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 Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge - Veteran of the BW/SC2 mapmaking scene *Archvile had to sit this month out due to time constraints.
Top Five in no particular order
TPW Silver Sands By Meltage
Silver Sands demonstrates a solid layout, but with new features too. The third expansions are a point of much contention- they are vulnerable from the same attack path into the natural, and also a "backdoor" pathway. They are positioned below central highground that makes map control important, but not too much because the base is out of siege tank range. The center expansions provide an easily defended expansion but it also close to the opponent.
The primary concern of the judges is that the main ramp can be walled with 1 barracks and 1 supply depot, unlike the normal 1 barracks 2 supply depots.
Towers should be removed imo. -Nightmarjoo
Overall not enough interesting concepts, but its fairly solid. -wrl
Abode By Namrufus
Abode.. it is hard to even begin analyzing this map. The expansion progression opens up more vulnerabilites as you go- something always nice to see in maps. This map also have very clean and careful construction, between nice aesthetics and a well thought-out layout. One of the coolest parts is the small path near the main- it can be used for harassment against the opponent's fifth.
The judges had two major concerns for the map. First is the pathing from natural to natural. Units actually take the small lowground path instead of the highground, and bigger armies split up. This can potentially cause a big mess in the middle of the map and isn't generally considered good pathing. Secondly, the highground 1gas base isn't really necessary and doesn't add anything to the gameplay. Most of the judges would prefer if it were removed and the fifth base was moved closer or redesigned.
I think this might be the only map that actually introduces some strong new concepts, while there are features I don't like, its my favorite overall. -wrl
Golden Valley By Gfire
Golden Valley's strong point is that it has almost perfect balance using rotational symmetry without being too boring. The execution of the concept- circular expansions- is very well done. While it may not be the most interesting, we want to reward careful and precise mapmaking like this.
The judges didn't have any major balance or bug concerns, only that the map was almost too generic to be picked for top five.
Yo Dawg heard you like circles, so we put 3 sets of circular paths in yo map so you can expo in a circle while you chase your enemy in a circle while he expos in a circle - nightmarjoo
I really like how solid the layout is, but it defeats the purpose of a rotational map, being that each spawn location is essentially identical. - wrl
TPW Doomsday By Ragoo
Doomsday was among the most controversial maps for the judges. Some of us really liked the new features, while others (*cough* NMJ) thought it is neither innovative or well made. The map made it in top five because it was one of the only few that received recognition from 3 judges that it is playable and good enough for top 5, relative to the rest of the submissions.
The biggest concern among the judges is that it may be, again, too standard. The layout uses themes we've seen in many maps and has a very linear expansion progression. Additionally, some of us are worried that the natural could prove to be imbalanced because of the overlooking highground.
The center is pretty sick. I love the dynamics it adds for controlling the expansions. It can also be used for contains without being too powerful imo. -Monitor
Dark Shines by ArcticRaven
Woahhh... trippy and cool! This map shows us a solid layout, an interesting island at the top left, crazy aesthetics (way too bright though), and nice proportions. Despite its linearity in the expansions, the large size and long distances almost make up for it.
The judges all agree the map is too bright- it needs to be changed for competitive play. However this isn't too big of an issue to keep it out of top 5!
I think the lowground expo between the nat and bottom right expo should probably be removed; map is ok -Nightmarjoo
The nat-nat rush distance is a straight line... but the rest of the map has a nice flow to it and I like the use of highground in the center areas. -Monitor
We will be providing writeups on specific maps. Please request them in this thread if you wish- though keep in mind we may take a few days or more to respond because the judging process is merely volunteer and to help the community. Thanks!
Firstly, nice job on the formatting of the results, btw. I like the little reviews of each, it's put together in a very helpful but to-the-point way.
It's an honor to have my map placed among these other four. They are great maps. I've liked all of these since originally seeing their entries (Dark Shrines less so because I couldn't bring myself to look at the overview extensively with that lighting.) I would like to review in depth in the future, but right now it's so hot in my room I cannot begin to think.
Really happy to place this time. ^^
Lol, who would've thought I would be successful for my map being well executed but boring? "Almost too generic to be picked for top five" was the last thing I would expect to be said about one of my maps. It of course is quite fitting for this map, but I always tend to go so far in the direction of innovative to the point of brokenness, this is an odd position to be in.
I was actually completely out of my comfort zone for this map. It's actually my first 4p rotational map in a very long time, and I spend almost no time thinking about 4p rotational map concepts, which is why this map has such a boring concept and lack of positional variety. In the future I want to make maps with some variety in the rotational positions, and that's something I'll try to think about moving forward.
While I was essentially "successful" with this map, I understand there's a long way to go I will hope to improve in the future and push mapmaking forward in terms of quality standards and innovation while trying to solidify my own style.
Why was the new version of Doomsday used for judging, rather than the one that was submitted? You are favoring certain mapmakers over others, and that's not good for a competition that is supposed to be fair.
On June 01 2012 09:25 Timmay wrote: Why was the new version of Doomsday used for judging, rather than the one that was submitted? You are favoring certain mapmakers over others, and that's not good for a competition that is supposed to be fair.
They've always said that new versions can be submitted at any point in the process? Something along the lines of "changes can still be made after the deadline but we'd prefer it if you didn't" isn't it?
On June 01 2012 09:25 Timmay wrote: Why was the new version of Doomsday used for judging, rather than the one that was submitted? You are favoring certain mapmakers over others, and that's not good for a competition that is supposed to be fair.
Don't worry, you can trust me when I say the judges are here to fuck over mapmakers. We don't pick maps unless we like the mapmaker and he is on a map team.
In all seriousness, yes we wanted to use the updated version because 1) the author went to work to make the update after he was given feedback, 2) its Map of the month where we find the best map of the month, and it was merely and update to his submission, which we decided to accept. I understand that it may be "unfair" to accept an update after submissions close, but motm is pretty loose with requirements right now since there isn't any prize and there isn't any tournament. I don't really understand why you're upset that its unfair- it isn't a game really.
Also we did most of the judging before the update was released.
On June 01 2012 09:28 tehemperorer wrote: I think Silver Sands is beautiful, reminds me a lot of Blistering Sands, which, although it was a shitty map, carries with it some hint of nostalgia.
The aesthetics are similar, in a good way. I don't think the layouts are very similar though.
On June 01 2012 09:31 MarcusRife wrote: Thanks guys. Congrats to all. I would appreciate a write-up on my map Aiur Refuge please.
On June 01 2012 09:28 tehemperorer wrote: I think Silver Sands is beautiful, reminds me a lot of Blistering Sands, which, although it was a shitty map, carries with it some hint of nostalgia.
