill set at this game". Especially since blizzard defines changing the rocks hp as to creative and wicked it will blow up a gold player's brain.
If this is true then you wouldn't be seeing the same 12 maps in every tournament map pool ever created.
On November 10 2011 02:25 Snijjer wrote: Exactly, you are taking his talent for making fun to play maps and dismissing it as something you can't control or luck.
No. I haven´t even commented on any of the maps or map makers. Nor have I said anything negative. It is you who read negativity and animosity towards Haven´s Lagoon into my posts. My post was directed at all the dissapointed top map makers: you need a little magic sprinkled on top of your work in order to make a hit. Call it divine inspiration, grace from God or luck. Timetwister22 obviously has talent and certainly a good deal of magic was sprinkled on top of his creation since it was the most interesting and fun map to play on.
I´m a peace loving hippie - you can go through my entire 260 posts history and find ZERO negativity or personal attacks.
lol, am I going crazy here?
Anyway it seems I may have been to caught up in targeting you as culprit of jealous negativity, sorry bout that. But I still think the winning maps have little to do with luck or divine inspiration.
On November 10 2011 03:49 Arceus wrote: Although concept and how the map be played out should be favored over aesthetic, a ladder/tournament-worthy map that represents the whole community should be able to satisfy both criterias. We all love how GSL maps are so aesthetically impressive and awesome in gameplay at the same time, dont we ? That said, only Daggoth, Haven and (to some extent) Sanctuary need adjustment in aesthetic details. The rest seems very quality imo
Quoted for truth. Tournament maps needs to be both well thought of and aesthetic (of course the emphasis should be on playability first). The person who would watch a starcraft game for the first time on a ugly map could think to itself - it doesnt look that good. I dont know why is so much hype about it.
Im eagerly awaiting the announcement of Hot_bids involvement in the map picking process. + Show Spoiler +
Haven's lagoo Sure, everyone has to start somewhere and thats cool. Howerever this is a bw port/heavily inspired by (ride of valkyrie) and to be frank, quite poorly aswell. It feels that the concept won more then the map itself. As for the aestethics they need an overhaul before any tournament play. All in all this map making it to the finals feels like a slap in the face to some of our experienced community mappers and i understand their frustration.
as for my own submission, an experimental map coupled with lack of time doesn't mix well with blizzards restrictions.
haven's lagoon is reminiscent of some of the greater bw maps, exciting, can i assume (sorry i didn't read entire thread) that these are already available on realms and we can play test them ourselves via custom?
I can't comment on the gameplay of these maps (haven't played them and I'm not good enough anyway) but I'm blown away by the art, they look SO much better than blizzard's maps.
Wow, the only one I don't absolutely love the look of is the burning altar. Just a little bland I think for some reason. All the others look epic, I really want to see some play on these.
On November 10 2011 04:19 JerKy wrote: Hmm Burning Altar reminds me SO much of Tal'Darim, would be an interesting choice
Overall, pretty good looking maps, congrats to all
nah, that is only the name that makes you think of it!
more seriously: visually the idea was to have a jungle world like Tal'Darim and start with some destruction. Gameplaywise it is quite different though.
On November 10 2011 02:25 Snijjer wrote: Exactly, you are taking his talent for making fun to play maps and dismissing it as something you can't control or luck.
No. I haven´t even commented on any of the maps or map makers. Nor have I said anything negative. It is you who read negativity and animosity towards Haven´s Lagoon into my posts. My post was directed at all the dissapointed top map makers: you need a little magic sprinkled on top of your work in order to make a hit. Call it divine inspiration, grace from God or luck. Timetwister22 obviously has talent and certainly a good deal of magic was sprinkled on top of his creation since it was the most interesting and fun map to play on.
I´m a peace loving hippie - you can go through my entire 260 posts history and find ZERO negativity or personal attacks.
lol, am I going crazy here?
Anyway it seems I may have been to caught up in targeting you as culprit of jealous negativity, sorry bout that. But I still think the winning maps have little to do with luck or divine inspiration.
johanaz is the mapper who at least has the talent to make maps as good as any of the finalists. his visual design and gameplay in his maps is one of the best in this community.
sometimes it is very little things that decide between in and out. visual appearance, small balance issues, too complex to win such a contest, etc. i think he is quite aware of it. it is not about better map/map maker, it is about finding a fun solution for a problem at a specific point of time in the metagame.
a very well designed, exciting map might be a bit too complex or a bit too simple or a bit too different or a bit too similar to what we already have to not fit into the group of finalists or the official pool.
and cause this is hard to argument about, one would rather say it is luck, when one is very understandably frustrated about not being in. i was several times, when not being in MotM and i will be when i do not get into IPL.
everybody who loves mapping knows how it is to put a lot of work into something "for nothing".
Have any of you mapmakers ever thought about designing maps where starting locations have less mineral patches? It seems like it could be a cool idea to force early mobility of tier 1.
What if even a good resource allocator could not reach tier 3 in an original base? Good map control would confer greater advantages and the sunk cost of a second base would be unavoidable to have a big force. Could be an interesting twist for specific maps. :D
FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
On November 10 2011 04:24 BL0CK wrote: Great idea. I love all these maps.
Have any of you mapmakers ever thought about designing maps where starting locations have less mineral patches? It seems like it could be a cool idea to force early mobility of tier 1.
It was highly recommended to not mess with mineral patches and gas geysers due to Blizzards involvement.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
This is the most balanced layout if you don't want 2base timing pushes all day long.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
Ohana has a different third layout, just with rocks.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
Cloud Kingdom's third is huged by the main, but it is open to atacks from two path - neither of them is going to the natural!
Lagoon found a position that is different.
Ohana's third seems regular. but works very interesting because of rocks (!)
Burning Altar's third might touch the Main a very little bit, it is intervened with the centre in a very different way we often see.
I don't see what all the hubbub is about the aesthetics for Haven. Sure it's simple, that doesn't mean that it doesn't look nice. I find a lot of maps that people make tend to be cluttered with too many doohickeys. Haven has a nice silhouette, easy to read, nothing too distracting and I find the colour changes add enough to make it visually interesting. Looking back on many Broodwar maps many of them didn't use a ton of doodads and many were pleasing to look at or play on.
With that said all the maps in the finals here are all pretty nice looking.
wow so much hate for haven's lagoon. When i was browseing the OP I literally looked at the maps one by one and was like thats cool, thats interesting woah whats this beach one that looks different. Pretty sweet. Maybe its just the lack of polish but it was the only one that stood out to me as refreshingly different. On closer examination it does resemble Ride of the Valks from BW though, which is a good thing
You can playtest these maps by searching for [TLMC] on NA/SEA/EU.
This should solve most of the frustration right? If people can playtest the maps themselves then either they'll come to like them for the play they provide and vote for them or they'll have identifiable problems which gives their detractors concrete reasons for disliking them and not voting for them.
edit: no offense meant toward TL's play-testing team with this comment.
Guys, guys, the colored hexagons are getting too much. Maybe we should start backing off on those a bit :p
I look forward to these being included in tournaments and hopefully the ladder. I've already seen Cloud Kingdom played on the ESV Weekly and it has promise.
On November 10 2011 00:32 Plexa wrote: I'm going to pre-empt some mappers criticising the choice of Haven. The focus of this contest was to find maps which played the best, not look the best. I can appreciate that it may not be as pretty as some of the other entries, and I can appreciate that it doesn't look like something most of you would create. But during test games this map was constantly mentioned as one of the players favorite maps - that's the kind of feedback the judges can't ignore and the reason that this map has done so well.
It reminds me of ROV. = good :D
The only thing I can really say (obviously never having tried these maps) is that their names are TOTALLY uninspiring. They all sound like Blizzard map names... what happened to names like Destination, Judgment Day, Blue Storm, Nemesis, Requiem, Wuthering Heights (okay that's a book but still)?
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
There's a difference between losing gracefully and losing like a child. Sure, it might not sit well with you having lost to someone that clearly didn't put as much time into aesthetic design, but you should be mature enough to say "Win some, lose some, better refine my maps for the IPL Map Contest" or something.
Don't attempt to ruin someone else's accomplishment just because you didn't win. I'm sure Plexa would be more than willing to explain why your map(s) wasn't(weren't) chosen if you PM him and ask nicely.
Apologies that this is a few pages late, but if you can't see the genius behind the design of Haven's Lagoon then that is probably a significant part of why your maps didn't make it. I'm stoked for Haven's more than anything because I frankly don't care about aesthetics when I play, just about how the map affects my strategy, and this one seems to do an amazing job of that. ZvT is going to be especially interesting on that one, as well as TvT... I'm a bit worried about PvP on it tho, but PvP is never amazing.
On November 10 2011 04:48 synapse wrote: The only thing I can really say (obviously never having tried these maps) is that their names are TOTALLY uninspiring. They all sound like Blizzard map names... what happened to names like Destination, Judgment Day, Blue Storm, Nemesis, Requiem, Wuthering Heights (okay that's a book but still)?
This, i want to cry when i see bland generic names all over the place :'(
Most of the map makers seem to hate Haven's Lagoon while the players seem to love it . Anyways I can't wait for the TLOpen that uses these maps. It should be a lot of fun to see so many new maps used at once and it'll be a good chance to see how games will play out differently.
For 1v1 Maps Burning Altar, Cloud Kingdom, Daggoth Crater, Ohana , Twilight Peaks .... Those maps are all great... maps
I've tried Ohana before it's a TPW map. Great map
Cloud Kingdom Best map IMO Beautiful Map beautiful long Distances for Macro Games... and Beautiful Map Layout! Also Daggoth Crater is a really nice looking map....
Loving the Maps people.. Thankyou for dedicating your time to making these...
EDIT: Now that i think about it Sanctuary's a pretty cool map too 3-Player map Rotation Style very Unique... it definitely deserves some recognition as well
Haven's Lagoon is a very intresting map in the sense that the bases are rotational instead of being in the far flung corners. It is my favourite map at the moment and would really be intrested in it since all the other maps, except the Sanctuary since its a three-player map, are all corner base maps.
I personally can't understand why there's so much hate on haven, it is a different map that departs from all of these maps that are all the same. I think it is a step in the right direction towards increasing map diversity in pools.
On November 10 2011 05:03 Denvar wrote: I personally can't understand why there's so much hate on haven, it is a different map that departs from all of these maps that are all the same. I think it is a step in the right direction towards increasing map diversity in pools.
Yes its a diverse map; i think the main reason most people don't like it is because it looks visually abhorrent. To what most maps are supposed to look like... but who are we to tell people what maps are 'supposed' to look like...
I like all the other 1v1 maps better than Haven but i think Haven is still a neat map.
But yes it is a very unique map if you examine it closely.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
Well yes I get pissed when I read the same comments I already had to endure 2 months ago because people wanted to see creativity over balance :/
And yes I agree that most of the base layouts these days are the same. Frankly the reason for this is that it's the only chance to have a rather close 3rd base on either side of the natural. If you don't do that you'll have all the Zergs crying imba imba. The reason why Haven's Lagoon doesn't use this layout obviously is because you can only expand in one direction, due to the reflective symmetry used.
Btw. the first of your 3 points that are the same on all the maps, that's just what makes most sense, everything else would just screw up gameplay as we know it or waste space.
So to wrap up, as I already said in the MotM thread, I'm all for innovative mapmaking and original features, but you just can't take too big steps or you'll overstrain a whole bunch of people.
EDIT: To clear up a little bit something about the issue mapmakers have with Haven's Lagoon, it's not only the bad looks of it, it's also that there are some kinda noobish flaws in it and the map beeing pretty much a conversion of a BW map. So what every mapmaker thinks is that he could've done the same thing in 1-2 hours but instead went with thinking about a new concept and spending hours with texturing/doodading etc.
I guess you could compare that with a composer for classic music and Kesha. Yeah, that's actually the best comparison anyone has ever made about anything.
On November 10 2011 00:41 funcmode wrote: what a waste of time
Your attitude should be more like:
On November 10 2011 00:42 EffectS wrote: Ahw didn't make it again. Can I expect some feedback to make my map entries better?
The PW Team had entries that won, you can't expect to take all 7 spots with so many talented map makers out there, buck up, there's always next time, as well as the IPL Map Contest going on!
Yeah man, that guy that made Haven's Lagoon is so talented, I'm so jealous.
He may not be the most talented when it comes to aesthetically designing a map, but obviously he did something right with his concept, and the playable space layout. With two maps in the top seven, I'm not really sure why The PW crew is apparently having such an outrage at the decisions.
If you'd put anywhere even close to as much time and effort into mapmaking as I have, then maybe you'd understand.
There's a difference between losing gracefully and losing like a child. Sure, it might not sit well with you having lost to someone that clearly didn't put as much time into aesthetic design, but you should be mature enough to say "Win some, lose some, better refine my maps for the IPL Map Contest" or something.
Don't attempt to ruin someone else's accomplishment just because you didn't win. I'm sure Plexa would be more than willing to explain why your map(s) wasn't(weren't) chosen if you PM him and ask nicely.
Apologies that this is a few pages late, but if you can't see the genius behind the design of Haven's Lagoon then that is probably a significant part of why your maps didn't make it. I'm stoked for Haven's more than anything because I frankly don't care about aesthetics when I play, just about how the map affects my strategy, and this one seems to do an amazing job of that. ZvT is going to be especially interesting on that one, as well as TvT... I'm a bit worried about PvP on it tho, but PvP is never amazing.
OK hotshot, please explain to me the 'genius' behind the design of Haven's Lagoon.
On November 10 2011 04:48 synapse wrote: The only thing I can really say (obviously never having tried these maps) is that their names are TOTALLY uninspiring. They all sound like Blizzard map names... what happened to names like Destination, Judgment Day, Blue Storm, Nemesis, Requiem, Wuthering Heights (okay that's a book but still)?
This, i want to cry when i see bland generic names all over the place :'(
Burning Altar -> Bulbasaur's Rage Cloud Kingdom Daggoth Crater Haven's Lagoon -> Dead Man's Chest Ohana -> The Emirate Sancturay -> Mulberry Bush Twilight Peaks -> Flying Kites
On November 10 2011 05:03 Denvar wrote: I personally can't understand why there's so much hate on haven, it is a different map that departs from all of these maps that are all the same. I think it is a step in the right direction towards increasing map diversity in pools.
I beleive it is simply experienced map-makers feeling so frustrated that a map that looks as if no aesthetical effort was given to it's creation had triumphed over their 20-30 hour masterpieces. That certainly can frustrate someone to no end but people need to remember that this wasn't a beauty contest but rather one that went by blizzards "Easy to Play, Hard to Master" mantra and perhaps the more complex ones that mapmakers formed or others that just seemed way to bland were thrown in the pyre.
Haven's Lagoon is a very unique map and in my personal opinion completely deserves to be in the list of finalist considering the criteria. One however cannot brush off the legitimate frustration of other experienced and hardworking map-makers that undoubtedly spent multiple hours developing their map only to be shot down by the judging panel and the most easily hated map is Haven's Lagoon simply to it's aesthetical defeceit.
I would like to make it known that [TLMC] Ohana is on battle.net but it's the wrong version. That's the old old version. It needs to be the newest one. I am sending the correct version of Ohana to Plexa right now.
On November 10 2011 01:17 funcmode wrote: I refuse to believe you had the time to play enough games on every map submitted to justify saying these maps unanimously play better than some of the ones that didn't make it. Having a "fun game" is also incredibly subjective. If I played a game right after getting head, I'd probably have a lot more fun than testing maps the next day after my girlfriend dumped me, for example. It's subjective bullshit.
Of course it's subjective. They're making a judgement and they're not god, so why wouldn't it be subjective?
EDIT: All the maps look cool to me, I'd be worried with some problems in the vP matchups with our limited mobility being abused. Just me though.
On November 10 2011 00:32 Plexa wrote: I'm going to pre-empt some mappers criticising the choice of Haven. The focus of this contest was to find maps which played the best, not look the best. I can appreciate that it may not be as pretty as some of the other entries, and I can appreciate that it doesn't look like something most of you would create. But during test games this map was constantly mentioned as one of the players favorite maps - that's the kind of feedback the judges can't ignore and the reason that this map has done so well.
