We are back once again for another instance of the Map of the Month competition. Last month has been fairly interested since we got to see some more unique maps making it into the top selection. Could this possibly be a new trend in mapmaking?
The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations. We are also looking forward to launch our next tournament in the near future. Preperations are underway. All I can tell you right now is that it is going to be slightly different from the tournaments in the past.
Anyway, we welcome any mapmakers to once again submit their best maps. We look forward to seeing what you have got! May the best map win.
Please send your map files to submit.motm[at]gmail.com (include map name in subject) and post your overviews with any additional information in this thread. Follow this format while posting in this thread to ensure your entry is accepted:
Map Name Map Author Map Overview Playable Map Bounds
Also, you may only submit 1 map for each month! The closing time for submissions will be May, 20th.
The judging process is split into 2 stages. At first, judges look through all submissions to pick their 10 favorite maps. This provides us a good overview of what the overall favorite maps are, which are then looked at, discussed and playtested in depth. The judges have time exchange their opinions until the end of the month, when the final vote will be held. In the final vote, each judge rates each map from the top selection on a scale from 1 to 10. The average rating will be the final score.
We are also looking into the possibility of adding pro players, casters and tournament organizers to the judge lineup in the future. If you think you can help getting some new qualified judges on board, or even fall into that category yourself and would like to judge, please let me know!
Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
Oh shi-! Barrin, Superouman, ProdiG and Lefix competing?
Competitors, I can't speak for the other judges, but I'm happy to give you some feedback as you work on finalizing your submissions this month. Just shoot me a PM with any specific questions you have and a link to a thread or map overview.
On May 09 2012 00:52 moskonia wrote: I wonder, can 2v2 maps get in? and if do will it have a chance of winning vs normal 1v1 maps?
Unfortunately I don't think the judges could confidently call themselves good enough to judge 2v2 melee maps (at least not myself), personally I don't know how the matchups pan out whatsoever in 2v2 and I wouldn't be able to make a good judgement outside of 'this looks interesting.'
Im not a judge, but it has been said before so I say it again: 2v2 maps are judged like all other maps, as 1v1 maps (so don't forget to disable close spawns )
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
Oh shi-! Barrin, Superouman, ProdiG and Lefix competing?
ESV will not be entering MotM at this point. Other mappers need the help more then us, and it will allow our mappers more time to do things like help judge MotM !
ESV will not be entering MotM at this point. Other mappers need the help more then us, and it will allow our mappers more time to do things like help judge MotM !
This is a very stupid. Just because they are on ESV doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to enter into the MoTM tournament. I really hope you guys get rid of this plan and keep entering your maps.
As for may, 2 judges from TPW, 2 judges from ESV? Omg so biased. Grats on top 5 ESV & TPW........loooool. I kid. I'll be submitting in a week or so after some more tweaks to PP.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
Oh shi-! Barrin, Superouman, ProdiG and Lefix competing?
ESV will not be entering MotM at this point. Other mappers need the help more then us, and it will allow our mappers more time to do things like help judge MotM !
Hm, that doesn't sound like the best idea to me tbh. They make the maps anyway why not submit.
I mean this is the same thing like the idea no maps from teams, or for players to have tournaments without Koreans. It takes away from the credibility of the winning maps if they didn't have to compete against the best maps out there, and a lot of those best maps come from ESV...
I really hope ESV reconsiders this, I don't like the quality of the maps submitted to drop so much
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
Oh shi-! Barrin, Superouman, ProdiG and Lefix competing?
ESV will not be entering MotM at this point. Other mappers need the help more then us, and it will allow our mappers more time to do things like help judge MotM !
Hm, that doesn't sound like the best idea to me tbh. They make the maps anyway why not submit.
I mean this is the same thing like the idea no maps from teams, or for players to have tournaments without Koreans. It takes away from the credibility of the winning maps if they didn't have to compete against the best maps out there, and a lot of those best maps come from ESV...
I really hope ESV reconsiders this, I don't like the quality of the maps submitted to drop so much
Well, with ESV and TPW making MotM consistently, it takes a lot of diverse talent out of the pool. Sure, they make great maps a lot, but other people need the spotlight, as opposed to the usual suspects.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
Oh shi-! Barrin, Superouman, ProdiG and Lefix competing?
ESV will not be entering MotM at this point. Other mappers need the help more then us, and it will allow our mappers more time to do things like help judge MotM !
Honestly I think this is incredibly silly and defeats the purpose of trying to find the best maps. As much as I want people outside ESV and TPW to come through with something brilliant, MotM doesn't mean as much without as much good competition.
MoTM is suppose to be the best of the best map makers to showcase what they have. To get rid of ESV all together is stupid because let's face it, most of their maps are the best. Just because random no-name mapper is pissed because they don't win MoTM #x doesn't mean you should give up your spot.
If people really want to get in the spotlight with a good map they actually need to step it up and make a map that's worthwhile. It's going to be extremely bland to win MoTM only to say that none of ESV were allowed to enter. I mean, when I eventually win a MoTM I want to be able to send Ironman a PM and tell him to suck it. (Love ya buddy!)
MoTM is suppose to be the best of the best map makers to showcase what they have. To get rid of ESV all together is stupid because let's face it, most of their maps are the best. Just because random no-name mapper is pissed because they don't win MoTM #x doesn't mean you should give up your spot.
If people really want to get in the spotlight with a good map they actually need to step it up and make a map that's worthwhile. It's going to be extremely bland to win MoTM only to say that none of ESV were allowed to enter. I mean, when I eventually win a MoTM I want to be able to send Ironman a PM and tell him to suck it. (Love ya buddy!)
LOL we didn't expect people would actually complain that we aren't entering.. we had original decided not to enter because it caused a lot of people to angry for various reasons. Now people are angry that we aren't submitting :S
We also rushed maps all too often, which we want to stop.
LOL we didn't expect people would actually complain that we aren't entering.. we had original decided not to enter because it caused a lot of people to angry for various reasons. Now people are angry that we aren't submitting :S
We also rushed maps all too often, which we want to stop.
That's when you tell those noobs who are crying to suck it because their maps blow ass. If you want to be the best, ya gotta beat the best.
I think it's time to start a petition. No more MoTM until ESV decides to play ball.
LOL we didn't expect people would actually complain that we aren't entering.. we had original decided not to enter because it caused a lot of people to angry for various reasons. Now people are angry that we aren't submitting :S
We also rushed maps all too often, which we want to stop.
That's when you tell those noobs who are crying to suck it because their maps blow ass. If you want to be the best, ya gotta beat the best.
I think it's time to start a petition. No more MoTM until ESV decides to play ball.
A bit blunt, but I agree. Only because I'm stepping it up though :D
That, and I don't exactly want them to start thinking they're too good to join in on things. Keep 'em at ground level, please, thx.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: Judge lineup for May: monitor - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s winner Afterglow Timetwister22 - ESV Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s second place Tanzanite wrl - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of last month’s third place Peaks of Alamar Archvile - TPW Mapmaking Team - Creator of Ferbruary’s winner The Grid Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene
Oh shi-! Barrin, Superouman, ProdiG and Lefix competing?
ESV will not be entering MotM at this point. Other mappers need the help more then us, and it will allow our mappers more time to do things like help judge MotM !
Hm, that doesn't sound like the best idea to me tbh. They make the maps anyway why not submit.
I mean this is the same thing like the idea no maps from teams, or for players to have tournaments without Koreans. It takes away from the credibility of the winning maps if they didn't have to compete against the best maps out there, and a lot of those best maps come from ESV...
I really hope ESV reconsiders this, I don't like the quality of the maps submitted to drop so much
Well, with ESV and TPW making MotM consistently, it takes a lot of diverse talent out of the pool. Sure, they make great maps a lot, but other people need the spotlight, as opposed to the usual suspects.