The aesthetics are similar, in a good way. I don't think the layouts are very similar though.
I guess they're similar as far as the metal high ground sections with watchtowers and the thin lower ground in between. Also the low ground bases in the corners, similar to the golds on Blistering. I don't think they would play out anything like each other, but I see the similarities.
Not sure why I even bothered to identify it though. Maybe I just like hanging out in this topic.
they need to remove the map makers name off the maps and have a real judgement, have one person collect all the maps and hand them out anomyously to the judges or this MoTM will just be as corrupt as congress.
On June 01 2012 10:53 Broodie wrote: all the other maps 100% deserve the win, a little iffy on Golden Valley but mainly because we've seen the same concept many times before
Mind elaborating? What do you see as it's "concept" which is the same as other maps? Cause the map's original concept was built up out of everything about the map which is nonstandard, to be honest. Though I agree with you, the overall impression you get from the map is fairly simple and nothing very original. I guess it's the technical details and layout features I thought of to bring the basic layout to life that I thought was the highlight of the map, but they aren't the sort of thing you notice at first glance, nor are they particularly revolutionary, I just liked them and I thought they gave character to the map.
That's also why I was experimenting with alternative watchtower placements, which were pretty cool but sadly deteriorated the play ability of the map.
Always nice to hear the opinions of people who didn't make the map and are sort of reverse engineering it to get an impression of the map's concept or just the map overall.
On June 01 2012 10:53 Broodie wrote: all the other maps 100% deserve the win, a little iffy on Golden Valley but mainly because we've seen the same concept many times before
Mind elaborating? What do you see as it's "concept" which is the same as other maps? Cause the map's original concept was built up out of everything about the map which is nonstandard, to be honest. Though I agree with you, the overall impression you get from the map is fairly simple and nothing very original. I guess it's the technical details and layout features I thought of to bring the basic layout to life that I thought was the highlight of the map, but they aren't the sort of thing you notice at first glance, nor are they particularly revolutionary, I just liked them and I thought they gave character to the map.
That's also why I was experimenting with alternative watchtower placements, which were pretty cool but sadly deteriorated the play ability of the map.
Always nice to hear the opinions of people who didn't make the map and are sort of reverse engineering it to get an impression of the map's concept or just the map overall.
I'm not broodie, but I think I know where he's coming from. The concept seems like it isn't new because it's built out of a lot of very normal things. Equidistant thirds, central watch tower, high ground near center, gets more open near the center, mains in corners, those types of things. Personally I think most of those are good things and you did a great job of high lighting the good aspects of those features. Overall, yours was a very good execution of a pretty regular concept in my book. There was some variation like you discussed and some newer ideas but most of the ideas are tried and true. Which in my opinion just makes it a very solid map, if not one that changes the "map-making metagame."
On June 01 2012 10:53 Broodie wrote: all the other maps 100% deserve the win, a little iffy on Golden Valley but mainly because we've seen the same concept many times before
Mind elaborating? What do you see as it's "concept" which is the same as other maps? Cause the map's original concept was built up out of everything about the map which is nonstandard, to be honest. Though I agree with you, the overall impression you get from the map is fairly simple and nothing very original. I guess it's the technical details and layout features I thought of to bring the basic layout to life that I thought was the highlight of the map, but they aren't the sort of thing you notice at first glance, nor are they particularly revolutionary, I just liked them and I thought they gave character to the map.
That's also why I was experimenting with alternative watchtower placements, which were pretty cool but sadly deteriorated the play ability of the map.
Always nice to hear the opinions of people who didn't make the map and are sort of reverse engineering it to get an impression of the map's concept or just the map overall.
I'm not broodie, but I think I know where he's coming from. The concept seems like it isn't new because it's built out of a lot of very normal things. Equidistant thirds, central watch tower, high ground near center, gets more open near the center, mains in corners, those types of things. Personally I think most of those are good things and you did a great job of high lighting the good aspects of those features. Overall, yours was a very good execution of a pretty regular concept in my book. There was some variation like you discussed and some newer ideas but most of the ideas are tried and true. Which in my opinion just makes it a very solid map, if not one that changes the "map-making metagame."
Well, I definitely want to be someone who changes the map-making metagame, so I'll try to do more of that in the future. Now I've gotten a better understanding of 4p rotational maps so I'll try to come up with more original concepts. Thanks for the detailed review.
On June 01 2012 07:44 monitor wrote: Abode By Namfurus
wow! I was not expecting this! I'm really pleased that you would choose this map for the top 5.
The split paths thing is going to be tricky to fix. in order to have the center path the shortest the only simple solutions I can see have to either tightly constrict the area near the north/south LOS blocker lines (next to the high ground pod ramps) or change the orientation of the ramps on the pod to face the nat entrance squarely, both actions probably have nontrival consequences for how the middle works.
Now I'm really afraid to change the map and ruin something... haha...
Most of the judges would prefer if it were removed and the fifth base was moved closer or redesigned.
do you have any suggestions about how close it could be moved?
------------------------------
Thanks for all of you guy's hard work administering MOTM! I especially like the large amounts of explanations for each of the top 5 this month.
and of course congrats to the other top 5! I really like Silver Sands.
My next comment was going to be what Rumble just said above me, if you took out "I'm not Broodie, but..."
It's a very solid map, and very well done, and I have no quams over any aspect of it, it's just that it feels like we've all subconsciously played on this map many times before.
On June 01 2012 11:34 gfever wrote: they need to remove the map makers name off the maps and have a real judgement, have one person collect all the maps and hand them out anomyously to the judges or this MoTM will just be as corrupt as congress.
...I don't think the judges share much in common with congress, we're doing this for fun, to help other mapmakers, and to increase our own understandings. Also when we go through the judging process, we have a list of map images with NO author or team prefixes. I really don't think its an issue... a good map is a good map regardless of the author or team they're on. We all know that.
[edit]
The judges will be going through the thread to find map feedback requests, and we will do writeups shortly.
On June 01 2012 10:53 Broodie wrote: all the other maps 100% deserve the win, a little iffy on Golden Valley but mainly because we've seen the same concept many times before
Mind elaborating? What do you see as it's "concept" which is the same as other maps? Cause the map's original concept was built up out of everything about the map which is nonstandard, to be honest. Though I agree with you, the overall impression you get from the map is fairly simple and nothing very original. I guess it's the technical details and layout features I thought of to bring the basic layout to life that I thought was the highlight of the map, but they aren't the sort of thing you notice at first glance, nor are they particularly revolutionary, I just liked them and I thought they gave character to the map.
That's also why I was experimenting with alternative watchtower placements, which were pretty cool but sadly deteriorated the play ability of the map.