It reminds me of ROV. = good :D
The only thing I can really say (obviously never having tried these maps) is that their names are TOTALLY uninspiring. They all sound like Blizzard map names... what happened to names like Destination, Judgment Day, Blue Storm, Nemesis, Requiem, Wuthering Heights (okay that's a book but still)?
From what I understood, having a map name that would "blend in" with the ladder pool was recommended for people who wanted their maps to be considered by Blizzard. Not that I was coerced into picking my map's name, I like it anyways...
Daggoth looks like an interesting map but I don't know if I can stomach to ladder on another map with tileset. I actually like the looks of a few of them.. I particularly like the cloud one.
Honestly, I don't mind the criticism on my aesthetics on Havens. Primarily beacause I just got into mapmaking, literally, three weeks before this contest began. At the time, all I had to compare against were ladder maps. Of course I've seen other maps in tournaments, but through a casters perspective, I didn't really get to pay much attention to the aesthetics. After seeing the other submitted maps, I quickly realized that my aesthetics were quite a problem. However, I was reassured that it was how the map played that would get it to at least an honorable mention. However, after making top 7, I can assure all of you that the aesthetics will be greatly improved to quality you expect. Whether it be through me with some sort of coaching or assistance, or done by another talented mapmaker, will be determined. Certainly a leason learned, and sorry for the eye sore :p. However, I hope you at least enjoy playing on Havens Lagoon
Voting for Haven's Lagoon. Fun as fuck, holy shit! Hard to defend vs Mutas, but fun nonetheless.
On November 10 2011 05:43 Timetwister22 wrote: Honestly, I don't mind the criticism on my aesthetics on Havens. Primarily beacause I just got into mapmaking, literally, three weeks before this contest began. At the time, all I had to compare against were ladder maps. Of course I've seen other maps in tournaments, but through a casters perspective, I didn't really get to pay much attention to the aesthetics. After seeing the other submitted maps, I quickly realized that my aesthetics were quite a problem. However, I was reassured that it was how the map played that would get it to at least an honorable mention. However, after making top 7, I can assure all of you that the aesthetics will be greatly improved to quality you expect. Whether it be through me with some sort of coaching or assistance, or done by another talented mapmaker, will be determined. Certainly a leason learned, and sorry for the eye sore :p. However, I hope you at least enjoy playing on Havens Lagoon
You made a fun map, who gives a fuck about aesthetics, really -.- Pretty sure it's all about unique/fun gameplay. If ever your map blows up, I'm sure someone out there would 'refine' how it looks. Hopefully pre-Oct Bel'Shir-ish.
Cloud Kingdom reminds me of Twilight fortress. I remember playing a really odd capital ship mass expanding style when playing 2v2 on that map. Was it called Bobby's Flying Castle because capital ships came out quite often? XP
Like neobowman is asking, I would personally appreciate any criticisms or feedback on my map, Ohana, or Burning Altar (fellow team member on TPW). Send me a PM if you have any ideas, comments or suggestions, we welcome all.
On November 10 2011 05:43 Timetwister22 wrote: Honestly, I don't mind the criticism on my aesthetics on Havens. Primarily beacause I just got into mapmaking, literally, three weeks before this contest began. At the time, all I had to compare against were ladder maps. Of course I've seen other maps in tournaments, but through a casters perspective, I didn't really get to pay much attention to the aesthetics. After seeing the other submitted maps, I quickly realized that my aesthetics were quite a problem. However, I was reassured that it was how the map played that would get it to at least an honorable mention. However, after making top 7, I can assure all of you that the aesthetics will be greatly improved to quality you expect. Whether it be through me with some sort of coaching or assistance, or done by another talented mapmaker, will be determined. Certainly a leason learned, and sorry for the eye sore :p. However, I hope you at least enjoy playing on Havens Lagoon
This is exactly what needed to be said. Congratulations on your selection! Brush off the haters, and start polishing your map. I can't wait to see it after some magic doodad dust is applied.
I really hope Blizzard and/or some other tournys start using some of these or other community maps. These maps seem to press the envelope more than any new Blizzard-made map.
Also lol @ funcmode going full rage mode over Haven. Sucks your team only got 2 maps in the top 7! I guess it hurts that much not have 3.. It's just hilarious how he is apparently physically incapable of comprehending the sentence: "Our primary focus was on how well the map played and whether or not it was a map players liked to play on." in the first post.
Haven's Lagoon immediately jumped out to me as a very Ride of Valkyries-inspiredmap. I can't wait to play on it.
I was told I'd get such comparison, which isn't bad I suppose. Thing is, I was 8 when I played broodwar. As assumed, I didn't really take the game seriously enough to even know how to play, let alone learn map names, qualities, and skilled map makers. So in all honestly, there was little inspiration from other maps that lead to the layout of Havens Lagoon. However, I suppose great minds think alike.
Wow these maps really are amazing. It really blows my mind the talent that people have and the time their willing to dedicate to their craft. Which makes it nice for us is that we have people like these fine gentlemen that put in hours upon hours making ridiculously cool maps for us to play on...besides the blizzard maps which feel like rehashes of their old maps with little tweaks etc....You map-makers are both gentlemen and scholars
Imagine Haven's Lagoon changed to that new snowy style that you see on that new GSL map. That's be awesome. I guess it wouldn't be a lagoon anymore, but just rename it winterfell or something.
Thank you so much Plexa! These are great, never seen a mapmaking competition before and this whole thread/the conflicts/arguments/design philosophies are all new to me. Very excited to see them in action, super happy that Blizzards got their eye on this.
When I'm playing/watching, I have very little time to notice the aesthetics, but I do enjoy effectively using terrain and positioning. Gogo Haven!
On November 10 2011 05:22 IronManSC wrote: I would like to make it known that [TLMC] Ohana is on battle.net but it's the wrong version. That's the old old version. It needs to be the newest one. I am sending the correct version of Ohana to Plexa right now.
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Many people assuming because a map is ugly it's well balanced, or that because a map is more creative it isn't balanced or it can't be fixed.
Haven's Lagoon has a bad design. In protoss vs zerg you can't defend your 3rd against mutalisks because your army is slow and the 3rd is far. There's a choke between the 3rd and 4rth expansion, it's hard to defend if a terran mech gets there. Also the difficulty of expanding is to transfer your workers but since you expand perpendicularly to the attack path there's no way for the opponent to intercept them unpurposely and he won't discover a hidden expansion. So it makes games less interesting.
And hearing Superouman say the overused 3 bases layout is "the most balanced layout if you don't want 2base timing pushes all day long", I'm astonished. So a good maps favors the first timing attack at 200 suplies or 3 3 upgrades ? And if you spectate a game on such a map, during the first 20 minutes you'd watch players micro their workers to the closest mineral patch ? Famous casters and players should have been involved in the jury, to provide different opinions.
Hmm I dunno, Haven's Lagoon is the only map that really stands out to me. Obviously it's kinda ugly, but it looks like a really awesome design. Scrap Station done right. Cloud Kingdom could be cool, but I'm worried that one is a bit too imbalanced for Zerg.
Daggoth Cluster is probably the most balanced map in the group, but it looks kinda boring...it will probably be played the same as most ladder maps.
I like a lot of the finalist maps and will take a look at them. Would really like to see Haven get graphically polished and maybe put to the ladder if it's as fun as it looks. Also would like to play a bit on Daggoth.
I'm not really too sure about what I'm saying here, it's just from observation.
Aren't mapmakers pretty discouraged by the lack of diversity in melee mapmaking? Everything is relatively similar and you never see anything too diversified due to balance. Keep in mind these aren't the final winners, just the finalists. I dunno, if I was a mapmaker I wouldn't be mad, I'd be happy that Haven's Lagoon made it and hope it makes good games so that it opens people up to more experimentation in mapmaking.
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
On November 10 2011 00:34 Archvil3 wrote: Suprising choises. I think all the maps have really great layouts and will play out really well.
Some of the maps have some problems with the aesthetics though. Not just being bad or dull, they have some pretty critical flaws in them which just looks terrible. One of the maps have too small borders for example, which means that there is a black edge all the way around the map. I hope these will be corrected though.
I don't understand why SC2 map makers have gotten so picky about following their new conventions of map making. Its not like map makers have actually had much success with their maps yet. In BW, maps had borders straight up ending the field of of play in full visibility, and it was considered a feature.
For some reason map makers in SC2 have taken to adding like a 20hx leeway between the pathable ground and the border on every damn map (with water/lava/lowcliff), without even considering the possibility that this affects gameplay greatly, for example in that it allows air units to be unkillable unless the opponent also has air. Even behind the main, some mapmakers always put a lot of ground-unpathable leeway. In my opinion at least some bases/maps should simply have safe ground behind their minerals leading to the edge of the map.
This allows for more possibilities in play, as opposed to shutting it off for ground which mostly disables. You need *a few* bases which are easier to harass with air, but it's terrible when it is every single map/base imo.
Famous casters and players should have been involved in the jury, to provide different opinions.
Why famous casters?
Because the jury picked a map by Superouman who doesn't like 2 base pushes. Casters would prefer maps favoring early skirmishes (and 2 base pushes aren't even early). Casters in the jury would have given perspective to the other judges.
Famous casters and players should have been involved in the jury, to provide different opinions.
Why famous casters?
Because the jury picked a map by Superouman who doesn't like 2 base pushes. Casters would prefer maps favoring early skirmishes (and 2 base pushes aren't even early) so it would have given perspective to the other judges.
uhh.... what? Why would you assume something like that? And beside, there is nothing wrong about having a lot of macro maps, they are the most interesting to create and play anyway.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
This is the most balanced layout if you don't want 2base timing pushes all day long.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
This post makes a ton of sense. I was struggling to understand why I felt so many of these maps were "blah" (except for Haven's Lagoon) and this hit the nail right on the head.
I understand that thirds close to mains are important to Zergs. But the beauty of Haven's Lagoon is that you're always expanding away from the enemy main. So even though the third is far from the main relative to most ladder maps, its also much more difficult for the opponent to punish that third. Any early push by the opponent to kill the third is extremely vulnerable to counterattack by the opposite ground. The choice to push along either the high or low ground is really cool too. Push along the high ground and you get the high ground advantage, but take longer to hit the opponent. Push along the low ground and you get to the opponent much faster, but then you relinquish the high ground to the opponent.
This dynamic continues into the lategame with the 5th and 6th bases, which is really really cool.
I'm not worried too much about the lack of chokes on the map because there's so many different levels. At first glance such an open map would be awesome for Zergs, but then you think about Terrans placing a PF on either the low ground third or the gold. Or for Protoss, Colossi cliff abusing the 4ths, threatening 4gates on open naturals, and a gazillion tough-to-scout locations to place proxy pylons.
The more I think about it, the cooler Haven's Lagoon looks. I might actually playtest that one.
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
This isn't an attack on the map maker. It's an attack on the judges.
Gratz to the winners. I really love Cloud Kingdom. I was planning to do something similar but I could never get it close to right. I look forward to playing some games on it some time.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
This is the most balanced layout if you don't want 2base timing pushes all day long.
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
This isn't an attack on the map maker. It's an attack on the judges.
"Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map?"
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
Well yes I get pissed when I read the same comments I already had to endure 2 months ago because people wanted to see creativity over balance :/
And yes I agree that most of the base layouts these days are the same. Frankly the reason for this is that it's the only chance to have a rather close 3rd base on either side of the natural. If you don't do that you'll have all the Zergs crying imba imba. The reason why Haven's Lagoon doesn't use this layout obviously is because you can only expand in one direction, due to the reflective symmetry used.
Btw. the first of your 3 points that are the same on all the maps, that's just what makes most sense, everything else would just screw up gameplay as we know it or waste space.
So to wrap up, as I already said in the MotM thread, I'm all for innovative mapmaking and original features, but you just can't take too big steps or you'll overstrain a whole bunch of people.
EDIT: To clear up a little bit something about the issue mapmakers have with Haven's Lagoon, it's not only the bad looks of it, it's also that there are some kinda noobish flaws in it and the map beeing pretty much a conversion of a BW map. So what every mapmaker thinks is that he could've done the same thing in 1-2 hours but instead went with thinking about a new concept and spending hours with texturing/doodading etc.
I guess you could compare that with a composer for classic music and Kesha. Yeah, that's actually the best comparison anyone has ever made about anything.
If you want to be successful in our modern music industry, you'd go with classical? That's a horrible analogy. Who cares how brilliant a map is if people don't want to play on it.
I think the main criteria you had to pass was having lots of ramps in the map. Similar to the Blizzard process with rocks, instead they had to use ramps, probably not to get sued or something xD
On November 10 2011 07:02 TedJustice wrote: It's kind of a shame Blizzard won't implement any of these without adding gold minerals. They seem dead set on having gold minerals in every map.
Very nice looking maps though.
You are kind of bashing Blizzard just for the sake of bashing Blizzard... They have made numerous maps without gold expansions - in the current ladder pool, at least Nerazim Crypt, Shakuras Plateau and Tal'Darim Altar come to mind.
If there is one organization that is holding extreme positions on the topic, it's the GSL, with the removal of all gold minerals in their most recent map pool.
Also, Haven's Lagoon has one gold base in the farthest position (similar to Scrap Station in that regard).
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
To be honest, I find it sort of dumb to criticize a map given only having a top-down picture showed without any games behind the statement. I could look at Metalopolis and say that it looks stupid because it doesn't use the normal three expansion layout that a lot of other maps use, but it would be really unfair without any games played supporting my statement. And it wouldn't help me that I'm just a bronze player and probably do a lot of dumb mistakes and errors of judgement regarding positioning and moving.
And when you say that you're attacking the judges but personally referencing timetwister22 in your post and asking him why people like his map, and even going as far as questioning the validity of people actually giving it praise? Come on. You do not have to be a genius to understand that people genuinely might like the map, not because they are friends of him, but because the map is different from others and is fun to play. It's even stated in the OP that the testers very much agreed that it was on of the most enjoyable maps to play on.
edit: accidentally some words in there... and some spelling errors
All maps seem to be balanced, but Haven's Lagoon, Ohana and Sanctuary, in no particular order, seem like the most fun to play maps. I would really love to see one (or all) of them being put in the ladder map pool.
I liked Daggoth Crater better when it used the Korhal tile set and was called Korhal Compound, lava maps are just so lame and repetitive. Nothing else puts me to sleep faster. Even jungle maps are more interesting, despite being even more repetitive, because they are a lot brighter and colorful instead of GRIMDARKNESS.
Look over there, fire! What do you know, there is even more fire over here! Shit, is that more fire I see over there? No way, this fire is more fiery than the last bit of fire!
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
This isn't an attack on the map maker. It's an attack on the judges.
"Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map?"
Yea right.
Seems like a legit question to me. A good number of them have a low post count and are hardly saying anything except stuff like "oh this map is cool", and then say nothing about why it's cool. I've never seen any of them make any maps themselves and don't really know anything about their balance knowledge. For all I know the seem like Bronze level players with a mediocre understanding of balance at the professional level.
Anyway, why are you attacking me? I was voicing my opinion on the map. It's too open. Protoss cannot get a third against Zerg or even expand aggressively. That is what I, and many others, think about the map. I certainly read the OP. In fact, the "facts" that are listed for Haven's Lagoon are filled with bullshit.
- Map increases in height as more and more expansions are taken (to be honest I'm not even sure what this means) - Map emphasises exploiting the height differences to gain an advantage (hardly; the advantage is practically nonexistent because of the huge ramps) - Rewards players for controlling their units well and taking slightly longer paths for better position (hardly, again for the same reason) - Allows for a variety of playstyles including air and harass based play due to the large space between mains (cool, you can do air harass, you can do that on any map. This map does not allow a lot of aggressive builds due to the size and symmetry, with the expansions being placed away from your opponent) - One of the most enjoyed maps by playtesters (I can't argue this; that is the opinion of the playtesters. I may disagree with it, but that's it)
Roggay, just try to say what I've said about balance is incorrect. If you think it is, then you do not have a very high understanding of balance. I really do not care how many people enjoyed playing on the map. Balance > everything else when it comes to map making. If you're map is not somewhat balanced, then it is worthless to the community.
