Before I get to the maps, it is with regret that lefix has withdrawn from the competition. This leaves 11 mappers to choose maps. At this point NullCurrent hasn't selected a map, he may do so over the coming days and if he chooses to I will update this thread accordingly.
Update 19/07: Mereel has found the time to participate (originally declined his invite because of time). His selection has been added below.
Update 20/07: NullCurrent has made his pick and which has been added to the list below.
Sadly we can't choose every map, and this competition is even stranger because it isn't necessarily the best maps that are being chosen at this point in the competition. Nevertheless, the following maps have been selected:
Well, I'm just kinda sad that all the maps that were chosen were almost all boring 2 player standard maps... There were so many interesting and possible submissions. :/
Congrats to those that were picked! Hopefully there will be another one in the future. Seems like the Pros picked the maps that were already the best rather than those that were interesting but needed the balancing skill of a seasoned map maker which imo is a little bit of a shame. But I'm not bitter, and will try even harder next time!
Looking forward to seeing what comes out of this and what changes are made.
I can understand the choice of the pro's since going for the standard boring layout is the best possibility to win, and they want to win I think if they did this without a money prize then the pro's would maybe pick the more unorthodox maps since they got nothing to lose and its more interesting but when money is involved they prefer to stick to the standard.
On July 18 2012 21:06 moskonia wrote: I can understand the choice of the pro's since going for the standard boring layout is the best possibility to win, and they want to win I think if they did this without a money prize then the pro's would maybe pick the more unorthodox maps since they got nothing to lose and its more interesting but when money is involved they prefer to stick to the standard.
If that is the case, I say we should remove the price pool next time... It's just going to produce 2 player maps, which I despise. T.T Even the 4 player map is lost temple - Shakuras - Metropolis style...
On July 18 2012 21:06 moskonia wrote: I can understand the choice of the pro's since going for the standard boring layout is the best possibility to win, and they want to win I think if they did this without a money prize then the pro's would maybe pick the more unorthodox maps since they got nothing to lose and its more interesting but when money is involved they prefer to stick to the standard.
If that is the case, I say we should remove the price pool next time... It's just going to produce 2 player maps, which I despise. T.T Even the 4 player map is lost temple - Shakuras - Metropolis style...
I don't think there is anything wrong with 2 player maps, 4p maps have been mostly worked out balance-wise, and 3p maps are just goofy. 2p maps give you the most opportunity to innovate.
Seems Plexa forgot to write that I will let Rhynick pick the map he wants to work on for MoTM, I felt all his submissions were very good, so it might not be Cracked Cell that will be worked on.
On July 18 2012 21:13 Icetoad wrote: Seems Plexa forgot to write that I will let Rhynick pick the map he wants to work on for MoTM, I felt all his submissions were very good, so it might not be Cracked Cell that will be worked on.
I didn't forget! I just listed a map anyway for consistencies sake :D
@kim;we had a 3p and 4p map chosen, and 8 2p maps, its just that 2p maps are significantly easier to create and do interesting things with. Whereas 4p maps have a number of difficulties which restrict innovation.
On July 18 2012 21:13 Icetoad wrote: Seems Plexa forgot to write that I will let Rhynick pick the map he wants to work on for MoTM, I felt all his submissions were very good, so it might not be Cracked Cell that will be worked on.
On July 18 2012 21:47 Aunvilgod wrote: Ragoo, iGrok and Namrufus are lazy bastards. :D
Well, it was a hard decision. I had some maps on my list that I could really improve (like TehTemplar maps for example) but then nobody chose Orbitus Brutus and I think it's such a good map and he's such a talented mapmaker that it would be kinda unfair if he couldn't participate.
On July 18 2012 21:47 Aunvilgod wrote: Ragoo, iGrok and Namrufus are lazy bastards. :D
Well, it was a hard decision. I had some maps on my list that I could really improve (like TehTemplar maps for example) but then nobody chose Orbitus Brutus and I think it's such a good map and he's such a talented mapmaker that it would be kinda unfair if he couldn't participate.
Will you give him 80% of your money then? haha
No, really, I wrote about this time and time again, the format of this competition is really extremely unlucky.
On July 18 2012 21:47 Aunvilgod wrote: Ragoo, iGrok and Namrufus are lazy bastards. :D
Well, it was a hard decision. I had some maps on my list that I could really improve (like TehTemplar maps for example) but then nobody chose Orbitus Brutus and I think it's such a good map and he's such a talented mapmaker that it would be kinda unfair if he couldn't participate.
Will you give him 80% of your money then? haha
No, really, I wrote about this time and time again, the format of this competition is really extremely unlucky.
He can have all the money tbh since it really will be his work 95%+ It's not about the money tho...
Your map was also on my list but I think I would only have changed a bit aesthetics or so... nothing major.
On July 18 2012 22:23 SeinGalton wrote: Aw, did not get picked. No matter, a lot of great maps in there and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Good luck to all!
I'm very surprised yours wasn't picked, I thought it was great!
On July 18 2012 22:23 SeinGalton wrote: Aw, did not get picked. No matter, a lot of great maps in there and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Good luck to all!
Not getting picked technically means that none of the pros see any flaws.
On July 18 2012 22:23 SeinGalton wrote: Aw, did not get picked. No matter, a lot of great maps in there and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Good luck to all!
I'm very surprised yours wasn't picked, I thought it was great!
The tournament was pretty stacked. Most of the Pros wanted to do a lot of stuff themselves. Only the 3 Pros I just mentioned really picked some of the highest caliber maps. And judging from the overview of NewSunshines map he even didn´t put too much time into the map.
On July 18 2012 22:06 Ragoo wrote: Your map was also on my list but I think I would only have changed a bit aesthetics or so... nothing major.
My aesthetics are sacred to me. They are the most fun part of the mapmaking. I don´t think I would have survived someone changing them. That is exactly the reason I didn´t want to participate anymore.
On July 18 2012 22:06 Ragoo wrote: Your map was also on my list but I think I would only have changed a bit aesthetics or so... nothing major.
My aesthetics are sacred to me. They are the most fun part of the mapmaking. I don´t think I would have survived someone changing them. That is exactly the reason I didn´t want to participate anymore.
There are a lot maps that I wanted to pick (erebus and brutus come to mind), but ultimately when i saw cerberus there were a few key changes i wanted to make on a very solid map already. So for me personally, it was that with cerberus plateau, something reached out and grabbed mr immediately where the other maps didnt
On July 18 2012 22:23 SeinGalton wrote: Aw, did not get picked. No matter, a lot of great maps in there and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Good luck to all!
Not getting picked technically means that none of the pros see any flaws.
Either that or it's unimprovably stupid . I don't think it's that pros don't see flaws, I think it's probably a little unoriginal and bland in its layout. The maps that were picked all look very interesting and/or different from standard fare, which is why I'm excited to see what comes out of this.
Ragoo already spent his $50. He's using dollar bills to wipe his ass because he's so confident he's got it in the bag. :D
In a serious note, it should be very interesting to see some of these before and after shots of these maps. Back to Back need to win it all! Looking at the main ProAm Post the finalized version has to be submitted by july 31st. 2 weeks, go team!
On July 19 2012 00:25 SidianTheBard wrote: Ragoo already spent his $50. He's using dollar bills to wipe his ass because he's so confident he's got it in the bag. :D
In a serious note, it should be very interesting to see some of these before and after shots of these maps. Back to Back need to win it all! Looking at the main ProAm Post the finalized version has to be submitted by july 31st. 2 weeks, go team!
I think there is a weeks extension as the picks were late.
On July 19 2012 00:25 SidianTheBard wrote: Ragoo already spent his $50. He's using dollar bills to wipe his ass because he's so confident he's got it in the bag. :D
In a serious note, it should be very interesting to see some of these before and after shots of these maps. Back to Back need to win it all! Looking at the main ProAm Post the finalized version has to be submitted by july 31st. 2 weeks, go team!
I think there is a weeks extension as the picks were late.
Good idea. If it would be until the 31st I knew some people who better be out of work. Because they just got a new job.
I think there is a weeks extension as the picks were late.
Quoting the main post.
Being an online community, ProAm tournaments are not exactly straight forward. So how is it all going to work?
Amateur map makers will produce and submit up to three maps by the 13th of July Invited professional map makers will look over all the submissions and choose a map that they like by the 16th of July. People who are not selected will be informed at this time. Relevant contact information will be exchanged by MotM. The pros will then work with the amateurs, in pairs, to refine the map and bring it up to tournament standard The finalised map will be submitted by the 31st of July and judging will take place over the following week The winning team will receive $50 each, and the runners up will receive $25 each via paypal
Guess they were a day or 2 late, I'd still assume the finalised map would be the 31st, maybe the 1st or 2nd.
Being an online community, ProAm tournaments are not exactly straight forward. So how is it all going to work?
Amateur map makers will produce and submit up to three maps by the 13th of July Invited professional map makers will look over all the submissions and choose a map that they like by the 16th of July. People who are not selected will be informed at this time. Relevant contact information will be exchanged by MotM. The pros will then work with the amateurs, in pairs, to refine the map and bring it up to tournament standard The finalised map will be submitted by the 31st of July and judging will take place over the following week The winning team will receive $50 each, and the runners up will receive $25 each via paypal
Guess they were a day or 2 late, I'd still assume the finalised map would be the 31st, maybe the 1st or 2nd.
Monitor said there would be a weeks extension on skype. That's all I'm going off.
On July 19 2012 00:02 Sea_Food wrote: Back to Back made it???
Lool.
I tought it was impossible, as the map already failed in like, what, 5 previous MotMs?
In the words of the greatest Bro there ever was and/or will be. Challenge Accepted!
Well, guess this means I don't have to wait to get my computer fixed completely or to start edits. Good stuff. Excited to see the results here. Rooting for NewSunshine and Rkynick!
On July 18 2012 22:46 Aunvilgod wrote: The tournament was pretty stacked. Most of the Pros wanted to do a lot of stuff themselves. Only the 3 Pros I just mentioned really picked some of the highest caliber maps. And judging from the overview of NewSunshines map he even didn´t put too much time into the map.
I don't know where you get this from, but whatever.
Anyway, I'm excited that my entry was chosen! Mr. Grok and I have already started working on some changes, it's looking good so far.
As for those who didn't get picked, don't jump to conclusions. Any of the maps submitted would have been fair game for the pros, really, but being picked or not doesn't mean the map was too good or too bad. I gather it was a tough decision for each of them, so maybe we'll have more events like this in the future.