Well... no. Simply because the quality of those people's maps is simply lacking. Many teamless mapmakers act like it's somehow unfair and we are so biased and blabla but really, these maps just lack the level of refinement that most ESV and TPW maps have. And yeah big part of that refinement is constant internal feedback during the mapmaking process but also experience and effort. And I'm not always so sure some people put in enough effort either.
Again, ESV please reconsider. I'm gonna submit this month and I don't consider myself to be a top mapmaker, so realistically I don't see myself making top5 if all the best mapmakers submit. But I am totally fine with that as long as MotM stands for the best and most interesting maps out there (with the exception of maps that are already used in major tournaments). You are just taking away from the credibility of MotM and the top5 maps.
Sidian is a manly man for being teamless and being so outspoken about this Then again, he's in our Skype channel and one of the best teamless guys around.
On May 09 2012 09:16 monitor wrote: LOL we didn't expect people would actually complain that we aren't entering.. we had original decided not to enter because it caused a lot of people to angry for various reasons. Now people are angry that we aren't submitting :S
Most complains were because you were both entering and judging, wich looks biased, no matter how you do it it will always looks suspicious. Expect the same complains if any TPW map reach the top 5 with 2 of the judges being from TPW.
So if think it's a good decision for ESV, you had to either stop entering or stop judging. It would be better to keep entering and stop judging, but there still the matter of finding judges.
On May 09 2012 09:16 monitor wrote: LOL we didn't expect people would actually complain that we aren't entering.. we had original decided not to enter because it caused a lot of people to angry for various reasons. Now people are angry that we aren't submitting :S
Most complains were because you were both entering and judging, wich looks biased, no matter how you do it it will always looks suspicious. Expect the same complains if any TPW map reach the top 5 with 2 of the judges being from TPW.
So if think it's a good decision for ESV, you had to either stop entering or stop judging. It would be better to keep entering and stop judging, but there still the matter of finding judges.
Last month- 1 ESV judge, 2 ESV finalists 2 TPW judges, 1 TPW finalist 3 Non-team judges There would be a point if we had more ESV judges, but one judge doesn't have nearly that much power.
I could go on... but I don't think there's any need to.
Luckily we aren't withdrawing because we think we're "too good". Its because we rush our maps and sacrifice quality, which hurts us more than getting a finalist Motm gains us (with no tournament backing yet). It also causes a number of other issues, from complaints, to arguments, etc.
Probably the most sensible thing to do is to have ESV compete AND judge (their own maps). And then also NOT compete OR judge and have a completely random panel (i.e. TPW and Nightmarejoo) pick out the top five non-team mappers. This will ensure everyone is happy, and of course, that the real best maps will be shown off in a completely non-arbitrary and objective way.
Oh and there should be an entirely separate category of top 5 prodIG maps. Pure win.
I agree that ESV shouldn't rush maps, but I think you shouldn't lock out ESV from motm. I gather that this is more of a one month thing but if someone wants to submit a map they think is finished, I don't think they should be stopped. And I just like to see ESV maps, as they are generally pretty good quality when published.
Anyway, I really wish I could submit something, as I've only really submitted a map once... but I don't have any maps that are finished or very good, so we'll see. Good luck to all contenders!
well having the principle to not enter rushed maps makes sense, but totally withdrawing because of it does not. You've got 1,5 weeks.. go finish those promising new concepts I know you must have
Personally, given the limited time a full time working man has, participating every month isn't viable without rushing some. I also feel like I've been rushing maps, actually. But TPW is not officially withdrawing beacuse of it
Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
Come on. Not entering because of maps being rushed is a good argument. Let's stay at that and hope ESV members will participate in the future. Do we ragequit beacuse there isn't more korean map makers submitting?
I'm confident in the judges and believe that if top 5 maps weren't good enough, they won't get any further (be promoted for tournaments, etc) than being top 5. Fewer ESV maps in the competition won't change this.
Havin' a bit of a struggle figuring out which map I wanna work on for this, though. It might take me till the 20th, but I think I'll manage. I was a bit disappointed with my last month's entry, so I'll try and get this right.
Fantazy looks pretty good, but I fear that the ramp is too far from the nat. It looks impossible to wall ramp to nexus, and you can't wall at the nat choke because the ramp is outside of it. Feels too wide to wall anywhere else. Mineral lines are also kinda weird, but otherwise it looks quite nice.
I would enter a 2v2 map if 1v1 maps weren't a higher priority. I think to get some 2v2 entries you really need to make it so entering a 2v2 map doesn't subtract from the number of 1v1 maps you can make (there is a separate limit on each.) Otherwise most everyone will just enter 1v1 maps.
Map limit is to encourage higher quality maps, how does submitting a 2v2 map change that? The fewer maps you're submitting the more likely they are to be of good quality. And since 2v2 maps are rare a mediocre 2v2 map might have a better chance of getting notice than a mediocre 1v1 map. Trust me, the competition between mediocre 1v1 maps is very fierce by this point.
This is a monthly competition, there's no need to be churning out maps just for it. The repetition of the competition means you should just work on whatever you have ideas for, and submit them when they're perfected.
Ah, I didn't think of it quite that way. Good point. You wouldn't want to encourage lower quality maps because they worked too much on a second one (probably the 2v2 one,) as well. If it happens every month, a mapper should still have months where they might not have any 1v1 maps ready, and can submit a 2v2 one, right? I'd imagine it's frequent enough for that. Although you are allowed to submit a map you've submitted before, right? So would players re-submit a map before entering a 2v2 map? Maybe?
I mostly thought about it during the TLMC, when they only got like 1 2v2 map because it counted towards your map limit. Having a separate limit for team maps would have worked better there because it was the only one and you could use any maps you had made up to that point, it wasn't a monthly thing and I think most people submitted three 1v1 maps.
But I suppose the main reason for a lack of 2v2 entries is actually just a lack of 2v2 maps being made in general (and/or it being a 1v1 map competition where people have discouraged the entry of 2v2 maps or said they would be judged as 1v1 maps.)
I wouldn't mind an offshoot small 2v2 MotM as a side thing honestly. Don't make it as big because of course less people are interested but people really need to get inspired to make some decent 2v2 maps at this point as 2v2 is honestly fun were it not for the Steppes-of-War-esque mappool we have to endure.
With how few 2v2 maps are being made there's no need for a separate competition. There could be something like 10 submissions total to a separate competition and all 10 could be bad. No point in highlighting the best bad map.
On May 14 2012 01:41 Gfire wrote: Fantazy looks pretty good, but I fear that the ramp is too far from the nat. It looks impossible to wall ramp to nexus, and you can't wall at the nat choke because the ramp is outside of it. Feels too wide to wall anywhere else.
I agree that the natural entrance was too wide, I've made some adjustments so now you can full wall with 3 big buildings. I'll have to send an updated version before the deadline.
I agree there is probably no need for a seperate 2v2 map competition, considering how few are made. But there is actually quite a demand for 2v2 maps. I get asked about 2v2 maps by other organizations every once in a while. I'd say it is definitely something worth working on
wow maps are looking extremely good right now. gotta say, prophets passage stuck with the backdoor gold minerals and i like that. gives me memories to lots of bw maps.
On May 18 2012 08:36 NewSunshine wrote: Map Name - VR by NewSunshine Playable bounds - 144x144
That natural looks pretty much impossible to take in XvZ, including ZvZ, though.
It is a lot better than Metalopolis or Xel´Naga Caverns. I don´t see why you would have to be able to perfectly FFE on EVERY map.
It's not about FFE, it's about the distance to the ramp, it's impossible to zone both the ramp and your base with forcefields, get creep there in time, use your queendralisk on the ramp to still have range and tranfusion range at the base, get enough bunker space. You really don't seem to be able to FE in any way against Zerg in any matchup on that map. In ZvZ it'll be particularly interesting, I don't see you holding any ling-baneling aggression with queens and spines, you just have to have as many lings and banes as your opponent.