Zerg can expand away from his opponent until he's on at least four bases. The average openness is too high for balanced games at the highest level. Terran and Protoss cannot expand aggressively whatsoever. I have nothing wrong with timetwister. I'd love to help him improve his map design. My main issue is that the judges picked his map. This I completely do not understand. The community either better, more experienced judges next time.
Now before you lash out at me for saying inexperienced, I'm going to say that Nightmarjoo makes BW maps, not SCII maps. They are very different. Plexa I believe has only made one map, a Battle Royal remake.
On November 10 2011 08:22 Antares777 wrote: Seems like a legit question to me. A good number of them have a low post count and are hardly saying anything except stuff like "oh this map is cool", and then say nothing about why it's cool. I've never seen any of them make any maps themselves and don't really know anything about their balance knowledge. For all I know the seem like Bronze level players with a mediocre understanding of balance at the professional level.
I'm sure the low post count users have absolutely nothing to do with a thread on Reddit/sc that's been a top 5 post all day.....
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
To be honest, I find it sort of dumb to criticize a map given only having a top-down picture showed without any games behind the statement. I could look at Metalopolis and say that it looks stupid because it doesn't use the normal three expansion layout that a lot of other maps use, but it would be really unfair without any games played supporting my statement. And it wouldn't help me that I'm just a bronze player and probably do a lot of dumb mistakes and errors of judgement regarding positioning and moving.
And when you say that you're attacking the judges but personally referencing timetwister22 in your post and asking him why people like his map, and even going as far as questioning the validity of people actually giving it praise? Come on. You do not have to be a genius to understand that people genuinely might like the map, not because they are friends of him, but because the map is different from others and is fun to play. It's even stated in the OP that the testers very much agreed that it was on of the most enjoyable maps to play on.
edit: accidentally some words in there... and some spelling errors
I can understand that some people may like the map. I'm perfectly aware that there are people in this world who do not care about balance or are too blind to see it. You find it dumb to criticize a map when you're only given a top down image? Well, me too! Guess what else I think? That defending a map given only a top down image is equally stupid. I would have been more helpful, but there are no analyzer images! There's no map thread! There's no description or anything anywhere! I can't currently go on SCII, and believe me when I tell you that I'm not going on it just to see one person's map, I will certainly use what is given, which is not much.
On November 10 2011 08:22 Antares777 wrote: Seems like a legit question to me. A good number of them have a low post count and are hardly saying anything except stuff like "oh this map is cool", and then say nothing about why it's cool. I've never seen any of them make any maps themselves and don't really know anything about their balance knowledge. For all I know the seem like Bronze level players with a mediocre understanding of balance at the professional level.
I'm sure the low post count users have absolutely nothing to do with a thread on Reddit/sc that';s been a Top 5 post all day.....
You're right, I was judging people there. Sorry. My main point is that they say they like it, don't post anything else, no analysis, no reason, no nothing. Just "cool map bro".
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
I'd like to know who tested the maps. If it's just the judges then whatever.. their opinion isn't any more valid than anyone else's.
I personally can't think of a single reason why Haven's Lagoon was chosen as a finalist. It's not a good map, plain and simple - it's not even fun to play on in my opinion.
But to be honest, I don't think there's a single map of the finalists I'd actually want to play over and over in an official map pool. I'm not sure what I was expecting, or if I was expecting anything at all, but I'm not crazy about any of these maps. At all. Did no Korean map makers enter a submission?
I know a lot of people are upset since they put many hours into mapmaking yet their maps weren't chosen. I'd just like to say that blaming the contest organizers isn't fair because they put almost the same amount of time into making this the best tournament possible for the community.
[edit]
I will be making major texture and doodad improvements to Daggoth Crater before the end of the contest so it can look nicer!
Hmm, this whole affair is a bit of an epiphany for me.
I'm sure people remember the farce that was the cloud of 4-spawn rotational maps with super similar main/nat/third layouts a couple of months ago. I think we should worry less about getting perfect balance right away and get solid concepts that are just reasonable. Bel'shir beach was a map that initially had terrible balance and that was pretty evident from the start, but because everyone wanted to try it it saw a lot of feedback and has been moulded into a much more solid map. Do people remember when Dustin Browder said that if the development teams ever stopped to think about what they were implementing in HotS, they would add nothing? I get a very similar vibe when I see so many maps have the same main/nat/third layout. And again when I look at the amount of 4spawn rotational maps we saw in the last few months.
Don't get me wrong, I love Sanctuarium, Twilight Peaks, Burning Altar, and loads of others. But there's no way anyone would want a map pool with more than a couple of them. Even if they have some very different strengths and weaknesses, they're going to get old fast.
But now I'm feeling that it's just a little foolish to try and get a map "perfectly balanced" before getting it involved with the community. How are community players going to want to test one map over the other if everyone keeps getting frustrated with aspects of a map and reverting to what already works? Half the reason people like to see new maps is because they're different and diverse. Balance is the second half of that, and is a mess as it is with the changing state of the game.
EDIT:
Awesome, Monitor. I really look forward to seeing what that map can do!
On November 10 2011 06:52 Roggay wrote: Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
I'd like to know who tested the maps. If it's just the judges then whatever.. their opinion isn't any more valid than anyone else's.
I personally can't think of a single reason why Haven's Lagoon was chosen as a finalist. It's not a good map, plain and simple - it's not even fun to play on in my opinion.
But to be honest, I don't think there's a single map of the finalists I'd actually want to play over and over in an official map pool. I'm not sure what I was expecting, or if I was expecting anything at all, but I'm not crazy about any of these maps. At all. Did no Korean map makers enter a submission?
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
This isn't an attack on the map maker. It's an attack on the judges.
"Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map?"
Yea right.
For all I know the seem like Bronze level players with a mediocre understanding of balance at the professional level.
How is this any different from the current pool of map makers? Aside from GSL's maps, only Testbug has gone anywhere. And you crown yourselves experts and talk down other peoples' work and opinions? Where is your balance pedigree? Even being GM doesn't necessitate an understanding of balance or playing the game. Almost no maps, including the maps featured in MotM or the previous iCCup tournaments, have received extensive testing for balance. I don't see where this arrogance of understanding map balance is coming from.
HL looks like RoV which was a fantastic map. It's the only map I'm excited to play on, and it's not because it's so simple that my tiny brain can comprehend it.
This is like a bunch of fashion designers bitching about fabrics, edges and silly shapes, when all we want is a big, comfy La-Z-Boy.
Wow, really hope more than 1 of these can make it on to the ladder and some major tournaments; Cloud Kingdom, Haven, and maybe Sanctuary in particular.
I love seeing new maps :D, I'm a total noob when it comes to knowing the balance of maps, but all these maps look cool to play on, just from my nooby spectator eyes. Im sorta getting tired of the same old maps when it comes to tournaments, so hopefully the pros will like these and tournaments will start to incorporate them.
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote: Ok. Uh... congrats to the winners I guess?
I'm satisfied with most of the finalists. Cloud Kingdom, not only is the name of the map a consonantal alliteration and therefore sounds awesome, the map itself is awesome. I can't really delve into all of this right now because I'm a bit beside myself at some of the other decisions. Daggoth Crater is another one of the good choices. I'm not quite sure why some of the gameplay changes were made from Korhal Compound. I personally dislike lava title sets and thought that the Korhal textured one was much more appealing aesthetically. Still, it's a good map gameplay-wise, which is obviously more important. I'm happy that Burning Altar made it in.
Ohana and Twilight Peaks on the fence about. I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say much. There are some experimental things about the maps which make me feel uneasy about them. Anyways, congratulations.
Haven's Lagoon is... terrible? I'm trying really hard to be nice here. Firstly, the map is extremely open. It's like so open that if you are not Zerg you might as well GG at the start. Zerg can always expand away from his opponent and the chokes are nonexistent. I think that the people judging the maps wanted to go for a wide variety of symmetries, and that is really the only reason I can see how it was chosen. I would have personally picked any other map over this one. Seriously.
Sanctuary I feel is a solid standard map, though I find it a little bit boring. Was the only reason this was picked over other, better maps because it was a three player map? I mean no offense to Grebliv, the map is clearly a solid map, I just feel that there were better ones that were submitted.
Alysaar Deluge, where are you? Why wasn't that map picked? Seriously?
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
This isn't an attack on the map maker. It's an attack on the judges.
"Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map?"
Yea right.
For all I know the seem like Bronze level players with a mediocre understanding of balance at the professional level.
How is this any different from the current pool of map makers? Aside from GSL's maps, only Testbug has gone anywhere. And you crown yourselves experts and talk down other peoples' work and opinions? Where is your balance pedigree?
HL looks like RoV which was a fantastic map. It's the only map I'm excited to play on, and it's not because it's so simple that my tiny brain can comprehend it.
This is like a bunch of fashion designers bitching about fabrics, edges and silly shapes, when all we want is a big, comfy La-Z-Boy.
Yes, the maps are getting nowhere. That's why this contest was set up in the first place, I believe. Some of my posts talked down on lower level players and lower post counts. That was in a fit of rage, which still doesn't make it right. The difference between my post and the posters that are supporting Haven's Lagoon is that I gave a reason. I supported my argument with the extent of my knowledge on balance. They just said "cool map".
RoV was a BW map. That game is very different from SCII. I try to avoid making comparisons like this. I understand that RoV was a great, fun, and balanced map. Haven's Lagoon is clearly based off of it, but has a lot of poor qualities that contribute negatively to its balance.
I guess my point is that the map is not a big comfy La-Z-Boy. I want what's best for the community, like everyone else, and Haven's Lagoon is not what's best for the community in my opinion.
EDIT: The arrogance is coming from experience. I've been a shitty map maker before. Now I can identify good maps from bad maps. Why don't you back up Haven's Lagoon being balanced? No one has! Everyone I've argued with said nothing about why it is balanced and how I'm incorrect.
I think the distance to expansions lends itself better to non-Zergs than you think.
EDIT: Everyone else is waiting to play test them. In a certain style of game, it will be a bad map, but the point is that it lends itself towards a different play style than we've seen before. Ball armies will do poorly, but counter attacks and harassment, both requiring lots of multitasking, will thrive.
On November 10 2011 06:51 Ruscour wrote: I'm not really too sure about what I'm saying here, it's just from observation.
Aren't mapmakers pretty discouraged by the lack of diversity in melee mapmaking? Everything is relatively similar and you never see anything too diversified due to balance. Keep in mind these aren't the final winners, just the finalists. I dunno, if I was a mapmaker I wouldn't be mad, I'd be happy that Haven's Lagoon made it and hope it makes good games so that it opens people up to more experimentation in mapmaking.
I can give a personnal answer to this - yes, I somewhat feel that way.
To be perfectly honest, this is one of the reasons why I started mapmaking with a 2v2 map (Fields of Strife is actually the result of my first contact with the map editor). There is a very rigid "meta-game" of what is an acceptable 1v1 map in the map-making community, and the 3-base paint drawing posted earlier in this thread captures a visible and significant part of it. I did not feel experienced enough to do a standard 1v1 map that would be of any interest to anyone except myself, and I did not feel bold enough to challenge the standard like TimeTwister did.
2v2 melee, on the other hand, is essentially an unexplored land. Nobody can tell with any certainty what features are absolutely required to make a good 2v2 map. There is a "standard" of ladder maps, which is not really standard in fact : ramp, backdoor and expansion layouts are completely different across the board. The only consistent aspect is the number of bases, but then there are competitive maps that tend to push the enveloppe of "macro-style" very far : Citadel of Gaia, featured in this contest, has 22 bases - only one ladder map ever had more than 16, and it was removed for being too big according to Blizzard.
Without delving into the details, one can see that there is much more room for experimentation in the 2v2 environment (even more so in 3v3 and 4v4, but these modes really make no sense from a competitive standpoint - 2v2 could have some sense). Hence why I opted for it. Of course, this is nothing my personal point of view, and the number of entries in the 1v1 category suggest that not every mapmaker is discouraged with it
Well, I can't really jump to conclusions yet without actually playing the maps or at least seeing these on stream in action. From the pictures and descriptions though, Haven's Lagoon looks to be the most interesting. I'd say I also like Ohana and Sanctuary.
t's actually not "make a map so creative and wicked that anyone below masters will insta downvote it!". No, it's about doing something that everyone is already familiar with and integrate some original features if it fits with the overall concept.
Wait why is everyone so sure that everybody not skilled enough to become one of the top 3% of active players hate creative and wicked maps? Can't people not experts at the game enjoy new elements that give some variety to the game also? I mean who says "this map is to wicked for me to enjoy with my not professional skill set at this game". Especially since blizzard defines changing the rocks hp as to creative and wicked it will blow up a gold player's brain.
If this is true then you wouldn't be seeing the same 12 maps in every tournament map pool ever created.
huh I was talking about the ladder not tournaments. Tournaments probably use the same 12 maps because they want to follow the ladder as close as possible and have trouble getting pros to play enough games on any maps they want to add to feel comfortable it is balanced. Especially if they were to add anything creative. But it is true I wish tournaments could use the powerful map editor to do a bunch of creative things. Broodwar didn't have a problem with adding a map that you could turn into an island map by destroying assimilators: troy. Maps with eggs cloaked by a neutral arbiter blocking a path: Triathlon. Or how about neutral spells permanently on the map + a command centre to infest: HolyWorld, (You could probably use the sc2 editor to make an entire area or path do anything good or bad you want to units in it instead of just using the game spells)
But anyways back to the ladder maps I like all the maps chosen. I just wish somebody could explain why people are so sure most people can not handle or want absolutely zero new creative map elements every few months when maps rotate on the ladder. Even if it is just a minor change like decreasing/increasing rock hp and armour (or make them cloaked) it is against blizzards rules because it is not easy to learn? But players don't have a problem learning a crazy unique creative gimmick on every level of the single player, and won't have a problem with those rocks that block paths when destroyed in HotS that they showed. (while learning all the new units at the same time) Couldn't those be added into the ladder with the map editor right now? And if they are fine maybe other things could be fine to try out also every once in a while by the community.
On November 10 2011 03:55 coolcor wrote: Broodwar didn't have a problem with adding a map that you could turn into an island map by destroying assimilators: troy.
To get a little off topic, I've been wanting to make a map like this for a while. Unfortunately, I've been a little bit discouraged by how universally hated the newbie map pool seems to be.
This discussion is pointless. It's 2 different sides argueing about something they have a completely different angle on. The normal TL forum user just looks at a map just takes in the general concept of it, leading him to judge a map for the fun factor of playing/watching. Any mapmaker looks at it with all the things he knows about mapmaking in the back of his head. What's the distances of the bases, how's the openness, what are the options for map splitting, how vulnurable are the different bases?
I'm not saying that noone but a mapmaker can see those things, but it's just that not everyone really focuses on those "small" things. It's stupid to have such an argument between people who just use maps to play on them or watch them being played by others, rather focusing on the play itself, and people who spend many hours a week, not only creating but also studying maps. Especially if there's only an overview picture to judge from. Sure, an experienced mapmaker will see the proportions on the pictures and can proclaim things he can't really back up because it's not been proven publicly, even if it's true, other people won't see it, hence hardly believe the claims.
So please stop this madness, we get it, most (?) mapmakers think it's a bad map, most non-mapmakers like it because it's very different. Also I think it's not particularly a good representation of TL for a mod to insult a large group of people because a handfull of them are crossing the line.
On November 10 2011 06:52 Roggay wrote: Hey, how about you read the OP before bullshitting around like that? Haven's Lagoon was chosen because the testers really liked to play on it, i think it was stated multiple times.
Also, why would you attack timetwister22 like that, are you THAT bitter that his map made it through?
I'd like to know who tested the maps. If it's just the judges then whatever.. their opinion isn't any more valid than anyone else's.