I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
On July 19 2012 00:02 Sea_Food wrote: Back to Back made it???
Lool.
I tought it was impossible, as the map already failed in like, what, 5 previous MotMs?
In the words of the greatest Bro there ever was and/or will be. Challenge Accepted!
Well, guess this means I don't have to wait to get my computer fixed completely or to start edits. Good stuff. Excited to see the results here. Rooting for NewSunshine and Rkynick!
Don't forget Scorp
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
That kinda is the point. The competition is supposed to make them better.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
Mech is more APM intensive than bio. :/
On top of everything you need to do in Bio, you need depots almost twice as often, more production, and have to constantly siege/unsiege.
I'm sad that I didn't make it. Oh well, at least now I can work on my maps again. Still, it would have been nice to be able to get more noticed. That said, the maps that were chosen are great and I wish good luck to the participants!
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
On July 19 2012 04:14 Sea_Food wrote: TL mapping community loves them hard thirds.
I hardly think so.
There aren't many options for making easy thirds without going outside the box ^^. And going outside the box means most people don't want to play the map! Its a catch 22.
Generally, I'd say Zerg's difficulty to take a third is more about distance, as in how long it takes to get creep connected. For Protoss, it's more about choke points and ease of force fields, for Terran more about wall offs and tank positions.
Because of this variance, you can adjust the ease of taking a third base for different races and unit compositions and matchups, so there's a lot a mapper can do to fine tune the balance.
On July 18 2012 21:23 Plexa wrote: @kim;we had a 3p and 4p map chosen, and 8 2p maps, its just that 2p maps are significantly easier to create and do interesting things with. Whereas 4p maps have a number of difficulties which restrict innovation.
I don't see any three player map listed in the OP.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
Mech is more APM intensive than bio. :/
On top of everything you need to do in Bio, you need depots almost twice as often, more production, and have to constantly siege/unsiege.
LOL *Producing 10 marines vs 1 Thor for 500 resources *Splitting those marines vs spreading your vikings a little *Goody vs MMA *Oh noes! I hafta make 3 supply depots instead of 2!!!!
On July 19 2012 03:38 iGrok wrote: Sometimes, mappers want to force certain styles. They can intentionally design a map that is better for Bio than mech.
Who would do that besides a Zerg-biased mapper? It hurts Protoss a ton as well. You can play bio on a mech map but not the other way around. If the map forces certain builds, then it is a shitty map and has no business being in competitive play.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
Mech is more APM intensive than bio. :/
On top of everything you need to do in Bio, you need depots almost twice as often, more production, and have to constantly siege/unsiege.
LOL *Producing 10 marines vs 1 Thor for 500 resources *Splitting those marines vs spreading your vikings a little *Goody vs MMA *Oh noes! I hafta make 3 supply depots instead of 2!!!!
On July 19 2012 03:38 iGrok wrote: Sometimes, mappers want to force certain styles. They can intentionally design a map that is better for Bio than mech.
Who would do that besides a Zerg-biased mapper? It hurts Protoss a ton as well. You can play bio on a mech map but not the other way around. If the map forces certain builds, then it is a shitty map and has no business being in competitive play.
This competition is not looking for the next ladder map. It's to help mappers improve. Why are you acting so offended?
On July 19 2012 05:09 TibblesEvilCat wrote: i personally found too easily gotten 3rd = zerg boomed to easily xD, gota force em to make units to defend somemoar then just to defend.
A wide open third is actually a good thing for Zerg since they can surround and flank incoming pushes. Protoss cannot forcefield in the wide open and Terran cannot wall or defend with tanks.
I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
TL mapping community loves them hard thirds.
*sigh* yeah.
PS: Your map was really really cool (other than the blink issue)
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
Mech is more APM intensive than bio. :/
On top of everything you need to do in Bio, you need depots almost twice as often, more production, and have to constantly siege/unsiege.
LOL *Producing 10 marines vs 1 Thor for 500 resources *Splitting those marines vs spreading your vikings a little *Goody vs MMA *Oh noes! I hafta make 3 supply depots instead of 2!!!!
You're completely ignoring the fact that you constantly have to reposition your army perfectly.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
...you get how a ProAm type event works... right? Amateur mappers aren't making what'll be the next ladder map, they're entering this competition to, under the tutelage of the more experienced mappers, come up with maps that are not only more balanced, but more interesting and better looking in general. Coming in to bash the amateur's maps before the contest is even over just makes you look ignorant. Figure out what you're commenting on before you comment.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
...you get how a ProAm type event works... right? Amateur mappers aren't making what'll be the next ladder map, they're entering this competition to, under the tutelage of the more experienced mappers, come up with maps that are not only more balanced, but more interesting and better looking in general. Coming in to bash the amateur's maps before the contest is even over just makes you look ignorant. Figure out what you're commenting on before you comment.
I see "Pro" mappers doing this exact same thing, so yeah, under their tutelage, the wrong ideas that amateurs have about third bases will be reinforced and when they become pro, and we will continue to get more maps like Korhal Compound and Metalopolis that are amazing and beautiful and creative maps with so many cool features but they have to be vetoed on ladder because they are so broken in one single match-up.
PS, I though that among those selected, your third base wasn't on my shitlist, though it could be choked off a teeny bit more. And it looks amazing.
@ IronmanSC2 I'm angry because the TL mapping community, Pro and Amateur, as well as Blizzard map makers, all keep producing maps with the same flaw.
@ Siphon8 Having split map TvT past 30 minutes is basically a guaranteed win for me. Any strategy where marines fight banelings or infestors at any point in the game is guaranteed loss for me. Call it what you will.
Well, I think we're not teaching them knowledge about things like how easy a third base should be, too much, because that shifts with metagame, patches, and expansion packs.
So it's good for us to focus on the skills which can carry you all the way through the changes to the game.
Ohana is great. Entombed valley's third base is great (it's way to big for TvZ but that's another story) Cloud Kingdom's third is decent.
Hero vs Stephano at NASL last week on Shakuras Plateau was a perfect illustration of the problem. Stephano denied Hero's third base like 8 times because there is no choke to force-field/wall. There was not much Hero could have done about it.
Congrats to the picked maps -- good luck on the road ahead. Kudos to IronMan for stepping out of his comfort zone (you are not allow to make that into a 2 player map, btw... lol :p). Too bad no one wanted to tackle a really difficult concept, but I'm looking forward to see in what ways the current maps change.
On July 19 2012 06:08 Gfire wrote: It's possible the 3p map was chosen by someone and then another map by the same mapper was chosen by someone higher up on the list.
Unless I'm mistaken, I am the only one who submitted any three player maps.
.... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
On July 19 2012 09:30 Diamond wrote: You guys will bitch about ANYTHING....
It's just a rule that there will always be somebody who complains whenever you do something related to the public. Imo its a good thing because it keeps you in check and there is a lot of truth to many of the complaints, as hard as it is to accept that fact.
Theres also a lot of truth that if your complaint goes more than 3 posts, you should either stop or make a new discussion thread. Either nothing new is being said or you're derailing it.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
I think every single one of my maps I've made people say the third is too easy to grab. Or maybe I play Protoss and am just sick of 2 base all-ining every map. Although with the zerg buffs that now might mean it's too easy for zerg to get a 3rd which then forces protoss to 2 base all-in anyway. Oh boy how the meta changes.
If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
On July 19 2012 12:35 Fatam wrote: If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
In which case Z can just take a faster 4th, etc. I think the fundamental problem is more with the units themselves than anything involving map design.
On July 19 2012 08:45 U_G_L_Y wrote: [...] we will continue to get more maps like Korhal Compound and Metalopolis that are amazing and beautiful and creative maps with so many cool features but they have to be vetoed on ladder because they are so broken in one single match-up [...]
Sorry for destroying this thread even more but that made me laugh. Korhal Compound and Metalopolis are creative maps?
Also your concerns about thirds are a bit iffy. I would definitely love to see harder thirds than like Entombed or Antiga have, and I personally like the idea of half base thirds to prevent turtling on 3 base and maxing out.
Update: Mereel (a pro that we had asked previously but was too busy) has found time to participate. He has chosen the map Mar Sara Fissure by OxyGenesis!
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
On July 19 2012 12:35 Fatam wrote: If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
In which case Z can just take a faster 4th, etc. I think the fundamental problem is more with the units themselves than anything involving map design.
Oh, how I couldn't disagree more. If 3rd/4th bases weren't so darn close as they tend to be on current maps, Zergs trying to get away with this 1-up style would be subject to timing attacks on their further away bases. Good example of this is in Brood War in TvZ; Zergs tend to expand to a faraway corner for their third, and Terrans do their best to hit a 2-base timing to deny it.
Best part of this concept is that even if the third is denied, Zerg doesn't auto-lose the game to continued steamroll, as the Terran army is still far away from the Zerg main/natural.
Edit: And if anyone is reading this thinking, "How the hell would a Terran or Protoss be able to hold bases that are further away than they already are in SC2?", well, maybe stop making the thirds so ridiculously open. Feels to me that there were two major options mapmakers could have chosen when figuring out how to make balanced thirds:
1. close to the natural, but wide open 2. reasonable distance, defendable with chokes
Brood War mapmakers chose option 2. Currently in SC2, option 1 is the preferred choice. If you ever wondered why SC2 feels 200/200 deathball-ish, that's your reason.
On July 19 2012 12:35 Fatam wrote: If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
In which case Z can just take a faster 4th, etc. I think the fundamental problem is more with the units themselves than anything involving map design.
Oh, how I couldn't disagree more. If 3rd/4th bases weren't so darn close as they tend to be on current maps, Zergs trying to get away with this 1-up style would be subject to timing attacks on their further away bases. Good example of this is in Brood War in TvZ; Zergs tend to expand to a faraway corner for their third, and Terrans do their best to hit a 2-base timing to deny it.
Best part of this concept is that even if the third is denied, Zerg doesn't auto-lose the game to continued steamroll, as the Terran army is still far away from the Zerg main/natural.
It's kinda different in SC2, at least with the current state of things, because Zergs rely on creep spread to their third.
On July 19 2012 12:35 Fatam wrote: If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
In which case Z can just take a faster 4th, etc. I think the fundamental problem is more with the units themselves than anything involving map design.
