Last Fall, we brought you a mapjam at FallCraft. This summer, we're hosting a community map contest from August 3-18!
Maps will be used in the our summer individual tournament, the Summer Collegiate Champions, and then one map from the Summer Collegiate Champions will be selected to be used in the teamleague map pool. This means thousands of players, playing on your maps for a year-long season!
We encourage small map-making teams as well as individuals to send in maps for consideration for the Summer Collegiate Champions event. Any maps used by any major tournament, such as WCS, Tier 1/Tier 2, and other large events, will not be considered, as the point is to highlight smaller teams and individuals.
The contest officially kicks off with a demonstration by the DreamForge Mapmaking Team on the CSL Stream, August 3 @ 5pm PST.
Submissions
Please submit maps via email to admin [@] cstarleague.com by August 18, 11:59pm PST. Mapmakers are limited to two maps per entity (teams are counted as a single entity). Please include as much information as you can, such as liquipedia page information, a short overview of the map, as well as the name on battle net if published (so we can test them internally).
What We're Looking For We are looking for creative and competitive 1v1 maps!
Maps will be judged on overall balance such as number of bases as well as placement, chokes versus open space, amount of attack paths, airspace, etc. as well as interesting usage of HotS features and overall “look”.
FAQ Is there a limit of the number of submissions any one individual map maker can submit?
A maximum of 2 maps per individual or team.
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
How old can the maps be?
Maps can be however old the mapmaker desires them to be, but maps under judgement will be considered in the context of current metagame standards and playstyles in conjunction with normal items such as types of chokes, placement of chokes, etc.
Are features such as 6 mineral pocket bases similar to GSL Daybreak allowed? What about usage of Unorthodox features such as timed/destructible Xel'Naga Watchtowers?
Usage of extra features are allowed, as we have seen tournament maps with interesting new features (for their time) appear and be used for some time. Keep in mind on how the features fit into the current state of the game as well as overall balance; pocket bases such as GSL Daybreak have been shown to work well within the context of the map, whereas maps such as Arkanoid with its use of its own original features, in the timed rocks, were not well received, comparatively.
Could you be more precise on the judging on the specific traits of the map such as open space/attack paths/HotS Features?
It is difficult to express the requirements for each point, as it is not just a set of independent criterion, but how the entire map works as a whole that is important. Essentially, we will look into how each of the different aspects of the map come together and how everything would affect the play styles of each race. There is no hard limit or requirement on any of the traits of the map, as we will check the map as a whole.
About the Collegiate Starleague:
The Collegiate Starleague is the premiere collegiate gaming league, with over 600 universities participating in its sixth season. In addition to the league, we run contests, tournaments, and work with universities to host and promote LAN events across North America. Check out www.cstarleague.com for more info!
Partners Dream Forge Maps mission is to develop the best Starcraft II maps for use in competitive play. To promote and develop the greater eSports industry. To promote and develop each individual team member as a capable leader in their endeavors.
Sponsors The CSL is sponsored by: MSI - check out MSI gaming for cutting edge laptop, tech, and gear NCIX - an amazing online tech retail store that boasts "Great Technology, Selection, and Service"
Check us out on Liquipedia: Here Follow @Cstarleague on Twitter: Here Like CSL on Facebook: Here
Sounds interesting. It'll probably actually make me get on the sc2 editor and either create something new or just modify an existing map. Is there a limit on the number of submissions you can send in?
Would you guys accept maps that have "non-standard" features that wouldn't pass blizzard policy for ladder? Like Icarus mixed bases or "slow movement" mud or stuff like that?
Are you only looking for new, never before used maps or can we submit older maps as well - I will probably make something new but I'd like to know if I'll be 'competing' against the TLMC2 maps.
I have forwarded the questions to the CSL to see if I can get an answer.
On August 01 2013 04:48 EatThePath wrote: CSL being awesome again. Really excited!
I anticipate a cool demo, DF.
Dont' get too excited ETP -- the stream will be for the purposes of teaching non-map makers the necessary information to create a map. It will probably not be beneficial to an experienced map maker such as yourself.
On August 01 2013 04:48 EatThePath wrote: CSL being awesome again. Really excited!
I anticipate a cool demo, DF.
Dont' get too excited ETP -- the stream will be for the purposes of teaching non-map makers the necessary information to create a map. It will probably not be beneficial to an experienced map maker such as yourself.
Just teasing. I might still watch though cause I like seeing map knowledge flowwwwwwww.
On August 01 2013 04:48 EatThePath wrote: CSL being awesome again. Really excited!
I anticipate a cool demo, DF.
Dont' get too excited ETP -- the stream will be for the purposes of teaching non-map makers the necessary information to create a map. It will probably not be beneficial to an experienced map maker such as yourself.
hahahaha, looooooool, Sigma with the jokes. I love this guy!
:D
Not gonna lie, I opened the editor, messed around for about 5 minutes then closed it again. Ughhhhhhh
On August 01 2013 05:48 SigmaFiE wrote: I have forwarded the questions to the CSL to see if I can get an answer.
On August 01 2013 04:48 EatThePath wrote: CSL being awesome again. Really excited!
I anticipate a cool demo, DF.
Dont' get too excited ETP -- the stream will be for the purposes of teaching non-map makers the necessary information to create a map. It will probably not be beneficial to an experienced map maker such as yourself.
hahahaha, looooooool, Sigma with the jokes. I love this guy!
:D
Not gonna lie, I opened the editor, messed around for about 5 minutes then closed it again. Ughhhhhhh
These are the old ones, i have another folder with even more maps and WiP :o!
Also, i have like 2 weeks of free time, so watch out for me!
I would like to know how wacky we can make the maps, can we go Icarus or ATTx Colosseum like on them? or must they be standarish yet interesting like Blizz ones but with better balance.
I would invite everyone to post whatever they submit in this thread, doing it public makes it all the more exciting. Apart from that, how am I going to bitch that the least original map won again if I can't see the more original ones?
Answered some questions. Huge props to Dream Forge for helping us organize this contest!
Is there a limit of the number of submissions any one individual map maker can submit?
A maximum of 2 maps per individual or team.
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
How old can the maps be?
Maps can be however old the mapmaker desires them to be, but maps under judgement will be considered in the context of current metagame standards and playstyles in conjunction with normal items such as types of chokes, placement of chokes, etc.
On August 01 2013 08:21 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
Yeah man, GSL is so uncompetitive for allowing Icarus and Proleague has always been a farce with their gold bases, neutral creep and other stuff.
"We are looking for creative and competitive maps, just make sure you're not creative, because that's uncompetitive."
On August 01 2013 08:21 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
Yeah man, GSL is so uncompetitive for allowing Icarus and Proleague has always been a farce with their gold bases, neutral creep and other stuff.
"We are looking for creative and competitive maps, just make sure you're not creative, because that's uncompetitive."
Yeah, smart thing to say. He means competitive in the same sense as Blizzard, where the maps could conceivably be ladder maps. Creativity goes beyond throwing in 2 gold minerals, actually. Give it a try sometime.
Ok, icarus mineral lines are not allowed neither Siskos beloved permanent Time Warps and stuff like that, but how small changes? Like adding bases with less than 8min/2gas for sake of balance in maps similar to phantasm/crevasse? Or destructible Xel'naga towers? how about linked rocks? (you destroy a set of rocks and another gets destroyed in the other side of the map) Or "Standard" maps that have non-standard layouts (Koprulu), are these allowed? or should be avoided since the players have to change their approach to the map "too much"?
In short are you searching for Blizz Ladder maps or are you searching for Proleague/GSL maps?
The only question I have, being quite a reserved mapmaker as far as crazy features goes, is are the old tournament style half bases allowed? Like the original center bases in daybreak. Assuming your answer earlier meant that Icarus mineral layouts aren't allowed, I just want to know, as ill change something in one of my works in progress for CSL.
It would be safe to assume silly stuff like tar pits, permanent time warps and blinding clouds aren't allowed as map features.
On August 01 2013 08:21 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
Yeah man, GSL is so uncompetitive for allowing Icarus and Proleague has always been a farce with their gold bases, neutral creep and other stuff.
"We are looking for creative and competitive maps, just make sure you're not creative, because that's uncompetitive."
Yeah, smart thing to say. He means competitive in the same sense as Blizzard, where the maps could conceivably be ladder maps. Creativity goes beyond throwing in 2 gold minerals, actually. Give it a try sometime.
Are you honestly even trying to suggest that the layouts of my maps aren't more creative than yours even ignoring any and all resource layouts?