I personally can't think of a single reason why Haven's Lagoon was chosen as a finalist. It's not a good map, plain and simple - it's not even fun to play on in my opinion.
But to be honest, I don't think there's a single map of the finalists I'd actually want to play over and over in an official map pool. I'm not sure what I was expecting, or if I was expecting anything at all, but I'm not crazy about any of these maps. At all. Did no Korean map makers enter a submission?
read the op man...
right... so the amount of playtesting the maps got seems to be minimal, and it was entirely by TL forumites/mods, whose opinion I don't automatically trust especially after the results. No Sheth, no TLO, no Jinro. no Haypro, no Tyler, no Ret, no Hero. What a wasted opportunity.
On November 10 2011 08:59 Jibba wrote: I think the distance to expansions lends itself better to non-Zergs than you think.
EDIT: Everyone else is waiting to play test them. In a certain style of game, it will be a bad map, but the point is that it lends itself towards a different play style than we've seen before. Ball armies will do poorly, but counter attacks and harassment, both requiring lots of multitasking, will thrive.
I agree to an extent. The problem is that Protoss is very ineffective without a ball army. Protoss isn't my main race, but what I know about the race is that you either all-in or get Colossi. Blizzard has been breaking away from this lack of options which is a great thing. Archons are now possible in PvP and PvT to an extent so that Colossi are not always needed.
With that said, Haven's Lagoon will probably force a Archon/Gateway heavy composition in PvX. Terran will probably want to go bio against Protoss because of how effective EMP is against Archons and how mobile the army is. Zerg will probably just play normally. Their builds are least affected by the layout of this map in my honest opinion. Terran could go mech or bio or biomech vs. Zerg.
EDIT: The reason that I feel it is imbalanced is because I do not think that even with Archons Protoss will stand much of a chance. Zerg will get surrounds on Terran very easily and crush them in most situations in my opinion. Also, the expansion layout favors Zerg more so than Terran and Protoss because they cannot expand toward their opponent easily and Zerg can just expand far away from their enemy. If Terran or Protoss were to attack an expansion, they'd be very vulnerable to counter-attacks and the expansions are not close together, so they wouldn't be able to move through into another expansion, forcing a base race. It would be much easier for the Zerg to win the base race, which I can picture happening in a lot of scenarios.
I have a feeling so many people are saying they like Lagoon because it is pretty much the only top down image that people can read. You actually can see where the bases are and the paths to and from them. Mainly due to the poor aesthetics. Ohana for instance, if I haven't seen the analyzer for it before I'd have no fucking clue what was going on because it's just so "busy" looking.
I'd be curious to see if the top 7 maps were posted with just the SC2 Analyzer Summary view rather then a top down view, which map people would like better.
OMG I LOVE THE IDEA OF HAVEN's LAGOON... i mean i can see myself crying myself to sleep cause terran can siege on high ground like 3 times but its such a cool look/idea...
awww... No island map can't get tasteless to explain to us that on island maps, drops will usually be seen
On November 10 2011 09:11 FlopTurnReaver wrote: This discussion is pointless. It's 2 different sides argueing about something they have a completely different angle on. The normal TL forum user just looks at a map just takes in the general concept of it, leading him to judge a map for the fun factor of playing/watching. Any mapmaker looks at it with all the things he knows about mapmaking in the back of his head. What's the distances of the bases, how's the openness, what are the options for map splitting, how vulnurable are the different bases?
I'm not saying that noone but a mapmaker can see those things, but it's just that not everyone really focuses on those "small" things. It's stupid to have such an argument between people who just use maps to play on them or watch them being played by others, rather focusing on the play itself, and people who spend many hours a week, not only creating but also studying maps. Especially if there's only an overview picture to judge from. Sure, an experienced mapmaker will see the proportions on the pictures and can proclaim things he can't really back up because it's not been proven publicly, even if it's true, other people won't see it, hence hardly believe the claims.
So please stop this madness, we get it, most (?) mapmakers think it's a bad map, most non-mapmakers like it because it's very different. Also I think it's not particularly a good representation of TL for a mod to insult a large group of people because a handfull of them are crossing the line.
I quit being a mod so my opinion has no reflection on the site. And I'm serious, map balance pedigree was invented by the people who claim to have it. In BW the only relevant ones didn't speak English, and even they fucked up sometimes. A little humility is required for this sort of thing, especially when you're theory crafting maps you haven't played.
You're basically saying "People in the know know that it's a bad map, but those ignorant of design like it because it's different. But please stop this arguing!"
Look at the threads for every new Blizzard map pool. Half of the posts are about rush distances, width of naturals, how accessible expansions are and specific tank nooks. Do you really think non-map makers fail to judge gameplay features?
Haven's Lagoon looks like a great map. I can't wait to play or watch some games on it to get an idea for how well it's actually balanced.
I hope it works out, because I'm getting tired of the cookie-cutter 3-bases-in-the-corner map style (Antiga Shipyard, Narazim Crypt, et al). I'm not a map maker, so farbeit for me to criticize those who consider themselves "pro". But, there have got to be some more creative methods for helping games go macro without resorting to this tired, overused tactic.
On November 10 2011 09:24 SidianTheBard wrote: I have a feeling so many people are saying they like Lagoon because it is pretty much the only top down image that people can read. You actually can see where the bases are and the paths to and from them. Mainly due to the poor aesthetics. Ohana for instance, if I haven't seen the analyzer for it before I'd have no fucking clue what was going on because it's just so "busy" looking.
This is a good point.
Too many in the map making community churn out maps that look like abstract paintings, then complain when a cleaner, simpler looking map with a great layout becomes popular, because it has "horrible aesthetics".
On November 10 2011 08:44 Jibba wrote: How is this any different from the current pool of map makers? Aside from GSL's maps, only Testbug has gone anywhere. And you crown yourselves experts and talk down other peoples' work and opinions? Where is your balance pedigree? Even being GM doesn't necessitate an understanding of balance or playing the game. Almost no maps, including the maps featured in MotM or the previous iCCup tournaments, have received extensive testing for balance. I don't see where this arrogance of understanding map balance is coming from.
Some of the comments here have been pretty personal. But behind the passion, there is merit in their opinion.
Most of the mappers here have been making maps nonstop since way back in beta. We've seen thousands of games played and understand how the game has evolved and the requirements to make a map interesting, original, and balanced. All of our maps build on that; we just don't randomly place down minerals and add some ramps here or there and call ourselves awesome. Please.
'Extensive testing' is not a requirement for a map. If every map had 'extensive testing', players would never have to adapt to the originalities found in them and the game would never evolve. You'd end up with a million versions of maps that all look like metal, shattered, shakuras, and antiga, because that's what blizzard's bare minimum of balancing is based on. Instead, we rely on things like the timings, distances, and spacing found in these maps in order to create our own original maps.
And even then, blizzard's maps have been notoriously unbalanced, yet SC2's community refuses to drop them from their pools, instead opting to fix blizzard's mistakes for them. And, instead of reaching out to the community and the literally hundreds maps already available. If blizzard's maps can be considered 'tournament quality', then the majority of maps released by us are well within that definition as well.
To downplay the mappers who have genuinely put in the time to learn about mapping, timings, builds, etc, in order to create maps worthy of notice, is a very uninformed opinion.
On November 10 2011 09:24 SidianTheBard wrote: I have a feeling so many people are saying they like Lagoon because it is pretty much the only top down image that people can read. You actually can see where the bases are and the paths to and from them. Mainly due to the poor aesthetics. Ohana for instance, if I haven't seen the analyzer for it before I'd have no fucking clue what was going on because it's just so "busy" looking.
This is a good point.
Too many in the map making community churn out maps that look like abstract paintings, then complain when a cleaner, simpler looking map with a great layout becomes popular, because it has "horrible aesthetics".
Well, don't get my quote wrong, Lagoon, imo, should not be in the top 7. But just looking at top down images of maps and trying to read the map is a tough thing to do. Even tougher if you've never used the sc2 map editor before. Lagoon on the other hand, has poor aesthetics and therefore is much easier to read the top down image then the other maps. My saying about Ohana was that if that was the first time seeing that map, it'd be hard to figure out where the mains are, where watchtowers are, where LoS blockers are, because it blends together nice.
I mean, hell, I wonder how many people posting here even know what all those orangish glowy things are on Cloud Kingdom? They block pathing....right? + Show Spoiler +
It's too open. Protoss cannot get a third against Zerg or even expand aggressively. That is what I, and many others, think about the map. I certainly read the OP. In fact, the "facts" that are listed for Haven's Lagoon are filled with bullshit.
- Map increases in height as more and more expansions are taken (to be honest I'm not even sure what this means) - Map emphasises exploiting the height differences to gain an advantage (hardly; the advantage is practically nonexistent because of the huge ramps) - Rewards players for controlling their units well and taking slightly longer paths for better position (hardly, again for the same reason) - Allows for a variety of playstyles including air and harass based play due to the large space between mains (cool, you can do air harass, you can do that on any map. This map does not allow a lot of aggressive builds due to the size and symmetry, with the expansions being placed away from your opponent) - One of the most enjoyed maps by playtesters (I can't argue this; that is the opinion of the playtesters. I may disagree with it, but that's it)
first point is straightforward, how are you not sure what this means. in general, as more expos are taken, the map terrain is higher. 1/2 base play is on the lowest level, 3rd/4th is another level up, 5th+ is yet another.
I disagree, the ramps are fairly wide but that doesn't make the height advantage "non existent." Even with wider ramps, a noticeable advantage goes to the player above.
Definitely disagree, in fact if you had smaller ramps it'd be worse for the player flanking from the higher ground as they'd be funneled through a choke when engaging the enemy.
?? Obviously air/harass play is stronger on some maps than others? And this map is one of those that it's stronger on?
as for the far 3rd complaint, that was likely an accidental/unfortunate consequence when the map was edited to have a smaller choke to the natural, it was too wide before, but now the distance to 3rd has increased substantially. It's being discussed, I'd like to see it changed as well.
On November 10 2011 08:44 Jibba wrote: How is this any different from the current pool of map makers? Aside from GSL's maps, only Testbug has gone anywhere. And you crown yourselves experts and talk down other peoples' work and opinions? Where is your balance pedigree? Even being GM doesn't necessitate an understanding of balance or playing the game. Almost no maps, including the maps featured in MotM or the previous iCCup tournaments, have received extensive testing for balance. I don't see where this arrogance of understanding map balance is coming from.
If blizzard's maps can be considered 'tournament quality', then the majority of maps released by us are well within that definition as well.
I don't doubt that and a great deal of this website derides Blizzard's maps. But that doesn't mean there's a science to how the game is played, and many of the players, including very good SC2 players like Ares and Zelniq, put effort into learning timings and builds for specific maps. There are no professional map makers in SC2 (besides Blizzard's,) and while the communities are obviously more talented than most people at building them, that doesn't mean they actually understand the balance or the way they'll be played any better than other people do. This isn't the Matrix. There's no grand secret to seeing these things.
Anyway, why are you attacking me? I was voicing my opinion on the map. It's too open. Protoss cannot get a third against Zerg or even expand aggressively. That is what I, and many others, think about the map. I certainly read the OP. In fact, the "facts" that are listed for Haven's Lagoon are filled with bullshit.
- Map increases in height as more and more expansions are taken (to be honest I'm not even sure what this means) - Map emphasises exploiting the height differences to gain an advantage (hardly; the advantage is practically nonexistent because of the huge ramps) - Rewards players for controlling their units well and taking slightly longer paths for better position (hardly, again for the same reason) - Allows for a variety of playstyles including air and harass based play due to the large space between mains (cool, you can do air harass, you can do that on any map. This map does not allow a lot of aggressive builds due to the size and symmetry, with the expansions being placed away from your opponent) - One of the most enjoyed maps by playtesters (I can't argue this; that is the opinion of the playtesters. I may disagree with it, but that's it)
first point is straightforward, how are you not sure what this means. in general, as more expos are taken, the map terrain is higher. 1/2 base play is on the lowest level, 3rd/4th is another level up, 5th+ is yet another.
...
I think Antares expected "cliff level" rather than "height". That would be the correct map-making term. I assume that's why he didn't understand.
On November 10 2011 01:16 MorroW wrote: congrats to the finalists was an exciting competition kinda bummed out my map didnt make it tho
Did you ever play your map?
ya we did play a few games on it ^^ its rly cool and i love it
Serves you right for forsaking the mapmaking community in order to play the game and win some stuff!
hahaha :D have to admit it was fun to sit down and spend some time with the good ol melee mapmaking
i dare say my map was too much of a wildcard to make it and the judges didnt have the balls to advance it LOL
we discussed your map, it was denied mostly by me iirc. The 3rd is stupidly close to the natural, and anyone can easily defend both nat + 3rd simultaneously. it's the most extreme "free 3rd" i've ever seen. and as in sc2 all you need is 3 bases to get a near maxed econ (gas excluded) and to easily max, free 3rds that are tough to attack are kinda dumb. Plus the choke from middle to that area outside nat/3rd is too narrow, yet again making attacks very tough.
Then you have basically the free 4th, which is not only a gold base but also like right next to the 3rd and nestled within that aforementioned area outside nat/3rd. Sure the mineral line is exposed on the other side..but in some matchups this would be retardedly unfair, most noticeably TvZ where a tank or 2 easily defends that problem, whereas zerg has no such equivalent. Then you take the other free 4th, from the backdoor in main, yet another TvZ imbalance..map is the definition of a ZvT nightmare. There's really only 1 small area terran needs to defend their main/nat/3rd/4th-gold bases from ground assaults
Haven and field of strife look freaking amazing to play on.
Haven especially idk its one of the most unique looking maps and moreso than strife, I feel it escapes the sc2 standards of map making and more leans on 'what would make a good map'.
I'm disappointed I didn't get in of course, (not that I had much of a chance vs the big mapping teams )
I hope it works out, because I'm getting tired of the cookie-cutter 3-bases-in-the-corner map style (Antiga Shipyard, Narazim Crypt, et al). I'm not a map maker, so farbeit for me to criticize those who consider themselves "pro". But, there have got to be some more creative methods for helping games go macro without resorting to this tired, overused tactic.
I don't understand this really, Haven Lagoon's main-nat-third setup (in terms of location) is very similar to many other maps, including some of the other finalists (particularly Daggoth Crater), And haven's main is in the corner.
There are really only a couple of ways to arrange the first three bases without using weird gimmicks like backdoor rocks. Calling a certain arrangement "tired and overused" is similar to calling a standard build order tired and overused: yeah, you see the same set of builds all the time, that doesn't mean we should never use build orders.
On November 10 2011 10:17 Phried wrote: Not going to lie, I really want to play MorroW's Firestorm now. Really cool concept.
i assume you're mostly thinking about those gold expos, exposed on the other side. for me, the novelty of that wore off years ago from BW's pretty cool Outsider SE
however the major distinction is that the 'exposed mineral line' expos were all on the outskirts of the map, and unreachable by ground
It's too open. Protoss cannot get a third against Zerg or even expand aggressively. That is what I, and many others, think about the map. I certainly read the OP. In fact, the "facts" that are listed for Haven's Lagoon are filled with bullshit.
- Map increases in height as more and more expansions are taken (to be honest I'm not even sure what this means) - Map emphasises exploiting the height differences to gain an advantage (hardly; the advantage is practically nonexistent because of the huge ramps) - Rewards players for controlling their units well and taking slightly longer paths for better position (hardly, again for the same reason) - Allows for a variety of playstyles including air and harass based play due to the large space between mains (cool, you can do air harass, you can do that on any map. This map does not allow a lot of aggressive builds due to the size and symmetry, with the expansions being placed away from your opponent) - One of the most enjoyed maps by playtesters (I can't argue this; that is the opinion of the playtesters. I may disagree with it, but that's it)
first point is straightforward, how are you not sure what this means. in general, as more expos are taken, the map terrain is higher. 1/2 base play is on the lowest level, 3rd/4th is another level up, 5th+ is yet another.