Always nice to hear the opinions of people who didn't make the map and are sort of reverse engineering it to get an impression of the map's concept or just the map overall.
I'm not broodie, but I think I know where he's coming from. The concept seems like it isn't new because it's built out of a lot of very normal things. Equidistant thirds, central watch tower, high ground near center, gets more open near the center, mains in corners, those types of things. Personally I think most of those are good things and you did a great job of high lighting the good aspects of those features. Overall, yours was a very good execution of a pretty regular concept in my book. There was some variation like you discussed and some newer ideas but most of the ideas are tried and true. Which in my opinion just makes it a very solid map, if not one that changes the "map-making metagame."
Well, I definitely want to be someone who changes the map-making metagame, so I'll try to do more of that in the future. Now I've gotten a better understanding of 4p rotational maps so I'll try to come up with more original concepts. Thanks for the detailed review.
Oh, I'm confident you will change the map-making metagame. You're one of the mappers that when I see a new map that's made by you, I know it will be a cool map. You're not yet one of the "famous" like monitor or barrin but you're getting there. I always like to watch what you do with your maps.
I don't have time to do a write up about every map right now, but I will say that this seemed like a very close competition from my perspective. There are at least 5 more maps that I think were close contenders for top 5 positions.
So I wouldn't normally post my complete personal rankings, but I'm not a fan of the motm being posted without any official rankings. So if I was the sole judge of motm these are my rankings:
1. Golden Valley 2. Silver Sands 3. Auir Refuge 4. Dark Shrines 5. Vaha 6. Abode (if it had changes) 7. Prophet's Passage (if the second corner expo (the 7th base) was removed) 8. Nature's Hold 9. Opernicus
I originally had a 10th map, but upon testing it found it to be horrible; I never found a replacement 10th map. Since I have nothing good to say or any suggestions to make about this map, I will omit it.
Vaha's placement is fairly arbitrary. The map isn't uploaded on NA, I don't have any other sc2 regions installed, and the author didn't submit the map file to the motm submission email. So I couldn't play the map, so I couldn't compare it as accurately to the other maps. I expect that I'd like it more than Dark Shrines, but I was able to test Dark Shrines and it felt ok in-game so I've ranked it higher. My initial thoughts of the map were the following: "Its rocks need removed; the nat is a little poor looking; 4th is probably a little too close, but I like 12/3/6/9 4ths; wish they were a little more neutrally oriented though; map is just too small I think, but generally it's "ok": standard and probably decently playable, it's just not ambitious at all, which I think results from the mapsize: can't really fit proper distances in; the middle is the right size imo, but the distance to 3rds and 4ths is a little short and thus also the distances between players; poor mineral formation and gas placement" Since I couldn't test any of these theoriesI have nothing more to say.
While I didn't get a chance to play any full games on Golden Valley, I played on it in solitude and it felt very comfortable. I like the expo layout and the pathing. While this map isn't particularly interesting (doesn't really differ from standard models) it seems well-made and the concept very well executed. It certainly isn't a clone of any map either.
Silver Sands was the same way as Golden as far as testing went, and it seemed pretty good to me. I had liked it from the picture to begin with. It has an interesting expo layout and is well-made. As I posted previously I don't like how the main can't possibly defend the nat at all. Myself and at least two other judges had some ideas about improving the space management of the map, but I'm told the author didn't like the ideas when one judge suggested them, so I won't bother writing them out. I like Golden better than this map because I think its concept is better executed. The map's space is used more efficiently there as well.
I like Auir Refuge a lot, it just isn't as clean as the previous two. The four bases per player are a little closer to each other than I'd prefer as well. The layout seems good though, and while the map is large it didn't feel too big to me. As with the others above I didn't get to test it extensively though. I'm potentially worried about the fact that you can blink into the nat from the 4th area, though it may not actually matter. The vulnerability of the nat from behind definitely makes or breaks the map. I don't know which way that balance tips though.
Dark Shrines felt surprisingly good in-game (due to its long distances most likely). That being said, it's definitely the weakest map of my top5. The island is almost positively useless (and thus all the space around it as well). The 3rd and 4th are too similar in distance and strategic value. In my game on the map the gameplay focused almost exclusively in the middle between the two 4ths. Harass around the 3rds felt weird. The dynamic between the two sides of the map (top left/bottom right) seems weak. That being said the map still felt fine in-game for the most part, which is why the map places this high in my rankings.
I don't dislike Abode, but I thought it had some serious problems which kept it from being top5 quality. I hate the 1gas expos; it's not even a high yield gas. The two of them are too close together. Neither are particularly good expos, the map should probably be remade in that area. The third seems a little close/boring as well, but as an expo isn't bad. What is bad though imo is that some mineral miners and all geysers/gas miners can be hit by tanks from the highground just outside the 3rd. From a spot on the other side of the ramp of that same highground the cc itself can be hit by tanks. The pathing into that highground is a ramp on either side, and the distance between the opposite side ramp and the expo side is so short that a tank augmented force there could easily just be invincible for a fairly long time. It's strong enough to be a serious imbalance imo. A colos augmented force from the same area could be potentially really strong too, but I didn't test that at all. The pathing on the map naturally takes the top side from right or the bottom side from left, not the central highground path. This means the map effectively has even paths, which is annoying and bad for gameplay. Daybreak can get away with it because of a dynamic caused by the total summation of the map's features that I won't discuss, this map can't imo.
I'm not particularly a fan of Prophet's Passage, but it seems well-made for the most part. As stated above one of the corner expos should be removed. I checked the map very briefly in-game, and it seemed solid, hence its position. Conceptually it's a little too messy for me to be any higher though.
As I posted previously, Nature's hold looked really solid (if very standard) in the picture, but in-game was way too small (and has other space management issues not caused by the map's size).
As I posted previously, Opernicus looks awesome in picture but is very uncomfortable in game. I love its layout and concept, they just aren't executed well.
I know Fantazy got a lot of attention in the thread, and while we all found it very interesting we were all agreed in that it's unplayable. The map should probably be cannibalized for its good features for a new map.
I really don't want to say anything about Doomsday because I have absolutely nothing nice to say, but I feel compelled since it made the top5 (all of the other judges liked it). I don't like speaking out against the other judges because I respect them and their opinions, but I feel too strongly about this map to keep quiet on this occasion. I hope the author doesn't take this personally; I have nothing against them. This map (the first version that was submitted and the new version) is really bad. It has absolutely nothing good about it. It's sloppily made, it has no real concept, its expo layout is attrocious for gameplay, and its pathing in the middle is an absolute mess. I am absolutely baffled as to how the other judges like it. They stated the things I just called bad and said they find them interesting. I'm all for interesting maps which just happen to lack adept execution (e.g. Dodongo from last month), but this map doesn't fit that category. This map is Incineration Zone level (but bigger so as to be even less playable). The changes from the submitted version to the new version make it maybe playable, but more boring/generic (and still without proper execution). The map is just very uncomfortable to play on and brings nothing conceptually new or interesting to mapping or to the gameplay.