Oh wait, I forgot, you're just trying to make a personal attack because you have no actual content to attack me on for the bazillioned time but this time even the personal attacks make no sense because without any mineral layouts I've made some of the most unusual maps out there.
Edit: Besides that, nowadays the Blizzard ladder map standard is the standard for competitive?
On August 01 2013 08:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: I would invite everyone to post whatever they submit in this thread, doing it public makes it all the more exciting. Apart from that, how am I going to bitch that the least original map won again if I can't see the more original ones?
+1
Please do not fear .. showcasing is like asking a girl out .. at worse you will get your heart broken into a million pieces
and we all now how useful that is to evolve and mature.
ty CSL, MSI and NCIX mapmaking tournaments with "their" own maps is the in thing now
On August 01 2013 08:21 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
Yeah man, GSL is so uncompetitive for allowing Icarus and Proleague has always been a farce with their gold bases, neutral creep and other stuff.
"We are looking for creative and competitive maps, just make sure you're not creative, because that's uncompetitive."
Yeah, smart thing to say. He means competitive in the same sense as Blizzard, where the maps could conceivably be ladder maps. Creativity goes beyond throwing in 2 gold minerals, actually. Give it a try sometime.
SHOTS FIRED!
On topic: This seems really neat, I like the idea of a tournament using maps made by the players.
On August 01 2013 08:21 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Will the CSL accept submissions that have non-standard features such as mixed resource bases (i.e. Icarus) or "slow-movement" zones, etc. . . features that fall outside the boundaries of the Blizzard policy?
Due to the format of CSL as a competitive tournament series, the Blizzard policies should be followed.
Yeah man, GSL is so uncompetitive for allowing Icarus and Proleague has always been a farce with their gold bases, neutral creep and other stuff.
"We are looking for creative and competitive maps, just make sure you're not creative, because that's uncompetitive."
Yeah, smart thing to say. He means competitive in the same sense as Blizzard, where the maps could conceivably be ladder maps. Creativity goes beyond throwing in 2 gold minerals, actually. Give it a try sometime.
Are you honestly even trying to suggest that the layouts of my maps aren't more creative than yours even ignoring any and all resource layouts?
Oh wait, I forgot, you're just trying to make a personal attack because you have no actual content to attack me on for the bazillioned time but this time even the personal attacks make no sense because without any mineral layouts I've made some of the most unusual maps out there.
Edit: Besides that, nowadays the Blizzard ladder map standard is the standard for competitive?
It would be safe to assume silly stuff like tar pits
how dare thee
Darest thou, by the way, 'thee' is objective. It's like saying 'How dare him' rather than 'How dares he.'
Besides the irony I've spotted there, I don't see anything substantial to your post. Troll harder.
And yes, I would stay away from any altered mineral layouts, as Blizzard policies stipulate 8m2g bases, 6hym2g bases, and nothing else. The question has already been answered saying that Blizzard policy is the word here, and that's good enough for me. Also, considering the possibility of a future TLMC, I'd rather make maps that could potentially be submitted to that as well, so adhering to Blizzard's rules is the best thing to do at the moment.
On August 01 2013 17:33 eTcetRa wrote: The only question I have, being quite a reserved mapmaker as far as crazy features goes, is are the old tournament style half bases allowed? Like the original center bases in daybreak. Assuming your answer earlier meant that Icarus mineral layouts aren't allowed, I just want to know, as ill change something in one of my works in progress for CSL.
It would be safe to assume silly stuff like tar pits, permanent time warps and blinding clouds aren't allowed as map features.
In general, the main bases should be the standard 8/2 format, with some leeway for pocket bases such as on GSL Daybreak, which has been a long-used and beloved tournament map for its time. There are also other interesting features that have been explored in maps such as for Proleague such as with timed xel'naga/rocks, but keep in mind that extra features may affect balance, so it is something to keep in mind.
On August 02 2013 06:21 algue wrote: a few questions :
open space, amount of attack paths, airspace, etc. as well as interesting usage of HotS features and overall “look”.
Could you be more precise ?
As we are a team league as opposed to an individual league, there is some wiggle room for "imbalance", so if one match-up is slightly favored (55-45) or so, it is not the end of the world, but there is a limit; if any race is given a huge advantage in terms of terrain and base designs, it will likely not be accepted.
It is difficult to express the requirements for each point, as it is not just a set of independent criterion, but how the entire map works as a whole that is important. For example, a map may have some chokes but at the same time also offer more attack paths to the natural/3rd/4th/ect. so that a player always has options so they won't get bogged down easily, while rewarding tactical moves and awareness. Essentially, we will look into how each of the different aspects of the map come together and how everything would affect the play styles of each race.
Just a note, the OP was edited slightly, as noted below:
"Please submit maps via email to admin [@] cstarleague.com by August 18, 11:59pm PST. Mapmakers are limited to two maps per entity (teams are counted as a single entity). Please include as much information as you can, such as liquipedia page information, a short overview of the map, as well as the name on battle net if published (so we can test them internally)"
We have already started to receive submissions, some more detailed than others, but please keep in mind to include as much information as possible, as well as publishing the map on battle net if possible, so we can properly check out the maps; the more information, the easier it is for us to be able to properly judge the map. Thank you and GLHF to all participants.
Two maps per team will really limit your submissions amount. There are roughly 4 mapmaking teams, so you will get roughly 8 submissions from teamed mapmakers. Considering a large majority of mapmakers are teamed, that's quite silly. Furthermore, teamed mapmakers still make their own stuff, just use teams for general direction and feedback. Maps are generally not team wide projects, as the individual mapmaker does 98% of the work and final decision making. So, it's not like a team can submit two maps that represent their team. They will submit two maps that, at most, represent only 2 of their members. Not the entire team. Thus, once again, limiting two per team is really silly. Limiting 2 maps per team is just a really bad idea overall. You won't get enough variety, participation, or as high quality of maps as you may desire.
Open it to 2 per mapmaker. Even if every mapmaker submits 2 maps, you'll only get roughly 100 submissions. 100 sounds like a lot, but you should be able to knock out around 70 right away just by the overviews provided. Then you will be left with 30 higher quality maps, which will really give you guys at CSL a chance to design a map pool toward specific gameplay styles. Whereas, if you only have 10-12 quality maps, you will be much more limited in your options. It is in the best interests of the CSL to allow 2 per mapmaker. You'll get more quality maps, more variety, more choices, and overall stronger contest results. This is how TLMC has been able to come out with such great maps.
On August 03 2013 12:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Two maps per team will really limit your submissions amount. There are roughly 4 mapmaking teams, so you will get roughly 8 submissions from teamed mapmakers. Considering a large majority of mapmakers are teamed, that's quite silly. Furthermore, teamed mapmakers still make their own stuff, just use teams for general direction and feedback. Maps are generally not team wide projects, as the individual mapmaker does 98% of the work and final decision making. So, it's not like a team can submit two maps that represent their team. They will submit two maps that, at most, represent only 2 of their members. Not the entire team. Thus, once again, limiting two per team is really silly. Limiting 2 maps per team is just a really bad idea overall. You won't get enough variety, participation, or as high quality of maps as you may desire.
Open it to 2 per mapmaker. Even if every mapmaker submits 2 maps, you'll only get roughly 100 submissions. 100 sounds like a lot, but you should be able to knock out around 70 right away just by the overviews provided. Then you will be left with 30 higher quality maps, which will really give you guys at CSL a chance to design a map pool toward specific gameplay styles. Whereas, if you only have 10-12 quality maps, you will be much more limited in your options. It is in the best interests of the CSL to allow 2 per mapmaker. You'll get more quality maps, more variety, more choices, and overall stronger contest results. This is how TLMC has been able to come out with such great maps.
Pretty much, I wanted to comment on this but I forgot that it's absolutely bizarre to punish people because they are on a team.
Apart from that, easy to circumvent this rule, just make a one man team for the duration of this. Anyone can make a team at any point.
I am now the exclusive SiskosGoatee team, premier mapmaking, no one else allowed in unless you think Antiga Shipyard is cool.
Also not all "team" members collaborate on their maps with other members of their team which would be the only reason I could see for such a rule. Unless you are looking to punish any team that has more than 1 or 2 people in it, but I don't see the good in that.
A flat 2 maps per person seems simpler and more sensible. <3
Anyhow thanks for holding the contest. We're grateful for more opportunities to see community maps played.
Only two maps per team is great because it allows me, a non-team map maker a better chance to get a map into a tournament map pool..............Seriously though, I hope you mean 2 maps per person. Pretty much look at what Timetwister said. Every person should be allowed to enter maps. Limiting it to two per team is pretty lame imo.