Oh, how I couldn't disagree more. If 3rd/4th bases weren't so darn close as they tend to be on current maps, Zergs trying to get away with this 1-up style would be subject to timing attacks on their further away bases. Good example of this is in Brood War in TvZ; Zergs tend to expand to a faraway corner for their third, and Terrans do their best to hit a 2-base timing to deny it.
Best part of this concept is that even if the third is denied, Zerg doesn't auto-lose the game to continued steamroll, as the Terran army is still far away from the Zerg main/natural.
It's kinda different in SC2, at least with the current state of things, because Zergs rely on creep spread to their third.
They rely on creep spread to their third for what reason? To defend. They have to defend because their third is generally adjacent to their natural, which in turn is adjacent to their main. Not immediately committing to defence means a guaranteed base race, or simply playing from behind if the Zerg chooses not to counter-attack.
If thirds were located in a more distant location, a Terran or Protoss committing their whole army would put them out of position and open to direct counterattacks. We see this a lot more later in games, when it's further away 4ths/5ths that are being hit. For a Zerg, trading a third for an opponent's natural would be a pretty decent deal.
I think it's something to consider.
Edit: also to note, nydus worms. They suddenly become more useful to Zerg when expanding further away; same deal as nydus canals in BW.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops), ZvZ (very strong mutas) and PvP (a warpgate count between 3 and 5 was the prefered playstyle) Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable.
Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind.
On July 19 2012 20:55 Plexa wrote: Update: Mereel (a pro that we had asked previously but was too busy) has found time to participate. He has chosen the map Mar Sara Fissure by OxyGenesis!
Update #2: NullCurrent has awoken and chosen to work on Aurora Frost by Broodie.
On July 19 2012 20:55 Plexa wrote: Update: Mereel (a pro that we had asked previously but was too busy) has found time to participate. He has chosen the map Mar Sara Fissure by OxyGenesis!
Update #2: NullCurrent has awoken and chosen to work on Aurora Frost by Broodie.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops). Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable.
Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind.
Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced.
Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise.
Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance).
Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map.
Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf?
Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1.
Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable.
Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled.
Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops). Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable.
Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind.
Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced.
Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise.
Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance).
Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map.
Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf?
Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1.
Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable.
Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled.
Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good.
........... Whirlwind= not much different from Taldarim??!?! They are completely different maps. Whirlwind alleviates any positional imbalances by making you have a choice of thirds Also 4 player maps essentially being a 3 player map is not true. In a 3 player map, there will be 1 neutral base left; in 4 player maps there will be 2 neutral bases, which completely changes gameplay.
Noone came up with a perfect 4 player map, but whirlwind is the closest to it.
taldarim obviously has problems, but it was made early in sc2 history.
I think antiga isn't the worst map ever, because it's quite different from the other maps we've got. I know it's imbalanced.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops). Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable.
Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind.
Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced.
Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise.
Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance).
Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map.
Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf?
Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1.
Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable.
Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled.
Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good.
Not gonna comment on this too much, we basically disagree completly on what is a map feature and what is map flaw. Imo any map that is balanced and does produce interesting games is good, I don't care whether this is due to an abuseable cliff or a turtly position. -) The DRG game you are commenting on on Whirlwind, DRG switched out of an Ultralisk composition because he got destroyed in any attempt to engage. -) Nearly every 4p map has spawns disabled. That still makes them 4p maps, jus tthat you don't have to scout certain positions once you know your own starting location. Call them 3p or 2p maps if you like, but in that case I don't see the point of 4p maps to begin with, as it comes down to a difference in finding your opponent and that's it.
As funny as it may be to see Back to Back get picked, it's an insult to everyone else who worked hard on their maps, but are unable to participate. Given the format of this MotM, there really should have been a way for the unselected amateurs and uninvited pros to participate. Although these people would be at a disadvantage for the competition, it's a hell of a lot better than sitting out.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops). Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable.
Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind.
Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced.
Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise.
Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance).
Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map.
Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf?
Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1.
Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable.
Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled.
Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good.
........... Whirlwind= not much different from Taldarim??!?! They are completely different maps. Whirlwind alleviates any positional imbalances by making you have a choice of thirds Also 4 player maps essentially being a 3 player map is not true. In a 3 player map, there will be 1 neutral base left; in 4 player maps there will be 2 neutral bases, which completely changes gameplay.
Noone came up with a perfect 4 player map, but whirlwind is the closest to it.
taldarim obviously has problems, but it was made early in sc2 history.
I think antiga isn't the worst map ever, because it's quite different from the other maps we've got. I know it's imbalanced.
Sorry, when I say it's not much different from Tal'Darim, I'm only referring to the major points I've been bringing up regarding 4p community maps: large size and 3+ accessible bases per corner. Wasn't implying they're the same map, though you could argue there are some other similarities, like the vast, open centres, etc.
Biggest point I was making is that it still has these issues, but without the positional imbalances of Tal'Darim Altar. In that regard, it's definitely a superior map to TDA.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off.
To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were:
Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus
The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map.
Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops). Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable.
Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind.
Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced.
Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise.
Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance).
Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map.
Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf?
Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1.
Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable.
Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled.
Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good.
Not gonna comment on this too much, we basically disagree completly on what is a map feature and what is map flaw. Imo any map that is balanced and does produce interesting games is good, I don't care whether this is due to an abuseable cliff or a turtly position. -) The DRG game you are commenting on on Whirlwind, DRG switched out of an Ultralisk composition because he got destroyed in any attempt to engage. -) Nearly every 4p map has spawns disabled. That still makes them 4p maps, jus tthat you don't have to scout certain positions once you know your own starting location. Call them 3p or 2p maps if you like, but in that case I don't see the point of 4p maps to begin with, as it comes down to a difference in finding your opponent and that's it.
- Actually, DRG almost took the game before committing heavily to Brood Lords. He even broke through the Terran's natural at one point just before switching into a full BL. All across community sites like TL and Reddit, general consensus was that the overcommitment in BL tech was a mistake and that DRG would have easily won otherwise.
- Nearly every 4p map has spawns disabled because the maps themselves have imbalanced positions. That's not exactly a good standard to uphold. It's a band-aid solution to make broken maps viable for competitive play. You can argue that it's ok to build the disabled-spawn into the map as a feature (e.g. Metropolis), and I won't argue against that if it was the mapmaker's intent from the get-go, but when a map is designed to be 4p (Antiga Shipyard, Entombed Valley, Shattered Temple, etc.) and is forced into disabling spawns, then that's clearly a sign of poor mapmaking. Just look at Antiga and Entombed on the ladder; they still have those spawns enabled there despite the spawns being restricted in tournament play. It's straight-up band-aiding just to make the map playable on a professional level.
- My argument against overly-turtley maps is for a couple of reasons:
a.) TvP, even Blizzard has come out and admitted that the matchup is balanced based on Terran's ability to do mid-game damage, and Protoss has a significant advantage in the late-game if they're allowed to reach deathball status unhindered. b.) I dare you to find an example where people prefer the deathball style over multi-pronged harassment and multitask-heavy play, from a spectator standpoint. Just do a search on TL, and you'll find no shortage of threads complaining about the deathball.
- Calling a map balanced because it has multiple imbalances that average out is completely flawed from a competitive standpoint. It's stupid to rely on favourable spawns (which is entirely random) to win in a tournament.
- My original premise was that mapmakers don't know how to make decent 4p maps in SC2. If you're gonna go ahead and ask what the point of 4p maps are (i.e. imply they're not necessary), that's fine but has no relation to my statement.
On July 20 2012 09:37 Timmay wrote: As funny as it may be to see Back to Back get picked, it's an insult to everyone else who worked hard on their maps, but are unable to participate. Given the format of this MotM, there really should have been a way for the unselected amateurs and uninvited pros to participate. Although these people would be at a disadvantage for the competition, it's a hell of a lot better than sitting out.
I dunno, I'm not too worried about it as someone who submitted a couple of 4p maps. If the pros only wanna focus on selecting 2p maps because that's what they're good at making, then that makes sense logically. What's the point of a pro picking a 4p map and then being just as unsure how balanced/well-designed/etc. the map is as the amateur?
On July 20 2012 09:37 Timmay wrote: As funny as it may be to see Back to Back get picked, it's an insult to everyone else who worked hard on their maps, but are unable to participate. Given the format of this MotM, there really should have been a way for the unselected amateurs and uninvited pros to participate. Although these people would be at a disadvantage for the competition, it's a hell of a lot better than sitting out.
I dunno, I'm not too worried about it as someone who submitted a couple of 4p maps. If the pros only wanna focus on selecting 2p maps because that's what they're good at making, then that makes sense logically. What's the point of a pro picking a 4p map and then being just as unsure how balanced/well-designed/etc. the map is as the amateur?
2p maps are easier to make in general and allow for more innovation, since the two halves of a map each have much more variety. That's its own topic however.
Anyway, you guys are totally derailing the thread you're posting in. This thread was to announce the selected maps, and in general discuss the current state of the competition. The discussion you guys are having really belongs in its own thread. The decline of 4p maps compared to 2p has little to do with the contest, and should be taken elsewhere. Some people want to talk about the MotM, and it's being derailed.
On July 20 2012 09:37 Timmay wrote: As funny as it may be to see Back to Back get picked, it's an insult to everyone else who worked hard on their maps, but are unable to participate. Given the format of this MotM, there really should have been a way for the unselected amateurs and uninvited pros to participate. Although these people would be at a disadvantage for the competition, it's a hell of a lot better than sitting out.
I dunno, I'm not too worried about it as someone who submitted a couple of 4p maps. If the pros only wanna focus on selecting 2p maps because that's what they're good at making, then that makes sense logically. What's the point of a pro picking a 4p map and then being just as unsure how balanced/well-designed/etc. the map is as the amateur?
2p maps are easier to make in general and allow for more innovation, since the two halves of a map each have much more variety. That's its own topic however.
Anyway, you guys are totally derailing the thread you're posting in. This thread was to announce the selected maps, and in general discuss the current state of the competition. The discussion you guys are having really belongs in its own thread. The decline of 4p maps compared to 2p has little to do with the contest, and should be taken elsewhere. Some people want to talk about the MotM, and it's being derailed.
You're right, we're derailing. x_x Sorry 'bout that Plexa.
I wouldn't actually mind seeing a debate/discussion of the current state of 4p maps, but there is the real chance that it'll boil down to the fact that they're just harder to make well. If you wanna keep up the discussion though, that's cool. Just not here.