Speedlings are basically very, very powerful at your natural on that map, but who knows, maybe it pains out, but as a random player, in an XvZ I would one base all in there looking at it.
On May 18 2012 18:49 Aunvilgod wrote: What would you think about a people´s award determined by a public poll? Would be fun!
Won't work because they'll just vote for the prettiest one, without thinking about how games will play out.
Even if thats the case, why not?
So a map can have a backdoor to the main, impossible natural and third base, circle syndrome, a million doodads causing massive fps drop, and still win? Doesn't sound right to me.
On May 18 2012 18:49 Aunvilgod wrote: What would you think about a people´s award determined by a public poll? Would be fun!
Won't work because they'll just vote for the prettiest one, without thinking about how games will play out.
Even if thats the case, why not?
So a map can have a backdoor to the main, impossible natural and third base, circle syndrome, a million doodads causing massive fps drop, and still win? Doesn't sound right to me.
It wins the public prize, what you win is "People voted for your map the most", it is what it says on the tin.
Seems fine to me honestly to have a public prize too. Didn't the TL Map contest use both the public and jury prize as an average to determine the winner anyway?
On May 18 2012 18:49 Aunvilgod wrote: What would you think about a people´s award determined by a public poll? Would be fun!
Won't work because they'll just vote for the prettiest one, without thinking about how games will play out.
Even if thats the case, why not?
So a map can have a backdoor to the main, impossible natural and third base, circle syndrome, a million doodads causing massive fps drop, and still win? Doesn't sound right to me.
It wins the public prize, what you win is "People voted for your map the most", it is what it says on the tin.
Seems fine to me honestly to have a public prize too. Didn't the TL Map contest use both the public and jury prize as an average to determine the winner anyway?
No it doesn't. I'll quote it for you.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations.
On May 19 2012 02:20 IronManSC wrote: So you connected the islands on Desert Oasis, change the textures, and call it your own map?
You sound a bit angry about something dude. It's clear he's a newer mapper than you, it's not like he's part of TPW or anything. Using a Blizzard map as a starting point is a good way to get going and get familiar with the editor, and if he wants to enter something he made in that way, so be it. Back off him, maybe?
EDIT:
On May 19 2012 01:55 Heh_ wrote: No it doesn't. I'll quote it for you.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations.
You misunderstand, the TLMC was a separate contest, requested by Blizzard. The winner was determined by the average of both a public and staff vote, that's what he's referring to. Honestly, I would kinda like to see some, say, superlative awards, such as best aesthetics, or weirdest concept. They shouldn't have much at all to do with overall mapmaking excellence, because they're extra awards, as opposed to straight up 1st place. They would lighten things up a little bit, which I would say is the only real failing of MotM at this point.
On May 19 2012 02:20 IronManSC wrote: So you connected the islands on Desert Oasis, change the textures, and call it your own map?
You sound a bit angry about something dude. It's clear he's a newer mapper than you, it's not like he's part of TPW or anything. Using a Blizzard map as a starting point is a good way to get going and get familiar with the editor, and if he wants to enter something he made in that way, so be it. Back off him, maybe?
Ok, then do me a favor? Open up the Ohana map file. Take the rocks off the fourth, create a slightly tighter choke on the 3rd, and change the rock texture. Are you the author of Ohana now (or if you prefer calling it an entirely different name)?
Putting a tag on it after making a small change (like adding neutral depots) such as GSL, DH, MLG, etc is understandable and acceptable - but to claim authorship of something you didn't actually create at all, and even changing the map name, just feels and looks very unacceptable.
If anything, the map is still authored by blizzard, and the name should be like 'Desert Oasis RE', re-worked by [name].
On May 19 2012 01:55 Heh_ wrote: No it doesn't. I'll quote it for you.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations.
You misunderstand, the TLMC was a separate contest, requested by Blizzard. The winner was determined by the average of both a public and staff vote, that's what he's referring to. Honestly, I would kinda like to see some, say, superlative awards, such as best aesthetics, or weirdest concept. They shouldn't have much at all to do with overall mapmaking excellence, because they're extra awards, as opposed to straight up 1st place. They would lighten things up a little bit, which I would say is the only real failing of MotM at this point.
The way he phrased the sentence was that the winner will be decided by 100% public vote. Which, as I've mentioned, is stupid because people won't play the map to know how well it works (or doesn't), and will just see pretty pretty stuff and click a button. Edit: Deleted some stuff that's pretty bitter.
On May 19 2012 01:55 Heh_ wrote: No it doesn't. I'll quote it for you.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations.
You misunderstand, the TLMC was a separate contest, requested by Blizzard. The winner was determined by the average of both a public and staff vote, that's what he's referring to. Honestly, I would kinda like to see some, say, superlative awards, such as best aesthetics, or weirdest concept. They shouldn't have much at all to do with overall mapmaking excellence, because they're extra awards, as opposed to straight up 1st place. They would lighten things up a little bit, which I would say is the only real failing of MotM at this point.
The way he phrased the sentence was that the winner will be decided by 100% public vote. Which, as I've mentioned, is stupid because people won't play the map to know how well it works (or doesn't), and will just see pretty pretty stuff and click a button.
I'll put it in the context of your map: It won't win, because there isn't enough doodads and texturing to make it "pretty". The fact that the natural is godawful will be overlooked by many.
Wow dude, could you be any more ignorant? He isn't even trying to take merit for his own work. He's saying MotM should do something similar to TLMC as far as votes (does not mean poll winner is motm winner), plus the addition of random awards that make map-making feel fun and more expandable. Why you decide to bash his map as a means of proving your point and shutting him up is beyond me.
On May 19 2012 01:55 Heh_ wrote: No it doesn't. I'll quote it for you.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations.
You misunderstand, the TLMC was a separate contest, requested by Blizzard. The winner was determined by the average of both a public and staff vote, that's what he's referring to. Honestly, I would kinda like to see some, say, superlative awards, such as best aesthetics, or weirdest concept. They shouldn't have much at all to do with overall mapmaking excellence, because they're extra awards, as opposed to straight up 1st place. They would lighten things up a little bit, which I would say is the only real failing of MotM at this point.
The way he phrased the sentence was that the winner will be decided by 100% public vote. Which, as I've mentioned, is stupid because people won't play the map to know how well it works (or doesn't), and will just see pretty pretty stuff and click a button.
I'll put it in the context of your map: It won't win, because there isn't enough doodads and texturing to make it "pretty". The fact that the natural is godawful will be overlooked by many.
Wow dude, could you be any more ignorant? He isn't even trying to take merit for his own work. He's saying MotM should do something similar to TLMC as far as votes (does not mean poll winner is motm winner), plus the addition of random awards that make map-making feel fun and more expandable. Why you decide to bash his map as a means of proving your point and shutting him up is beyond me.
The part about his submission is out of place. I've deleted it in my original post. I was criticizing the idea about having a map contest that is 100% popularity based; upon re-reading NewSunshine's post, he has a good point.
On May 19 2012 02:20 IronManSC wrote: So you connected the islands on Desert Oasis, change the textures, and call it your own map?
You sound a bit angry about something dude. It's clear he's a newer mapper than you, it's not like he's part of TPW or anything. Using a Blizzard map as a starting point is a good way to get going and get familiar with the editor, and if he wants to enter something he made in that way, so be it. Back off him, maybe?
Ok, then do me a favor? Open up the Ohana map file. Take the rocks off the fourth, create a slightly tighter choke on the 3rd, and change the rock texture. Are you the author of Ohana now (or if you prefer calling it an entirely different name)?
Putting a tag on it after making a small change (like adding neutral depots) such as GSL, DH, MLG, etc is understandable and acceptable - but to claim authorship of something you didn't actually create at all, and even changing the map name, just feels and looks very unacceptable.
If anything, the map is still authored by blizzard, and the name should be like 'Desert Oasis RE', re-worked by [name].