I disagree, the ramps are fairly wide but that doesn't make the height advantage "non existent." Even with wider ramps, a noticeable advantage goes to the player above.
Definitely disagree, in fact if you had smaller ramps it'd be worse for the player flanking from the higher ground as they'd be funneled through a choke when engaging the enemy.
?? Obviously air/harass play is stronger on some maps than others? And this map is one of those that it's stronger on?
as for the far 3rd complaint, that was likely an accidental/unfortunate consequence when the map was edited to have a smaller choke to the natural, it was too wide before, but now the distance to 3rd has increased substantially. It's being discussed, I'd like to see it changed as well.
haha damn.... I for some reason interpreted it as the terrain actually rises when expos are taken... I thought it might be like the Watchtower on that one map blowing up type of terrain change. Boy do I feel disapointed that would be pretty gimicky but entertaining nonetheless...
i rly like most of the maps, although burning altar seems strange i think it'll play out just fine. the only thing that i (not a mapmaker) would say is that on haven's lagoon, the water outside of all the bases needs to be stripped and the border brought flush with the land, it seems like banshee rushes/ mutalisks almost at all, would be a little too good with that much room to maneuver but perhaps it plays just fine, we'll have to wait and see ^.^
On November 10 2011 10:46 Dbla08 wrote: i rly like most of the maps, although burning altar seems strange i think it'll play out just fine. the only thing that i (not a mapmaker) would say is that on haven's lagoon, the water outside of all the bases needs to be stripped and the border brought flush with the land, it seems like banshee rushes/ mutalisks almost at all, would be a little too good with that much room to maneuver but perhaps it plays just fine, we'll have to wait and see ^.^
that picture shows the well beyond the playable map portion. actual map doesnt have all that water around it
Could someone who actually played the controversial map Haven explain why it plays so awesome? I'm not in the position to actually play it any time soon - neither is my league (high gold, facing mid plat players) sufficient to really analyze it. But I would love some first person experiences on the map.
For example: the map looks very zerg favorite (it looks really open), but given the positive feedback, I'm sure it looks wrong. So some first person experience explanations would be very welcome. I'm very curious about it.
I really liked Bardiche and wanted to give it the go ahead except for one major problem, after the 2 rocks are broken, it's just too close to reach your opponent, and the tiny choke left by the rocks is just too small. I really don't see any reason why those rocks couldnt just be permanent walls. besides that it looks amazing.
as for Starlight Breaker, well the 3rd is just way too easy to protect simultaneously as your nat. er meaning that if you're defending your 3rd, youre also essentially defending your nat. also the gold bases are too close to the main, easily tankable from above. seeing as how there's only 5 bases per player, gold included, it would be nice if you had the option of taking the other gold as your 5th rather than the one that's close by air to main only. also, I personally dislike golds and don't think they belong in sc2, and would rather not see them in any maps.
Hey just realized I have a question about Haven's lagoon. Didn't notice the gold minerals up there till just now but I'm a bit confused by them, are they on the same level as the ground where the CC/Hatch/Nexus will be... or are the workers mining uphill?
Alot of the maps look really cool and are neatly designed. Kudos to the makers. That said, a good chunk of them have an outrageous amount of ramps and small small chokes that really alter gameplay choices and favor engagements in the choke. There is very little room to spread out in alot of those cases. Which is insanely bad for zerg players attacking a terran tank position, or terran (and zerg) players attacking protoss death balls. Feels like some of the maps would favor a particular race by a huge amount. Not that, that isnt something we havent seen in other map pools.
Just how it appears to me in some of the cases. Daggoth crater and cloud kingdom look really interesting to me though. It will be fun to see how these turn out.
Burning altar looks awesome, I feel like the rocks don't add anything to the game in cross spawn positions, but in close spawn they actually make it worthwhile having them in. I really like the wide and multiple paths in the middle. Very simple and aesthetically pleasing with the Trees and such making clear cut paths.
Field of Strife and Ohana are real eye candies. Will these maps every get played for events like the TSL? i would prefer community made maps over Blizzards any day.
On November 10 2011 11:25 Zelniq wrote: I really liked Bardiche and wanted to give it the go ahead except for one major problem, after the 2 rocks are broken, it's just too close to reach your opponent, and the tiny choke left by the rocks is just too small. I really don't see any reason why those rocks couldnt just be permanent walls. besides that it looks amazing.
as for Starlight Breaker, well the 3rd is just way too easy to protect simultaneously as your nat. er meaning that if you're defending your 3rd, youre also essentially defending your nat. also the gold bases are too close to the main, easily tankable from above. seeing as how there's only 5 bases per player, gold included, it would be nice if you had the option of taking the other gold as your 5th rather than the one that's close by air to main only. also, I personally dislike golds and don't think they belong in sc2, and would rather not see them in any maps.
Okay, thanks a bunch. Though I feel I could've just gotten rid of the middle paths if I'd been contacted. The Starlight problems seem reasonable though. Thanks for the feedback.
Assuming mine went through, might I get thoughts/feedback on my map, Sunken Quarry? I felt that map was my best of the 3 I submitted, where the others I can see have been clearly trumped.
TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt.
The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone.
It probably doesn't matter now but my favorite to win is Sanctuary. A lot of neat concepts in the finalists but that one I like.
Obviously disappointed none of my maps made it through but I wasn't holding my expectations too high given the volume and the generally less than "standard" ideas I like to put forward. Nevertheless, I will PM to find out the judges opinions.
My wife, bless her, likes Haven's Lagoon. She doesn't play. She knows little to none about gaming in general much less Starcraft. And yet, as I scrolled down the list showing her the finalists, she goes, "I like that one"... lol, I'm sure much to the chagrin of some of the other mappers. I will let you decide whether that is a plus for the map or just another sign that it "shouldn't be top 7".
Again, congrats to the finalists, may your maps play well in the tournament.
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt.
The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything but when i tested the TPW maps my framerate was significantly lower than playing normally on a Ladder map.
Sorry TPW Your maps are beautiful but my computer lagged like 15 fps on them only 30fps and above is acceptable.... I'm not sure what made the maps so laggy; i know my computers not the best and i play on low Graphics but my game never lags like that.
I'm hoping TPW can fix the Lag issue because their maps overall are really; well-done maps.
awesome maps, congrats to the winners, I am laughing my ass of at the sore losers.
You guys are the like Building designers who are upset because some Engineer told you: "You cant use 5mm steel beams for your massive roof." "But it doesn't look aesthetic if it is build with big steel beams" "Well it will crash and bury people underneath it" "But it doesn't look aesthetic"
Here is a thought, if f.e. Zerg has a 70 percent win rate on a map and you need in general awkward strategies on a map to win, your map might be shit! Regardless of your nicely planted grass and the beautiful cliff side.
You need to design something that WORKS, this is not a painting competition, because if it works, you can always give it to some one who will give it a nice paint job.
How about instead of bitching you would have asked the guy if he needs helps with the graphic details, so it would look nice and shiny for the big TLopen weekend, you might even have gotten 50% of the credit at the end...
On November 10 2011 14:23 Ojahh wrote: awesome maps, congrats to the winners, I am laughing my ass of at the sore losers.
You guys are the like Building designers who are upset because some Engineer told you: "You cant use 5mm steel beams for your massive roof." "But it doesn't look aesthetic if it is build with big steel beams" "Well it will crash and bury people underneath it" "But it doesn't look aesthetic"
Here is a thought, if f.e. Zerg has a 70 percent win rate on a map and you need in general awkward strategies on a map to win, your map might be shit! Regardless of your nicely planted grass and the beautiful cliff side.
You need to design something that WORKS, this is not a painting competition, because if it works, you can always give it to some one who will give it a nice paint job.
How about instead of bitching you would have asked the guy if he needs helps with the graphic details, so it would look nice and shiny for the big TLopen weekend, you might even have gotten 50% of the credit at the end...
Not that I agree with all of the opinions of those on the mapping teams nor even all those of Barrin though there is often something to be learned from any of them, but I think the main argument most of them have been making is that they *are* using the 5mm steel beams *and* making it look aesthetically pleasing whereas a map like Haven's Lagoon is *not* using the 5mm steel beams *and* does not even hide the fact with good aesthetics. I think their argument goes so far as to say the lack of aesthetics *indicates* the lack of 5mm steel beams. Again, this is *their* argument, if I have interpreted it correctly.
Though I like me a good Broodwar map (though the author claims it is not much if at all inspired by RoV), I am unsure of my thought about this one except that I am glad at least some non-team mapper got through to this point. Kudos on that, timetwister! From one rogue mapper to another, cheers. ::drinks::
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt.
The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone.
I'd like to say that with the amount of time they put into their maps, I expect them to be a little bit angry. These guys spend a huge amount of time perfecting their aesthetics, and it shows because their maps look incredible. The TPW mapmakers just need a little bit more experience with tournaments using their maps to get a good feel for layouts and gameplay, and then the maps will be truly amazing.
On November 10 2011 01:16 MorroW wrote: congrats to the finalists was an exciting competition kinda bummed out my map didnt make it tho
Did you ever play your map?
ya we did play a few games on it ^^ its rly cool and i love it
Serves you right for forsaking the mapmaking community in order to play the game and win some stuff!
hahaha :D have to admit it was fun to sit down and spend some time with the good ol melee mapmaking
i dare say my map was too much of a wildcard to make it and the judges didnt have the balls to advance it LOL
we discussed your map, it was denied mostly by me iirc. The 3rd is stupidly close to the natural, and anyone can easily defend both nat + 3rd simultaneously. it's the most extreme "free 3rd" i've ever seen. and as in sc2 all you need is 3 bases to get a near maxed econ (gas excluded) and to easily max, free 3rds that are tough to attack are kinda dumb. Plus the choke from middle to that area outside nat/3rd is too narrow, yet again making attacks very tough.
Then you have basically the free 4th, which is not only a gold base but also like right next to the 3rd and nestled within that aforementioned area outside nat/3rd. Sure the mineral line is exposed on the other side..but in some matchups this would be retardedly unfair, most noticeably TvZ where a tank or 2 easily defends that problem, whereas zerg has no such equivalent. Then you take the other free 4th, from the backdoor in main, yet another TvZ imbalance..map is the definition of a ZvT nightmare. There's really only 1 small area terran needs to defend their main/nat/3rd/4th-gold bases from ground assaults
haha i can imagine many reasons why it wasnt picked ^^ i was just making a joke
I'm curious as to why all the maps have the main and natural connected by ramps. Why not something more like Tal'Darim Altar where the natural, main and potential third are on the same plane? Does having no ramp make it significantly harder to balance? Other than that, though, I think Heaven's Lagoon is the most interesting mechanically, with Cloud Kingdom not far behind, and Ohara looks to be a better implementation of Belshir Beach v 1.0. I'm going to need to playtest that one though to get a better idea of how it plays.
On November 10 2011 15:27 Serpest wrote: I'm curious as to why all the maps have the main and natural connected by ramps. Why not something more like Tal'Darim Altar where the natural, main and potential third are on the same plane? Does having no ramp make it significantly harder to balance? Other than that, though, I think Heaven's Lagoon is the most interesting mechanically, with Cloud Kingdom not far behind, and Ohara looks to be a better implementation of Belshir Beach v 1.0. I'm going to need to playtest that one though to get a better idea of how it plays.
On November 10 2011 15:27 Serpest wrote: I'm curious as to why all the maps have the main and natural connected by ramps. Why not something more like Tal'Darim Altar where the natural, main and potential third are on the same plane? Does having no ramp make it significantly harder to balance? Other than that, though, I think Heaven's Lagoon is the most interesting mechanically, with Cloud Kingdom not far behind, and Ohara looks to be a better implementation of Belshir Beach v 1.0. I'm going to need to playtest that one though to get a better idea of how it plays.
are these accesible for the general public too play on this seems like it could be fun
For my comments a lot of the maps look very crossfire'esque in the sense the are narrow attack paths with multiple elevations this too me seems inherently unbalanced and definitely tough for zerg. I think maps benefit from having some openness and points of narrowness (i.e the shattered temple and xel'naga caverns)
that being said just from eyeballing sanctuary looks pretty awesome, though i think maybe the two bridges should be widened into one (i remember destination and trying to bust naturals >_<). The defensive exapnsion and offensive expansion on CITADEL OF GAIA IS REALLY F***ING COOL!! definitely i think something that needs to be experimented with i also dont think sc2 has fully harnessed the idea of mineral only expos.
really cool and think there is some potential for some of these maps (i only say potential because i havent played on them yet, dont mean to discredit someones work with the p word)
On November 10 2011 14:56 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It's hilarious how many people are judging mapmakers/maps wihtout having a clue what they're talking about^^
It's called Feedback and constructive criticism , ever heard of it?
If a map was judged to be worthy of being tested by other people, how many times would we expect the map file to be downloaded? I'm curious to know how far my maps got in the process before they were eliminated.
For anyone interested, these are the preview images of the maps I submitted:
Hey guys, I want to apologize on behalf of Funcmode and Mereel. We as a team put a good amount of effort into each map we make, and we adore aesthetic work. Yes, it can be frustrating when a seemingly low-effort, low-quality map tops a map that had 10x the work put into it, and that's what my two fellow teammates were basically saying. I vouch for the frustration as I've had a few of my maps get bumped out. This is something every map-maker understands, and viewers I encourage you to just simply understand that the work we do as a community is something we really admire. It's not fun to lose, but life has its loss i'm afraid.
And so, i apologize to the TL community for some of the unwanted attitudes flying around a little bit. I know some of you may have a bit of distaste toward the TPW team today, but most of us are excited for the winners and we take the hits, learn from them, and move on. Please understand this!
@Timmay Possibly zero times, as maps are also uploaded on bnet. We used the map files only for recovering better images and uploading maps that weren't already uploaded
On November 10 2011 16:23 IronManSC wrote: Hey guys, I want to apologize on behalf of Funcmode and Mereel. We as a team put a good amount of effort into each map we make, and we adore aesthetic work. Yes, it can be frustrating when a seemingly low-effort, low-quality map tops a map that had 10x the work put into it, and that's what my two fellow teammates were basically saying. I vouch for the frustration as I've had a few of my maps get bumped out. This is something every map-maker understands, and viewers I encourage you to just simply understand that the work we do as a community is something we really admire. It's not fun to lose, but life has its loss i'm afraid.
And so, i apologize to the TL community for some of the unwanted attitudes flying around a little bit. I know some of you may have a bit of distaste toward the TPW team today, but most of us are excited for the winners and we take the hits, learn from them, and move on. Please understand this!
Congrats to the other winners
The judges can certainly understand their actions, we just remind ourselves that the only act out in this way because of their overwhelming passion for what they are doing. It's a good thing that they have this passion, but sometimes it can lead to problems. .
On November 10 2011 14:56 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It's hilarious how many people are judging mapmakers/maps wihtout having a clue what they're talking about^^
It's called Feedback and constructive criticism , ever heard of it?
How many have even played the maps though? Maybe I'm wrong but to me it seems like a lot of people are commenting about the maps just based on the pictures. I don't really think that can be counted as constructive criticism.
I just want to say congrats to all of the finalists. As a huge fan of TPW and ESV and the other teams out there, I love community map projects like this. I feel bad for the people that put in tons of hours on other maps that did not make it in, but please do not let that discourage you. I read and check out most maps that get threads on here and am usually impressed. Keep up the good work and keep trying for the next opportunity.
Thanks to all of the map makers for all of their projects!
Is it just me or does Sanctuary have a huge positional imbalance? I made a picture below to represent it, and is it seems like the red player is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to taking his 3rd. The white player can secure his third far more easily than the red player. The red player could take base #4 as his 3rd as well but it's far more open and harder to secure (and potentially creates a problem where mutas are easily able to ping pong from the main to the 3rd very easily a la tal'darim altar)
On November 10 2011 16:44 [wh]_ForAlways wrote: Is it just me or does Sanctuary have a huge positional imbalance? I made a picture below to represent it, and is it seems like the red player is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to taking his 3rd. The white player can secure his third far more easily than the red player. The red player could take base #4 as his 3rd as well but it's far more open and harder to secure (and potentially creates a problem where mutas are easily able to ping pong from the main to the 3rd very easily a la tal'darim altar)
[picture]
I don't know, it feels to me like you put the 3rd where the 4th should be (and reverse)...