On another note - this one's sorta directed at Timmay, as well as all the other solid entrants who weren't picked - I can understand the frustration, I don't entirely know how the selection process for each of the pros worked either, since this isn't as straightforward as other MOTM's, and it's pretty much up to them, however, I definitely think that since this contest looks to be going pretty strong, there will probably be more events of this type, and the mappers who weren't picked this time will get their chance later on.
I think most have noticed that the maps with the lowest of quality weren't exactly the ones to get picked. Instead, the majority of pros, including myself, picked a map that was already fairly solid. Some seem to have a problem with this, arguing that those lower quality maps that didn't get picked needed the help much more than these higher quality maps that did get picked. I entirely disagree, and I thought I might as well share why. I strongly believe that the best of the maps submitted should have been the ones to get picked, and I'm actually quite sad that not all the solid maps got picked. Here's why.
In my opinion, the skill difference between those who submitted the lowest quality of maps, and those who submitted the highest quality of maps, is actually quite minor. Learning things such as decent proportions, decent aesthetics, and the basic/standard rules of mapping is not all that difficult. By no means is this skill jump the hardest part of mapping. Rather, going from the highest quality of maps submitted here, to something like Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak is a much more significant and difficult leap in skill. The skill required to make something like Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom requires so much more than knowing how to place a texture, knowing that a nat choke should be ffe friendly, or knowing that a 2p map should at max have 12 bases. It requires a mapper to actually understand the game at a fairly high level, develop something entirely innovative, and to understand when the basic rules of mapping can and cannot be broken or changed.
With that said, I find that this motm format actually encourages pros to help out those who need it most...the ones that already understand the basics and need a helping hand grasping the more complex side of mapping. I am not saying that a mapper that makes low quality maps does not understand the game or have good ideas. What I am saying is that not knowing the basics of mapping can severely hinder your ability to express your game knowledge and your creativity. In other words, how are you supposed to make a Cloud Kingdom when you can't understand how to make a Xel'naga Caverns?
However, in this particular scenario of motm, I can promise you that not getting picked does not mean you don't understand the basics. There were only 12 pros after all, and there were many more submissions that showed a solid understanding in the basics. With so many nice submissions to choose from, I made my choice simply on personal preference on things such as map concept and ideas I had for improvement. In the end though, an understanding of the basics is the main reason why I choose one of the higher quality maps submitted instead of a lower quality map. Of course this may not exactly explain why many of the other pros picked a higher quality submission, since everyone has their own reasons. However, I am quite glad it turned out that way.
On July 20 2012 12:57 NewSunshine wrote: and the mappers who weren't picked this time will get their chance later on.
This is the only event of its kind that has ever occured, and it's not likely that another one will happen any time soon. It really sucks to miss something like this, and people are missing it due to factors outside their control.
On July 20 2012 14:38 Timetwister22 wrote: I think most have noticed that the maps with the lowest of quality weren't exactly the ones to get picked. Instead, the majority of pros, including myself, picked a map that was already fairly solid. Some seem to have a problem with this, arguing that those lower quality maps that didn't get picked needed the help much more than these higher quality maps that did get picked. I entirely disagree, and I thought I might as well share why. I strongly believe that the best of the maps submitted should have been the ones to get picked, and I'm actually quite sad that not all the solid maps got picked. Here's why.
In my opinion, the skill difference between those who submitted the lowest quality of maps, and those who submitted the highest quality of maps, is actually quite minor. Learning things such as decent proportions, decent aesthetics, and the basic/standard rules of mapping is not all that difficult. By no means is this skill jump the hardest part of mapping. Rather, going from the highest quality of maps submitted here, to something like Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak is a much more significant and difficult leap in skill. The skill required to make something like Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom requires so much more than knowing how to place a texture, knowing that a nat choke should be ffe friendly, or knowing that a 2p map should at max have 12 bases. It requires a mapper to actually understand the game at a fairly high level, develop something entirely innovative, and to understand when the basic rules of mapping can and cannot be broken or changed.
With that said, I find that this motm format actually encourages pros to help out those who need it most...the ones that already understand the basics and need a helping hand grasping the more complex side of mapping. I am not saying that a mapper that makes low quality maps does not understand the game or have good ideas. What I am saying is that not knowing the basics of mapping can severely hinder your ability to express your game knowledge and your creativity. In other words, how are you supposed to make a Cloud Kingdom when you can't understand how to make a Xel'naga Caverns?
However, in this particular scenario of motm, I can promise you that not getting picked does not mean you don't understand the basics. There were only 12 pros after all, and there were many more submissions that showed a solid understanding in the basics. With so many nice submissions to choose from, I made my choice simply on personal preference on things such as map concept and ideas I had for improvement. In the end though, an understanding of the basics is the main reason why I choose one of the higher quality maps submitted instead of a lower quality map. Of course this may not exactly explain why many of the other pros picked a higher quality submission, since everyone has their own reasons. However, I am quite glad it turned out that way.
Yeah I was thinking about this and I'm glad to hear this kind of logic from one of you guys - I wouldn't be surprised if the other pros approached it in the same manner. In the end there was no predetermined criterion for getting picked. As such a lot of people will look at their submissions and compare them to the ones that got picked and feel they got a raw deal (I know I felt that way!). There might even be a littler Dunning-Kruger mixed in there.
I think this competition is not only about making better maps but also better mappers, and so the pros should be picking maps based on how much knowledge they can impart on the authors.
Regardless, I don't think any of you guys should feel the need to justify your picks. You've already committed to the supererogation of this competition and that's kick ass.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
I personally feel that basically any map which is good for mech is a bad map in general, that's just how mech works, the features that make mech powerful are:
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play. 2: Only one path to the enemy, no counter attacks really possible, not something people like to see in terms of spectatorship, we want to see people outmanoeuvring each other, not just continually clashing in the centre 3: Not a lot of expansions, the bane of mech is the opposing player being able to take the entire map, never starving out and jusit constantly cost-inefficiently throwing and endless stream of stuff at the mech army until it breaks 4: 3 easily defendable bases leading to 3base turtling
I would in fact go so far as to say that in general, the balance demands of Terran ruin mapmaking, Terran is basically what stops us from making nice huge maps. Zerg and Protoss can deal with that, Terran can't, forcing maps to remain relatively small and straightforward because it would otherwise favour Protoss and Zerg too much against Terran. And I say this as a Terran player, Protoss and Zerg have been given a lot of ways to deal with distance, but Terran hasn't, which is kind of something that is broken. I wouldn't mind a BC warp ability for HotS that at least allows a BC fleet to instantly traverse huge distances, making BC's a bit more attractive anyway. Between recall, nydus worms, warpins and just the generally superior speed of Zerg and Protoss units, Terran cannot keep up on large maps which honestly is bad for the game. Most people like to see epic long games on large maps.
That said, the only pick I like is cracked cell here. I share the criticism that a lot of people have that all the maps look extremely 'standard', repeating the same formula, which is sort of what plagues motm and also a reason I elected not to participate this time (as well as being a shitty team player). Basically, MotM puts people in the jury who won last time, basically propagating that the same style of map gets voted again and again and again, because the people who make those kind of maps win, and then vote on the same kinds of map. I'm personally not a fan of easily securable thirds, bowing down to the need of every Protoss player to demand a forge FE, I consider what some people call 'circle syndrome' a good thing that in general leads to epic back and forth games full of counter attacks, that's all pretty subjective of course, but it would be nice of some maps were chosen that did this kind of stuff, and did it well, rather than picking the same formula over and over again.
On July 20 2012 14:38 Timetwister22 wrote: In my opinion, the skill difference between those who submitted the lowest quality of maps, and those who submitted the highest quality of maps, is actually quite minor. Learning things such as decent proportions, decent aesthetics, and the basic/standard rules of mapping is not all that difficult. By no means is this skill jump the hardest part of mapping. Rather, going from the highest quality of maps submitted here, to something like Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak is a much more significant and difficult leap in skill. The skill required to make something like Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom requires so much more than knowing how to place a texture, knowing that a nat choke should be ffe friendly, or knowing that a 2p map should at max have 12 bases. It requires a mapper to actually understand the game at a fairly high level, develop something entirely innovative, and to understand when the basic rules of mapping can and cannot be broken or changed.
I honestly don't buy this, professional mapmakers themselves have a loooot of criticism on each other's maps, in some cases I indeed agree. I think Metropolis is broken for the same reason everyone thinks it's broken. I love Cloud Kingdom and think the only thing it could use is a bit more dead space around it because once the third is taken in PvT, T has a pretty hard time still sneaking a drop in on which T sort of depends. In my opinion daybreak leads too much to split map turtle fest and the two forward expansions are too close together which is what that stage of the game seems to revolve around.
However, I am also completely convinced that the difference between very good maps such as CK and Daybreak and 'professional disasters' such as Metropolis and Terminus is simply luck, you can't foresee everything that will perhaps ruin how a map works. When I first saw metro I thought it was cool, I didn't realize back then that the map formation made split maps so common even though they aren't half as common on metalopolis which has a very similar layout, these are just things you can't foresee when you make a map until 100 progames are played on it. I don't think Superouman or Winpark can just recreate the success and nigh on perfection of those maps, you just make a map and it works or it doesn't because you can't foresee everything. CK has a very experimental design and if just a few things were different it could've possibly been a disaster. It's too complex to try to foresee everything, you try some stuff you hope is cool, and it works or it doesn't.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.
As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.
As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.
One base play should not be anywhere near as viable as expanding. It takes no skill and the game would be really boring then. Rush distance should stay the same. What should change so that there is less turtling is make expos easier to harass. Stuff like cliffs, backdoor paths, etc.
I like 1 base allins. They keep the game fresh, the surprise in. I hate PvZ because I know I can just skip ten minutes into the game without missing anything, and love TvT because when you see 1 rax, 1 fact and 1 starport you never know what it's gonna be, but you know there's gonna be action. Imo (and I know it's just mine) the most exciting matchup in the game is zvz because of the mad ling bling wars. There's people like me and people like you, so there needs be maps for everyone. And I don't think there's enough agressive maps around.
When I say all-in, I mean stuff that has no transition out of it. It almost always ends the game unless it does just the right amount of damage to where the players are about even afterwards and you can go back to a regular game. I don't mean that players should only fast expand and never be aggressive.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.
As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.
Definitely don't think 1-base play should be nearly as viable. 1-base play, IMO, should be relegated to extreme riskiness to exploit someone's particularly greedy opening, should they open greedy. High-level stuff.