Another map that got some attention was Pegasus. I think the map has a lot of good elements, but the way they were fit together is poor imo. I don't like this kind of symmetry typically, and it probably ruined what was conceptually a decent map. It could be better within the symmetry though. The path higher than the main path should have been the main path. The islands don't work imo.
For the few people suggesting the results are biased with favouritism: in my experience of judging across several motm competitions I have not noticed a single blatant example of such bias. I believe the results have always been the honest picks by all the judges. That being said every judge likes and dislikes different map features, layouts, concepts, etc. That every judge is very different brings legitimacy to the competition imo. + Show Spoiler [big image] +
This is an example of our judging procedure. This month was hectic so we didn't use the traditional numeric rating system (hence no numbers in the final ranking), but you can clearly see there are no author names. Personally I don't look at the mapping forum often and don't look at the submissions until the competition is up and running. I don't know the authors of any map. From my experience no other judge takes into consideration the author or mapping team for ranking maps either. This may not be a perfect competition, but I do believe it's a fair one. I fail to see any evidence for such bias.
The judges had two major concerns for the map [Abode by namrufus]. First is the pathing from natural to natural. Units actually take the small lowground path instead of the highground, and bigger armies split up. This can potentially cause a big mess in the middle of the map and isn't generally considered good pathing.
Okay... what??? Comments like this make me smack my forehead. How is that a problem? This is precisely what the middle of the map is for, to break up army movement and make the players consider what route is best in the moment. "You can't a-move mindlessly" is not a valid map complaint.
Otherwise, lookin' good crew, congrats namru, gfire, others; thank you judges/organizers. =)
No, it's bad when your units don't behave the way you expect them to. Even pathing is bad pathing. Since the middle path isn't used preferentially by units the map effectively has even paths. Multiple paths and broken-up paths can be great for maneuvering similarly to what you describe, but that's not applicable to even paths (the good doesn't outweigh the bad). Even paths also tend to strongly encourage counter-based play, which usually favours the more mobile race in each matchup (racial imbalance), or it simply makes gameplay less enjoyable because it becomes too difficult to attack. Accidental base trades aren't good for gameplay either.
Mapping incompetency like yours makes me smack my forehead.
Nightmarjoo, is there any chance you could post your thoughts on Psychosurgery?
- - - - - - -
On June 01 2012 14:34 Nightmarjoo wrote: 4. Dark Shrines
On June 01 2012 14:34 Nightmarjoo wrote: Another map that got some attention was Pegasus. I think the map has a lot of good elements, but the way they were fit together is poor imo. I don't like this kind of symmetry typically, and it probably ruined what was conceptually a decent map. It could be better within the symmetry though. The path higher than the main path should have been the main path. The islands don't work imo.
So I wouldn't normally post my complete personal rankings, but I'm not a fan of the motm being posted without any official rankings. So if I was the sole judge of motm these are my rankings:
1. Golden Valley 2. Silver Sands 3. Auir Refuge 4. Dark Shrines 5. Vaha 6. Abode (if it had changes) 7. Prophet's Passage (if the second corner expo (the 7th base) was removed) 8. Nature's Hold 9. Opernicus
I originally had a 10th map, but upon testing it found it to be horrible; I never found a replacement 10th map. Since I have nothing good to say or any suggestions to make about this map, I will omit it.
Vaha's placement is fairly arbitrary. The map isn't uploaded on NA, I don't have any other sc2 regions installed, and the author didn't submit the map file to the motm submission email. So I couldn't play the map, so I couldn't compare it as accurately to the other maps. I expect that I'd like it more than Dark Shrines, but I was able to test Dark Shrines and it felt ok in-game so I've ranked it higher. My initial thoughts of the map were the following: "Its rocks need removed; the nat is a little poor looking; 4th is probably a little too close, but I like 12/3/6/9 4ths; wish they were a little more neutrally oriented though; map is just too small I think, but generally it's "ok": standard and probably decently playable, it's just not ambitious at all, which I think results from the mapsize: can't really fit proper distances in; the middle is the right size imo, but the distance to 3rds and 4ths is a little short and thus also the distances between players; poor mineral formation and gas placement" Since I couldn't test any of these theoriesI have nothing more to say.
While I didn't get a chance to play any full games on Golden Valley, I played on it in solitude and it felt very comfortable. I like the expo layout and the pathing. While this map isn't particularly interesting (doesn't really differ from standard models) it seems well-made and the concept very well executed. It certainly isn't a clone of any map either.
Silver Sands was the same way as Golden as far as testing went, and it seemed pretty good to me. I had liked it from the picture to begin with. It has an interesting expo layout and is well-made. As I posted previously I don't like how the main can't possibly defend the nat at all. Myself and at least two other judges had some ideas about improving the space management of the map, but I'm told the author didn't like the ideas when one judge suggested them, so I won't bother writing them out. I like Golden better than this map because I think its concept is better executed. The map's space is used more efficiently there as well.
I like Auir Refuge a lot, it just isn't as clean as the previous two. The four bases per player are a little closer to each other than I'd prefer as well. The layout seems good though, and while the map is large it didn't feel too big to me. As with the others above I didn't get to test it extensively though. I'm potentially worried about the fact that you can blink into the nat from the 4th area, though it may not actually matter. The vulnerability of the nat from behind definitely makes or breaks the map. I don't know which way that balance tips though.
Dark Shrines felt surprisingly good in-game (due to its long distances most likely). That being said, it's definitely the weakest map of my top5. The island is almost positively useless (and thus all the space around it as well). The 3rd and 4th are too similar in distance and strategic value. In my game on the map the gameplay focused almost exclusively in the middle between the two 4ths. Harass around the 3rds felt weird. The dynamic between the two sides of the map (top left/bottom right) seems weak. That being said the map still felt fine in-game for the most part, which is why the map places this high in my rankings.