I disagree. The 4th base seems much more vulnerable to attacks/counter attacks than the 3rd. I would much rather be in white's position expanding away from my opponent by taking base #3 than be in red's position by expanding to a fairly open base that's about the same distance from white's natural as my own natural. Also base #3 has the extra security of being on the high ground (granted sometimes that's a negligible advantage, but an advantage none the less)
What you call base "number 3" is easier to defend by itself, sure... But it's much harder to defend along with the rest of your bases. Essentially, if you have an army parked on the outside of your natural choke, you cover bases 1, 2 and 4 pretty well, but your are quite far from base 3.
white should expand away! so to the left side of the map with fourth on the highround.
i experiemented quite a bit with 3player maps and it is easy to see that red is more compact in mid game (on four bases), but in late game white has access to more bases when expansing counterclockwise all the time.
On November 10 2011 06:36 Antares777 wrote:
Also, timetwister22, you made Haven's Lagoon correct? Are all these people supporting your map because they are your friends or because they think that Haven's Lagoon is a good map? I just cannot fathom why everyone thinks that map is good. I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm willing to give feedback on it and help you improve it if you want, but... meh I just don't like it right now.
i want to support him cause it is extremly fun to see someone appearing from nowhere getting a map in the finalists group. also the whole team-thing is less strong with such a map comning through. he has some ideas implemented many of us would not dare to do, or because we had experienced that such features did not "win us anything" in the mapping community. It is great for sc2 mapping that such an effort is seen on this stage.
honestly the map is really ugly; i can't stand uhly maps. so when a lot of people want to play it and they have fubn, why not make it a better looking map or help the author making is better looking?
we do not know each other, but still, it is an opportunity to help a talented map maker. also to show what i can do or see if i can help somehow. I would also love to see this as an extra MotM contestn in case the author does not want to beautify the map.
On November 10 2011 04:26 chuky500 wrote: FlopTurnReaver you seemed pissed by what i said. Creative doesn't mean wicked.
On the ladder the majority of games only go to 2 or 3 bases and the majority of engagements happen close to players bases not in the middle of the map. That's why the layout of the bases matter a lot and matters more than how the middle of the map is laid out.
If you look at the 7 finalists, appart from Haven's Lagoon they all have the same 3 base layout : - a big main - a tiny natural - a ramp between them - a 3rd expansion touching the natural
And this is also the case with Motm, in Motm 9 all finalists also had this overused layout. Say this is "BS","plain stupid", that I make "myself look silly" but it's a fact, mapping contests pick maps that are very conservative.
Now you ask me why people like Metalopolis ? The lay out of the first 3 bases is unique. How hard is it to understand maps will play the same if bases are the same ?
This post makes a ton of sense. I was struggling to understand why I felt so many of these maps were "blah" (except for Haven's Lagoon) and this hit the nail right on the head.
I understand that thirds close to mains are important to Zergs. But the beauty of Haven's Lagoon is that you're always expanding away from the enemy main. So even though the third is far from the main relative to most ladder maps, its also much more difficult for the opponent to punish that third. Any early push by the opponent to kill the third is extremely vulnerable to counterattack by the opposite ground. The choice to push along either the high or low ground is really cool too. Push along the high ground and you get the high ground advantage, but take longer to hit the opponent. Push along the low ground and you get to the opponent much faster, but then you relinquish the high ground to the opponent.
This dynamic continues into the lategame with the 5th and 6th bases, which is really really cool.
I'm not worried too much about the lack of chokes on the map because there's so many different levels. At first glance such an open map would be awesome for Zergs, but then you think about Terrans placing a PF on either the low ground third or the gold. Or for Protoss, Colossi cliff abusing the 4ths, threatening 4gates on open naturals, and a gazillion tough-to-scout locations to place proxy pylons.
The more I think about it, the cooler Haven's Lagoon looks. I might actually playtest that one.
the heightlevels make this map kind of unique for sc2. although we have seen things like that before (ride of valkyries). please not that this "always" expandinfg away thing works in many other maps, too, but it is the easiest in 2player-mirror-maps, because with every exoansion in a straigt line you get further away from the opponent.
but as i said, this also works in other maps, also in this contest among the finalists. I do not want to discuss/defend other maps than my own. Burning Altar lets you expand "away" for third, fourth and fifth when spawning in close position (one of the two pülayers has to go slightly forward for fourth and fifth. but again that is similar in most maps (even lagoon).
On November 10 2011 16:44 [wh]_ForAlways wrote: Is it just me or does Sanctuary have a huge positional imbalance? I made a picture below to represent it, and is it seems like the red player is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to taking his 3rd. The white player can secure his third far more easily than the red player. The red player could take base #4 as his 3rd as well but it's far more open and harder to secure (and potentially creates a problem where mutas are easily able to ping pong from the main to the 3rd very easily a la tal'darim altar)
Here is basically how I see it going most of the time, Red being the "turtler" TvZ TvPPvZ, yellow being the "zerger", zerg basically and usually terran vs toss.
Taking the other third spreads the turtler a lot more (It's like taking the other nat on shakuras but with the main being a big additional path).
The zerger will however try to take his third away from the turtler, half the time that is the more open(good for zerger, especially when it comes to denying thirds) but closer base, the downside being that it's also a bit closer towards your opponent. The other half he will take the more reclusive third.
A thing to note is that the turtler's army's staging point will most likely be stationed in front of his nat, between nat and third. From there the difference in attack distance towards thirds is somewhat noticable but the natural of the zerger with the further third will be a bit more easily accessable.
The zerger with the reclusive third will have a harder fourth.
About the ping ponging, I don't really see the turtler take the other "less ping pongy" base too often and if he does it is way more ping pongable from nat to third this time instead of from third to main.
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
Well, at TPW we don't all have the same opinion and Mereels comment on this was just over the top. I myself was aware of some flaws in the in the maps i submitted (and FYI the maps submitted mostly have been overhauled for TLMC - lesser doodads to avoid those lag issues). What i just didn't liked: the kinda small judge board - but overall they seem to have chosen decent maps with Lagoon being maybe a possible Scrap v2 in their mindset.
So i'm absolutely fine with their decision and if Lagoon gonna win i'm pretty much sure it will be overhauled in terms of design. TLMC was all about Layout and that's might be why some guys (and even TPW members) complain about a map aesthetically not to good being in the top row. I'm looking forward to see the TLMC tourney and see games on all those maps.
TLDR: I don't share the map bashing attitude of Mereel and Co.
As a low level bronze player (plz bring back Copper League) pushing 40 I am probably the map maker with the least understanding of the metagame and map balance, so I have always relied on play test feedback and posting on this forum. Along the way I have learned a lot of guidelines about map proportions and such, so I was completely blown away by Havens Lagoon making top 7, as it disregards a lot of the rules I thought I had to play by.
So, I got on B.net and set up some games. I found a master Zerg and a master terran who likes to off-race as Protoss. First 2 games Protoss was roflstomped early, so I thought "ok, that was it", but then he said: "no lemme try again - I screwed up " - then followed 7 super fun games with tons of action from start to finish! In the final game he switched back to terran and they played a pretty epic TvZ.
mind = blown
This experience has completely changed the way I look at map architecture, and I am so stoked about throwing away a lot of the restrictions I have followed.
My instincts tell me that this map is Zerg>Terran>Protoss, but I can´t know at this point. What I do know is that it makes for super entertaining games and that players enjoy it as much as spectators. So Kudos to Timetwister22 and the judges for this wake-up call!
I havnt seen any of the maps played buth Burning Altar and Cloud Kingdom looks really really interesting! Cloud kingdom looks just like it could hae been an old BW map and Im really interested how it will play out in SC2. Burning Altar is proboably a really really intensive map I think. Looks like a great map to cheese on.
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
Well, at TPW we don't all have the same opinion and Mereels comment on this was just over the top. I myself was aware of some flaws in the in the maps i submitted (and FYI the maps submitted mostly have been overhauled for TLMC - lesser doodads to avoid those lag issues). What i just didn't liked: the kinda small judge board - but overall they seem to have chosen decent maps with Lagoon being maybe a possible Scrap v2 in their mindset.
So i'm absolutely fine with their decision and if Lagoon gonna win i'm pretty much sure it will be overhauled in terms of design. TLMC was all about Layout and that's might be why some guys (and even TPW members) complain about a map aesthetically not to good being in the top row. I'm looking forward to see the TLMC tourney and see games on all those maps.
TLDR: I don't share the map bashing attitude of Mereel and Co.
i was writing excatly this... now I can only +1. TPW is a team that works closely together on some maps, testing and feedback while some maps are only done by one single person without much teamwork. posts are always individual's posts.
The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone.
well, to be honest, sometimes i have the impression i should do bad texturing do make people believe in a "hardcore" layout...
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly.
yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt. The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything but when i tested the TPW maps my framerate was significantly lower than playing normally on a Ladder map. Sorry TPW Your maps are beautiful but my computer lagged like 15 fps on them only 30fps and above is acceptable.... I'm not sure what made the maps so laggy; i know my computers not the best and i play on low Graphics but my game never lags like that. I'm hoping TPW can fix the Lag issue because their maps overall are really; well-done maps.
lags on the other hand really suck. may i ask if you had problems on Burning Altar and if yes, what is your system and settings like? there should not be any lags on Burning Altar all caused by the map. so please let me know where and i tzry to fix it also for really low systems.
I am a longtime TL lurker, but I just had to make an account just so I was able to say that: WAUW Ohana looks so beautifful it's mindblowing. Thanks for IronManSC and TPW for creating such a pretty pretty map. When I get home from work I am gonna try it out immediatly.
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
It seems silly to waste the time between now and the TLOpen. I plan to have these maps as polished as they can possibly be for that so that it maximises the chance of maps making the ladder. TimeTwister spent most of today updating the aesthetics. You should think of it as a community victory if any of these maps make it onto the ladder, it gives rise to the possibility of events like this happening again and possibly more community maps on the ladder. There is more to fight for here than just pride.
Maps heavily dictate the game's balance. You can't just go nuts while making a map. Every time I'm analizing a new map, the first thing I look for are the thirds. Maybe because I'm a Zerg player. My favorite map in Broodwar was Destination, and guess what.. It has the same 3 base layout people pointed out. Maps can be fun to play/creative without being imbalanced.
Haven's Lagoon looks awesome, I hope it goes to ladder.
And I'm sad for Plexa, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
I honestly don't know why people are trying to make an event like this into something so negative. Some of the attitudes towards timetwister are completely uncalled for. I just think it is kind of cool that there are so many interesting maps out there that people came up with. I also think its is extremely cool that a pro like Morrow took the time for the contest.
i'd like to add that i think plexa has done a great job overall. i hope there are more events like this happening in the future as i am now extremely motivated to work on a few new maps. i already have a few new ideas esv, we will meet again!
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
I honestly don't know why people are trying to make an event like this into something so negative. Some of the attitudes towards timetwister are completely uncalled for. I just think it is kind of cool that there are so many interesting maps out there that people came up with. I also think its is extremely cool that a pro like Morrow took the time for the contest.
Its because people had their hopes so high. Every map maker were given 50 days of time to submit three of the best maps they had ever made. Plexa said 150 maps were submited out of which 120 were extreamly high quality. Surely the everyone tought that the each of the top 10 maps should be able to produce some sort of eyeorgasm. Afterwards Plexa announced that there would be 7 maps in the final. What could this be? Why do this? Could the 7 maps be so good that they had to cut 30% of the epic 10, because they could be not worthy to stand next to the other 7?
...
Final 7 were revealed. It features map(s) that look extreamly unbalanced and ugly. All exitment that people built up during a reasonably long time flushed down the toilet. People lose self control and stop to care what they post.
Same happened with NASL. People got so emotionally built up that they forgot all the effort that the organisizers put into the event with good intentions.
You can please a crowd, but not the whole community.
I say go with these final 7 and pick the best one. There will never, EVER, be a map that everyone loves and admires. I am sure that there will be pros and cons for each map; but that's why we have a ladder pool.
I recently received feedback from Plexa and his team for my three maps, all eliminated, but for good reasons. I have to say they were very professional with their analysis and I'm sure the quality of these finalists are top notch.
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
I honestly don't know why people are trying to make an event like this into something so negative. Some of the attitudes towards timetwister are completely uncalled for. I just think it is kind of cool that there are so many interesting maps out there that people came up with. I also think its is extremely cool that a pro like Morrow took the time for the contest.
Its because people had their hopes so high. Every map maker were given 50 days of time to submit three of the best maps they had ever made. Plexa said 150 maps were submited out of which 120 were extreamly high quality. Surely the everyone tought that the each of the top 10 maps should be able to produce some sort of eyeorgasm. Afterwards Plexa announced that there would be 7 maps in the final. What could this be? Why do this? Could the 7 maps be so good that they had to cut 30% of the epic 10, because they could be not worthy to stand next to the other 7?
...
Final 7 were revealed. It features map(s) that look extreamly unbalanced and ugly. All exitment that people built up during a reasonably long time flushed down the toilet. People lose self control and stop to care what they post.
Same happened with NASL. People got so emotionally built up that they forgot all the effort that the organisizers put into the event with good intentions.
No. This is not a beauty pageant. People who understood the point of the contest knew that layouts would be judged before aesthetics. It's even possible that ladder-compatibility was preferred to aesthetics.
You are entitled to believe that a contest that would require very polished aesthetics for any map to qualify would be better than the TL contest. Tastes and opinions vary. But please don't pretend that the TL contest and its judges are an outrage because they do not share your values. You sound like you brought a sword to a gunfight and then complained that the other guy had a gun.
Serpentis had a huge problem in the highground. The concept was clear, but controlling the highground essentially means you have the game won. The ramps are all small and easy to get to and as such it became the defining feature of the map. Unfortunately, it isn't really balanced so we excluded the map
Venti was interesting, the natural is a bit exposed which made hellions a bit strong and the golds were positioned in a way that PFs planted there would be hard to dislodge. There weren't many obvious attack paths as zerg as there are a lot of thin corridors - which made FFs even stronger. We didn't feel that the map was balanced.
Shurikn was your strongest map. Here is NMJs feedback: remove towers remove rocks (map too linear with them, + removes some expo ambiguity potentially) expo layout ok (highground a little too vulnerable though, far + very open) mains good nats good center a little small/linear, shuriken design obstructs pathing annoyingly: removing shuriken and shrinking ugly red water things would help all expos being on sides makes middle a little useless; suggestions to improve are subjective: make center double highground but with a high (relative depression) in center most with single central tower in depression in conjunction with previous suggestions + shrinking side paths a bit (IF author wants more central focus); ELSE change middle in different way which breaks it up into multiple small paths (no suggestion on exact details of modifications)
Thanks for the feedback but it sounds a bit worrying. It seems the judges had some predefined notions about that they were looking for in maps, concerning how specific the 'recommendations' were. Infact all the recommendations for my last map would essentially turn it into Burning Altar, lol.
I'm also curious regarding the comments on venti, "There weren't many obvious attack paths as zerg as there are a lot of thin corridors - which made FFs even stronger.", considering most of the feedback I get for the map is that people think the map is quite large and there might be one too many paths to take. Anyways thanks again.
On November 10 2011 22:03 a176 wrote: I'm also curious regarding the comments on venti, "There weren't many obvious attack paths as zerg as there are a lot of thin corridors - which made FFs even stronger.", considering most of the feedback I get for the map is that people think the map is quite large and there might be one too many paths to take. Anyways thanks again.
Makes you wonder cos in your map thread people said the same thing, but they based it purely on the overview picture, ie without playing it. Yet no one said that again once you posted gameplay screenshots of how big the map is and that the corridors arent small. Almost seems like it would have had a better shot if they played on it :<
On November 10 2011 00:44 Mereel wrote: i dont know...im pretty speechless now.