I mean, let's be honest here. TPW doesn't have a judge so they probably won't have 90% of the maps in the final pool. (looooooooooooool, tpw so mad! haha <3)
Perhaps he meant if a group of people were working on a map? In that an individual is only allowed to work on two maps that are submitted, even if they are part of a group for one of them.
On August 04 2013 12:15 SidianTheBard wrote: Only two maps per team is great because it allows me, a non-team map maker a better chance to get a map into a tournament map pool..............Seriously though, I hope you mean 2 maps per person. Pretty much look at what Timetwister said. Every person should be allowed to enter maps. Limiting it to two per team is pretty lame imo.
I mean, let's be honest here. TPW doesn't have a judge so they probably won't have 90% of the maps in the final pool. (looooooooooooool, tpw so mad! haha <3)
no offense, but this rule just limits the number of better maps and increases the chance of average maps being showcased. oh, and i do not say this because i would have planned to take part and it is not a personal thing - but just an observation: when ypu look at the community there are many teams with many good map makers on roughly the same level plus several individuals who are really good. two maps per map team that 75% of the top map makers cannot submit a (personal) map.
On August 02 2013 12:01 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
As we are a team league as opposed to an individual league, there is some wiggle room for "imbalance", so if one match-up is slightly favored (55-45) or so, it is not the end of the world, but there is a limit; if any race is given a huge advantage in terms of terrain and base designs, it will likely not be accepted.
lol, how nice that you even allows maps that are SO imbalanced!
2 maps per team when a team has sth between 2-6 excellent, seasoned mapmakers who can all mapmake on top10 TLMC level or GSL/Kespa level. Meanwhile 2 maps for all the teamless mapmakers which are 95% noobs. What a well thought out rule.
And then secondly you let your staff pick, which is like fucking madness. What makes people think they can just go and judge maps properly without any prior experience or mapmaking knowledge or some kind of high level background...
On August 06 2013 06:22 Ragoo wrote: 2 maps per team when a team has sth between 2-6 excellent, seasoned mapmakers who can all mapmake on top10 TLMC level or GSL/Kespa level. Meanwhile 2 maps for all the teamless mapmakers which are 95% noobs. What a well thought out rule.
And then secondly you let your staff pick, which is like fucking madness. What makes people think they can just go and judge maps properly without any prior experience or mapmaking knowledge or some kind of high level background...
This is another great opportunity for all map makers to highlight their creative works as amateur (moving towards professional) level designers. The limitations of the number of submissions creates an environment that promotes the de-emphasizing of team created maps and gives greater opportunity to non-associated mapmakers. Simultaneously it helps to promote a higher quality map by team entities due to the quantity submission reduction (it encourages teammates to work AS teammates). You must conciously choose to put your best foot forward as an organization. This is a good thing, and promotes higher quality. Please accept this as a great opportunity and discontinue belittling the organization(s) that are taking risks by looking at and incorporating community created levels. The rules are established clearly and I doubt they will change. Accept it and move on.
2 maps per team is questionable, I think most people here agree on that point.
@ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
If you had TLMC type judges again you would just get the same types of maps as your results.. zzz. Something different might be nice - willing to give them a chance.
On August 06 2013 06:22 Ragoo wrote: 2 maps per team when a team has sth between 2-6 excellent, seasoned mapmakers who can all mapmake on top10 TLMC level or GSL/Kespa level. Meanwhile 2 maps for all the teamless mapmakers which are 95% noobs. What a well thought out rule.
And then secondly you let your staff pick, which is like fucking madness. What makes people think they can just go and judge maps properly without any prior experience or mapmaking knowledge or some kind of high level background...
This is another great opportunity for all map makers to highlight their creative works as amateur (moving towards professional) level designers. The limitations of the number of submissions creates an environment that promotes the de-emphasizing of team created maps and gives greater opportunity to non-associated mapmakers. Simultaneously it helps to promote a higher quality map by team entities due to the quantity submission reduction (it encourages teammates to work AS teammates). You must conciously choose to put your best foot forward as an organization. This is a good thing, and promotes higher quality. Please accept this as a great opportunity and discontinue belittling the organization(s) that are taking risks by looking at and incorporating community created levels. The rules are established clearly and I doubt they will change. Accept it and move on.
Righto. For, of and by the community up-and-coming organization goes straight to TL mapmakers for new maps. Check. Mark. This is only good times hopefully just the first step in something long-lasting.
On August 06 2013 06:22 Ragoo wrote: 2 maps per team when a team has sth between 2-6 excellent, seasoned mapmakers who can all mapmake on top10 TLMC level or GSL/Kespa level. Meanwhile 2 maps for all the teamless mapmakers which are 95% noobs. What a well thought out rule.
And then secondly you let your staff pick, which is like fucking madness. What makes people think they can just go and judge maps properly without any prior experience or mapmaking knowledge or some kind of high level background...
This is another great opportunity for all map makers to highlight their creative works as amateur (moving towards professional) level designers. The limitations of the number of submissions creates an environment that promotes the de-emphasizing of team created maps and gives greater opportunity to non-associated mapmakers. Simultaneously it helps to promote a higher quality map by team entities due to the quantity submission reduction (it encourages teammates to work AS teammates). You must conciously choose to put your best foot forward as an organization. This is a good thing, and promotes higher quality. Please accept this as a great opportunity and discontinue belittling the organization(s) that are taking risks by looking at and incorporating community created levels. The rules are established clearly and I doubt they will change. Accept it and move on.
I seriously doubt the map making community is at a point where we need to be fostering development outside of the major map making teams. There are already significantly limited opportunities for the very best mappers, let alone mediocre mappers on teams. Perhaps the rule would make sense if teamed mappers had their maps flooding every tournament, but that isn't the case.
On August 06 2013 06:22 Ragoo wrote: 2 maps per team when a team has sth between 2-6 excellent, seasoned mapmakers who can all mapmake on top10 TLMC level or GSL/Kespa level. Meanwhile 2 maps for all the teamless mapmakers which are 95% noobs. What a well thought out rule.
And then secondly you let your staff pick, which is like fucking madness. What makes people think they can just go and judge maps properly without any prior experience or mapmaking knowledge or some kind of high level background...
This is another great opportunity for all map makers to highlight their creative works as amateur (moving towards professional) level designers. The limitations of the number of submissions creates an environment that promotes the de-emphasizing of team created maps and gives greater opportunity to non-associated mapmakers. Simultaneously it helps to promote a higher quality map by team entities due to the quantity submission reduction (it encourages teammates to work AS teammates). You must conciously choose to put your best foot forward as an organization. This is a good thing, and promotes higher quality. Please accept this as a great opportunity and discontinue belittling the organization(s) that are taking risks by looking at and incorporating community created levels. The rules are established clearly and I doubt they will change. Accept it and move on.
Maybe, but like I said, it's super easy to skirt this rule. Just temporarly leave your team and go solo for the duration of this contest. Or well, since there is no rule anywhere which says you can't be in both teams at the same time, there you have it. I've always thought the term "team" for mapping teams is a bit nondescriptive as well.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
shots fired... I'm sure they let some master/gm players handle that, which will most likely end up with some more standard maps being taken. Which would explain why Ragoo isn't exactly in favor of the idea.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
shots fired... I'm sure they let some master/gm players handle that, which will most likely end up with some more standard maps being taken. Which would explain why Ragoo isn't exactly in favor of the idea.
Well, as much as saying this shoots my own agenda in the foot, but if pros wants standard maps and mappers don't, maybe standard maps are better? I don't really buy that idea that a platinum league mapper understands maps or any aspect of the game to greater extend than a pro or semi-pro in GM. They can have different opinions from each other how the game should, but a pro is always going to be better at looking into a crystal ball and saying how the game will play out given a map to judge.
Wow. We mapmakers really create a ruckus, don't we? (I'm guilty as well at times as well) If we start arguing from things like the map rules and now moving on to the submission rules (with insults flying about), how are we going to be ever treated well?
Also, shouldn't we think this more as a Map Jam? CSL isn't like getting your map into Dreamhack or MLG or anything...
I do agree with just 2 maps per person, not team tho
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
shots fired... I'm sure they let some master/gm players handle that, which will most likely end up with some more standard maps being taken. Which would explain why Ragoo isn't exactly in favor of the idea.
Haha, yeah that did come over caustic when I didn't really intend it to be. I just meant that if we had an expert judge panel and the resulting maps were mostly imbalanced (mostly, not ALL), that says something about how hard it is to judge maps. So maybe a different viewpoint is good, or maybe it's just a crapshoot and anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the game is fine as a judge and should choose whichever maps look fun and reasonably balanced to them.