I don't dislike Abode, but I thought it had some serious problems which kept it from being top5 quality. I hate the 1gas expos; it's not even a high yield gas. The two of them are too close together. Neither are particularly good expos, the map should probably be remade in that area. The third seems a little close/boring as well, but as an expo isn't bad. What is bad though imo is that some mineral miners and all geysers/gas miners can be hit by tanks from the highground just outside the 3rd. From a spot on the other side of the ramp of that same highground the cc itself can be hit by tanks. The pathing into that highground is a ramp on either side, and the distance between the opposite side ramp and the expo side is so short that a tank augmented force there could easily just be invincible for a fairly long time. It's strong enough to be a serious imbalance imo. A colos augmented force from the same area could be potentially really strong too, but I didn't test that at all. The pathing on the map naturally takes the top side from right or the bottom side from left, not the central highground path. This means the map effectively has even paths, which is annoying and bad for gameplay. Daybreak can get away with it because of a dynamic caused by the total summation of the map's features that I won't discuss, this map can't imo.
I'm not particularly a fan of Prophet's Passage, but it seems well-made for the most part. As stated above one of the corner expos should be removed. I checked the map very briefly in-game, and it seemed solid, hence its position. Conceptually it's a little too messy for me to be any higher though.
As I posted previously, Nature's hold looked really solid (if very standard) in the picture, but in-game was way too small (and has other space management issues not caused by the map's size).
As I posted previously, Opernicus looks awesome in picture but is very uncomfortable in game. I love its layout and concept, they just aren't executed well.
I know Fantazy got a lot of attention in the thread, and while we all found it very interesting we were all agreed in that it's unplayable. The map should probably be cannibalized for its good features for a new map.
I really don't want to say anything about Doomsday because I have absolutely nothing nice to say, but I feel compelled since it made the top5 (all of the other judges liked it). I don't like speaking out against the other judges because I respect them and their opinions, but I feel too strongly about this map to keep quiet on this occasion. I hope the author doesn't take this personally; I have nothing against them. This map (the first version that was submitted and the new version) is really bad. It has absolutely nothing good about it. It's sloppily made, it has no real concept, its expo layout is attrocious for gameplay, and its pathing in the middle is an absolute mess. I am absolutely baffled as to how the other judges like it. They stated the things I just called bad and said they find them interesting. I'm all for interesting maps which just happen to lack adept execution (e.g. Dodongo from last month), but this map doesn't fit that category. This map is Incineration Zone level (but bigger so as to be even less playable). The changes from the submitted version to the new version make it maybe playable, but more boring/generic (and still without proper execution). The map is just very uncomfortable to play on and brings nothing conceptually new or interesting to mapping or to the gameplay.
Another map that got some attention was Pegasus. I think the map has a lot of good elements, but the way they were fit together is poor imo. I don't like this kind of symmetry typically, and it probably ruined what was conceptually a decent map. It could be better within the symmetry though. The path higher than the main path should have been the main path. The islands don't work imo.
For the few people suggesting the results are biased with favouritism: in my experience of judging across several motm competitions I have not noticed a single blatant example of such bias. I believe the results have always been the honest picks by all the judges. That being said every judge likes and dislikes different map features, layouts, concepts, etc. That every judge is very different brings legitimacy to the competition imo. + Show Spoiler [big image] +
This is an example of our judging procedure. This month was hectic so we didn't use the traditional numeric rating system (hence no numbers in the final ranking), but you can clearly see there are no author names. Personally I don't look at the mapping forum often and don't look at the submissions until the competition is up and running. I don't know the authors of any map. From my experience no other judge takes into consideration the author or mapping team for ranking maps either. This may not be a perfect competition, but I do believe it's a fair one. I fail to see any evidence for such bias.
Thanks for the feedback. Vaha was initially created as a 6m map so it probably didn't translate to 8m as well as I'd thought.
Dark Shrines has a focus on the upper half of the map, Pegasus on the lower half. The former's approach is a better way to combat the inherent linearity a 2 player map and in particular that kind of symmetry typically create. I like a lot of Pegasus better than Dark Shrines, but I like the way Dark Shrines plays out better than Pegasus.
On June 01 2012 14:45 Nightmarjoo wrote: No, it's bad when your units don't behave the way you expect them to. Even pathing is bad pathing. Since the middle path isn't used preferentially by units the map effectively has even paths. Multiple paths and broken-up paths can be great for maneuvering similarly to what you describe, but that's not applicable to even paths (the good doesn't outweigh the bad). Even paths also tend to strongly encourage counter-based play, which usually favours the more mobile race in each matchup (racial imbalance), or it simply makes gameplay less enjoyable because it becomes too difficult to attack. Accidental base trades aren't good for gameplay either.
Mapping incompetency like yours makes me smack my forehead.
You are describing split pathing (which is bad when the distance between the paths is long and it's too hard to scout both sides -- base trades). This has nothing to do with how the units' AI moves them across the map (which doesn't really have any bearing on competitive play). Instead of lashing out maybe you could respond to what I said?
Psychosurgery is too tight, linear, and the expo density is too high. All-in-all it's a pretty boring split-map turtle map. These problems stem from poor space management. The large amount of space wasted between the players (the water) is easy evidence of this. I don't like the use of the tower. I like the design of the 4ths and the corner expo (but not the areas around them or the way they happen to fit into this particular map).
If your army is at the pivotal point of the middle area on one side of the highground path and you command it to the other side it can split up with one half taking the top half and the other the bottom half; this is bad. Additionally if you simply command something distinctly from your half of the map to the other it will take one path or the other, not necessarily the one you expect (and not the middle path), this is bad. A map feature that causes your units to do something you don't expect is bad, not something we need to add to force players to further manage their armies. Ask anyone if they liked the unit ai problems present in bw. If it's ok for you to be "lashing out" against an accomplished map author and a judge of this competition then it's plenty fine for me to do so at you, with your own words no-less.
A map feature that causes your units to do something you don't expect is bad, not something we need to add to force players to further manage their armies. Ask anyone if they liked the unit ai problems present in bw.
This is the only thing I meant to discuss, the rest is a hiss and scratch fight I don't want to be a part of.
By playing the map once you will learn that the units take the ccw low ground path. I don't see what more there is to it than that. The pathing AI often does surprising things -- the first time. The part of the OP I quoted says nothing about the split path map feature, which is a valid complaint, despite the fact that the map is, in fact, odd pathed not even pathed. This could easily be fixed with watch towers or by changing the cliff profile or whathaveyou.
I don't really give a fuck about your aspersions, but I did want to discuss the thing I was discussing. In that vein, I appreciate the reply.
EDIT FOR LEVITY
Okay in other news can we not have Rainbow Road (loveablemikey) be permanent grand champion of motm permanently? That map deserves a nobel prize.
I know what he meant because he was summarizing my opinions on the map, and I'm clarifying what he said. I have no idea what your point even is. The problem with the pathing is there no matter how many times you play the map; just because you could get used to it doesn't mean it's a good feature to be kept. And I don't like your aspersions against him.