While I do agree that the map looks really much like desert oasis, even thou it has many more changes than what you claimed. + Show Spoiler [desert oasis] +
I do not understand why do you act like moskonia chopped off your dick by entering MOTM with that map.
Especially since your own map making team mate (when you still were TPW) made it into top5 of MOTM doing the exact same thing. + Show Spoiler [shakuras] +
On May 19 2012 03:06 IronManSC wrote: Ok, then do me a favor? Open up the Ohana map file. Take the rocks off the fourth, create a slightly tighter choke on the 3rd, and change the rock texture. Are you the author of Ohana now (or if you prefer calling it an entirely different name)?
Putting a tag on it after making a small change (like adding neutral depots) such as GSL, DH, MLG, etc is understandable and acceptable - but to claim authorship of something you didn't actually create at all, and even changing the map name, just feels and looks very unacceptable.
If anything, the map is still authored by blizzard, and the name should be like 'Desert Oasis RE', re-worked by [name].
Technically, all of our maps are owned by Blizzard, so I see little difference between a "Desert Oasis RE", and what he's submitted. Clearly, there is a line to be drawn at the higher levels of mapmaking in this regard, but Moskonia is a newcomer, compared to you or Superouman, or any other of a sizable list of accomplished mappers. I wouldn't mind you saying:
On May 19 2012 02:20 IronManSC wrote: So you connected the islands on Desert Oasis, change the textures, and call it your own map?
if Archvil3 or Ragoo suddenly decided they felt lazy and decided to submit a rehash of a Blizzard map, but that's not what we have here. What we have here is someone who's learning the ropes of mapmaking, so cut him some slack.
On May 19 2012 03:13 Heh_ wrote: The way he phrased the sentence was that the winner will be decided by 100% public vote. Which, as I've mentioned, is stupid because people won't play the map to know how well it works (or doesn't), and will just see pretty pretty stuff and click a button.
I'll put it in the context of your map: It won't win, because there isn't enough doodads and texturing to make it "pretty". The fact that the natural is godawful will be overlooked by many.
Wow dude, could you be any more ignorant? He isn't even trying to take merit for his own work. He's saying MotM should do something similar to TLMC as far as votes (does not mean poll winner is motm winner), plus the addition of random awards that make map-making feel fun and more expandable. Why you decide to bash his map as a means of proving your point and shutting him up is beyond me.
Exactly. I'm not trying to promote my work. Every time I've mentioned something like this to try and spice up MotM people somehow get the impression I'm just doing it for myself. I'm trying to suggest these things because MotM feels extremely competitive the way it is now, and although it is, it also feels far too serious for my taste. I don't mind it being competitive, but it could also be a lot more fun than it currently is. Themes for the contest itself, as well as extra awards besides who made the absolute best maps, would make the whole experience more enjoyable. Clearly, there would have to be some determination of what those themes/awards would be, so as not to downplay what we have now, but that's not to say it has no place in MotM. I strongly urge those behind MotM(Lefix, I guess) to think about this.
On May 19 2012 01:55 Heh_ wrote: No it doesn't. I'll quote it for you.
On May 08 2012 19:10 lefix wrote: The Map of the Month organization is focused on highlighting the best maps from the community and getting them the attention they deserve and hopefully see them picked up by more organizations.
You misunderstand, the TLMC was a separate contest, requested by Blizzard. The winner was determined by the average of both a public and staff vote, that's what he's referring to. Honestly, I would kinda like to see some, say, superlative awards, such as best aesthetics, or weirdest concept. They shouldn't have much at all to do with overall mapmaking excellence, because they're extra awards, as opposed to straight up 1st place. They would lighten things up a little bit, which I would say is the only real failing of MotM at this point.
The way he phrased the sentence was that the winner will be decided by 100% public vote.
I do so beg to differ, at least, what I interpreted is add another award on top, have both the jury and the public prize. So did IronManSC so yeah, I don't think the text implies that at all.
Personally, I'm all for adding more categories 'Best overall map', 'most original map', 'best public vote map', 'most beautiful map' etc etc.
On May 19 2012 02:20 IronManSC wrote: So you connected the islands on Desert Oasis, change the textures, and call it your own map?
You sound a bit angry about something dude. It's clear he's a newer mapper than you, it's not like he's part of TPW or anything. Using a Blizzard map as a starting point is a good way to get going and get familiar with the editor, and if he wants to enter something he made in that way, so be it. Back off him, maybe?
Ok, then do me a favor? Open up the Ohana map file. Take the rocks off the fourth, create a slightly tighter choke on the 3rd, and change the rock texture. Are you the author of Ohana now (or if you prefer calling it an entirely different name)?
Putting a tag on it after making a small change (like adding neutral depots) such as GSL, DH, MLG, etc is understandable and acceptable - but to claim authorship of something you didn't actually create at all, and even changing the map name, just feels and looks very unacceptable.
If anything, the map is still authored by blizzard, and the name should be like 'Desert Oasis RE', re-worked by [name].
While I do agree that the map looks really much like desert oasis, even thou it has many more changes than what you claimed. + Show Spoiler [desert oasis] +
I do not understand why do you act like moskonia chopped off your dick by entering MOTM with that map.
Especially since your own map making team mate (when you still were TPW) made it into top5 of MOTM doing the exact same thing. + Show Spoiler [shakuras] +
Have to agree with this honestly. The layout is superficially similar to Desert Oasis but it's not just a retexture, if this is a ripoff then Blizzard should've named Crossfire 'Peaks of Baekdu RE by blizzard'. It's obvious the map was inspired by Peaks of Baekdu and the general layout is similar but there are some definite changes and it's far from a reskin.
So you connected the islands on Desert Oasis, change the textures, and call it your own map?
That is insulting, if you actually look at the map, you will see I have changed it almost everything there, only the basic structure remains (which I wanted to use ), the fact you're an experienced map maker doesn't mean you can be a douche.
RE: Other awards. I don't think there is going to be anything official, but I'd be happy to do a couple random awards for maps that do something I like, but might not be a great map on the whole.
Hot damn this MOTM is starting off strong with the amount of drama already. I can't wait til the results thread. Although, without ESV I have a feeling the drama won't be as good. Here's to hoping TPW takes all 5 spots in the top 5. That'd be epic and create an awesome thread full of drama.
On May 19 2012 05:26 SidianTheBard wrote: Hot damn this MOTM is already starting off strong with the amount of drama already. I can't wait til the results thread. Although, without ESV I have a feeling the drama won't be as good. Here's to hoping TPW takes all 5 spots in the top 5. That'd be epic.
One can hope... :D
You heard it here first folks. TPW taking top 5 spots with only 2 maps!
On May 19 2012 05:26 SidianTheBard wrote: Hot damn this MOTM is already starting off strong with the amount of drama already. I can't wait til the results thread. Although, without ESV I have a feeling the drama won't be as good. Here's to hoping TPW takes all 5 spots in the top 5. That'd be epic.
One can hope... :D
You heard it here first folks. TPW taking top 5 spots with only 2 maps!
Obviously the better of the 2 maps would take the top 3 spots, then the other map would have the last 2. Duh.
I can't finish decorating this map in time for the deadline, so here it is before I forget to submit it. I'm making very very many custom textures for it. Whoever plays it will probably notice some of them immediately.
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
As much as I respect ESV and its members, I've got to agree. It's as if everyone behind these contests(and on top of as well in the case of ESV) has completely forgotten what mapmaking was about for all of us - fun. We didn't start mapping because we saw someone else' map and go "I will do this thing specifically, and I will dominate it with a cold iron fist!", we started because we saw someone else' map and thought "wow, that's cool, I didn't know people could do that, I wanna try!".
I might not be in TPW or ESV, but if it meant forgoing the very reason I make maps, I wouldn't want to be. Learn to have some fun with this guys, if you can't then you're missing the point.