On August 02 2013 12:01 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
In general, the main bases should be the standard 8/2 format, with some leeway for pocket bases such as on GSL Daybreak, which has been a long-used and beloved tournament map for its time.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are the following allowed?
- 6/1 in-base natural with back door rocks - 8/2 gold
On August 01 2013 04:10 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Maps will be judged on overall balance such as number of bases as well as placement, chokes versus open space, amount of attack paths, airspace, etc. as well as interesting usage of HotS features and overall “look”.
Are HotS features a requirement, or can I enter a map that can also be played with WoL?
On August 02 2013 12:01 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
In general, the main bases should be the standard 8/2 format, with some leeway for pocket bases such as on GSL Daybreak, which has been a long-used and beloved tournament map for its time.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are the following allowed?
- 6/1 in-base natural with back door rocks - 8/2 gold
If I understand you, you want to make a natural similar to Crevasse, except with backdoor rocks; this is acceptable. With the 8/2 gold base, I think you meant to say 6/2 gold? There is no problem with those types of bases either, as we do see them on tournament maps not too infrequently, such as on Neo Planet S; just make sure it works well with the terrain setup of the map.
On August 01 2013 04:10 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
Maps will be judged on overall balance such as number of bases as well as placement, chokes versus open space, amount of attack paths, airspace, etc. as well as interesting usage of HotS features and overall “look”.
Are HotS features a requirement, or can I enter a map that can also be played with WoL?[/QUOTE]
As with the other criteria, there is no hard requirement or limit for this. We will reward interesting usage of the features if it works well, but we will not penalize for not using them. If you feel your map works better without any of the new features, feel free to omit them.
On August 06 2013 06:22 Ragoo wrote: 2 maps per team when a team has sth between 2-6 excellent, seasoned mapmakers who can all mapmake on top10 TLMC level or GSL/Kespa level. Meanwhile 2 maps for all the teamless mapmakers which are 95% noobs. What a well thought out rule.
And then secondly you let your staff pick, which is like fucking madness. What makes people think they can just go and judge maps properly without any prior experience or mapmaking knowledge or some kind of high level background...
This is another great opportunity for all map makers to highlight their creative works as amateur (moving towards professional) level designers. The limitations of the number of submissions creates an environment that promotes the de-emphasizing of team created maps and gives greater opportunity to non-associated mapmakers. Simultaneously it helps to promote a higher quality map by team entities due to the quantity submission reduction (it encourages teammates to work AS teammates). You must conciously choose to put your best foot forward as an organization. This is a good thing, and promotes higher quality. Please accept this as a great opportunity and discontinue belittling the organization(s) that are taking risks by looking at and incorporating community created levels. The rules are established clearly and I doubt they will change. Accept it and move on.
I seriously doubt the map making community is at a point where we need to be fostering development outside of the major map making teams. There are already significantly limited opportunities for the very best mappers, let alone mediocre mappers on teams. Perhaps the rule would make sense if teamed mappers had their maps flooding every tournament, but that isn't the case.
this!
why highlight average maps when the map teams have problems getting their maps into circulation? It all depends on your decision if you want the highest possible quality (no limitation except x map(s) per map maker) or if you want to cap the quality through artificial limitations.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
shots fired... I'm sure they let some master/gm players handle that, which will most likely end up with some more standard maps being taken. Which would explain why Ragoo isn't exactly in favor of the idea.
Haha, yeah that did come over caustic when I didn't really intend it to be. I just meant that if we had an expert judge panel and the resulting maps were mostly imbalanced (mostly, not ALL), that says something about how hard it is to judge maps. So maybe a different viewpoint is good, or maybe it's just a crapshoot and anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the game is fine as a judge and should choose whichever maps look fun and reasonably balanced to them.
imho this should be treated as a great opportunity to get maps tested in a competitive environment. a map jam is mostly map making community oriented.
On August 06 2013 16:07 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
With the 8/2 gold base, I think you meant to say 6/2 gold? There is no problem with those types of bases either, as we do see them on tournament maps not too infrequently, such as on Neo Planet S; just make sure it works well with the terrain setup of the map.
Actually I really meant 8/2 gold bases, as 6/2 gold is the standard. I still haven't figured out whether 8/2 normal, 6/2 gold or 8/2 gold works best in that particular location, though, so this will likely be a moot point.
On August 06 2013 16:07 CollegiateStarleague wrote:
With the 8/2 gold base, I think you meant to say 6/2 gold? There is no problem with those types of bases either, as we do see them on tournament maps not too infrequently, such as on Neo Planet S; just make sure it works well with the terrain setup of the map.
Actually I really meant 8/2 gold bases, as 6/2 gold is the standard. I still haven't figured out whether 8/2 normal, 6/2 gold or 8/2 gold works best in that particular location, though, so this will likely be a moot point.
Good to hear Crevasse-style naturals are allowed.
I probably wouldn't imagine 8/2 gold would be very fair; with 6 mineral patches it would give a slight advantage in overall income at optimal saturation, while requiring less workers of course. With 8 gold patches, it will likely make the gold bases too essential, as it would provide 40% more income with the same amount of workers used. I could be wrong, but it seems like it would make the game to focused on controlling the gold base(s) depending on how the map layout is set up. Just my 2 cents, in case you didn't already think of it.
That's kind of the issue. The base is really exposed and I feel that a standard 6/2 gold base isn't enough incentive to expand there unless everywhere else is mined out, but 8/2 gold seems to much. I guess I'll just have to make it less exposed anyway.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
shots fired... I'm sure they let some master/gm players handle that, which will most likely end up with some more standard maps being taken. Which would explain why Ragoo isn't exactly in favor of the idea.
Haha, yeah that did come over caustic when I didn't really intend it to be. I just meant that if we had an expert judge panel and the resulting maps were mostly imbalanced (mostly, not ALL), that says something about how hard it is to judge maps. So maybe a different viewpoint is good, or maybe it's just a crapshoot and anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the game is fine as a judge and should choose whichever maps look fun and reasonably balanced to them.
Well, it's true, especially for TMLC 1. They praised Korhal Compound for being awsome, the staff. And it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ and never really got tournament traction. It's like I said a lot, I don't buy this self-esteemed expert-ness of 'established mappers' at all.
On August 06 2013 12:35 Semmo wrote: Wow. We mapmakers really create a ruckus, don't we? (I'm guilty as well at times as well) If we start arguing from things like the map rules and now moving on to the submission rules (with insults flying about), how are we going to be ever treated well?
Good point, I think that this sub-forum scares away a lot of folks, we have a tendency to jump down each other's throats, which makes for good debates but might throw some people off.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
Judging maps is really hard, its a bit like the stock market; you could follow it for years and learn everything but still get burned by some unexpected move. IMO the only true way to judge a map is trial-and-error; playing many games on it and seeing if any imbalance or otherwise un-fun feature shows up. It might be possible to predict the balance of "standard" maps, i.e. maps with commonly used features, but only because those features have shown up before and we know how they'll pay out. Any time an unknown element is introduced to the mix, you're suddenly looking into the tea leaves to find out how it will play out.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
Judging maps is really hard, its a bit like the stock market; you could follow it for years and learn everything but still get burned by some unexpected move. IMO the only true way to judge a map is trial-and-error; playing many games on it and seeing if any imbalance or otherwise un-fun feature shows up. It might be possible to predict the balance of "standard" maps, i.e. maps with commonly used features, but only because those features have shown up before and we know how they'll pay out. Any time an unknown element is introduced to the mix, you're suddenly looking into the tea leaves to find out how it will play out.
The thing is that unless you are doing that with real pros in real competition you are only really confirming stuff we already know, or in the case of like weird maps you can come to totally wrong conclusions. I mean pros can develope totally different strats and meta without any map/balance changes, overthrowing ideas that we thought were basically set in stone all the time. Someone like Innovation is far above the level of some average EU pro like beastyqt and still this guy is far far above what the usual tester person's level is. The way some master player and a pro approach a certain new map is vastly different and the possibilites they have as well.
On August 06 2013 07:01 Fatam wrote: @ their staff judging, I'm pretty sure they have masters and GM people on-board so it might actually go ok. Knowing something about maps would surely help, but TLMC had "expert" judges and most of the maps kind of flopped once played, so *throws hands up* I think a different perspective might be good and/or interesting.
shots fired... I'm sure they let some master/gm players handle that, which will most likely end up with some more standard maps being taken. Which would explain why Ragoo isn't exactly in favor of the idea.