I think Golden valley needs to be re-textured, although it might be just the layout getting fucked up by the editor. The middle of doomsday is cool but I don't like the surrounding ramps at all, I can't imagine how frustrating they would be to play on. I'm glad to see Dark Shines there as the most aesthetically pleasing of all the maps(and one of the only good looking maps with a nice colour scheme).
On June 01 2012 14:34 Nightmarjoo wrote: Silver Sands was the same way as Golden as far as testing went, and it seemed pretty good to me. I had liked it from the picture to begin with. It has an interesting expo layout and is well-made. As I posted previously I don't like how the main can't possibly defend the nat at all. Myself and at least two other judges had some ideas about improving the space management of the map, but I'm told the author didn't like the ideas when one judge suggested them, so I won't bother writing them out. I like Golden better than this map because I think its concept is better executed. The map's space is used more efficiently there as well.
Hmm I remember a suggestion about the high ground pods shoudl be bigger. Was that it? I didn't see reason enought to change it when other feedback was that they were huge. I think basically making high ground more powerful can easily make tanks OP. If there were more suggestions/complaint about space management, please shoot
The point of comparing to Golden is lost to me, however as they are very different maps.
On June 01 2012 14:34 Nightmarjoo wrote: Silver Sands was the same way as Golden as far as testing went, and it seemed pretty good to me. I had liked it from the picture to begin with. It has an interesting expo layout and is well-made. As I posted previously I don't like how the main can't possibly defend the nat at all. Myself and at least two other judges had some ideas about improving the space management of the map, but I'm told the author didn't like the ideas when one judge suggested them, so I won't bother writing them out. I like Golden better than this map because I think its concept is better executed. The map's space is used more efficiently there as well.
Hmm I remember a suggestion about the high ground pods shoudl be bigger. Was that it? I didn't see reason enought to change it when other feedback was that they were huge. I think basically making high ground more powerful can easily make tanks OP. If there were more suggestions/complaint about space management, please shoot
The point of comparing to Golden is lost to me, however as they are very different maps.
They're very small in-game. I was just comparing the map to Golden for ranking's sake. They're of similar quality imo, but yes they're completely different maps.
I would greatly appreciate hearing whatever thoughts people had about my map (Burning Straits). It placed worst in the user poll and I could really do with some straight talk to change my general direction of map making.
Its picture is really hard to look at. The map seems too small, tight, and cramped, with the expos too close together. Main and nat minerals are too close to the edge (making defending air harass difficult). You have a lot of wasted space (unuseable terrain) too. I don't really see what the map's concept is (I don't understand the point of the map: what makes it better or different than other maps?) I'd say work at getting standard sizes, shapes, and distances.
On June 01 2012 14:34 Nightmarjoo wrote: Silver Sands was the same way as Golden as far as testing went, and it seemed pretty good to me. I had liked it from the picture to begin with. It has an interesting expo layout and is well-made. As I posted previously I don't like how the main can't possibly defend the nat at all. Myself and at least two other judges had some ideas about improving the space management of the map, but I'm told the author didn't like the ideas when one judge suggested them, so I won't bother writing them out. I like Golden better than this map because I think its concept is better executed. The map's space is used more efficiently there as well.
Hmm I remember a suggestion about the high ground pods shoudl be bigger. Was that it? I didn't see reason enought to change it when other feedback was that they were huge. I think basically making high ground more powerful can easily make tanks OP. If there were more suggestions/complaint about space management, please shoot
The point of comparing to Golden is lost to me, however as they are very different maps.
They're very small in-game. I was just comparing the map to Golden for ranking's sake. They're of similar quality imo, but yes they're completely different maps.
Yeah, you could say it's like comparing gold and silver.
On June 02 2012 07:16 Nightmarjoo wrote: Its picture is really hard to look at. The map seems too small, tight, and cramped, with the expos too close together. Main and nat minerals are too close to the edge (making defending air harass difficult). You have a lot of wasted space (unuseable terrain) too. I don't really see what the map's concept is (I don't understand the point of the map: what makes it better or different than other maps?) I'd say work at getting standard sizes, shapes, and distances.
Thanks for the feedback. It feels so much smaller as an 8m2g map than it did as 6m1hyg. The minerals close to the edge and all the dead space was purposeful to make air better, and all the chokes are to make smaller armies better (or large armies worse). This map was an exercise in forward chokes and trying to get you to split up your units, which worked quite well in 6m1hyg, but completely fails in 8m2g because everything just feels awkward. I'm going to try to make a few more classic maps (circle syndrome and all), and then come back to forward chokes
My gut impression is that this map is very nicely made and has wonderful aesthetics. The corner expos are really sweet, as well as the left/right center expansions. The potential problems I have with the map are that the third is hard to defend and the cluster of 4 bases in the center are too close. I love middle expos, but when there are 4 all very close, it makes me question the balance and gameplay. I'd rather see one of the bases removed and an area redesigned.
I'm also not a big fan of your space management. The main and natural are very tight, but then there's a massive open space outside the natural. The third is really spacious too... yet the middle is tiny. I'd rather you make the expansion areas smaller and increase the size of the middle and other engagement areas.
this is odd, but I don't really think you could take a fourth as Z or P -timetwister
Auir Refuge
Very cool ideas and well done with rotational symmetry.
I just can't see this natural design working. The rush distance is really short once you break the rocks, so I don't think many games are going to get past the mid game. The natural is creative but... tanks, colossi, blink stalkers, mutalisks, etc. are just going to be too powerful imo. I can't see a solid balance coming from it, and I don't know if the gameplay will make up for it.
My first instinct is "woah this is a nice well-made map"; my second is "oh god blink harass at the nat" - nightmarjoo
Prophets Passage
Again, this is a well made map.. but to be entirely honest, I don't like any of it except the fourth base. The inbase is kinda boring and doesn't do much in the way of improving the metagame imo. It kinda just encourages turtling. The 1gas expo is nice but again, it isn't very interesting and doesn't make any of the MUs very fun. The fourth is cool to me because you can mine the minerals to make it closer, and it also has a really nice vulnerability- the ramp is good for large attacks and the side path can be used for harassment.
The middle expos are alright but I think they're too tight. And now that I think of it, I also think the entire map is too choked. The largest fighting areas on the highgrounds are kinda useless since that area is really only going to be used for moving armies, not engaging or containing. So imo better space management is needed - smaller highgrounds, larger open spaces like between the 1gas and the fourth.