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
There's also a subtle hidden fallacy in the logic. The point is that EG specifically plays for tournaments and wouldn't have played those matches if the tournament wasn't there. Whereas people are going to make those maps anyway regardless of MotM, so you might as well submit it.
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
There's also a subtle hidden fallacy in the logic. The point is that EG specifically plays for tournaments and wouldn't have played those matches if the tournament wasn't there. Whereas people are going to make those maps anyway regardless of MotM, so you might as well submit it.
I don't see the BIG deal with ESV's decision. There were a ton of teamless mappers who were complaining about not having a chance in MOTM if you weren't on a team. I understand where their feelings were coming from. They received no recognition. No feedback on how they can improve to receive recognition in the future and given the relationship between judges and mappers on teams it gives the appearance of cronyism. I don't believe that to be the case but given the amateur's position I can see how they jump to that conclusion. Therefore given that the only benefit at this point to MOTM is recognition and ESV has that in abundance right now because of their recent success just slapping ESV on a map gives it instant recognition, they are bowing out of MOTM. The recognition is not as beneficial to them as it is to a small time mapper, they want to focus on getting their maps in tournaments i.e. they want to produce the highest quality maps possible, and they stop crowding others out. The way I see it they are being somewhat generous.
On May 19 2012 17:09 MarcusRife wrote: I don't see the BIG deal with ESV's decision. There were a ton of teamless mappers who were complaining about not having a chance in MOTM if you weren't on a team. I understand where their feelings were coming from. They received no recognition. No feedback on how they can improve to receive recognition in the future and given the relationship between judges and mappers on teams it gives the appearance of cronyism. I don't believe that to be the case but given the amateur's position I can see how they jump to that conclusion. Therefore given that the only benefit at this point to MOTM is recognition and ESV has that in abundance right now because of their recent success just slapping ESV on a map gives it instant recognition, they are bowing out of MOTM. The recognition is not as beneficial to them as it is to a small time mapper, they want to focus on getting their maps in tournaments i.e. they want to produce the highest quality maps possible, and they stop crowding others out. The way I see it they are being somewhat generous.
That's one way to see it. However, the winner of a MotM where ESV doesn't participate has to question whether they would still have won otherwise, or even made it to the top 5 selection. Don't get me wrong, everyone's entitled to their own view of it, but I think the recognition would be so much more significant if it was earned despite ESV's presence, not because of the lack of it. That, and they all put out really cool stuff, and I can always use more inspiration.
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
There's also a subtle hidden fallacy in the logic. The point is that EG specifically plays for tournaments and wouldn't have played those matches if the tournament wasn't there. Whereas people are going to make those maps anyway regardless of MotM, so you might as well submit it.
That's the point exactly- we actually don't have maps regardless of MotM. It happens all too often that we rush out maps to submit to motm, and it degrades the quality of them. That is the major reason why we're backing out at this point. I can see where all the criticism comes from, but right now it hurts our maps when its not necessary, since there aren't any tournaments or prizes for the competition.
On May 19 2012 17:09 MarcusRife wrote: I don't see the BIG deal with ESV's decision. There were a ton of teamless mappers who were complaining about not having a chance in MOTM if you weren't on a team. I understand where their feelings were coming from. They received no recognition. No feedback on how they can improve to receive recognition in the future and given the relationship between judges and mappers on teams it gives the appearance of cronyism. I don't believe that to be the case but given the amateur's position I can see how they jump to that conclusion. Therefore given that the only benefit at this point to MOTM is recognition and ESV has that in abundance right now because of their recent success just slapping ESV on a map gives it instant recognition, they are bowing out of MOTM. The recognition is not as beneficial to them as it is to a small time mapper, they want to focus on getting their maps in tournaments i.e. they want to produce the highest quality maps possible, and they stop crowding others out. The way I see it they are being somewhat generous.
That's one way to see it. However, the winner of a MotM where ESV doesn't participate has to question whether they would still have won otherwise, or even made it to the top 5 selection. Don't get me wrong, everyone's entitled to their own view of it, but I think the recognition would be so much more significant if it was earned despite ESV's presence, not because of the lack of it. That, and they all put out really cool stuff, and I can always use more inspiration.
That argument is a little too meta in my opinion. From my perspective my map is what it is when I enter it. I either get recognition or I don't. I'm already doing the best I can. ESV's participation or lack thereof does not affect me beyond increasing my chances.
There are a ton of big 2p reflectional maps this time around. I've counted 5, compared to like 1 last month.
also, Rainbow Road looks awesome.
------------------
While I don't like that ESV is no longer participating in MOTM (forever?), I understand that there is little incentive for them to enter new maps (and possibly a liability if they lose with a map they rushed out just for the motm deadline, (which additionally may be determined by a number of factors outside of their control, such as the makeup of the judging panel and the quality of other maps submitted)).
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
There's also a subtle hidden fallacy in the logic. The point is that EG specifically plays for tournaments and wouldn't have played those matches if the tournament wasn't there. Whereas people are going to make those maps anyway regardless of MotM, so you might as well submit it.
That's the point exactly- we actually don't have maps regardless of MotM. It happens all too often that we rush out maps to submit to motm, and it degrades the quality of them. That is the major reason why we're backing out at this point. I can see where all the criticism comes from, but right now it hurts our maps when its not necessary, since there aren't any tournaments or prizes for the competition.
If you're not done with a map, why would you submit it to MotM? If you need a team policy that says NO MOTM so as not to feel pressure to complete maps on a deadline, I hope that works for you. It just seems like overkill. And we feel alienated (obviously). Moreover, why would you announce that? Just don't submit any maps. I am perplexed that this is a discussion.
Used to be 6m1hyg, I just did a straight conversion for this (Barrin I will be updating the FRB labled maps that I have to use your mod in the coming week). One of the bases on each side is 6m1hyg and one is 4m2hyg, all others are 8m2g Map Thread
EDIT: I had some issues uploading so I had uploaded it as Winding Straits by chips, but since that name is now taken I had to change it when I could finally upload it, so it's now Burning Straits
On May 20 2012 11:15 Namrufus wrote: While I don't like that ESV is no longer participating in MOTM (forever?), I understand that there is little incentive for them to enter new maps (and possibly a liability if they lose with a map they rushed out just for the motm deadline, (which additionally may be determined by a number of factors outside of their control, such as the makeup of the judging panel and the quality of other maps submitted)).
Oh, we will submit as soon as there is a prize/tournament.
And btw, I also organize motm We're working on some incentives.
On May 20 2012 11:15 Namrufus wrote: While I don't like that ESV is no longer participating in MOTM (forever?), I understand that there is little incentive for them to enter new maps (and possibly a liability if they lose with a map they rushed out just for the motm deadline, (which additionally may be determined by a number of factors outside of their control, such as the makeup of the judging panel and the quality of other maps submitted)).
Oh, we will submit as soon as there is a prize/tournament.
And btw, I also organize motm We're working on some incentives.
You sound an awful lot like Blizzard, I'd be careful. Any more delays and the masses will begin wielding torches. I'll still be busy playing D3 though, so don't worry about me.
Oh boy, the judges have their work cut out for them.
Edit: Wait, when you said only vote once, you meant only once total? I voted in all of them. Sorry, total brain malfunction on my part. I used to compete in a lot of forum-poll-based contests and that's how it worked.
You can't really make sure it's legit like this, though. I thought it would make more sense to vote in all of them because otherwise, since most the people in this topic entered something and will just vote for themselves anyway with just one vote. Why not do 4 evenly (ish) spread out polls, and then take the top 3 from each and put them in a final poll, or something? That would be better imo, anyway.
I thought it would make more sense to vote in all of them because otherwise, since most the people in this topic entered something and will just vote for themselves anyway with just one vote.
Shouldn't people who entered just not vote at all? :S Seemed kinda obvious to me.
On May 22 2012 07:26 Gfire wrote: Well, maybe the polls should be posted in like general forum or something to get a better public opinion.