Haha, yeah that did come over caustic when I didn't really intend it to be. I just meant that if we had an expert judge panel and the resulting maps were mostly imbalanced (mostly, not ALL), that says something about how hard it is to judge maps. So maybe a different viewpoint is good, or maybe it's just a crapshoot and anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the game is fine as a judge and should choose whichever maps look fun and reasonably balanced to them.
Thats some completely made up bullshit. When and how was it confirmed that these maps were unreasonably imbalanced. Just because you didn't like the maps doesn't mean they were imbalanced, you are just making shit up to talk them down.
Secondly if balance was all there is to a map then sure just let a bunch of pros decide what is most balanced or better yet just reskin and only slightly changed proven balanced maps all the time. Thats like the very very basics of what mapmaking (and level design) can actually be about if you completely ignore the design part and ways to force new kinds of play to keep the game fresh and interesting (like BW). Altho I think you understand that seeing that you tend to overdo it instead of the other way around.
And as you well know most random people you ask (whether normal guys or pros) actually prefer to have standard shit all day every day. This is (imo) well documented if you look at the poll results of last TLMC. That's not saying that nobody likes more diverse maps in the map pools but that's definitely what the majority does.
Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly. And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly.
That's your assertion, I don't have any faith in anyone's crystal ball when it comes to looking into the future. Every map is a shot in the dark and if a map becomes great or a dismal failure is ultimately more luck then skill. It's like a hand of poker, ultimately a single map's greatness is 80% lcuk and 20% skill, a good mapper simply has a higher success rate but ultimately still a success rate of about 20%.
I just have slightly more faith into the crystal balls of pro players than pro mappers. But ultimately, anyone who claims they can predict the balance of a map with accuracy is suffering from hubris in my opinion. You take a shot in the dark with maps and hope it works out. Cloud Kingdom and Ohana worked out balance wise but Ohana in my opinion led to boring games. Korhal Compound which won the staff vote turned out to be a balance disaster in ZvP. We'll still going to have to wait what the winners of TLMC2 are going to end up with.
And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
This is very true, people need to be cautious with giving authority to pros in various matters when it concerns balance. Bias can be far stronger than knowledge in various cases.
I think it's not so much that many pros are biased when it comes to maps, it's just that they prefer to play maps they know how to play ("standard shit") over maps they (and everyone else) have to figure out first. It's their job, so it's not surprising they don't want to lose games and money over maps that might turn out to be simply badly designed.
True, but it was a bit weird to not give TMLC a protoss rep. Basically both TLO and Morrow are known to alternate between Z and T. Not putting a representative of the protoss race in between the pros surely at the very least puts in a slight slant against the race in the finalists.
Thats some completely made up bullshit. When and how was it confirmed that these maps were unreasonably imbalanced. Just because you didn't like the maps doesn't mean they were imbalanced, you are just making shit up to talk them down.
I was going by what we saw in the games played on the maps, so I don't really see how that's made up. Now, you can choose to interpret what you saw in the games differently than me, and that's fine, but the opinion isn't coming from nowhere.
Secondly if balance was all there is to a map then sure just let a bunch of pros decide what is most balanced or better yet just reskin and only slightly changed proven balanced maps all the time.
Hence why I said in my quote "anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the game [read: not necessarily pros] is fine as a judge and should choose whichever maps look fun and reasonably balanced to them."
Now if you use only pros, then of course they will probably ignore that bolded word, but some random masters who aren't as competitive and simply have a large love of the game might actually choose some fun stuff.
On August 07 2013 01:51 Ragoo wrote:Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly. And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
I agree with this but in this situation for judging maps I feel the important skill is to identify maps with unfixable problems and take them out of consideration, then as fatam said pick maps for fun. Since you can't 100% predict how a map will play out, why not just get a short list of maps that will most likely not suffer from any major problems, and then choose the ones that seem most fresh and interesting. Imo this should be the central map pool dogma anyway (saving 1 or 2 slot for "standard"), but that doesn't happen in SC2.
On August 07 2013 01:51 Ragoo wrote:Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly. And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
I agree with this but in this situation for judging maps I feel the important skill is to identify maps with unfixable problems and take them out of consideration, then as fatam said pick maps for fun. Since you can't 100% predict how a map will play out, why not just get a short list of maps that will most likely not suffer from any major problems, and then choose the ones that seem most fresh and interesting. Imo this should be the central map pool dogma anyway (saving 1 or 2 slot for "standard"), but that doesn't happen in SC2.
But that's exactly what was happening in TLMC judging (at least as far as monk, Plexa and me goes, as I said I don't entirely trust the pros on deciding about map design or variety).
We had a whole lot of maps kicked out by default cos they just sucked more or less. We were still left with I think a good 40 or so? Out of these we ofc looked for quality crafted maps but actually most of these were rly high enough in terms of execution and aesthetics that you can't complain. More importantly we looked for maps that looked „fun“ as in they would bring some variety to map pools. Once again standard maps are important and always will be but in WCS/ladder map pool there is (and has been) a lot of standard maps so it’s not a bad idea to have more emphasis on maps that bring some more variety for now (and harder to take bases as there were too many turtly ones). I mean just look at what we picked.
Koprulu: Heavy emphasis on harass and multitasking with the double sided bases right from taking the third Electric Circuit and Khalims Will: Kinda similar concept on first three bases with big emphasis on bouncing back and forth between front natural and backdoor entrance (and backdoor natural) and also air harass on backdoor base (and front on Khalims) Keru: After the normal natural and weird, cliffable third that’s kinda in the middle of the map and kinda isn’t the bases are few and far making for aggressive games Strangewood: That map had the usual horizontal/vertical/cross of a 4p mirrored but with the rotational element it actually had 6 different scenarios you could spawn in. A fuck ton of variety right from the start making it hard to plan it out 100% for all your 3 matchups. Frost was rly interesting as well with far and interesting thirds, working all spawn and the problems of taking a fifth ( I only fully realized that after seeing it in RSL/redbull LAN). Best 4p mirrored easily.
Now that’s looking all fine yet the maps that ended up being chosen were Frost, understandable for bringing sth new while being entirely solid, very well made like CK. Yeonsu a map that was basically included because it was solid… and it was in some ways aggressive/small and had an island so that’s probably interesting, altho it’s not rly that groundbreaking and probably the first map that would have been cut by the judges. And then Ravage… a map that only made it because of one judge going overly nuts for it for some unknown reason (well it’s unknown in the sense that he didn’t tell me/us but it’s probably cos it brings nothing new and is just standard). No way this map would ever get picked by judges in top 3 to be added to WCS map pool as it would be an entirely unnoticeable addition.
So yea my point is we DID what you want judges to do and we HAD these really “fun” and interesting maps ready to be added to WCS and make the map pool more interesting. It’s merely for the fact that some idiots at Blizzard and TL think it’s a good idea to pick a bunch of maps and then let the community as a whole (and some more or less pros as a whole) have some consensus vote on which maps offend them (and their close minded, uneducated, racially biased, design/variety-disregarding) views the least.
It’s a fucking dumb idea and we will never get map pool variety with consensus votes by community in TLMC ever!
Lastly coming back to your point about identifying maps with unfixable problems. Yes that’s important as is being able to see when a map doesn’t fulfill minimum aesthetical or execution standards . I believe the people I think are bad at judging can do neither.
edit: I realize this may be seen as offensive to some people are the judges of this. But just as an example, I have watched tons and tons of Dota 2 in the last year and played over a thousand games, yet I barely have had some in-depth thoughts or discussion about hero design in this game. So I would never get the idea to see myself as able to judge a hero design as people who have been doing this for a long time (extreme example being Icefrog) right now at all. Neither would I walk into Mercedes tomorrow and tell the car designers how to do this and that just bases on my experience driving cars or seeing cars being driven. It takes a lot more than that to judge these things. That's a pretty logical thought to me at least.
"We had a whole lot of maps kicked out by default cos they just sucked more or less. We were still left with I think a good 40 or so?"
i have the sickest hubris feeling my map never got to the 40 !?
Hope springs eternal .. i had tried to pick one that was "conscious" of conservatism/balance issues and tried to be "tl melee acceptable" even better / worse, foolishly thought it could be "tlmc material" with just enough "new" stuff in...
We live in a fast food rhythm paced world and "overviews" kill 99% of "originality" in maps+ Show Spoiler +
On August 07 2013 02:14 Ragoo wrote: Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly.