I'm not crazy about the map by any means, but it seems playable - nightmarjoo
oZz Vaha
Vaha doesn't really have any big problems I can speak of, but there are a couple aspects I dislike. Firstly the main is an okay size but the shape is really annoying for production buildings and scouting drops/nydus/etc. I do love the middle of the map
Other than that.. its a cool map, I'm just not a big fan of the aesthetics and the layout, even though it is well done. Not sure about this whole "fixing rush distances" by adding rocks.
Silver Sands: The watch tower is pretty useless and the front is too easily wallable for terran. Aside from that, the 3rd's position is very interesting. I'm not sure about the faraway 4th and 5th on the sides and corner (not the middle 4th). They look really weak to harassments, especially the 5th which is located on the low ground. Basically if you get a 5th for that late game in PvZ for example while you have immobile infestor broodlord force, protoss will just crush it unless you make a ton of spine crawlers there and weaken your defend somewhere else. Basicly it encourages you to take only 4 bases maximum on that map and that's my biggest concern about it.
Abode: I really don't think this map is good for protoss and terran, maybe I would even say it's terrible for protoss. While it's a very good map for zerg. This makes think it would make great imbalance in PvZ. Look at that 3rd, it's completly impossible to wall the path from the highground making it extremly vulnerable to roaches pushes, while you still have huge entrance to it near the natural (natural is wide too, hard for ffe). Basicly you won't be able to defend the 3rd against mass roach and you'll have to only 2 base all in each game while for zerg this openess only helps defending the all in because you need to use more forcefields. And even then zerg can all in you since natural is too wide open, and also plenty of space and hidden areas in the main for nydus, zerg can win this game easily with both macro or all in play against protoss on this map. Terran also has troubles on this map since there's no expansions going to the center, so it's hard for terran to advance more into the center.
Golden Valley: Looks a bit boring, but a kinda well balanced macro map. Still very macro oriented and easy to get to 3 bases and that half base. Though the rotational symmetry makes a very interesting choices for your 5th+ base depending on the enemy's spawning locations. Basicly I would say this map will have a boring early game but an interesting late game. Unfortunate for terran in PvT huh? Also perhaps not that good for zerg who likes to be aggressive in mid game because of the chokes and easy to defend expansions. But still a well done map.
Doomsday: Perhaps the map I liked the most of the maps. The interesting position of the 3rd makes it at the same time very easy to defend but also kinda hard to defend, very paradoxical no? In protoss versus zerg, it would basicly be easy to defend with a semiwall off and sentries, you can keep your army near the natural's entrance and when you see zerg attack use forecefields and semiwall to delay his attack and bring your army from natural to 3rd very quickly. However in PvT, drops at main and 3rd at same time will be extremly difficult to defend, but not balance breaking, very well done map again. I think it's well balanced for zerg and protoss, and could make some interesting PvZ matches. Also nice aesthetics.
Dark Shrine: Somehow reminds me a bit of Atlantis Shipyard, the terrain is nicely colored, probably a way to make people like this map depite any imbalances it may have. It even makes not want to analyse it. But still let's see what this map has. Actually I don't have a lot to say about it, but both the 3rds on the left and on the right are a bit hard to defend because all of the wideness, not sure how it will look in actual play. The low ground "island" expansion is also an interesting concept, but probably a bit terran favored since they can lift and plant a cc there early unlike other races, specially zerg who needs to invest a ton in order to transport a drone there for an expansion.
On June 03 2012 06:44 Adonminus wrote: Here's my opinions about the maps:
[...]
Abode: I really don't think this map is good for protoss and terran, maybe I would even say it's terrible for protoss. While it's a very good map for zerg. This makes think it would make great imbalance in PvZ. Look at that 3rd, it's completly impossible to wall the path from the highground making it extremly vulnerable to roaches pushes, while you still have huge entrance to it near the natural (natural is wide too, hard for ffe). Basicly you won't be able to defend the 3rd against mass roach and you'll have to only 2 base all in each game while for zerg this openess only helps defending the all in because you need to use more forcefields. And even then zerg can all in you since natural is too wide open, and also plenty of space and hidden areas in the main for nydus, zerg can win this game easily with both macro or all in play against protoss on this map. Terran also has troubles on this map since there's no expansions going to the center, so it's hard for terran to advance more into the center.
[...]
I would like to argue against the highlighted statements.
The natural choke takes ~3 gateways to fully block. An FFE might look something like this: + Show Spoiler +
. While the choke might be a bit wide (in terms of raw width, about 1.5 times the width of a 2 wide ramp(the size of shakuras' nat ramp)) I don't believe it is excessively wide (I think it's smaller than the ladder version of Korhal Compound's nat choke for example).
The choke into the third facing the nat takes 3 forcefields or two gateways + one other building to block completely. This is about the width of a size 2 ramp.
With the rock uncleared, It is possible to block on top of the highground ridge on the other side of the third with two gateways, like this: + Show Spoiler +
(ling tight), It takes about 3.5 or 4 gateways to block the ridge without the rock. It takes two forcefields to block the downward ramp with the rock in place
--------------------------
that said, you may still be correct about everything, as there are as you say, more map features that might tend to favor zerg, (openness of the map as a whole, big mains, long flank paths etc). In any case, thanks for the feedback! it made me consider the map more carefully.
edit: forgot to add pictures, wait a second...OK done
On June 03 2012 09:09 monitor wrote: Btw guys there is going to be a special motm for june, coming very soon!
I do look forward to this.
On the topic of this MotM overall, I feel relative to the other competitions that this was a bit of a disaster. First off, ESV didn't participate. This is the first contributing factor I think which pops to mind, and the biggest. Before, when they had a map, finished or not, it ramped up the competition significantly, so the winner was almost always a spectacular map. Here in this MotM, we don't even have a winner, just a top 5, which says something about the overall quality of the entries I think. That said, I do feel Silver Sands in particular is probably the most deserving of a 1st place designation, as the other 4 were either significantly flawed in some way, or just boring in their execution I feel. Silver Sands walks the line between the two(interesting/balanced) best of all. Not to mention this would also extend TPW's reign over MotM, so it fits best of all
I hope the guys at ESV see the difference between this month and the ones before, the difference is rather enormous.
I'm of the opinion that there were more decent quality maps made this month than in previous months, but just that there was no one map that really stood out as being the obvious best one. While that may seem desireable, it mostly means the best maps didn't have enough to distinguish themselves by. I dunno what all the fuss about ESV is anyway, their maps aren't that good on average. Maybe it's because they've been rushing them, but I've seen plenty of TPW and nonteam maps of higher quality in these competitions.