I like this idea, along with multiple rounds of voting, to go along with the segment idea. This might actually be a good way to give more attention to MotM in general, if only to the rest of the TL community. That idea actually gets me somewhat excited.
On May 22 2012 07:26 Gfire wrote: Well, maybe the polls should be posted in like general forum or something to get a better public opinion.
I support this idea.
Also, a little nitpicky, but could we get direct links to the maps actual thread (where available) instead of just the submission post? Analyzer output, etc. could be useful in deciding these things.
okay, I'll modify this, maybe repost the polls in sc2 general, give me a couple of minutes.
what do you guys think is better: 4 polls with a top 12 poll (3 finalists from each segment) (less chance for randomness due to groupings of maps) or 5 polls with a top 5 or 10 poll (1 or 2 finalists from each segment) (more exciting finalist poll with less maps) something else?
edit: maybe another poll for best visuals?
edit: I'll go with 4 polls with 12 finalists I think.
------------------
about map threads, the version of the map that people vote for should be the one that was submitted to MOTM imo, the version in the map threads may change. most people provide links to the map thread in their post.
edit 3: the new poll is below, I'm going to double check it, then repost it on the sc2 general forum
Here are the 29 submitted maps, in the order of submission in this thread: map images are spoilered, map names link to the map submission post in the MOTM thread - check there for more information on each map, take a look at the map threads.
and here are the polls, consider your choices carefully. vote for the map in each poll that you believe is the best competitive 1v1 melee map in that group
the top three choices from each segment will be voted on in a final poll to determine the overall most popular map voting in the segment polls ends may 27th - exact time TBD
pm or post if I messed up anything I am not affiliated with MOTM, this is an unofficial poll for fun only
I assume map makers can vote, even though most will vote themselves anyways so it gets even at the end. Will be interesting to see if the community has the same opinion as the judges
Public polls are a really bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all most people don't know shit about maps and then people who made maps in here may take the results serious and rage.
On the other hand people always rage when MotM results are out anyway...
After looking at all the maps, I would like to share my opinion about a single map that caught my eye, that map is cracked cell, which is one of the (if not the) best maps in this month, layout wise.
While I think the texturing are a bit lacking, and actually at the start it looked to me really bad, only after I looked at the base layout that the map looked like a winner to me, if it is not top 3 I will be very surprised as after some better texturing I think it is a tournament material map.
On May 22 2012 08:33 Ragoo wrote: Public polls are a really bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all most people don't know shit about maps and then people who made maps in here may take the results serious and rage.
On the other hand people always rage when MotM results are out anyway...
I doubt people will get uppity about the poll. Mostly people will just be happy if they got votes from the community. Since the poll setup requires only one vote per section, people have to compare the maps in each section. I voted for my favorites, but there are tons of other maps I like, or think have a lot of potential.
Also, our votes don't change anything. The judges choices and their feedback will be most helpful to the map-makers.
On May 20 2012 11:15 Namrufus wrote: While I don't like that ESV is no longer participating in MOTM (forever?), I understand that there is little incentive for them to enter new maps (and possibly a liability if they lose with a map they rushed out just for the motm deadline, (which additionally may be determined by a number of factors outside of their control, such as the makeup of the judging panel and the quality of other maps submitted)).
Oh, we will submit as soon as there is a prize/tournament.
And btw, I also organize motm We're working on some incentives.
You know what an awesome prize for motm would be? A MOTM Map of the Day(or week or two days, or whatever) map published on BNet, similar to ESV's, the top 5 maps (if the participants want) would be entered into the motd for the following month, while the 1st place winner could be entered into the motd map pool permenantly.
If it didn't work for ESV, it won't work for MotM. ESV had a small prize incentive, and they still couldn't get more than a couple hours on Battle.net's popularity system.
I just take another look to every maps and mine (Jungle Drum) really lack easthetics... and I can't see what it is... maybe the textures mix ? If someone can tell...
On May 22 2012 18:57 Samcai wrote: I just take another look to every maps and mine (Jungle Drum) really lack easthetics... and I can't see what it is... maybe the textures mix ? If someone can tell...
I think that your map in particular looks as though you took each flat area and slapped a random texture on it.
On May 22 2012 08:29 moskonia wrote: I assume map makers can vote, even though most will vote themselves anyways so it gets even at the end. Will be interesting to see if the community has the same opinion as the judges
The poll should have asked for the prettiest map actually because people can´t judge anything else.
But we can treat the poll as if that was the case anyway.
On May 22 2012 18:57 Samcai wrote: I just take another look to every maps and mine (Jungle Drum) really lack easthetics... and I can't see what it is... maybe the textures mix ? If someone can tell...
Koagel explains texture blending far better than I could:
also, your cliff lines look too straight and square to look natural.
take a look at blizzard's early ladder maps (and the later LEs) and the campaign maps in the editor to get a good idea of what an 'archetypical' map from each tileset looks like. You may also get some ideas from the 'map art' thread here on TL.
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
Yeah about that, how is Doomsday not even close to anything you would want to see?!
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious.
You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well.
I'm honestly quite interested about the popularity of VR. It's a good looking map and the overal layout is solid but the natural is just a complete dealbreaker for me. I see the natural as breaking the entire map similar to how no ramp breaks TDA in its entirety because I just don't see you feasibly taking a natural in any way in a lot of matchups on that map, especially ZvZ and PvZ are going to be quite mad, and I don't just mean not being able to FFE. I just don't see how you can defend that natural from mass lings even with a 3gate sentry expo, you just don't seem to be able to zone it out.
Edit: Holy, forget everything I ever said about that map, I only now realize that there are rocks on the secondary ramp, I didn't realize that.
On May 23 2012 03:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: Edit: Holy, forget everything I ever said about that map, I only now realize that there are rocks on the secondary ramp, I didn't realize that.
Lol, it's cool. I admit the mistake of not having the rocks there originally, since the ramp wasn't there originally in my first iterations of the layout, so I didn't think about that right away. Taking a second look at it after the feedback though, I saw that putting rocks on the ramp was a simple, but I think perfect, fix to that problem. Sorry for any heart attacks my terribad layout caused.
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
There's also a subtle hidden fallacy in the logic. The point is that EG specifically plays for tournaments and wouldn't have played those matches if the tournament wasn't there. Whereas people are going to make those maps anyway regardless of MotM, so you might as well submit it.
That's the point exactly- we actually don't have maps regardless of MotM. It happens all too often that we rush out maps to submit to motm, and it degrades the quality of them. That is the major reason why we're backing out at this point. I can see where all the criticism comes from, but right now it hurts our maps when its not necessary, since there aren't any tournaments or prizes for the competition.
Isn't it better to just not say anything and not submit maps, and then when asked, respond with "Well, we didn't have anything and didn't wanna rush", instead of making the overwrought and ego-tripping statement that Diamond made, in short, saying "we're too good for your petty tournament"?
I'm pretty ashamed that ESV would take a stance like this to be honest. I understand not having maps to submit, or even not wanting to rush maps, but Diamond either mis-spoke or has a seriously over-inflated ego... Hopefully you guys submit maps when you have them, regardless of the "legitimacy" of MotM (an issue I have personally spoken about in times past). You guys aren't too good for this tournament, and idk whether you were implying you were, but it sure as hell came off that way.
On May 10 2012 07:34 Diamond wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but with no prize either there is not a single reason for us to enter. And if one of our maps that could have been a killer map gets rushed and sucks even once for a tournament with no prize and no tournaments that use the results, that is one map too many.
I think mapmaking has got to the point where you NEED to have tournament backing or prizes, you would not expect EG to play in tournaments with no prize, why should we?
Either way, regardless of the reasons, the decision stands at this point, sorry.
what a ridiculously elitist and shameful statement
There's also a subtle hidden fallacy in the logic. The point is that EG specifically plays for tournaments and wouldn't have played those matches if the tournament wasn't there. Whereas people are going to make those maps anyway regardless of MotM, so you might as well submit it.