I agree with SiskosGoatee on this one. You can watch and breathe games, discuss game design, maps to any degree you like, but let's face it: In the end most of it is just theory crafting. The edge it does give you is minimal. The only way to be sure is to have thousands of high level games on them. But that's just not option, so work with the people that play the game on the highest level that are available to you. And that are Pros. Even if it's "just" BeastyQT. They have so much more insight into the game than every mapper or theory crafter. And here's the deal: innovation comes from the players. Not the mappers. So let's make maps to the best of our abilities, that allow multiple viable playstyles as far as we can tell, and let the players figure out the rest, instead of trying to push them in certain directions.
Make sure your terrain is simple and flat. Do not add lumps, humps, hills, natural ditches, or weird abnormal ground movement. Keep all the terrain flat on all three levels you're given. Going crazy with the terrain will cause graphical issues to many players who are on medium to lower-end computers. Blizzard's stance is they want everyone to be able to play the game without any graphical errors or distractions in the terrain. Also keep it simple on the borders too.
Do not over-do the aesthetics. Along the lines of blizzard wanting performance-approved maps, this includes the usage of doodads. Do -NOT- make areas of your map too dense with aesthetics or it may cause latency for some players. If a medium-size clump of trees caused players to lag on Ohana during ladder games, you can bet your snickers that a more complex usage of doodads in one area will entail the same issue. Again, keep it clean and simple.
How closely must these aesthetic policies be adhered to? If my terrain isn't completely flat and has some parts that are slightly underwater like the original Ohana, is that bad? Also, if there are some static doodad clumps that don't bother my mediocre non-gaming laptop at all, should I remove those preemptively anyway?
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
>.> Shhhhh.... silence
I thought that you could vote for more than an option, but oh well. I voted for Mainframe, the other/s i wanted to vote were Stahl/A Chlann.
In my own maps i think i'm gonna submit Foresta with some improved texturing and a new map that i'm stuck on with the detructable xel'naga tower, i just can't get the dammed thing to work -.-;
Make sure your terrain is simple and flat. Do not add lumps, humps, hills, natural ditches, or weird abnormal ground movement. Keep all the terrain flat on all three levels you're given. Going crazy with the terrain will cause graphical issues to many players who are on medium to lower-end computers. Blizzard's stance is they want everyone to be able to play the game without any graphical errors or distractions in the terrain. Also keep it simple on the borders too.
Do not over-do the aesthetics. Along the lines of blizzard wanting performance-approved maps, this includes the usage of doodads. Do -NOT- make areas of your map too dense with aesthetics or it may cause latency for some players. If a medium-size clump of trees caused players to lag on Ohana during ladder games, you can bet your snickers that a more complex usage of doodads in one area will entail the same issue. Again, keep it clean and simple.
How closely must these aesthetic policies be adhered to? If my terrain isn't completely flat and has some parts that are slightly underwater like the original Ohana, is that bad? Also, if there are some static doodad clumps that don't bother my mediocre non-gaming laptop at all, should I remove those preemptively anyway?
Original Ohana had to be changed exactly because of this.
I can't understand how fucking stupid the CSL team is btw. Again, not allowing more than 2 maps per team is fucking horrible. Not only are teams essentially useless and nothing more but a fun tag, they really don't have any power or do anything. But also most of the mapmakers on the big teams, regardless of how good they are, have never gotten any of their maps in any big tournament.
You are making restrictions because of fucking what? There is a really small amount of active good mapmakers without team. Are you really trying to give the fucking horrible maps a better chance? Limit the amount of good maps you can choose from? Make up fucking random rules that in no way apply to reality, than stick to them regardless of feedback from people who actually know the scene?!
I'm getting sick and tired of what's happening with this beautiful game and the mapmaking scene every other day and you really don't need to add to my anger.
At least you can't prevent anyone from leaving their team or creating new ones or smurfing or whatever, cos your rule is fucking stupid.
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
>.> Shhhhh.... silence
I thought that you could vote for more than an option, but oh well. I voted for Mainframe, the other/s i wanted to vote were Stahl/A Chlann.
In my own maps i think i'm gonna submit Foresta with some improved texturing and a new map that i'm stuck on with the detructable xel'naga tower, i just can't get the dammed thing to work -.-;
hmm i think destructible XNT should be np.. just make sure to get rid of the invulnerable tag that's somewhere in its properties (don't remember exactly where off the top of my head) then set an hp and armor value that you like and voila
of course the other option is to just put a rock tower that falls on the XNT.. afaik falling rocks kill XNTs
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
Surely it helps to satisfy my agenda of subjectivity? I like it. If everyone voted for the same that'd almost be a slap in the face to my agenda of subjectivity.
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
>.> Shhhhh.... silence
I thought that you could vote for more than an option, but oh well. I voted for Mainframe, the other/s i wanted to vote were Stahl/A Chlann.
In my own maps i think i'm gonna submit Foresta with some improved texturing and a new map that i'm stuck on with the detructable xel'naga tower, i just can't get the dammed thing to work -.-;
hmm i think destructible XNT should be np.. just make sure to get rid of the invulnerable tag that's somewhere in its properties (don't remember exactly where off the top of my head) then set an hp and armor value that you like and voila
of course the other option is to just put a rock tower that falls on the XNT.. afaik falling rocks kill XNTs
Actually it is a bit harder than that, there are like two or three things that you have to deselect to make the xel'naga towers destructible buildings, then add the HP and shield, and then the nightmare, find a shield model that works with the xel'naga, and after that you need to find/edit/make a model for when the xel'naga is destroyed, otherwise it will just dissapear.
And there's other thing and is that when you right click on the xel'naga with any unit, that unit will start attacking the tower automatically, so now i need to find and add the behavior that the destructable rocks have (the one that you only can destroy them with A+click).
And the destructable rock tower thing.... that can be usefull, maybe if i switch the model of the tower to something that fit the theme of the map, and then reduce the radius of the area that the rock will be placed on (the "area of death") and remove the rock from be placed... (IE make everything harder than it is already), that would destroy the xel'naga tower and since the radius is so small it wouldn't damage anything else!
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
Surely it helps to satisfy my agenda of subjectivity? I like it. If everyone voted for the same that'd almost be a slap in the face to my agenda of subjectivity.
Yeah... You are probably just getting trolled, remember that your map can't have Warp time fields and atm D'Autres is the one winning the poll... Or maybe three mapmakers didn't read the rules completelly...
On August 14 2013 02:26 Ragoo wrote: There is a really small amount of active good mapmakers without team. Are you really trying to give the fucking horrible maps a better chance?
The center pods are droppeable and the xel'naga tower is destructible (1750 hp with 3 armor and 750 hp shields that regenerate just like toss ones)
I also feel that i'm almost ready to start doing more non-standard maps, the map is published in AM and EU servers, it would be nice if some of you guys play in them and give feedback about the FPS, since i'm worried about the high amount of lights that the map has.
lol, that map looks awesome. I'll probably throw my submissions up tomorrow or the next day. I can't figure out how to make the middle of my newest map so I keep closing the editor out of rage. I'll probably end up submitting something I dislike...but w/e
On August 16 2013 12:33 SidianTheBard wrote: lol, that map looks awesome. I'll probably throw my submissions up tomorrow or the next day. I can't figure out how to make the middle of my newest map so I keep closing the editor out of rage. I'll probably end up submitting something I dislike...but w/e
stop stealing what I'm about to say darn it by the way I'm trying to figure out which of my maps is most suitable for this competition but everyone is ignoring me
I have a couple pretty interesting maps I'm slowly working on but they're dragging due to lack of time. Ended up submitting The Moor and Flame Crest. Uvantak your map looks cool, esp. the aesthetics. GL all
On August 16 2013 12:33 SidianTheBard wrote: lol, that map looks awesome. I'll probably throw my submissions up tomorrow or the next day. I can't figure out how to make the middle of my newest map so I keep closing the editor out of rage. I'll probably end up submitting something I dislike...but w/e
stop stealing what I'm about to say darn it by the way I'm trying to figure out which of my maps is most suitable for this competition but everyone is ignoring me
Whatever you post should probably belong in the WIP thread. Just so you know. ^_^ <3
I guess it depends, probably no, but if your map really NEEDS these rocks/depots to have a different HP/armor i would go for it, since it would make the map more balanced, remember that's what they want, over creativity, but as i said if your map needs the rocks i would go for it (like mine and the xel'naga tower), but if it is just for the sake of the map having weird/funny stuff on it i would avoid it.
Thanks guys for your words, it really helps my confidence, since everytime i see my own maps i just can't stop thinking of the mistakes i have made in the texturing/doodads and how can i improve them, even when i just don't know how :s
@diamond the map is uploaded to EU and AM servers, and since the name of the map has a ñ and a tilde on it i recomend you to search it for KTV instead of the name.