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing. i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
Regarding Johanaz's replays, especially the tvz - I think that game just proves that the map is essentially going to boil down to 2 base all-ins, because if the terran player can't win at that point, he's simply not going to. When I played it, the only area of that map that was used was the lane between the bases.
The river in the middle needs to go as well. One of the reasons why Bel'Shir Beach was overhauled was because water like that causes graphical issues for players on lower settings. It's also straining to look at as an observer and muddles the battlefield. It really needs to go. And the sunbeams need to be toned down as well... whatever. Fixing the visuals won't fix the layout.
On November 10 2011 22:03 a176 wrote: Thanks for the feedback but it sounds a bit worrying. It seems the judges had some predefined notions about that they were looking for in maps, concerning how specific the 'recommendations' were. Infact all the recommendations for my last map would essentially turn it into Burning Altar, lol.
I'm also curious regarding the comments on venti, "There weren't many obvious attack paths as zerg as there are a lot of thin corridors - which made FFs even stronger.", considering most of the feedback I get for the map is that people think the map is quite large and there might be one too many paths to take. Anyways thanks again.
I don't know if the judges expected specific stuff (the qualification of Lagoon tends to suggest they didn't... Also the three 2v2 maps are completely different), but the feedback they gave is more about features that your maps had but they did not like, rather that features the maps did not have and they wanted to see. That's how I read it anyways.
Regarding the transformation into Burning Altar, I quite disagree, one major and unique feature of Burning Altar is the destructible debris, while the feedback precisely told you to remove your rocks.
On November 10 2011 00:44 Mereel wrote: i dont know...im pretty speechless now.
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing. i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
propably more later FUCK OFF
User was temp banned for this post.
Fuck off you elitist cunt.
Dude, he was banned already (it's not like it's not written in bold red letters and you missed it). There's no need to relent on his post.
On November 10 2011 18:36 Plexa wrote: Updated picture of Haven. Rumour has it that monitor is going to revert daggoth back to korhal.
I assume timetwister didnt do the aestethics update himself, because my eyes arent puking anymore. This really makes this event feel alot less like a constest to me. People had plenty of time to make their maps, and after that people got even more time. Now that the contest has reached final stage third party representives come and change an entry because the original was considered too bad. This feels more like a community project to find a good map, than a contest between good map makers.
I honestly don't know why people are trying to make an event like this into something so negative. Some of the attitudes towards timetwister are completely uncalled for. I just think it is kind of cool that there are so many interesting maps out there that people came up with. I also think its is extremely cool that a pro like Morrow took the time for the contest.
Its because people had their hopes so high. Every map maker were given 50 days of time to submit three of the best maps they had ever made. Plexa said 150 maps were submited out of which 120 were extreamly high quality. Surely the everyone tought that the each of the top 10 maps should be able to produce some sort of eyeorgasm. Afterwards Plexa announced that there would be 7 maps in the final. What could this be? Why do this? Could the 7 maps be so good that they had to cut 30% of the epic 10, because they could be not worthy to stand next to the other 7?
...
Final 7 were revealed. It features map(s) that look extreamly unbalanced and ugly. All exitment that people built up during a reasonably long time flushed down the toilet. People lose self control and stop to care what they post.
Same happened with NASL. People got so emotionally built up that they forgot all the effort that the organisizers put into the event with good intentions.
No. This is not a beauty pageant. People who understood the point of the contest knew that layouts would be judged before aesthetics. It's even possible that ladder-compatibility was preferred to aesthetics.
You are entitled to believe that a contest that would require very polished aesthetics for any map to qualify would be better than the TL contest. Tastes and opinions vary. But please don't pretend that the TL contest and its judges are an outrage because they do not share your values. You sound like you brought a sword to a gunfight and then complained that the other guy had a gun.
A mapper only finds a map with great layout and aesthetics beautiful. It was pretty clearly implied in my post.
On November 11 2011 00:01 uNAware wrote: rofl these look better then blizzards maps... nice maps btw
Yeah I think that's the main conclusion to be drawn from this contest: these maps are by far better that blizzard's. Looking better for sure, but also seemingly richer, more complex and interesting to play (and most likely reasonably balanced).
Heaven's Lagoon looks pretty much exactly the same as the Booty Bay map in Warcraft 3 (I think there's been some kind of variation of it in all of Blizzard's strategy games) only turned 90 degrees : )
On November 10 2011 00:32 Plexa wrote: I'm going to pre-empt some mappers criticising the choice of Haven. The focus of this contest was to find maps which played the best, not look the best. I can appreciate that it may not be as pretty as some of the other entries, and I can appreciate that it doesn't look like something most of you would create. But during test games this map was constantly mentioned as one of the players favorite maps - that's the kind of feedback the judges can't ignore and the reason that this map has done so well.
Not sure what you mean here. Those Island maps are the most pleasing to look at by far.
General question since i didnt PM admins on TL.net as of yet : Do Admins make sure their PM count stays nearly 0 ? Cause i just PM´ed Plexa about the contest . And i dont know how long usualy a answere takes.
On November 11 2011 03:00 Serashin wrote: General question since i didnt PM admins on TL.net as of yet : Do Admins make sure their PM count stays nearly 0 ? Cause i just PM´ed Plexa about the contest . And i dont know how long usualy a answere takes.
He'll reply almost within 10 minutes if he's around, otherwise he's at work or something.
Sanctuary and Burning Altar are definitely my two favorites based on the looks and explanations. Least favorite is Cloud Kingdom. Can't wait to try them out
Is there a chat Chanel where we can find folks to play customs on these maps? If not, how about someone from TL designates one and includes it in the op. Would love to play some games on these.
On November 11 2011 05:52 General_Winter wrote: Is there a chat Chanel where we can find folks to play customs on these maps? If not, how about someone from TL designates one and includes it in the op. Would love to play some games on these.
On November 10 2011 00:44 Mereel wrote: i dont know...im pretty speechless now.
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing. i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
propably more later FUCK OFF
User was temp banned for this post.
I always knew he was dangerous!!! Seriously though, like 5 finalists for so many maps? How did you manage to narrow it down so quickly? How do you know your results are accurate? Posts like these are actually giving feedback on your choices. While in an aggressive tone, it's difficult to say it's nonsensical. At least its author is giving his honest opinion on this. On a lighter note, I wish I was in the finalists :/
Haven't been paying much attention to the contest, but these maps look interesting.
Cloud Kingdom reminds me quite a bit of Blue Storm, might see some good new strategies on it. Looks good and I want to play it! I'm liking Sanctuary if for no other reason than it's size. We need more well designed, balanced, large macro style maps
And props to the judges, that is an awful lot of their free time they donated to this contest. 10 million Esports dollars for them!
There were polls on each of them asking whether they were worthy of submission, and not a single person voted yes on any of them
I like Golgotha the best out of those. But I feel like the open space around the top Xel'naga tower is a bit akward and uninspired, likely to lead to a lot of deathball versus deathball battles IMO. Since it's high ground with only two small ramps on each side it would also allow terran to siege up and completely deny 3rd and 4th. Could possibly cause problems for TvZ. I do like that there are so many different attack paths though, that makes it pretty dynamic.
The other two though, I think maybe you should take a more careful look at the feedback in the threads. I feel like most of it is pretty valid :/
On November 11 2011 07:10 IronManSC wrote: Did anybody else notice there's a flying shark in Cloud Kingdom?
That's spaceshark.
Btw, I got Zelniq's feedback on Starlight and Bardiche but not Plexa and NMJ's. Well, I sorta got NMJ's already but I want to see if his opinion changed as well. Could you reply?
It seems the judges had some predefined notions about that they were looking for in maps
Well, this is certainly the case, and I don't see a way to avoid it without creating a system specifically to provide judging for maps that includes multiple segments of the community. In this contest, expedience with "good enough" was the key. The map community would argue that they are the ones most qualified to judge, but if any of them judge they can't submit maps. Others might argue that pro players are best to judge maps, which is a contentious viewpoint at best. And everything in between. So the problem of how to judge maps without actually seeing pro players adjust to the map features over the course of many many games will always remain for contests like these.
This is why I continually try to sound the perspective of "simple is best for the first time". There's no way hold a contest that will legitimately select the true best maps, period. If the preconceived judging parameters include are looking for novelty, or looking for balance, or looking for macro, or looking for tactical terrain, or whatever... then that's what you'll get. In this contest, the focus was on forging a model for how to get community maps onto ladder, which means you have to make rather conservative judgements all the way around to preserve the certainty. There's no way to bring together disparate parties while forging ahead into unknown territory, unless by fiat (like in GSL when new maps are added--autocratic sanction of THE competitive institution).
Specifically to address judging balance, this is flatly impossible. As with the comment's on a176's map Venti, the judgement is based on current game knowledge based on current maps, exported to a new environment. But you can't prove imbalance unless you play it a lot. But there's no reason to go out of your way in a borderline or unknown case and gamble on some unknowns, given the other goals, constraints, expediences and contingencies of this particular competition.
I'll repeat myself again by thanking Plexa and his cadre for the work they are putting in to this. Judging maps is really really difficult, especially when there are so many competing for subjective excellence. Running a contest with the weight of responsibility of influencing ladder is hard. There is no reason to condemn them, because that's a shortsighted contradiction in the very raison d'etre of the mapping community. That said, I wholeheartedly want to see more discussion about how to judge maps effectively, what the process should look like, who should do it, what the goals should be in future and different competitions, and what kind of map properties should be emphasized.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that it's patently silly that any of the experienced mappers here are attributing so much rote legitimacy to the judgements and selections of the competition authorities. We know our craft; be confident in your knowledge while remaining open to differing points of view.
I'm really surprised Artemis didn't get in.. I thought that map was fantastic. It had such a sick layout and made so many strategies viable. Was pretty fucking beautiful too. Congrats to all the finalists! All of those maps are so sexy. Definitely going to try most of them out tonight.
There were polls on each of them asking whether they were worthy of submission, and not a single person voted yes on any of them
I like Golgotha the best out of those. But I feel like the open space around the top Xel'naga tower is a bit akward and uninspired, likely to lead to a lot of deathball versus deathball battles IMO. Since it's high ground with only two small ramps on each side it would also allow terran to siege up and completely deny 3rd and 4th. Could possibly cause problems for TvZ. I do like that there are so many different attack paths though, that makes it pretty dynamic.
The other two though, I think maybe you should take a more careful look at the feedback in the threads. I feel like most of it is pretty valid :/
That feedback is actually old feedback :p I've had like 2 people post on my map threads recently, so..
On November 10 2011 00:44 Mereel wrote: i dont know...im pretty speechless now.
''the very best that the community could offer.'' that is like the worst statement ever and doesnt show what the mapmaking community is capable off doing. i really thought u would use some pro players to test the maps. tl has his own team, is it really that hard to ask them for something important like that.
burning altar, ohana, cloud kingdom and twilight peaks are totally ok. i still would have choose others though what i dont get is first of daggoth crater had a beautiful korhal texture before, why would u ever want to change that in something shitty like that, and present it like that. thats horrible for the community, same goes for sanctuary. there are so much jokes about the belshir tileset in the community for a good reason. it looks boring as fuck! especially on sanctuary...no effort put into it at all. i dont want to look at it, i dont want to play on it, i dont want to see it on a stream because im gonna fall at sleep when i do.
ok last map havens lagoon, actually i dont know what to say really. first of, there is a reason that there are mapmaking teams. to get help from other talented mapmakers to make our maps better, learn from each other, get better testing. so i cant understand why a random person that i never heard about ever get into the top7. and im in the mapmaking com since the beta so i know what im talking about. the layout is propably done in half an hour and and never put much thought into it. the aesthetics are the worst i ever seen, border design non existent and all the small things at the layout that makes it look bad and 'feel' bad. i can say with all my experience this map should never be here, you have to make maps for a long while to get really good at it, and this guy is not. no excuses here.
give it to some experiened mapmaker to reshape and retexture and redoodad it before u showcase it in a tournament. i dont want to be a part of that community if that map is one of our best to offer. that just a huge fucking joke or a bad dream. i dont understand it.
propably more later FUCK OFF
User was temp banned for this post.
I always knew he was dangerous!!! Seriously though, like 5 finalists for so many maps? How did you manage to narrow it down so quickly? How do you know your results are accurate? Posts like these are actually giving feedback on your choices. While in an aggressive tone, it's difficult to say it's nonsensical. At least its author is giving his honest opinion on this. On a lighter note, I wish I was in the finalists :/
We knew what we were looking for. There were really only a handful of maps outside of the ones we picked which required much thinking to rule out. A few of these maps possibly rivaled the finalists, but just weren't as good conceptually and/or executionally as the ones we did choose.
Haven's Lagoon seems like the most interesting map given all the hype surrounding it. I didn't check if anyone asked but is there a plan to remodel the textures because it's not very aesthetically pleasing, even though it might be great in gameplay.
FYI I'll be on in channel TLMC on NA server to play games with anyone who shows up. I encourage everyone to congregate there if you want to find someone to game with!
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
You can PM the judges for feedback.
I don't think judges want to air all bad feedback, particularly those which are really bad. Some mapmakers might not like it.
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
You can PM the judges for feedback.
I don't think judges want to air all bad feedback, particularly those which are really bad. Some mapmakers might not like it.
I thought about doing that, though I'm not sure why I should pursue it, since I'm not connected to any of the sides in this contest. I merely made an observation with a side dish of suggestion.
Just like to say, Havens Lagoon has undergone some changes. It not only looks prettier, but a few physical map changes as well to deal with some problems I've found through feedback. You can see the newest changes and follow ones to come here.
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
I think there is a misunderstanding. On the one hand it is not that 5-10 maps out of 150 didn't do something wrong. The seemed to fit best, provided what the judges searched. There should have been at least 20-30 maps that had a very good chance to be among the finalists I assume. On the other hand: everybody can show some initiative and just ask, if there seems to be few transparency... As far as I am concerned I think there was enough transparency and people ask a bit too much to hear why map x was chosen over map y, etc. But I think everybody got some feedback, when asked by PM.
Sure mapmakers want to provide sth to the community, but it is important people get recognition for what they have already achived with custom mammaking and more important: feedback. So the whole argument "community is not meant to cater the mapmaker" is going in the wrong direction really.
Therefor I want to motivate everybody who send something in and didn't get enough feedback to open a thread in this forums. Most people really like to help and tell you what one could do better. So if you need more feedback than the judges gave, just ask the mapping community - that is also part of the sc2 community btw
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
I think there is a misunderstanding. On the one hand it is not that 5-10 maps out of 150 didn't do something wrong. The seemed to fit best, provided what the judges searched. There should have been at least 20-30 maps that had a very good chance to be among the finalists I assume. On the other hand: everybody can show some initiative and just ask, if there seems to be few transparency... As far as I am concerned I think there was enough transparency and people ask a bit too much to hear why map x was chosen over map y, etc. But I think everybody got some feedback, when asked by PM.
Sure mapmakers want to provide sth to the community, but it is important people get recognition for what they have already achived with custom mammaking and more important: feedback. So the whole argument "community is not meant to cater the mapmaker" is going in the wrong direction really.
Therefor I want to motivate everybody who send something in and didn't get enough feedback to open a thread in this forums. Most people really like to help and tell you what one could do better. So if you need more feedback than the judges gave, just ask the mapping community - that is also part of the sc2 community btw
Oh I completely agree about feedback, definitely the community should be willing to provide as much feedback as possible on the maps. But my point was the community is not in debt to the mapmakers in terms of their decision, they aren't obligated to pick a particular map just because it looks prettier, they choose the criteria they want and judge the way they want what maps are the best. And the main priority should almost always be the community over the mapmaker, because without the community there would be no mapmakers. So thats why when people say they 'deserved to win' I feel they have their priorities the wrong way around, because its the community's opinion thats most important as they are the ones the maps are being made for, if there is a problem in the verdict it is a problem with the map not a problem with the judges/community.