That's the point exactly- we actually don't have maps regardless of MotM. It happens all too often that we rush out maps to submit to motm, and it degrades the quality of them. That is the major reason why we're backing out at this point. I can see where all the criticism comes from, but right now it hurts our maps when its not necessary, since there aren't any tournaments or prizes for the competition.
Isn't it better to just not say anything and not submit maps, and then when asked, respond with "Well, we didn't have anything and didn't wanna rush", instead of making the overwrought and ego-tripping statement that Diamond made, in short, saying "we're too good for your petty tournament"?
I'm pretty ashamed that ESV would take a stance like this to be honest. I understand not having maps to submit, or even not wanting to rush maps, but Diamond either mis-spoke or has a seriously over-inflated ego... Hopefully you guys submit maps when you have them, regardless of the "legitimacy" of MotM (an issue I have personally spoken about in times past). You guys aren't too good for this tournament, and idk whether you were implying you were, but it sure as hell came off that way.
He said "other mappers need the help more than us," which is entirely true and does not require an inflated ego to say. I think it's obvious to everyone that ESV maps get more exposure because they are ESV maps. He didn't say all the ESV maps are better than everyone else's. It wouldn't even make sense to say that, cause having the best maps wouldn't make ESV need the help less than everyone else, in fact the opposite because the entire goal is getting exposure to the best maps. All he was saying was that ESV maps already get exposure, and they wanted to give a chance to everyone else to get some, too, in this MotM.
I guess you could say that that is assuming ESV gets a map into the top five, which if they didn't it wouldn't matter if they entered, but I don't think Diamond has a huge ego for thinking there's a decent chance for an ESV map making it to the top 5. It's kind of a stretch.
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
Yeah about that, how is Doomsday not even close to anything you would want to see?!
Far too hard to take & hold a fourth. And fifth, etc. Army positioning gameplay is kinda good for being confined to 3 bases so much, but still.
Perhaps it would be oversaturated with more bases. (Gotta love 8m ideal's mapping restrictions).
Oh good thing that's your problem, I'm trying to fix that atm (but don't actually have the map file until friday). Blame monitor for suggesting this much, much harder fourth than the one I had before
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
Yeah about that, how is Doomsday not even close to anything you would want to see?!
Far too hard to take & hold a fourth. And fifth, etc. Army positioning gameplay is kinda good for being confined to 3 bases so much, but still.
Perhaps it would be oversaturated with more bases. (Gotta love 8m ideal's mapping restrictions).
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious.
You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well.
Cracked Cell - Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).
Abode - Thoroughly lacks map control potential and incentives, largely through oversaturation on both halfs of the hourglass and not enough twisting in the center (CS is far too low). The high ground pod in the center by itself would hardly be a strong map control potential/incentive, but then there are high ground paths going right around it; these features take away positioning strength from each other. Interestingly enough, that's a very related effect of what too much CS does: it's not hard for armies to completely miss each other when attacking. So you have all these easy-to-take bases. And they're also pretty easy to hold if you devote yourself to it (this is not a favorable combination already). If you decide to attack, there's an unusually high chance that he can sneak a counterattack around. In theory, this is a well-balanced gameplay element.. but it is still "slippery" in that it is overly difficult to control (relying a bit too much on unknowns). The concept is truly intriguing, and maybe it can make a great map (unusually difficult), but I'm not sure I'm a fan of this particular execution of it (too many bases too close too early).
I would love to know why Vaha wouldn't make the list, i have a feeling I already know but just in case
I guess you could boil it down to positional imbalance. In close positions, the ccw person has a significant expanding advantage IMO. Which is related to, but it has more to do with, the close proximity of the 4 bases closest to center. I feel like the distance between any two adjacent ones (think close spawns) (particularly the distance between the entrances to these high grounds) is too small compared to the long distance to expand away. But mostly I think this distance is just plain too small for such important bases.
Hmm, interesting, I really like Cracked Cell and I'm not the biggest fan of the maps you like the most because of the things you seem to like about them. I'm personally not a fan of easily securable thirds to the point of walling out a specific path and only having to worry about one choke and I do feel that counter attacks should be very viable together with good watchtower coverage to see them coming.
I sort of feel like that in a good map, securing the ability to counter attack should be an advantage in itself and that one should not be able to safely push unless the appropriate preparations are first made of getting towers or putting workers/lings/overlords to guard for counter attack paths and knowing that they are going to come as well as making the map in such a way that if you know it's coming as you push through the centre you have the ability to cut it off.
Cracked Cell in a lot of ways exemplifies this to me with the watchtowers as well, if you push without having secured vision over the alternate attack paths you risk to pay for it on that map with a massive counter attack. You are conversely rewarded for acquiring the vision and knowing that he cannot know you counter.
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious.
You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well.
Cracked Cell - Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).
I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I'd like to note that the third's choke is only three gateways long. The nat and third are also very close-- Tanks placed on the highground can also watch over both chokepoints (nat and third) at the same time, for instance. The third seems fairly close and defensible to me, is what I'm saying.
Anyways, I wish I could get this level of feedback more often.
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious.
You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well.
Cracked Cell - Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).
I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I'd like to note that the third's choke is only three gateways long. The nat and third are also very close-- Tanks placed on the highground can also watch over both chokepoints (nat and third) at the same time, for instance. The third seems fairly close and defensible to me, is what I'm saying.
Anyways, I wish I could get this level of feedback more often.
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious.
You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well.
Cracked Cell - Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).
I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I'd like to note that the third's choke is only three gateways long. The nat and third are also very close-- Tanks placed on the highground can also watch over both chokepoints (nat and third) at the same time, for instance. The third seems fairly close and defensible to me, is what I'm saying.
Anyways, I wish I could get this level of feedback more often.
As I said in the Fantazy map thread, I feel taking a base beyond a fourth on this map is impossible unless you have a massive advantage. I can't tell if it's a good or a bad thing but from playing around 10 games on the map against masters level opponent that's what showed too. I believe it's something to take in consideration when judging the map.
On May 24 2012 03:51 Barrin wrote: Abode - Thoroughly lacks map control potential and incentives, largely through oversaturation on both halfs of the hourglass and not enough twisting in the center (CS is far too low). The high ground pod in the center by itself would hardly be a strong map control potential/incentive, but then there are high ground paths going right around it; these features take away positioning strength from each other. Interestingly enough, that's a very related effect of what too much CS does: it's not hard for armies to completely miss each other when attacking. So you have all these easy-to-take bases. And they're also pretty easy to hold if you devote yourself to it (this is not a favorable combination already). If you decide to attack, there's an unusually high chance that he can sneak a counterattack around. In theory, this is a well-balanced gameplay element.. but it is still "slippery" in that it is overly difficult to control (relying a bit too much on unknowns). The concept is truly intriguing, and maybe it can make a great map (unusually difficult), but I'm not sure I'm a fan of this particular execution of it (too many bases too close too early).
thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts Barrin. I really appreciate it.
do you feel that if I switch the third base's and the lowground base's mineral line counts and then do something like rockblock the far half-base it might make map control more important? Like this, in a 3-3.5 base scenario, the base would count as about 28-33% of the total income (assuming full saturation on all bases) instead of about 15%, players would be more motivated to keep armies in the center to protect it, while the distance to attack (and do (or at least threaten) more significant damage) would be less and more direct, decreasing the threat of counterattacks. The rocks would increase the time needed to get to 4.0 bases and increase the power of some types of cliff harass
I could also maybe make one of the half-bases mineral only (or just remove it (or make it an island, maybe)) to make holding the front base strictly more rewarding than the rear bases.
I could cut the highground path near the red arrow, leaving a small gap for blink/warpin/cliffwalk/drop stuff, making the center more important, but I don't want to remove a map feature termed 'truly intriguing'.