On August 17 2013 03:46 Uvantak wrote: I guess it depends, probably no, but if your map really NEEDS these rocks/depots to have a different HP/armor i would go for it, since it would make the map more balanced, remember that's what they want, over creativity, but as i said if your map needs the rocks i would go for it (like mine and the xel'naga tower), but if it is just for the sake of the map having weird/funny stuff on it i would avoid it.
It's kind of like Crevasse (where the HP of rocks was also lowered) except the rocks don't protect the main ramp but the back door entrance to the in-base expansion. Like Crevasse, lowering the HP for those rocks isn't strictly needed for balance, but it would make early aggression more viable and would force players to get more units earlier than otherwise.
For reference, the main/nat/third layout:
Also, I was actually talking about the lowered supply depots (or unbuildable plates). But I guess now that all ladder maps have them they're considered Blizzard policy compliant, so the point is moot.
Well, finally got around to finishing my new map. Still not completely happy with it but with the deadline being tomorrow I just kind of had to finish it up. Also submitting Habitation Station just because I might as well submit two maps, although I haven't touched the map since TLMC2 and there is stuff on it I'd like to change up as well, but /shrug, no time!
here's my submission. I brooded a bit if i should enter another of my maps as well, but i'm not very happy with them, so i'll better just enter my most recent one.
Features: .: path for reapers/gas harass towards the natural .: no watch towers! You have to work a bit more for map vision than usual. .: Natural walloff requires 3 buildings .: destructible rocks between 5th and 4th base. You can destroy them so you have one less path to worry about, but it can also bite you later on because it blocks the shortest way to your 5th. .: semi-open 3rd (2 buildings to block off the smaller path completely)
On August 18 2013 12:20 Uvantak wrote: @Sidian these ladder steps look incredible!, pls tell me that they hover/move/levitate like the bel'shir floating things, that would be perfect!
Thanks.
Also, no they don't hover like the floating islands. :\ I'm actually not sure if there is a way to do that. Although maybe that's a good thing otherwise that map would probably have massive fps loss due to the amount of those steps in it.
Yeah, an interesting thing about the 'Only two per team' submission rule is that, what happens if several team members just 'break the rule' and submit stuff? so you end up with 6? It's not like teams can stop them so what happens then?
Honestly, that rule seems to have been founded on ignorance how mapping teams operate. I think the CSL lives in the idea that mapping teams collaborate on maps rather than being loose unions at best.
On August 18 2013 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, an interesting thing about the 'Only two per team' submission rule is that, what happens if several team members just 'break the rule' and submit stuff? so you end up with 6? It's not like teams can stop them so what happens then?
I would assume CSL just picked the first two submissions from that team.
On August 18 2013 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: Honestly, that rule seems to have been founded on ignorance how mapping teams operate. I think the CSL lives in the idea that mapping teams collaborate on maps rather than being loose unions at best.
On August 18 2013 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, an interesting thing about the 'Only two per team' submission rule is that, what happens if several team members just 'break the rule' and submit stuff? so you end up with 6? It's not like teams can stop them so what happens then?
I would assume CSL just picked the first two submissions from that team.
On August 18 2013 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: Honestly, that rule seems to have been founded on ignorance how mapping teams operate. I think the CSL lives in the idea that mapping teams collaborate on maps rather than being loose unions at best.
Unfortunately, I think this is the case.
So newsunshine just ruined it for everyone in ESV?
On August 18 2013 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, an interesting thing about the 'Only two per team' submission rule is that, what happens if several team members just 'break the rule' and submit stuff? so you end up with 6? It's not like teams can stop them so what happens then?
I would assume CSL just picked the first two submissions from that team.
On August 18 2013 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: Honestly, that rule seems to have been founded on ignorance how mapping teams operate. I think the CSL lives in the idea that mapping teams collaborate on maps rather than being loose unions at best.
Unfortunately, I think this is the case.
So newsunshine just ruined it for everyone in ESV?
Or IronMan, or potentially Timetwister. Basically whoever emailed them first. Of which I'm not sure.
This was originally supposed to be a small map inspired by Scrap Station and Jungle Basin, but I experimented with the main/nat/third layout a lot until I found something that worked, and then I had to enlarge the map because while small maps can be fun, this led to some problems with the in-base natural. Here's an image of a very early version that had many obvious problems; as you can see it's quite different now.
Apart from the lack of watchtowers (which I feel really aren't needed on this map) the most notable features are the in-base expansions with 6 minerals and 1 gas (like Crevasse) and the rocks with 1000 hp and 1 armor (also like Crevasse). This setup looks like it might handicap Z, but holding off 1.5-base pressure on 2.5 bases is easier than holding off 2-base pressure on 3 bases, so it somewhat cancels out. If you play Z, you should have a good plan before going into a game on this map, though, because standard play might not get you very far. Creep spread is paramount.
An idea that I try to implement in all my maps is the lack of a clear expansion pattern. Here, this even extends to the natural, as in some cases it might be well worth to prolong expanding until you see your opponent expand to the in-base natural, then take the third instead straight away. You can even try to then expand to the bottom of the map and stay half a base ahead.
(Additional information: You can't target the in-base natural from the low ground with tanks, but you can target the geyser. You can't warp in across the rocks. Blinking across the gaps in front of the third is possible but requires precision. The narrow lanes can be walled off with a single 3x3 building at their diagonal sections. The bastions aren't cliffable, in case it wasn't obvious. Also, there's a rare (and old) SC2 bug where units don't always take the shortest route; on this map it can happen that when you send a scout to the opponent's main, it may travel through the small ramps in the middle of the map instead of following the pink line. Won't waste more than one or two seconds, just don't be surprised if it happens.)
I chose to display the pathing mesh instead of doodads for the overview image as it might be slightly confusing from a top-down perspective. The yellow squares are LOS blockers.
The map was inspired by Blue Storm, or rather by the idea behind it. The most notable feature of course is the narrow path through the middle that in the beginning can only be avoided by taking much longer routes, so you can spot pushes early. Later on, most of the action will happen along the somewhat more open side paths, so choose your third carefully.
The watchtowers provide full air coverage, it is impossible to squeeze units between their vision and the border. Take advantage of an opponent that neglects them, but don't over prioritize them when your forces are spread thin.
I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the dimensions of the paths along the middle lane, but we'll see.
(Also the map was supposed to be called Fault Line, but the name was unavailable.)
Our tournament admins set no hard limit (although the map pool, total with community and existing Blizzard maps, is typically 7-8) for winners. The winners will be announced in the next few days. Thanks for your patience!
I thought the winners would be announced after the finals in mid-September, or are the maps only used for the Ro16 games? Because even with only the ~20 maps posted on the last few pages, that's like 3 games per map, and I guess you got at least 30 submissions, right?
They're not playing games on every map. The judging is done by the admins of CSL and they will chose 1 or maybe more maps to use for the entire season.
On August 01 2013 04:10 CollegiateStarleague wrote: Maps will be used in the our summer individual tournament, the Summer Collegiate Champions, and then one map from the Summer Collegiate Champions will be selected to be used in the teamleague map pool.
Surely that means the summer tournament will (at least from the Ro16 onwards) be played on maps submitted to the map contest, or at least on those that pass the preselections, no?
It looks like CSL forgot to announce the winners, so I'll do it for them:
Ravage Eureka Derelict Colony Illumination Panwa
This may not be a complete list, as not all maps may have been used yesterday in their tournament. Illumination and Panwa may not have been picked as winners, and instead may have been included as part of the Dream Forge partnership.
I can't say I expected CSL to have good picks, but you would think there would be some quality control to prevent maps like Eureka from getting in the tournament before anyone looks at it in game.
On August 29 2013 06:57 Timmay wrote: It looks like CSL forgot to announce the winners, so I'll do it for them:
Ravage Eureka Derelict Colony Illumination Panwa
This may not be a complete list, as not all maps may have been used yesterday in their tournament. Illumination and Panwa may not have been picked as winners, and instead may have been included as part of the Dream Forge partnership.
I can't say I expected CSL to have good picks, but you would think there would be some quality control to prevent maps like Eureka from getting in the tournament before anyone looks at it in game.
still no templar victory, it will be amazing if it ever occurs
On August 29 2013 06:57 Timmay wrote: It looks like CSL forgot to announce the winners, so I'll do it for them:
Ravage Eureka Derelict Colony Illumination Panwa
This may not be a complete list, as not all maps may have been used yesterday in their tournament. Illumination and Panwa may not have been picked as winners, and instead may have been included as part of the Dream Forge partnership.
I can't say I expected CSL to have good picks, but you would think there would be some quality control to prevent maps like Eureka from getting in the tournament before anyone looks at it in game.