That said, I do agree with the sentiment that it's quite boring to watch 200/200 NR20 games with 3+ bases per player. Third base acquisition should be one of the most pivotal moments in the game, as it determines whether or not a player will be able to establish an optimal economy. Right now, it's mostly deemed a freebie in the community, which is what leads to passive games.
Current map-making styles reflect this sentiment, with third bases being so close that they're practically a second natural.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.
As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.
Definitely don't think 1-base play should be nearly as viable. 1-base play, IMO, should be relegated to extreme riskiness to exploit someone's particularly greedy opening, should they open greedy. High-level stuff.
That said, I do agree with the sentiment that it's quite boring to watch 200/200 NR20 games with 3+ bases per player. Third base acquisition should be one of the most pivotal moments in the game, as it determines whether or not a player will be able to establish an optimal economy. Right now, it's mostly deemed a freebie in the community, which is what leads to passive games.
Current map-making styles reflect this sentiment, with third bases being so close that they're practically a second natural.
The 200/200 turtling isn't actually that bad, its just some maps like Daybreak and Antiga that have bad gameplay. We really need maps that discourage turtling and encourage harassment. It would be bad to discourage expanding though, because that is one of the biggest factors in determining the better player as the game goes later and later. Also some maps like Ohana and Entombed are just getting boring- we need some new maps desperately!!!!
On July 21 2012 00:30 SiskosGoatee wrote: I honestly don't buy this, professional mapmakers themselves have a loooot of criticism on each other's maps, in some cases I indeed agree. I think Metropolis is broken for the same reason everyone thinks it's broken. I love Cloud Kingdom and think the only thing it could use is a bit more dead space around it because once the third is taken in PvT, T has a pretty hard time still sneaking a drop in on which T sort of depends. In my opinion daybreak leads too much to split map turtle fest and the two forward expansions are too close together which is what that stage of the game seems to revolve around.
However, I am also completely convinced that the difference between very good maps such as CK and Daybreak and 'professional disasters' such as Metropolis and Terminus is simply luck, you can't foresee everything that will perhaps ruin how a map works. When I first saw metro I thought it was cool, I didn't realize back then that the map formation made split maps so common even though they aren't half as common on metalopolis which has a very similar layout, these are just things you can't foresee when you make a map until 100 progames are played on it. I don't think Superouman or Winpark can just recreate the success and nigh on perfection of those maps, you just make a map and it works or it doesn't because you can't foresee everything. CK has a very experimental design and if just a few things were different it could've possibly been a disaster. It's too complex to try to foresee everything, you try some stuff you hope is cool, and it works or it doesn't.
I completely agree. The best example is again Cloud Kingdom. Superouman might be a great mapper but even he didn´t forsee the choice of the 4ths.
On July 21 2012 00:30 SiskosGoatee wrote: I honestly don't buy this, professional mapmakers themselves have a loooot of criticism on each other's maps, in some cases I indeed agree. I think Metropolis is broken for the same reason everyone thinks it's broken. I love Cloud Kingdom and think the only thing it could use is a bit more dead space around it because once the third is taken in PvT, T has a pretty hard time still sneaking a drop in on which T sort of depends. In my opinion daybreak leads too much to split map turtle fest and the two forward expansions are too close together which is what that stage of the game seems to revolve around.
However, I am also completely convinced that the difference between very good maps such as CK and Daybreak and 'professional disasters' such as Metropolis and Terminus is simply luck, you can't foresee everything that will perhaps ruin how a map works. When I first saw metro I thought it was cool, I didn't realize back then that the map formation made split maps so common even though they aren't half as common on metalopolis which has a very similar layout, these are just things you can't foresee when you make a map until 100 progames are played on it. I don't think Superouman or Winpark can just recreate the success and nigh on perfection of those maps, you just make a map and it works or it doesn't because you can't foresee everything. CK has a very experimental design and if just a few things were different it could've possibly been a disaster. It's too complex to try to foresee everything, you try some stuff you hope is cool, and it works or it doesn't.
I completely agree. The best example is again Cloud Kingdom. Superouman might be a great mapper but even he didn´t forsee the choice of the 4ths.
On July 21 2012 00:30 SiskosGoatee wrote: I honestly don't buy this, professional mapmakers themselves have a loooot of criticism on each other's maps, in some cases I indeed agree. I think Metropolis is broken for the same reason everyone thinks it's broken. I love Cloud Kingdom and think the only thing it could use is a bit more dead space around it because once the third is taken in PvT, T has a pretty hard time still sneaking a drop in on which T sort of depends. In my opinion daybreak leads too much to split map turtle fest and the two forward expansions are too close together which is what that stage of the game seems to revolve around.
However, I am also completely convinced that the difference between very good maps such as CK and Daybreak and 'professional disasters' such as Metropolis and Terminus is simply luck, you can't foresee everything that will perhaps ruin how a map works. When I first saw metro I thought it was cool, I didn't realize back then that the map formation made split maps so common even though they aren't half as common on metalopolis which has a very similar layout, these are just things you can't foresee when you make a map until 100 progames are played on it. I don't think Superouman or Winpark can just recreate the success and nigh on perfection of those maps, you just make a map and it works or it doesn't because you can't foresee everything. CK has a very experimental design and if just a few things were different it could've possibly been a disaster. It's too complex to try to foresee everything, you try some stuff you hope is cool, and it works or it doesn't.
I completely agree. The best example is again Cloud Kingdom. Superouman might be a great mapper but even he didn´t forsee the choice of the 4ths.
Yes he did, that's how he and the team designed the map. Notice how BW mapmakers are all the same guys, because they're the best ones out there?
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.
As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.
Definitely don't think 1-base play should be nearly as viable. 1-base play, IMO, should be relegated to extreme riskiness to exploit someone's particularly greedy opening, should they open greedy. High-level stuff.
That said, I do agree with the sentiment that it's quite boring to watch 200/200 NR20 games with 3+ bases per player. Third base acquisition should be one of the most pivotal moments in the game, as it determines whether or not a player will be able to establish an optimal economy. Right now, it's mostly deemed a freebie in the community, which is what leads to passive games.
Current map-making styles reflect this sentiment, with third bases being so close that they're practically a second natural.
The 200/200 turtling isn't actually that bad, its just some maps like Daybreak and Antiga that have bad gameplay. We really need maps that discourage turtling and encourage harassment. It would be bad to discourage expanding though, because that is one of the biggest factors in determining the better player as the game goes later and later. Also some maps like Ohana and Entombed are just getting boring- we need some new maps desperately!!!!
I agree expanding should be encouraged - but not easy. The struggle to get up the expansion and defend it is the exciting part, not so much what they do with the economy once they have it (although that's interesting too.)
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.
As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.
Definitely don't think 1-base play should be nearly as viable. 1-base play, IMO, should be relegated to extreme riskiness to exploit someone's particularly greedy opening, should they open greedy. High-level stuff.
That said, I do agree with the sentiment that it's quite boring to watch 200/200 NR20 games with 3+ bases per player. Third base acquisition should be one of the most pivotal moments in the game, as it determines whether or not a player will be able to establish an optimal economy. Right now, it's mostly deemed a freebie in the community, which is what leads to passive games.
Current map-making styles reflect this sentiment, with third bases being so close that they're practically a second natural.
The 200/200 turtling isn't actually that bad, its just some maps like Daybreak and Antiga that have bad gameplay. We really need maps that discourage turtling and encourage harassment. It would be bad to discourage expanding though, because that is one of the biggest factors in determining the better player as the game goes later and later. Also some maps like Ohana and Entombed are just getting boring- we need some new maps desperately!!!!
I agree expanding should be encouraged - but not easy. The struggle to get up the expansion and defend it is the exciting part, not so much what they do with the economy once they have it (although that's interesting too.)
My sentiments exactly. When I say making the third a pivotal moment in the game, I don't mean making 2-base play easier than trying to take a third -- rather they should be equal, allowing the better player to win with their chosen strategy, be it expand/macro or 2-base timing.
On July 21 2012 03:04 monitor wrote: Notice how BW mapmakers are all the same guys, because they're the best ones out there?
Their fame might have carrier them over, but let's face it, a lot of these people are one hit wonders. These guys all made a lot of maps, and only a few have caught on in the tournament scene. I absolutely do not intend this personally, but Korhal Compound did not catch on at all in the tournament scene despite being promoted heavily by being on the ladder for a while. I'm not sure if you expected the problems with the third and the difficulty of defending it, the fact that a TE had to be made sort of indicates that a lot happened with that map that was not foreseen.
While the GSL mapmakers have multiple maps used. Let's face it, a lot of people agree there are a lot of problems with these maps and the only reason they are used is because the GSL heavily promotes them. I doubt metropolis and terminus and TDA and Crevasse or Bel'Shir beach would've seen much use without the GSL basically forcing them to be popular, most people agree that they are pretty bad maps. The GSL basically commissioned from these guys only for some reason for a long while and forced maps which are controversial at best to be used in the tournament scene by it, I doubt these maps would've become popular on their own because they aren't that good, Daybreak stands out contrasting strongly as a map without major flaws.
Fame keeps fame alive. Let's face it, what makes a great map is almost random. CK is a great map, but I don't think Cherno would ever see a lot of popularity, especially in the earliest posted form. Apart from that, I'd to say that GSL has a bizarre proclivity to keep absolutely terrible maps in the rotation for extremely long, I'm looking at you Crossfire.
On July 21 2012 03:09 Gfire wrote:
I agree expanding should be encouraged - but not easy. The struggle to get up the expansion and defend it is the exciting part, not so much what they do with the economy once they have it (although that's interesting too.)
One of the few things I actually enjoy more about SC2 than BW is the fact that expanding is harder, or at least used to be. I don't like the fact that people nowadays just blindly go 1rax FE, 1gate FE, hatch first, gasless third whatever. This is one of the things I enjoy most about PvP that expanding is actually a decision, rather than a build order.
On July 21 2012 04:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: While the GSL mapmakers have multiple maps used. Let's face it, a lot of people agree there are a lot of problems with these maps and the only reason they are used is because the GSL heavily promotes them. I doubt metropolis and terminus and TDA and Crevasse or Bel'Shir beach would've seen much use without the GSL basically forcing them to be popular, most people agree that they are pretty bad maps. The GSL basically commissioned from these guys only for some reason for a long while and forced maps which are controversial at best to be used in the tournament scene by it, I doubt these maps would've become popular on their own because they aren't that good, Daybreak stands out contrasting strongly as a map without major flaws.