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
next time make the "art" not get in the way of "gameplay"!
map design is like architecture. its serves a purpose and the design process should go hand in hand with the game. the map overview is what is seen first in the in-game menu, so you certainly cannot complain about the judges looking at it, too (in muc better resolution!). what do you expect with 150 maps?
next time make the layout the actual art and the visuals toned down enough so they do not get in the way. Out of interest: could you send me a pm with a link to your image?
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
Yeah it's the reason resumes are recommended to be only 1-2 pages, employers just don't have time to look at 500 resumes that are longer then that, it's unfortunate but its a constraint people have to recognize and cater for, same principle applies here for providing a simple clear image of the map.
On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
To be honest, I thought the map pics were going to be used for organizational purposes and for "what was that map again, oh yeah" purposes. Not for direct judging purposes. This is a flaw of the system that should be spelled out in the future if used again, which, to be frank, shouldn't.
Not only are overview pictures often deceptive for the actual layout, but they can also mask how the aesthetic of a map really looks in game. Even though the aesthetic was not something you were making a primary concern (another thing that should have been more clear to avoid confusion and bannings), the in-game and (including mini-map to a degree) view should be the one that is judged if the aesthetic is to be evaluated.
Also, I find that a very odd choice of an analogy given the fact that you stated earlier that the aesthetic was not of primary (if any?) concern. In other words, this *was not* a fashion show, but rather an engineering expo. At such an event they would look at the blueprints and not just stand around outside the structure mumbling about how it looked like it might have been built. The "jacket" would have been removed for further inspection even if only briefly.
Understandably, you wanted to be efficient, but I still don't see how viewing the map files themselves would have taken all that much time. If you gave 5 minutes to each map (opening the file & cursory review), that's only 12.5 hours of work. Divided that by 3-6 people and you have something that can be managed in the course of a day even before doing any playtesting.
Please keep in mind that these critiques are in no way meant to discredit the judges or their selections, but are very serious suggestions for consideration for the next contest in order to promote a better sense of fairness all around. I am grateful to the judges and people involved for all the work that they did, but the system can be improved upon.
On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
...
Not only are overview pictures often deceptive for the actual layout, but they can also mask how the aesthetic of a map really looks in game. Even though the aesthetic was not something you were making a primary concern (another thing that should have been more clear to avoid confusion and bannings), the in-game and (including mini-map to a degree) view should be the one that is judged if the aesthetic is to be evaluated.
...
From the contest anouncement message : "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)."
I think that's quite clear... In addition, Plexa said multiple times in the threasd that Blizzard may select a map but request that the textures be "standardized" before inclusion in the ladder, so it was quite clear that gameplay would be the critical factor.
On November 13 2011 00:57 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On November 12 2011 23:14 Plexa wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote: The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
...
Not only are overview pictures often deceptive for the actual layout, but they can also mask how the aesthetic of a map really looks in game. Even though the aesthetic was not something you were making a primary concern (another thing that should have been more clear to avoid confusion and bannings), the in-game and (including mini-map to a degree) view should be the one that is judged if the aesthetic is to be evaluated.
...
From the contest anouncement message : "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)."
I think that's quite clear... In addition, Plexa said multiple times in the threasd that Blizzard may select a map but request that the textures be "standardized" before inclusion in the ladder, so it was quite clear that gameplay would be the critical factor.
Yes, I agree, it was said that the gameplay part of the map would be considered first, hence why I am leaving the suggestion that in the future the announcement be more clear and/or the judging process be more rigorous. (My point about the aesthetics themselves should be pretty apparent it is a side note.) This does not say that they want the gameplay to be self-evident from the overview picture, this says that it will be primarily considered. If you want to do that and the overview is ambiguous you should look at the map file if you have it which they did. "Pretty clear" is not "crystal clear". Whatever Blizzard's standards of texturing are, the announcement simply said to only use one tileset which I did in each of my maps, it says nothing about how they should be used or to what degree they should simply outline cliffs. In other words, they did not come out and say that fancied up artwork/doodads/etc. would/might get in the way of their judging process. I'm not trying to justify my maps or the maps of those temp banned per se, but I would like to see *the next* contest be run a little better -- this is all hindsight, not a "complaint". Analogously, not every MLG has had the best production, but they have been getting better with our feedback. Again, this is simply feedback -- I'm not asking for a recount.
On November 13 2011 06:41 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Yes, I agree, it was said that the gameplay part of the map would be considered first, hence why I am leaving the suggestion that in the future the announcement be more clear and/or the judging process be more rigorous.
How the map plays out is the most important part of the map.
Seems crystal clear to me. Do you know any other definition of "most important" that would make this statement unclear?
A) "Most Important" != "Only" "Most Important" can mean that other considerations are "important" too, but not as much. It also does not specify the degree to which it is "most".
B) What are you even arguing?
C) I'm done arguing this point. You cannot convince me that things could not be improved upon for next time.
Edit: D) Just so it *is* crystal clear I am grateful to everyone involved in the judging process for the job that they did, especially Plexa for the organization. It was a *good* first time. (There, see? No need to be so defensive in their stead. They are big boys and quite capable of shouting me down themselves if my words have no merit.)
Haven's Lagoon looks like an amazing map. The # of attack paths are cool. The strategy changes depending on how many bases are taken. I like the close by air. It looks like the most interesting map in the whole pool. I hope it wins.
let's just say that it becomes the most important part of the map once it fullfills the minimum requirements for visuals, performance and whatever else.
Well some of them are nice but more then a few seem to have the wide open natural hard to defend 3rd syndrom which as a toss in a period when toss wlr is the smallest there is i find quite bad , would like to see more of the breed and butter TDA have 2 bases ,have 3 easy expos, enjoy kind of maps and i am honestly surprised no map maker is making those kind of maps but then again... who am I to judge.
The image for Sanctuary needs to be updated, it looks much better now with its new texturing.
So far I'm liking Ohana and Korhal Compound. Maybe Cloud Kingdom as well. Regardless, the map pool needs more 2 player maps, they tend to be more creative with the base layout.
On November 14 2011 06:52 -NegativeZero- wrote: The image for Sanctuary needs to be updated, it looks much better now with its new texturing.
So far I'm liking Ohana and Korhal Compound. Maybe Cloud Kingdom as well. Regardless, the map pool needs more 2 player maps, they tend to be more creative with the base layout.
Glad to hear
I really like all of the winning maps, but I'm actually feeling like Burning Altar and Twilight Peaks are a bit too similar in layout to both be in.
On November 14 2011 06:56 monitor wrote: I really like all of the winning maps, but I'm actually feeling like Burning Altar and Twilight Peaks are a bit too similar in layout to both be in.
Besides being both 12 base roatational symmetry and having roughly the same expansion placement (twilight peaks the thirds a good bit more inward) how are they the same at all?
I mean, one has a ramp at the nat, one doesn't. One has a high ground third, one has a low-ground third. The centers are completely different and the interplay between bases are totally different. Also, Burning Altar's high to low ground transitions are more flowy while Twilight Peaks highlights the contrast between cliff heights more. And Twilight Peaks is generally slightly tighter with more chokes.
They seem very, very different to me, although I guess I might be undervaluing the fact that they have similar base placement. I guess it's just that the bases interact very differently on each map, so they don't really compare in my mind.
On November 14 2011 06:56 monitor wrote: I really like all of the winning maps, but I'm actually feeling like Burning Altar and Twilight Peaks are a bit too similar in layout to both be in.
Besides being both 12 base roatational symmetry and having roughly the same expansion placement (twilight peaks the thirds a good bit more inward) how are they the same at all?
I mean, one has a ramp at the nat, one doesn't. One has a high ground third, one has a low-ground third. The centers are completely different and the interplay between bases are totally different. Also, Burning Altar's high to low ground transitions are more flowy while Twilight Peaks highlights the contrast between cliff heights more. And Twilight Peaks is generally slightly tighter with more chokes.
They seem very, very different to me, although I guess I might be undervaluing the fact that they have similar base placement. I guess it's just that the bases interact very differently on each map, so they don't really compare in my mind.
the only real difference is army positioning gameplay, which, while certainly huge, is still only one thing out of many.
i guess the third being on low ground vs the third being on high ground is pretty significant too, but thats kinda part of army positioning gameplay ^^
I'd say the general concept of a 12 base rotational map (equal distance from third to fourth) where you have a harder third and fourth but a "free" fifth is present in both maps. Both maps have the same expansion progression, and a lot of pathways through the center. The actual 'conceptual' gameplay where you plan strategies and describe the map is practically identical. The only real notable difference is the center, although the center will almost always play a similar role in a 12 base rotational map.
There are minor differences obviously, like openness and tower placement. However, these alone don't change the concept of a map; they are merely balance changes from a mapmakers perspective. You can always adjust chokes and such, but the concept of the map will stay the same in most cases.
My personal opinion of these maps is that Twilight Peaks has a too hard third, the rush distances between naturals and thirds are too short, and the tower is more useful for aggression than defense since it is open to surrounds on both sides. Burning Altar's third is a little bit easier because of the long aggression paths (because of the rocks) and the rush distances are slightly longer, but it is still an extremely standard map and Blizzard already has all 4 player maps on ladder (except XelNaga Caverns which is very bad in todays metagame).
i cannot argue argue against that both layouts are very similar, but you knwo very well, that there is not much different in layout to be seen on a balanced 12base 4spawn map. On a two player map more divers layouts are easier to find. common sense...
but I cannot follow your argumentation on the towerplacement at all (TP - surrounds on both sides?) -> BA towers can be avoided on both sides, because the layout works differently. While on TP you finde as bases on small highgrounds, the terrain and bases on BA flow into each other, conecting a network of paths. Also general openness differs quite a bit.
most things were already mentioned, but i think you reallay has to emphasize it again:
On November 14 2011 06:56 monitor wrote: I really like all of the winning maps, but I'm actually feeling like Burning Altar and Twilight Peaks are a bit too similar in layout to both be in.
Besides being both 12 base roatational symmetry and having roughly the same expansion placement (twilight peaks the thirds a good bit more inward) how are they the same at all?
I mean, one has a ramp at the nat, one doesn't. One has a high ground third, one has a low-ground third. The centers are completely different and the interplay between bases are totally different. Also, Burning Altar's high to low ground transitions are more flowy while Twilight Peaks highlights the contrast between cliff heights more. And Twilight Peaks is generally slightly tighter with more chokes.
They seem very, very different to me, although I guess I might be undervaluing the fact that they have similar base placement. I guess it's just that the bases interact very differently on each map, so they don't really compare in my mind.
the only real difference is army positioning gameplay, which, while certainly huge, is still only one thing out of many.
i guess the third being on low ground vs the third being on high ground is pretty significant too, but thats kinda part of army positioning gameplay ^^
army positiong gameplay basically defines how bases can be attacked or have to be defended. that is so much more than a little bit different layout of expansions imo.
My observations regarding the two maps are that Twilight it is much harder to take your third base. There are so many attack paths and the tower doesn't help too much in holding it. In some positions the high ground between bases becomes a real defining feature of the match - controlling that is essential to the result of the game. In this regard it is a relatively more aggressive map than BA. I expect lots of attempts to out manoeuvre the player trying to control the highground - it's more technical than I initially anticipated (but so that the upper end skill gradient is steeper and the map still accessible by lower skilled players).
BA has a much safer third to take, imo. The rocks really help in holding it, despite being much further away than on Twilight (comparative, imo). The map has evenly distributed high ground so the map becomes a lot about moving through the center to avoid the poor attacking position.
tldr; twilight feels like an attacking map while BA feels like a defensive map.
Interesting discussion you have here^^ I just want to say that there rly isnt a whole lot you can do with 12base 4p rotational other than changing the middle (at least if you want to be somewhat standard which was required for this contest). I also think 16base 4p rotational is better overall, it allows for more variety and you don't have the problems that 12 base has.
Like with 12 base if you place the thirds between bases like on BA and TP, you kinda put them in the middle and then adjust the overall mapsize so that distance to third <-> rushdistance in close position works out. And even if you balance it perfectly (like imo BA and TP do) both are not optimal. I personally tried to balance it so that because of the short rush distance you have a highground nat and because of the thirds being so far away they are highground, choked and have a watchtower.
If you create are more close third like Nerazim Crypt or Antiga Shipyard tho, getting a fourth is rly awkward and hard.
Imo it just doesn't rly work that well and long term there should be way more 16 base maps than 12 base, so I was rly surprised in this event no 16 base could get a spot but two 12 base maps.
The towers on TP rly see a lot , you normally have 1 tower that's on your third and then you hold another tower. But it's rly easy to deny that tower where your third isn't with mobile armies and if you lose control of your "main tower" cos your army was out of position for some seconds you have to fight against an uphill tower all of the sudden so it's like rly important to control your one tower all the time.
Btw I rly wonder if "special TL Open" means there is something special about it other than the map pool. Cos Progamer invite tournament sounds fucking sweet... when I read TL Open tho I'm more like "meh". Feels like whenever TL Open is on and I look at the brackets there is a bunch of nonames and then some B-Koreans own them and win... I don't rly know if most of the EU pros just don't play it or if they all get kicked out in bo1 before but I'm not overly excited about the players most of the time.
Keep in mind that map has never been used in any competitive play and it hasn't been updated in 4 months. I don't think it'll be a big issue. I'll make sure to search to see if the map name is taken in the future though.
Keep in mind that map has never been used in any competitive play and it hasn't been updated in 4 months. I don't think it'll be a big issue. I'll make sure to search to see if the map name is taken in the future though.
That is my map. I don't plan on maintaining it and just made it for fun. I'm not sure how the process works about removing a map and freeing up a name, but if that is a possibility I'm more than happy to do so to give up the name.
Aah no reason. You came up with the name first, you keep it. It won't be a big issue, if anything it should make your map a bit more popular <3
I played Field of Strife, the one wit hthe yin yang looking design in the middle, and I couldnt change the ai difficulty. We lost and now I don't know if I enjoyed the map. The expansions looked interesting and I appreciate the editors fun they might have had making it. When will we see these in blizzards map pool?
On November 18 2011 19:57 DarcZaFire wrote: I played Field of Strife, the one wit hthe yin yang looking design in the middle, and I couldnt change the ai difficulty. We lost and now I don't know if I enjoyed the map. The expansions looked interesting and I appreciate the editors fun they might have had making it. When will we see these in blizzards map pool?
You may see some/one next season, depending on what blizzard want to do!! I would message Apom on TL about that issue, I'm sure he can fix it.
On November 18 2011 19:57 DarcZaFire wrote: I played Field of Strife, the one wit hthe yin yang looking design in the middle, and I couldnt change the ai difficulty. We lost and now I don't know if I enjoyed the map. The expansions looked interesting and I appreciate the editors fun they might have had making it. When will we see these in blizzards map pool?
Hey, I'm the author of Fields of Strife. Here's one thing you can do, I just tested it out : use the "create game" option from the B.net multiplayer menu ; once you are in the lobby, you can change the game mode for "co-op vs AI" (under the "category" option - default is Melee). Then you can set up the difficulty level for the AI team. Hope it helps
Fields of Strife looks AMAZING. Can't imagine why it isn't in the final seven, especially as it is supposed to be bigger/better Xel'Naga Caverns in the gameplay - so really improved already great map.
I dont like some of these maps size/small chokes I think some of them would favor one race over another in many game styles. Especially sanctuary. A couple of the other maps have ladder potential. Would be awesome to have more contests like this to get fresh maps into the pool. Hopefully Blizz jumps on board.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pBAsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pCKsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pHLsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pKCsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pOHsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pSCsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pTPsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pCGsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pSFsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pHHsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IpcAw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/map_contest_reutls/pHLsmall.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YHjNM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0DE4z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FjBbZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N3m4W.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2726/firestormlarge.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://tl.net/tlpd/images/maps/241_Outsider%20SE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GhZFp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sbaYl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hWUG6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HZh6l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OvpsZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I37i2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JtwSk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/juKjj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/42uVP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kWJax.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DCMBA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V3hIMl.jpg)