I dunno, those picks seem reasonable on paper. What's the issue with Eureka?
EDIT: Holy fucking shit, I've just looked at the VOD and those mineral placements are ridiculous.
Nowhere it seems, their FB has nothing, nor their twitter account and there's nothing on their website either. So as Timmay say it seems that they actually forgot to announce the winners.
Also Eureka is that 4p desert mpa that is posted here on TL right? because that one doesn't look bad at all i must say, it may have some inefficient mineral patches and a vespene geiser or two here and there, but that is nothing really game breaking.
Also can you guys link me to the Vod's? i can't seem to find them.
On August 29 2013 08:50 Uvantak wrote: Nowhere it seems, their FB has nothing, nor their twitter account and there's nothing on their website either. So as Timmay say it seems that they actually forgot to announce the winners.
Also Eureka is that 4p desert mpa that is posted here on TL right? because that one doesn't look bad at all i must say, it may have some inefficient mineral patches and a vespene geiser or two here and there, but that is nothing really game breaking.
Also can you guys link me to the Vod's? i can't seem to find them.
On one of the bases, the minerals are misplaced so that there's a massive mining deficiency on that base compared to the others, and it's a main base. T T Also the lighting isn't great, but it's bearable.
One map will enter the fall season map pool! Watch the games this summer to see how they play out. Thanks for participating and hope to see some awesome games!
On August 29 2013 08:50 Uvantak wrote: Nowhere it seems, their FB has nothing, nor their twitter account and there's nothing on their website either. So as Timmay say it seems that they actually forgot to announce the winners.
Also Eureka is that 4p desert mpa that is posted here on TL right? because that one doesn't look bad at all i must say, it may have some inefficient mineral patches and a vespene geiser or two here and there, but that is nothing really game breaking.
Also can you guys link me to the Vod's? i can't seem to find them.
On one of the bases, the minerals are misplaced so that there's a massive mining deficiency on that base compared to the others, and it's a main base. T T Also the lighting isn't great, but it's bearable.
All mineral lines on Eureka are equal (4 close patches and 4 one hex further) as are the gases. The different formations with 2 "further away" patches next to each other may give the optical illusion of it being inequal, but I assure you it is not. As for the lighting I think you'll get used to if you play 2-3 games longer than 10 minutes.
I skimmed through the games and every game on every map was an allin basically, which is understandable with new maps and short prep time. Also there are new laddermaps so just bad timing there. Hopefully we'll get to see some longer games aswell so we can make real judgements on the maps. I'm really excited about this
The choices are pretty vanilla - there's not really any feature on any of the maps that is all that interesting or outside the norm. Was hoping since CSL seems a bit more "grassroots" that they would be willing to mix in a few experimental maps.
That said, the maps are all solid (if a bit on the safe side), so grats winners. Also for the most part the aesthetics are cool, so props on that as well.
Fatam is right tho, pretty vanilla picks - Illumination and Panwa maybe have some chocolate sprinkles but that's about it. Not that that is bad, just uninspiring. If the meta game on "new" maps is exactly the same as on the old maps, why even bother creating the new ones?
On August 29 2013 23:01 TheFish7 wrote: Fatam is right tho, pretty vanilla picks - Illumination and Panwa maybe have some chocolate sprinkles but that's about it. Not that that is bad, just uninspiring. If the meta game on "new" maps is exactly the same as on the old maps, why even bother creating the new ones?
So people can get the dubious honour of their maps being in tournaments which is apparently what it's all about for people.
On August 29 2013 18:01 SidianTheBard wrote: New community maps get on a tournament map pool...somebody has to bitch. Fatam, I love you bro, but stfu. <3
although........none of them are my maps? wtf...rigged. shit map pool.
I need to stop posting when I've been drinking, I come off kind of like an asshole lol. Seriously though I think any tournament that brings in new community maps is pretty awesome though, standard or not.
On August 29 2013 23:01 TheFish7 wrote: Fatam is right tho, pretty vanilla picks - Illumination and Panwa maybe have some chocolate sprinkles but that's about it. Not that that is bad, just uninspiring. If the meta game on "new" maps is exactly the same as on the old maps, why even bother creating the new ones?
So people can get the dubious honour of their maps being in tournaments which is apparently what it's all about for people.
What!? Do you mean that i won't get a parade when my maps start getting into tournaments?? wft man!?
I have to agree here with you Sidian, ANY map pool cycling is welcome, and this may give that small push that some other tournament organizers are needing to cycle out their map pools too.
Yeah i'm glad/grateful they are running a competition at all, for sure. Community maps finally getting at least a little attention is great.
I just can't shake the feeling that at this rate in LotV we will still be playing on maps that are interchangeable w/ most 2012 ladder/tourney maps. For me that is a "yikes", for some people that is fine. Just depends on what you like.
On August 30 2013 05:07 Fatam wrote: Yeah i'm glad/grateful they are running a competition at all, for sure. Community maps finally getting at least a little attention is great.
I just can't shake the feeling that at this rate in LotV we will still be playing on maps that are interchangeable w/ most 2012 ladder/tourney maps. For me that is a "yikes", for some people that is fine. Just depends on what you like.
<3
That's because we don't have an organization like KeSPA to lay down the law and force people to practice on maps they may or may not like.
This was by the way the map pool in the GSL in the last season before CK was introduced (the one Jjakji won)
Antiga Shipyard, Bel'shir Beach (not winter), Calm Before the Storm, Crossfire SE, Daybreak, Dual Site, Tal'Darim Altar.
Notice something? Each of these maps had a completely different setup and required very different strategies. We had maps which had conservative naturals in Antiga and Daybreak, we had maps with more open naturals such as Dual Site and Bel'shir Beach, we had two maps without a ramp in TDA and Bel'shir Beach, we had one map with an indoor natural, Calm Before the Storm, and we had Crossfire which basically had a third so far away that most strategies revolved around 2basing and 1-1-1 all ins. People actually picked their strat for the map back then.
Enter Cloud Kingdom, it was such a huge success and it did a couple of things, a conservative natural and virtually no airspace and almsot every map after it aped it wanting to be the next CK that people forgot how to play otherwise. Many protoss players tell you you can't expand on an open natural while protoss players used to be able to that just fine, without the mothership core no less, you cannot possibly convince me that something in the metagame stops you from now expanding on it while Z has gotten no early game tools to punish it and P has gotten the mothership core.
Also notice the lack of airspace, something I've never been a fan of. At the beginning of CK many casters commented on that mutas were bad on CK and infestors were the way to go when the infestor rage was about starting because there was no airspace for mutas to use. This was back when infestors vs mutas was still a choice based on the map and the infestor-style was still known as some-what gimmicky and people doubted it would be viable forever, many people were saying Stephano would disappear once people figured infestors out..
Well, most maps after CK did away with airspace behind bases and so went the mutalisk. Most maps after CK also made really conservative thirds that Z could never break with broods, the maps were so chocked up that Z had no other choice but going infestor/BL, what happened next is history.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9b7XpCy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/549639_323044594454677_98859943_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KWhDRkQ.jpg)
and it is not a personal thing - but just an observation:
![[image loading]](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-QScBRLrsoHA/UgG41L8Cs5I/AAAAAAAABuM/69xvBNEtU2U/s500/a%2520chlann.jpg)
!?
)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CbJmbwFm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nos9zRum.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mDnSUwwm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ND9X9dpm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mJuBIunm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1RnKUUtm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3aywWmfm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YMpudYLm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XQg22qf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pHzFqyD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NKaKGyd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IzRHTGl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1nuZTWE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t7ohfYU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/H0qobP6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/obeUt.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DxTPydn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wdgpvSL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/34gKFNv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/njNNiMw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tSejdPA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fe3vwt6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jO0ij2F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g3Gbstv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Pm9GObb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rhRKxf0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o5Kln60.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kG9VNK4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6dclQaE.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N9eUK3C.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aKTHjKr.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DoQouAe.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OyKXF0r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fAcgjdL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JnWfdpm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K6drfS5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/16Qa667.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oNVMtBC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/szUyXXy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B9CSE41.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L5KZJBu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fbHIoSf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T5VJfrv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6IFcvpH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vLHEPan.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HNtJ5D2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GxZc7vt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NUSillw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G0S0b7k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kbHaaVK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GdE0bKd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/2fdq.png)
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/PMrK4.png)
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/KhkV2.png)
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/84DNo.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lNw5mZO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fagkjC7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tCCjZJO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uJtR4N5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BKtmIxQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ScIv7s7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BX7Tv1I.jpg)