I've played real games on Auir Refuge, Golden Valley, and Silver Sands now. Auir might be too big ._> The 4th felt difficult to defend which is ironic since it's so proportionately nearby. I liked Golden Valley a lot, though my opponent did not. I like the idea of having to choose between taking an easier to secure/defend 6m1hyg expo or a much farther 8m2g base. I like having legimate expo location choice which is only slightly positionally resolved. The pathing seemed nice to me too. I think I played on Silver Sands wrong, but in the game it seemed absolutely impossible to secure a 4th against zerg.
On June 03 2012 13:39 Nightmarjoo wrote: I'm of the opinion that there were more decent quality maps made this month than in previous months, but just that there was no one map that really stood out as being the obvious best one. While that may seem desireable, it mostly means the best maps didn't have enough to distinguish themselves by. I dunno what all the fuss about ESV is anyway, their maps aren't that good on average. Maybe it's because they've been rushing them, but I've seen plenty of TPW and nonteam maps of higher quality in these competitions.
I've played real games on Auir Refuge, Golden Valley, and Silver Sands now. Auir might be too big ._> The 4th felt difficult to defend which is ironic since it's so proportionately nearby. I liked Golden Valley a lot, though my opponent did not. I like the idea of having to choose between taking an easier to secure/defend 6m1hyg expo or a much farther 8m2g base. I like having legimate expo location choice which is only slightly positionally resolved. The pathing seemed nice to me too. I think I played on Silver Sands wrong, but in the game it seemed absolutely impossible to secure a 4th against zerg.
Interesting, on both points. I'm not saying that ESV dominated MotM by any means, which when I think about it is slightly odd, but they did add a lot of interesting competition. That, and occasionally seeing something from Superouman or Timetwister is slightly scary. I do hope that they continue to enter MotM, but I also hope that, if they do, they don't rush their maps out, as has been said many times before. I think the competition would be a lot more intense if they put out their best work more consistently.
Also, I know I'm slightly late on this, but can I get some feedback, of what the judges thought about VR?
Linear, tight (or at least very choked, to too great a degree imo), wasted space (the path above the top neutral expo seems excessively large for a path that will literally never be used), too many expos too close to each other (3 really easy bases just outside the nat). I think the balance between the two layers of the map (NW/SE) is off a bit, favouring the bottom half (SE), but I could be wrong there. I'd have to play it to confirm. Just seems to me like the expo layout lacks good flow. The neutral expos are a little too vulnerable imo. I love neutral expos, but if they're too hard to hold there won't be any fight-over of them, only a clearly advantaged player will be able to take it, compounding on their advantage (which is boring for gameplay). I like the pathing overall, lots of viable alternative routes supporting army maneuvering without favouring counter-based play. My only suggestion is that you replace the bottom neutral expo with the top neutral expo (size/shape/pathing-around-it) and remove the top one altogether, moving the 1gas expos to the top half (if you have or can make the room to do so with proper distances between them). I feel like those changes will help with expo flow and map-half balance. I think this will offset the awkwardness of 3bases being so close to the nat by making the farthest of those expos potentially the best 3rd choice. Then the lower 3rd won't be as powerful since it won't be near a good 4th option, and then the middle 3rd's vulnerability from behind will make it a less likely 4th with the lower 3rd being less obviously the safest pick.
The map isn't bad, just seems a little messy (and without really adding anything to mapping/gameplay). If you don't like my suggestions or if it turns out that they don't work as well as I imagine or if you don't like the end result, I recommend just thinking about what your favourite aspects of the map's layout or concept are and just reusing them in a new map.
On June 03 2012 13:39 Nightmarjoo wrote: I liked Golden Valley a lot, though my opponent did not. I like the idea of having to choose between taking an easier to secure/defend 6m1hyg expo or a much farther 8m2g base. I like having legimate expo location choice which is only slightly positionally resolved. The pathing seemed nice to me too.
Any reason your opponent didn't like it? Did he say anything else? Like it's too hard for the race he was playing, or just felt uncomfortable somehow?
IPL will feature a show on tuesday (every tuesday ? ) named Cartographer that will be about community melee maps. It's likely that some of the final five will make appearance in the show. It's also likely there will be games played on one or tow of the maps by some IPL-attached pro gamers. Don't take my word for it though.
IPL will feature a show on tuesday (every tuesday ? ) named Cartographer that will be about community melee maps. It's likely that some of the final five will make appearance in the show. It's also likely there will be games played on one or tow of the maps by some IPL-attached pro gamers. Don't take my word for it though.
Can anyone confirm this/give more info?
Yeah, I saw one of them live. I think they've had 3 episodes so far... But I only found one vod on their youtube. That was the latest one, about Whirlwind. I saw some of another episode live where Axslav and Pokebunny played on and discussed Tanzanite.
On June 07 2012 03:27 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: I'm beginning to wonder if Nightmarejoo isn't the Simon of MOTM to draw more attention because of the controversy. 0.o
He's the Simon of MotM because he's right and tells it straight. He doesn't butter it up at all.
The June Motm will be a special motm in the way that it won't just be a 1 month competition, so don't worry about the post being a couple days late. Still ironing stuff out, but I promise it will be posted soon!
On June 07 2012 13:18 monitor wrote: The June Motm will be a special motm in the way that it won't just be a 1 month competition, so don't worry about the post being a couple days late. Still ironing stuff out, but I promise it will be posted soon!
Sounds good! Heck, now that schools about out I might be able to polish one of the ~10 WIPs I have going on and get one of them submitted!
On June 07 2012 13:18 monitor wrote: The June Motm will be a special motm in the way that it won't just be a 1 month competition, so don't worry about the post being a couple days late. Still ironing stuff out, but I promise it will be posted soon!
Sounds good! Heck, now that schools about out I might be able to polish one of the ~10 WIPs I have going on and get one of them submitted!
All my WIP's are beyond repair! Time to work on another!!!
On June 13 2012 04:02 Broodie wrote: Any Idea when we can expect info on the next MotM?
I really want to get it up, but the past few weeks I've been in the process of moving. Plus I've got finals in school. I've got like no time to get it set. I can assure I'm trying!
On July 02 2012 09:18 Blazinghand wrote: I played a game on Abode and someone started with a zergling (it was a TvT). Was I using the wrong version or is this a persistent problem?
A recent edit to the map introduced that, not intentionally ofc. It has been fixed. Thanks.
On July 02 2012 09:18 Blazinghand wrote: I played a game on Abode and someone started with a zergling (it was a TvT). Was I using the wrong version or is this a persistent problem?
A recent edit to the map introduced that, not intentionally ofc. It has been fixed. Thanks.
On July 02 2012 09:18 Blazinghand wrote: I played a game on Abode and someone started with a zergling (it was a TvT). Was I using the wrong version or is this a persistent problem?
A recent edit to the map introduced that, not intentionally ofc. It has been fixed. Thanks.