I don't think this is true. At the time they came out, those maps were the best we had ever seen. We didn't know they were bad, and we used them because they were "good" at the time. The GSL mappers were the first to really try to make good maps, as they were the first to have the ability to use them in actual pools. However, I think now things have changed and everyone else has been trying to make good maps as well, now that we have a more solid set of standards.
I don't think that all these maps are really all that good, but I feel maps in the future (those which are currently in progress) will be far better, but these are still a step up from some of the really old ladder maps. The problem is maps aren't rotated quickly enough. We just don't see quite enough maps in total, which also means we don't want to use a map unless we are super sure that it's really good, cause it will probably be around for a long time.
On July 21 2012 04:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: While the GSL mapmakers have multiple maps used. Let's face it, a lot of people agree there are a lot of problems with these maps and the only reason they are used is because the GSL heavily promotes them. I doubt metropolis and terminus and TDA and Crevasse or Bel'Shir beach would've seen much use without the GSL basically forcing them to be popular, most people agree that they are pretty bad maps. The GSL basically commissioned from these guys only for some reason for a long while and forced maps which are controversial at best to be used in the tournament scene by it, I doubt these maps would've become popular on their own because they aren't that good, Daybreak stands out contrasting strongly as a map without major flaws.
I don't think this is true. At the time they came out, those maps were the best we had ever seen. We didn't know they were bad, and we used them because they were "good" at the time. The GSL mappers were the first to really try to make good maps, as they were the first to have the ability to use them in actual pools. However, I think now things have changed and everyone else has been trying to make good maps as well, now that we have a more solid set of standards.
I don't think that all these maps are really all that good, but I feel maps in the future (those which are currently in progress) will be far better, but these are still a step up from some of the really old ladder maps. The problem is maps aren't rotated quickly enough. We just don't see quite enough maps in total, which also means we don't want to use a map unless we are super sure that it's really good, cause it will probably be around for a long time.
edited for clarity.
That's one of my favourite things about the Korean Weekly, the ability to quickly and easily swap maps in the pool through the course of a season (on top of getting good play data for the maps you guys make).
On July 21 2012 04:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: While the GSL mapmakers have multiple maps used. Let's face it, a lot of people agree there are a lot of problems with these maps and the only reason they are used is because the GSL heavily promotes them. I doubt metropolis and terminus and TDA and Crevasse or Bel'Shir beach would've seen much use without the GSL basically forcing them to be popular, most people agree that they are pretty bad maps. The GSL basically commissioned from these guys only for some reason for a long while and forced maps which are controversial at best to be used in the tournament scene by it, I doubt these maps would've become popular on their own because they aren't that good, Daybreak stands out contrasting strongly as a map without major flaws.
I don't think this is true. At the time they came out, those maps were the best we had ever seen. We didn't know they were bad, and we used them because they were "good" at the time. The GSL mappers were the first to really try to make good maps, as they were the first to have the ability to use them in actual pools. However, I think now things have changed and everyone else has been trying to make good maps as well, now that we have a more solid set of standards.
I don't think that all these maps are really all that good, but I feel maps in the future (those which are currently in progress) will be far better, but these are still a step up from some of the really old ladder maps. The problem is maps aren't rotated quickly enough. We just don't see quite enough maps in total, which also means we don't want to use a map unless we are super sure that it's really good, cause it will probably be around for a long time.
edited for clarity.
I don't know, I'd like to think that people made good maps before that already, they just weren't promoted and didn't get out because tournaments made ladder maps.
I also don't think that Terminus is better or worse than Steppes of War, they are both awful, in completely opposite ways. Metalopolis is a better map Terminus was and has been used in tournaments far longer.
The maps a lot of GSL mapmakers currently make also continue to baffle me sometimes. I think most people agree that metropolis needs to go. I'd also rather just have a much larger mappool with an extensive veto system, say you have a 20 map pool and let each player veto 7 maps and draw the maps to be used for the match in the GSL from that. They still have their week of time to study and prepare for the choice. Bigger map pools for tournaments means more exposure for new maps. They can also throw like one or two radical maps into that, if players don't like them, they will be vetoed, if they do like them, they won't be.
On July 21 2012 04:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: While the GSL mapmakers have multiple maps used. Let's face it, a lot of people agree there are a lot of problems with these maps and the only reason they are used is because the GSL heavily promotes them. I doubt metropolis and terminus and TDA and Crevasse or Bel'Shir beach would've seen much use without the GSL basically forcing them to be popular, most people agree that they are pretty bad maps. The GSL basically commissioned from these guys only for some reason for a long while and forced maps which are controversial at best to be used in the tournament scene by it, I doubt these maps would've become popular on their own because they aren't that good, Daybreak stands out contrasting strongly as a map without major flaws.
I don't think this is true. At the time they came out, those maps were the best we had ever seen. We didn't know they were bad, and we used them because they were "good" at the time. The GSL mappers were the first to really try to make good maps, as they were the first to have the ability to use them in actual pools. However, I think now things have changed and everyone else has been trying to make good maps as well, now that we have a more solid set of standards.
I don't think that all these maps are really all that good, but I feel maps in the future (those which are currently in progress) will be far better, but these are still a step up from some of the really old ladder maps. The problem is maps aren't rotated quickly enough. We just don't see quite enough maps in total, which also means we don't want to use a map unless we are super sure that it's really good, cause it will probably be around for a long time.
edited for clarity.
I don't know, I'd like to think that people made good maps before that already, they just weren't promoted and didn't get out because tournaments made ladder maps.
I also don't think that Terminus is better or worse than Steppes of War, they are both awful, in completely opposite ways. Metalopolis is a better map Terminus was and has been used in tournaments far longer.
The maps a lot of GSL mapmakers currently make also continue to baffle me sometimes. I think most people agree that metropolis needs to go. I'd also rather just have a much larger mappool with an extensive veto system, say you have a 20 map pool and let each player veto 7 maps and draw the maps to be used for the match in the GSL from that. They still have their week of time to study and prepare for the choice. Bigger map pools for tournaments means more exposure for new maps. They can also throw like one or two radical maps into that, if players don't like them, they will be vetoed, if they do like them, they won't be.
Not a fan of the big map pool idea, as it'd become impossible for pros to adequately practice and prepare for a match. Even if you apply the idea of "only practice 4-5 maps and veto all others", there's no guarantee that your opponent wouldn't veto the maps you've been practicing. Makes games with well planned out strategies impossible to do, which IMO isn't a good thing for competition.
On July 21 2012 05:57 stormfoxSC wrote: Not a fan of the big map pool idea, as it'd become impossible for pros to adequately practice and prepare for a match. Even if you apply the idea of "only practice 4-5 maps and veto all others", there's no guarantee that your opponent wouldn't veto the maps you've been practicing. Makes games with well planned out strategies impossible to do, which IMO isn't a good thing for competition.
GSL still gives you a week to prepare, that should be more than enough. You're basically arguing against introducing new maps at all for tournaments, even with a small map pool. I mean, GSL gives you a week before each match or something. Dreamhack gives you 2 hours and they sometimes put a new map in the map pool.
On July 21 2012 05:37 SiskosGoatee wrote: I also don't think that Terminus is better or worse than Steppes of War, they are both awful, in completely opposite ways.
At this point I would rate your map judging skills 0.
On July 21 2012 05:37 SiskosGoatee wrote: I also don't think that Terminus is better or worse than Steppes of War, they are both awful, in completely opposite ways.
At this point I would rate your map judging skills 0.
Thanks for taking the time to inform me, nättinen. Means a lot to me.
On July 21 2012 05:57 stormfoxSC wrote: Not a fan of the big map pool idea, as it'd become impossible for pros to adequately practice and prepare for a match. Even if you apply the idea of "only practice 4-5 maps and veto all others", there's no guarantee that your opponent wouldn't veto the maps you've been practicing. Makes games with well planned out strategies impossible to do, which IMO isn't a good thing for competition.
GSL still gives you a week to prepare, that should be more than enough. You're basically arguing against introducing new maps at all for tournaments, even with a small map pool. I mean, GSL gives you a week before each match or something. Dreamhack gives you 2 hours and they sometimes put a new map in the map pool.
That's not what I'm arguing at all, why would you say that? A GSL season only lasts about 2 months. Even with a map pool of 4-5 maps (if GSL were to ever cut it down that low), swapping out even just half of them (i.e. 2-3) for new ones each season is more than enough for fresh, new maps to constantly enter the tournament limelight without making it unnecessarily difficult for professional players. That would basically give maps a 4 tournament-month lifespan:
Season 1: Maps A,B,C,D Season 2: Maps C,D,E,F Season 3: Maps E,F,G,H
So on and so forth. This kind of format for map rotation is completely theoretical, and wouldn't have to be implemented verbatim. Just trying to get my point across. It also doesn't take into account what to do in the event a completely imbalanced map is introduced; probably do something like get rid of that map and leave in a more balanced one for an extra season, or introduce additional new maps in the following season to compensate for the extra removal.
On July 21 2012 05:57 stormfoxSC wrote: Not a fan of the big map pool idea, as it'd become impossible for pros to adequately practice and prepare for a match. Even if you apply the idea of "only practice 4-5 maps and veto all others", there's no guarantee that your opponent wouldn't veto the maps you've been practicing. Makes games with well planned out strategies impossible to do, which IMO isn't a good thing for competition.
GSL still gives you a week to prepare, that should be more than enough. You're basically arguing against introducing new maps at all for tournaments, even with a small map pool. I mean, GSL gives you a week before each match or something. Dreamhack gives you 2 hours and they sometimes put a new map in the map pool.
That's not what I'm arguing at all, why would you say that?
What I mean is that your argument can be used to justify exactly that. You say a big map pool with a lot of vetos gives pros not enough time to prepare themselves, but in the GSL format, you will veto your maps and pick them a week in advance anyway. Which is exactly what would happen with DreamHack, MLG, and the lot basically every weekend these days, if they all had a small map pool and introduced new maps with each iteration, players would have exactly the same time to prepare for those maps.