...or close the highground path indicated with the yellow arrow, in order to make the attack distance for the side path longer, but I fear that would make the gameplay even more static then it seems likely to be as it is.
On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote: IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,
I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious.
You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well.
Cracked Cell - Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).
I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I'd like to note that the third's choke is only three gateways long. The nat and third are also very close-- Tanks placed on the highground can also watch over both chokepoints (nat and third) at the same time, for instance. The third seems fairly close and defensible to me, is what I'm saying.
Anyways, I wish I could get this level of feedback more often.
Make a map thread then!
I've had one for about a month.
where is it? "cracked cell" returns nothing in search and there is no link to a thread in your post ...
On May 24 2012 12:15 a176 wrote: where is it? "cracked cell" returns nothing in search and there is no link to a thread in your post ...
Holy nested quotes! Anyway, here - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=333359 You didn't find it because it doesn't have a dedicated thread, it's presented along 2 others. At this point, if you want some more focused feedback on the map Rkynick, I think that would be a really good idea.
On May 24 2012 12:15 a176 wrote: where is it? "cracked cell" returns nothing in search and there is no link to a thread in your post ...
Holy nested quotes! Anyway, here - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=333359 You didn't find it because it doesn't have a dedicated thread, it's presented along 2 others. At this point, if you want some more focused feedback on the map Rkynick, I think that would be a really good idea.
On May 24 2012 01:10 Nightmarjoo wrote: It's annoying how many maps submitted are good enough to consider but aren't on the NA server for testing.
Couldn´t you just look at some replay? Are all judges only on the NA server?
Looking at a replay wouldn't give me the feel of the map, which is primarily what you gain from actually testing a map. The picture tells plenty about the concept and layout, but that's meaningless if the map is too small or too large. Actually playing the map and comparing the experience on the map to that on tourney or ladder maps helps sorting out maps that are ostensibly of a similar level of execution. And who if not myself would play on these maps anyway to give a replay? The other judges are all mappers, not players.
I can get a pretty good idea of how good a map is from the picture alone, but actually playing the map can give surprises. For example I initially thought Alamar Depths was a pretty solid (if standard) map, but after playing it I found its distances were too long, its balance of tight and open wasn't right, and that the nat was too indefensible (favouring the backdoor expo, which is annoying because it's 1gas).
Another example: my impression of Nature's Hold was that it was a standard but well-executed map with good proportions and pathing. Playing the map confirmed these things, but also revealed that the map's size was smaller than comfortable, making defending and attacking annoying.
At a glance it's easy to separate awful and decent maps, but when there's a larger number of decent maps (such as this month's competition) play-testing is important in deciding which are the best and which are just pretty pictures.
On May 24 2012 10:39 Namrufus wrote: something like this + Show Spoiler +
maybe?
I might have an idea, might be terrible though. I might try cutting the low ground paths through the center, which would increase the control value of the center high ground significantly, since the only 2 paths besides are perilously narrow. Of course, I might also open things up just a little bit to compensate for the reduction of pathing, and I might also consider the movement of expansions just as you are doing, not sure what I'd do with them exactly, but I think if I had this map in the editor I could have some fun with it. Maybe you should make a thread for it, so more people can check it out!
poll ended, see the thread in SC2 general, or the post below
I should have had the first round end sooner actually, I doubt many people will vote in the second poll, we shall see.
edit: @NewSunshine: That might be an idea, though without more extensive modifications I think it might be too narrow without those extra paths. As it is it seems as if an army on the middle pod might be at a slight disadvantage, because of the long distances to everything. Another small change is that I might add a tower in the middle (to watch over the side paths) but this might make the center too strong, and the expansions again too vulnerable. I'll eventually make a map thread, probably soon.
I really wanted to like Opernicus; it looks so cool in the picture. It's kind of awful in-game though Nature's Hold looked good in the picture too, but just turned out too small in-game. Prophet's Passage is a neat map, but I hate the 2nd expo in the corner. I think it's both unnecessary and too close to the other one there. Silver Sands is pretty good in-game, but the main not defending the nat choke at all is a little annoying.
These four maps were among my personal top10 favourites for this month.
On May 29 2012 13:26 Namrufus wrote: 5.Nature's Hold by erazer tied with Ragoo's 'TPW Doomsday' and Arctic Raven's 'Dark Shines', this map had more votes in the group polls + Show Spoiler +
Interesting results.
Tied at 5 votes, that's one big sample size.
Also Nature's Hold and especially Agria Rock top5 shows me how serious I can take this :D
On May 29 2012 13:26 Namrufus wrote: 5.Nature's Hold by erazer tied with Ragoo's 'TPW Doomsday' and Arctic Raven's 'Dark Shines', this map had more votes in the group polls + Show Spoiler +
Interesting results.
Tied at 5 votes, that's one big sample size.
Also Nature's Hold and especially Agria Rock top5 shows me how serious I can take this :D
On May 29 2012 13:26 Namrufus wrote: 5.Nature's Hold by erazer tied with Ragoo's 'TPW Doomsday' and Arctic Raven's 'Dark Shines', this map had more votes in the group polls + Show Spoiler +
Interesting results.
Tied at 5 votes, that's one big sample size.
Also Nature's Hold and especially Agria Rock top5 shows me how serious I can take this :D
Hey, you coulda asked everyone to vote for Doomsday instead. :/
And anyway, it was for fun, not to be taken seriously.
Well, don't get this the wrong way, but I'm kind of surprised that Agria Rock got so high up honestly. Maybe it's just me but to me the texturing and aesthetics of that map do not quite seem up to the level of the other maps that got in the top as well as some maps that didn't.
On May 29 2012 14:04 Nightmarjoo wrote: I really wanted to like Opernicus; it looks so cool in the picture. It's kind of awful in-game though
Why it's awful in game ? Can you give any constructive feedback ? I will try to improve it... thanks !!
Well I think most of the map's problems come from using a layout better suited for a larger map size. I think the main mineral formation should be rotated so it's easier to get out of the main (because the formation is horizontal right now and so close to the ramp it needlessly congests movement out of the main). The expos don't have enough space I think, so they tighten the paths that run through them too much further congesting movement. While I understand that the point of the layout is to favour the middle for pathing whilst putting the expo/fighting focus on the sides, I think the sides need to be viable to move a large army through too. The area between the nat and the backdoor is a little too spacious I think. It's good that it's not tight, but it's not an efficient use of the space imo. I think the distance from the nat choke to the main choke is a little long; I dunno if that's bad, but it feels weird. I don't like the expo against the main because of how pathing ducks into its area instead of flowing through it like the other expos. Now even if you agree these are problems and choose to fix them (by enlarging the map I think is the only real solution), I'm concerned that the map doesn't have enough elements to give it strategic variety. I feel like any game on the map is likely to feel the same as any other. The degree of expo order and owner ambiguity definitely helps, but since every expo is basically the same there's no real strategic or positional advantage to taking any particular expo. I like the map's layout a lot; its execution and the concept implemented are just somehow lacking. My favourite part of the map is the dynamic formed between the pathing through the side expos and the layout of the middle. You might be best off making a new map with those elements instead of trying to improve this one. A lot of the sizes and shapes of this map are awkward and would require a lot of space management to improve; probably not worth the effort.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vBF8m.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ilsUl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zKxSJ.jpg)
!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7AY8j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u0kss.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E3quc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WCtYv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e01KF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cwld2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2X2uo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Jzulp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pLSLz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PL1C6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LVVMS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ucRCa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PYzm5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ftit3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2LEGG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pdryh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FIRw5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fAm58.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Kjwjx.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HhXxD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KWTFd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/23Y0D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MerJu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nffdL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/avKth.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6aTzr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bUsRM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cxGkl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CDsUf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Woswd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e7Jni.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ydEkh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GmPAo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ucRCal.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bfD1l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jGICJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rTbwx.jpg)