A GSL season only lasts about 2 months. Even with a map pool of 4-5 maps (if GSL were to ever cut it down that low), swapping out even just half of them (i.e. 2-3) for new ones each season is more than enough for fresh, new maps to constantly enter the tournament limelight without making it unnecessarily difficult for professional players. That would basically give maps a 4 tournament-month lifespan:
Season 1: Maps A,B,C,D Season 2: Maps C,D,E,F Season 3: Maps E,F,G,H
So on and so forth. This kind of format for map rotation is completely theoretical, and wouldn't have to be implemented verbatim. Just trying to get my point across. It also doesn't take into account what to do in the event a completely imbalanced map is introduced;
Indeed, this is exactly the problem the OSL has in BW, 4 maps, and one of them is bound to be imbalanced, and you're just supposed to swallow it. People like to complain about map imbalance in SC2, but they have no idea what it's like in BW, BW maps, as a rule, are simply ridiculously imbalanced by SC2 standards. The 45-55% winrates people have come to demand in SC2 are virtually unheard of in BW.
This system introduces 2 new maps per season, if you have a 20 map pool size but allow a lot of vetos, you can easily swap 4-8 maps per season. If maps are imbalanced people will just veto it, it will also give you a clear indication of which maps the pros like to play upon and which don't allowing you to simply cycle out maps that get vetoed a lot. You still know which maps you are going to play on 1 week in advance, it gives exposure to a lot more new maps per GSL season, it combats the repetitiveness of seeing the same maps over again. (only 4 maps in a Bo5 is tedious enough, in a Bo7 it starts to become troublesome) and it no longer screws a certain race over if one map is particularly imbalance in one matchup.
The only downside is that people have to prepare for different maps and players every week, instead of only for different players, but on the same map, but honestly I find that adding a lot of freshness to the game.
On July 21 2012 05:57 stormfoxSC wrote: Not a fan of the big map pool idea, as it'd become impossible for pros to adequately practice and prepare for a match. Even if you apply the idea of "only practice 4-5 maps and veto all others", there's no guarantee that your opponent wouldn't veto the maps you've been practicing. Makes games with well planned out strategies impossible to do, which IMO isn't a good thing for competition.
GSL still gives you a week to prepare, that should be more than enough. You're basically arguing against introducing new maps at all for tournaments, even with a small map pool. I mean, GSL gives you a week before each match or something. Dreamhack gives you 2 hours and they sometimes put a new map in the map pool.
That's not what I'm arguing at all, why would you say that?
What I mean is that your argument can be used to justify exactly that. You say a big map pool with a lot of vetos gives pros not enough time to prepare themselves, but in the GSL format, you will veto your maps and pick them a week in advance anyway. Which is exactly what would happen with DreamHack, MLG, and the lot basically every weekend these days, if they all had a small map pool and introduced new maps with each iteration, players would have exactly the same time to prepare for those maps.
Er, no, one week isn't enough time to learn the ins and outs of 4-5 maps (I'm assuming the amount of maps remaining after vetos in a 20-map pool). I'm sorry to say, but you have no idea the kind of preparation that goes into tournaments like the GSL and OSL if you think this is the case. That 1 week of preparation time is to prepare specifically for the opponent -- not to learn how to play the map.
It's also completely unreasonable to expect pros to know every detail of 20 maps in advance, so that they can prepare for their opponent on whichever 4-5 maps will be used. That sort of thing takes a lot of time.
What's the best way to FFE? Can it be done? How about 1-rax FE? Can Zerg take a fast 3rd in response and be safe? How does one punish these kinds of builds with early timings? Can they be punished? These kind of questions must be re-asked and re-answered every single time a new map enters the pool, and that's only the really basic, early-game stuff. The questions become a lot more difficult to answer for later stages of the game until there's been enough play time on them. With a map pool of 20, there simply isn't enough time, mathematically speaking. The likely thing to happen is that the GSL pros would just come together and agree to not play certain maps (if you think pros don't collaborate on topics like this, then you really don't know what you're talking about), so that they never even have to be considered. As you can imagine, that defeats the entire purpose of having a large pool.
A GSL season only lasts about 2 months. Even with a map pool of 4-5 maps (if GSL were to ever cut it down that low), swapping out even just half of them (i.e. 2-3) for new ones each season is more than enough for fresh, new maps to constantly enter the tournament limelight without making it unnecessarily difficult for professional players. That would basically give maps a 4 tournament-month lifespan:
Season 1: Maps A,B,C,D Season 2: Maps C,D,E,F Season 3: Maps E,F,G,H
So on and so forth. This kind of format for map rotation is completely theoretical, and wouldn't have to be implemented verbatim. Just trying to get my point across. It also doesn't take into account what to do in the event a completely imbalanced map is introduced;
Indeed, this is exactly the problem the OSL has in BW, 4 maps, and one of them is bound to be imbalanced, and you're just supposed to swallow it. People like to complain about map imbalance in SC2, but they have no idea what it's like in BW, BW maps, as a rule, are simply ridiculously imbalanced by SC2 standards. The 45-55% winrates people have come to demand in SC2 are virtually unheard of in BW.
This system introduces 2 new maps per season, if you have a 20 map pool size but allow a lot of vetos, you can easily swap 4-8 maps per season. If maps are imbalanced people will just veto it, it will also give you a clear indication of which maps the pros like to play upon and which don't allowing you to simply cycle out maps that get vetoed a lot. You still know which maps you are going to play on 1 week in advance, it gives exposure to a lot more new maps per GSL season, it combats the repetitiveness of seeing the same maps over again. (only 4 maps in a Bo5 is tedious enough, in a Bo7 it starts to become troublesome) and it no longer screws a certain race over if one map is particularly imbalance in one matchup.
The only downside is that people have to prepare for different maps and players every week, instead of only for different players, but on the same map, but honestly I find that adding a lot of freshness to the game.
You do realize that in BW, maps have been known to get patched mid-season to remove imbalances, yes? That's something unheard of in SC2, where patches and changes only get applied between seasons. The one good exception to this is the ESV Korean Weekly, where they have no problem adding and removing maps from week to week, though it'd be even better if they took a more subtle approach of patching maps that only need some tweaking to fix. Of course, they might have additional reasons as well, such as simply wanting to get some initial play testing in on more maps.
Like I mentioned before, having more maps isn't a solution. What's the point of swapping out 4-8 maps when it's likely none of those will have gotten played in the first place? It's a waste, and an unnecessary one. It's also why it was a good thing that GSL moved away from the veto system -- when there were vetos, we saw maps that never got played in certain matchups, and that was a pool much smaller than 20.
There's also nothing wrong with seeing maps used again in a BoX -- OSL Bo5 matches have the first map played again in the final game, which gives precedence in StarCraft competition. Also, do you get tired of seeing hockey rinks? Football fields? Basketball courts?
The idea of getting "only" a couple of fresh maps every 2 months isn't exactly all that bad. That's a pretty high turnover rate, especially given current SC2 standards. For example, how many seasons did that awful map Crossfire stay in the GSL for?
Er, no, one week isn't enough time to learn the ins and outs of 4-5 maps (I'm assuming the amount of maps remaining after vetos in a 20-map pool).
Then you just argued against say Dreamhack introducing new maps, because that's exactly what they did with ESV vicious, or what MLG did with Testbug, you had about a week to get accustomed to that new map, and then you went with it. Also, you don't have to learn 4-5 every week. You veto out the same 8 maps every time as a player obviously, or you do it per matchup, I don't know, which leaves you with as 12 player map pool for the entire GSL. You can also assume that there are some unpopular maps which everyone vetos out, so that gives you 10, that's your 'personal map pool' for the GSL under this system essentially, is that really that much more than the 8 map pool GSL has now?
The major difference is that this system establishes a personal map pool essentially for each player. It could even be so far to demand players to stick with the same vetos for the entire GSL if so need be. The system in place now gives you 8 maps to consider for the entire GSL, this gives you 10 in practice, is that really such a difference in preparation time and demand for players in order to achieve A: Many more maps in rotation. B: Many more different maps for the fans. C: A much, much higher refresh rate for maps. D: A clear statistic on which maps the pros favour to play on.
I'm sorry to say, but you have no idea the kind of preparation that goes into tournaments like the GSL and OSL if you think this is the case. That 1 week of preparation time is to prepare specifically for the opponent -- not to learn how to play the map.
I don't, see the above part, you make an error in your mathematical reasoning behind what this system pans out to. As I detailed above, this system leads to each player having a personal map pool of 10 or so maps to consider for the tournament, the old system leads to 8, except that every player shares the map pool whereas in this case they are with respect to certain players.
It's also completely unreasonable to expect pros to know every detail of 20 maps in advance, so that they can prepare for their opponent on whichever 4-5 maps will be used. That sort of thing takes a lot of time.
They don't, because you veto out 8 maps, so it's 12 maps you have to know the details of, furthermore you can assume that if you are a T player and there is a certain highly T favoured map that every P and Z player is going to veto that map out against you, which leaves you realistically with about 10 maps, which is quite reasonable.
What's the best way to FFE? Can it be done? How about 1-rax FE? Can Zerg take a fast 3rd in response and be safe? How does one punish these kinds of builds with early timings? Can they be punished? These kind of questions must be re-asked and re-answered every single time a new map enters the pool, and that's only the really basic, early-game stuff. The questions become a lot more difficult to answer for later stages of the game until there's been enough play time on them. With a map pool of 20, there simply isn't enough time, mathematically speaking. The likely thing to happen is that the GSL pros would just come together and agree to not play certain maps (if you think pros don't collaborate on topics like this, then you really don't know what you're talking about), so that they never even have to be considered. As you can imagine, that defeats the entire purpose of having a large pool.
Again, see above, you make a mathematical mistake in your reasoning. It's 10 maps versus 8, not 20 versus 8.
You do realize that in BW, maps have been known to get patched mid-season to remove imbalances, yes? That's something unheard of in SC2, where patches and changes only get applied between seasons.
Indeed, but an OSL season is far longer than a GSL season. SC2 is still statistically a far more balanced game than BW ever was despite some people not wanting to admit that and SC2 maps are more balanced. No doubt because the SC2 player pool is far larger than the BW player pool ever was allowing for more detailed information about map statistics. And because BW mapmakers are not afraid to radically experiment while in SC2 that mentality has been largely diminished over the course of the game.
The one good exception to this is the ESV Korean Weekly, where they have no problem adding and removing maps from week to week, though it'd be even better if they took a more subtle approach of patching maps that only need some tweaking to fix. Of course, they might have additional reasons as well, such as simply wanting to get some initial play testing in on more maps.
Indeed, and they most certainly don't give you weeks to analyze, players just go with it, which is sort of the charm of the tournament honestly, you see a lot of new fresh maps and players improvising.
Like I mentioned before, having more maps isn't a solution. What's the point of swapping out 4-8 maps when it's likely none of those will have gotten played in the first place? It's a waste, and an unnecessary one. It's also why it was a good thing that GSL moved away from the veto system -- when there were vetos, we saw maps that never got played in certain matchups, and that was a pool much smaller than 20.
Exactly! and if maps are never played then this is a clear, clear indication that they need to go. Not a shred of doubt in my mind exists that pretty much every P player would veto crossfire or Dual Sight if they could, yet they were forced to play on these very imbalanced maps for PvZ and PvT for a very long time.
If maps are constantly vetoed and never played, remove them, the best indication you can honestly have that a map isn't good.
There's also nothing wrong with seeing maps used again in a BoX -- OSL Bo5 matches have the first map played again in the final game, which gives precedence in StarCraft competition.
There isn't, but seeing the same 4 maps used for an entire OSL tournaments starts to get boring, especially because what people often do is just re-use the same strategy on the same map the entire time. It gets boring. Variety is the spice of life, the star that shines barely is all the brighter for its brevity. Or putting this metaphor in a more contemporary context, Zero Punctuation has been going on forever and it's been getting boring.
Also, do you get tired of seeing hockey rinks? Football fields? Basketball courts?
As silly as this analogy is, I do, football and hockey and what not are extremely repetitive sports compared to say StarCraft or chess.
The idea of getting "only" a couple of fresh maps every 2 months isn't exactly all that bad. That's a pretty high turnover rate, especially given current SC2 standards. For example, how many seasons did that awful map Crossfire stay in the GSL for?
Indeed, and it would be out of there long ago with my system, every single P player vetoing it is a clear sign of its badness, despite Artosis' insisting it's a good PvZ map.
The point is, mapmakers like to complain that their new maps aren't getting exposure, big map pools give exposure, throw a couple of radical maps in there, maps from unknown mapmakers, if they are good and/or interesting, then progamers will not veto them and they get a shot, if they are bad, they will be vetoed.
Er, no, one week isn't enough time to learn the ins and outs of 4-5 maps (I'm assuming the amount of maps remaining after vetos in a 20-map pool).
Then you just argued against say Dreamhack introducing new maps, because that's exactly what they did with ESV vicious [...]
Uhm, you realize that Dreamhack completely failed with that? They introduced 2 completely new maps (Vicious and Frigid Pass) that nobody else used in their winter event and they had a 9 map map pool. Needless to say they were barely played and nobody could say they feel comfortable on them...
That's why now Dreamhack had 5 maps in their map pool without any new map.
If you're going to have a short tournament without any preparation time for matches (so unlike GSL or TSL) AND you want to introduce at least 1 new map then you can't have more than 5 maps imo. Regardless of new maps I think 7 maps in the map pool is the absolute maximum and I would still think that the quality of games/strategy/mindgames involved would benefit from a smaller map pool.
If we could just go back to BW system in terms of map pool size, map rotation, map choice and map innovation I would love to do that immediately.
Er, no, one week isn't enough time to learn the ins and outs of 4-5 maps (I'm assuming the amount of maps remaining after vetos in a 20-map pool).
Then you just argued against say Dreamhack introducing new maps, because that's exactly what they did with ESV vicious [...]
Uhm, you realize that Dreamhack completely failed with that? They introduced 2 completely new maps (Vicious and Frigid Pass) that nobody else used in their winter event and they had a 9 map map pool. Needless to say they were barely played and nobody could say they feel comfortable on them...
That's why now Dreamhack had 5 maps in their map pool without any new map.
If you're going to have a short tournament without any preparation time for matches (so unlike GSL or TSL) AND you want to introduce at least 1 new map then you can't have more than 5 maps imo. Regardless of new maps I think 7 maps in the map pool is the absolute maximum and I would still think that the quality of games/strategy/mindgames involved would benefit from a smaller map pool.
If we could just go back to BW system in terms of map pool size, map rotation, map choice and map innovation I would love to do that immediately.
May be, but you ignored the mathematical logic which leads to this conclusion:
The system in place now gives you 8 maps to consider for the entire GSL, this gives you 10 in practice, is that really such a difference in preparation time and demand for players in order to achieve A: Many more maps in rotation. B: Many more different maps for the fans. C: A much, much higher refresh rate for maps. D: A clear statistic on which maps the pros favour to play on.
Along with the fact that a pro is never forced to play on an imbalanced map again? Is having to study for but 2 extra maps in the GSL really not worth all this? Especially the statistic on which map is favoured by the pros cannot be ignored. For all we know all the pros for instance hate to play on Atlantis Spaceship but we don't have a statistic on that.
Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
Why not pick another amateur? Sure you'd both start with a substantial time disadvantage, but you could at least help somebody in some way.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
Why not pick another amateur? Sure you'd both start with a substantial time disadvantage, but you could at least help somebody in some way.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
Why not pick another amateur? Sure you'd both start with a substantial time disadvantage, but you could at least help somebody in some way.
Is any amateur here willing to make an attempt?
I would but I feel that there are better and more deserving maps and map makers.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
Why not pick another amateur? Sure you'd both start with a substantial time disadvantage, but you could at least help somebody in some way.
Is any amateur here willing to make an attempt?
I certainly wouldn't mind either. I have a couple maps in the works that could potentially be used (on top of the 2 I originally submitted for the contest). Just shoot a PM my way if you're interested, NullCurrent.
On July 29 2012 21:04 NullCurrent wrote: Sadly it seems like I won't be participating as I have been unable to contact Broodie about working on his map. I guess it would be possible to get it done in time if we start now, but it seems unlikely that we would have the time to reach a satisfactory result.
And before someone asks, I am not willing to work on a map by myself as that would not help Broodie in any way, which the purpose of the ProAm is; helping other mapmakers. If I would continue Broodie's work on this map it would also be unfair to both Broodie and the other participants as I can adjust the map as I see fit myself, and not having to compromise with the original mapmaker. If I have to work on a map myself, then I can just as well help any TPW member or make a new map myself.
Why not pick another amateur? Sure you'd both start with a substantial time disadvantage, but you could at least help somebody in some way.
On July 30 2012 16:39 Existor wrote: Why no one make night winter maps? Every winter map is a daytime
Just wait for HotS, they have at least 2 winter tilesets, one normal and one city, which looked sick in the trailer
That didn't look like a winter one, iirc. It looks like Korhal, only higher up in the sky, and with cleaner, better textures and doodads. It does look very good, but if it's going to be a winter city we could just mix it up ourselves
On July 30 2012 16:39 Existor wrote: Why no one make night winter maps? Every winter map is a daytime
Just wait for HotS, they have at least 2 winter tilesets, one normal and one city, which looked sick in the trailer
That didn't look like a winter one, iirc. It looks like Korhal, only higher up in the sky, and with cleaner, better textures and doodads. It does look very good, but if it's going to be a winter city we could just mix it up ourselves
On August 03 2012 00:39 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Sooooo...... is anything happening with this? I'm still curious about the results. Is there another thread where the revised maps are being posted?
They gave us a few extra days before we have to turn them in.
On July 30 2012 16:39 Existor wrote: Why no one make night winter maps? Every winter map is a daytime
Just wait for HotS, they have at least 2 winter tilesets, one normal and one city, which looked sick in the trailer
That didn't look like a winter one, iirc. It looks like Korhal, only higher up in the sky, and with cleaner, better textures and doodads. It does look very good, but if it's going to be a winter city we could just mix it up ourselves
On August 03 2012 00:39 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Sooooo...... is anything happening with this? I'm still curious about the results. Is there another thread where the revised maps are being posted?
They gave us a few extra days before we have to turn them in.
Indeed, today is the deadline.
Send the map files with some images to the motm email to submit.
On August 03 2012 00:39 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Sooooo...... is anything happening with this? I'm still curious about the results. Is there another thread where the revised maps are being posted?
They gave us a few extra days before we have to turn them in.
Indeed, today is the deadline.
Send the map files with some images to the motm email to submit.
So... Can we expect results as early as next week? Im sweating every night when i go to sleep wondering what will back to back look like.
On August 03 2012 00:39 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Sooooo...... is anything happening with this? I'm still curious about the results. Is there another thread where the revised maps are being posted?
They gave us a few extra days before we have to turn them in.
Indeed, today is the deadline.
Send the map files with some images to the motm email to submit.
Today is only the 2nd for me, and I'm going to be in a rush to get it in on the 3rd :p
On August 03 2012 00:39 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Sooooo...... is anything happening with this? I'm still curious about the results. Is there another thread where the revised maps are being posted?
They gave us a few extra days before we have to turn them in.
Indeed, today is the deadline.
Send the map files with some images to the motm email to submit.
Boooo! Post the revised map pics for public criticism/admiration! Even if the contest doesn't require it!
I can't wait to see who win, all maps have really improved and it seems to me that the ProAm was a success...sure many people complained that they weren't chosen and it happens in every MoTM.
ProAm was definitely a success. Some maps have noticable terrain changes, while others appear to be mainly a texture clean up with slight terrain adjustments. Either way, the improved versions all look much better than the old one. Props to everyone. There should be more tournaments like this, seeing as how each map turned out.
In my opinion, the top three most improved are the maps from Scorp, Chuky, and Aircooled (Oxygensis a close 4th) -- probably in that order. I think it is less clear to me which are the best maps in themselves, but I think if that at all is a factor in the judging I think Scorp's map has it a little more than the other two. Good luck to all, very interesting to see the results so far.
On August 06 2012 21:57 OxyGenesis wrote: I can't find the thread for Ancient Fates, was the old one updated or does it have a new one with a new name?
On August 06 2012 21:57 OxyGenesis wrote: I can't find the thread for Ancient Fates, was the old one updated or does it have a new one with a new name?
On August 06 2012 21:57 OxyGenesis wrote: I can't find the thread for Ancient Fates, was the old one updated or does it have a new one with a new name?
Actually, Rhynick didn't do a thread for Ancient Fates, but however did a thread with 3 maps all together which is a shame, you only have to search for Cracked Cell and you should find it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/shiroiusagi/misc/mapofthemonth_proam.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qhfht.jpg)
looks like winter to me hm...
