Let me tell you why your map sucks

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 04 2016 01:43 GMT

If you've submitted to TLMC before then you know who I am and that I've had a role in helping map selection for prior contests. TLMC7 is different, I have basically nothing to do with it which means I'm free to give feedback on anything without fear of ruining the integrity of the contest.

As such any maps posted here over the next 24 hours (give or take) I'll give my impressions on and how I feel it could be improved. Also don't be a dick and post 10 maps for me to look at, keep it reasonable.

Icetoad

Canada262 Posts

May 04 2016 01:51 GMT

I would love to get feedback for Ishtar:
[image loading]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/508057-2-ishtar

Thank you very much for doing this!

Trozz

Canada3456 Posts

May 04 2016 02:25 GMT

Here's my gosu map.
It's in the Gem League spirit.
Totally balanced.

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

May 04 2016 02:38 GMT

Obviously I'm not entering this into TLMC, but...
[image loading]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/474370-2-spaceship-station

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

May 04 2016 02:44 GMT

I'd be thankful for advice on Nazca!

[image loading]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/508582-2-nazca

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 04 2016 03:45 GMT

On May 04 2016 10:51 Icetoad wrote:
I would love to get feedback for Ishtar:
[image loading]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/508057-2-ishtar

Thank you very much for doing this!

I presume this is going to be a macro submission? It's coming along well. Unfortunately the map doesn't compare favourably to something like hab station since everything this map is doing, hab station does better. Hab station did a lot to innovate the horizontal symmetric map meta and was a huge part of it's success (in addition to the excellent use of gold there). In contrast, the 12/6 gold bases here aren't really doing anything special. They just kinda exist and you take them when you have an edge; there's no decision making involved. I'd either cut them or use them in an interesting way (maybe those two bases on the highground in the middle?)

The other concern with these kinds of maps is promoting movement throughout the map which is invariably the biggest challenge with horizontal symmetry (even Hab Station struggled with this). Movement is pretty restricted everywhere and there's no tactical advantage from occupying the top half of the map, so there's no real point to expanding vertically. I'd think about ways of encouraging movement throughout the map which would make it more dynamic and interesting.

Lastly you have a bunch of LOS blockers everywhere kinda similar to Terraform. I'm always happy to see maps experimenting with underused features like this, but I don't know what they're adding here. At the bottom they make a lot of sense because you're trying to encourage people to use the top half of the map but I'm not sure they have that much of an effect.

Basically, the map is solid but not something I would expect to win right now because it's not doing enough to set itself apart from other Horizontal Symmetry maps (like hab station, korhal and so on). Think more about developing a distinctive personality for your map by considering some of the things I mentioned above.

On May 04 2016 11:25 Trozz wrote:
[image loading]

Here's my gosu map.
It's in the Gem League spirit.
Totally balanced.

4/5 could use more gold minerals and rocks.

On May 04 2016 11:38 The_Templar wrote:
Obviously I'm not entering this into TLMC, but...
[image loading]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/474370-2-spaceship-station

Angled pictures are the devil. But seriously, I'm not sure what you're trying to do with this map. It has a lot of features on the map but they don't really make sense together. Like the central ramp goes from bottom left to top right like you're expecting the game to develop in a way where armies are going to be positioned in the bottom left and top right and contesting that area. Most of the attack paths don't utilise that ramp so it seems really awkward. Then there's the awkwardly placed gold base which seems like it's been placed to entice people to expand clockwise, but doesn't really achieve that due to the safety of the alternate third base. Think more about having a cohesive theme/idea for the map and it'll work a lot better.

It would be interesting if the bases at 12/6 were gold because it gives quite a bit of incentive to expand in that direction as opposed to the other side. Now the safety of the counter-clockwise bases aren't really a factor because you have such a large commitment on the clockwise bases that your army positioning is likely to be around the gold bases as opposed to in between the two third choices as it is at the moment. This would also help make the ramp make more sense because then the armies are more naturally placed to make use of the central ground tactically.

On May 04 2016 11:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I'd be thankful for advice on Nazca!

[image loading]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/508582-2-nazca

Indicate the spawn points because it's not immediately clear where they are. Secondly, the art work is distracting not enhancing (esp. the bits of orange everywhere) so think about streamlining that. Three things that are holding this map back;
1) Seems really hard to expand, which in LotV isn't great. This map looks like it was developed during early HotS (circa Planet S era with the difficult thirds) which means that balance is likely an issue.
2) The backdoor paths are cute and all, but they're one of the hardest features to pull off successfully. For instance the side paths in the top left/bottom right are unlikely to ever be used except by a worker going to expand. That's not a successful deployment of the feature.
3) The use of space is off. For instance, the natural choke is really big (as in, there's lots of cramped space) and the only real area where you're able to fight is outside of that. That's awkward design and I'm not sure it enhances gameplay in a meaningful way.

If the theme is all these little paths and making tactical use of skirmishing then do that and don't be shy about it. For example, you might have a central path in the middle of the map which is thin making it only suitable for skirmishing and not lategame teamfighting. Or you might have alternate pathways into bases connected by thin pathways to the extent where you might want a small pathway around the entire map. The point is at the moment there's little value in the existing pathways and you need to do more to make that concept work.

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

May 04 2016 04:18 GMT

Oh why not! Debating if I submit towards Macro or submit towards "new idea" since the 3rd/4th/5th/tower idea has never been used and quite frankly I have no clue how imba it would play out between races.

Cross only, ~45 ingame seconds from main ramp to main ramp.

[image loading]

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 04 2016 04:33 GMT

On May 04 2016 13:18 SidianTheBard wrote:
Oh why not! Debating if I submit towards Macro or submit towards "new idea" since the 3rd/4th/5th/tower idea has never been used and quite frankly I have no clue how imba it would play out between races.

Cross only, ~45 ingame seconds from main ramp to main ramp.

[image loading]

Crazy shit you've got going on there. Two questions
1) This is a macro oriented map meaning you want some place for armies to clash or move around. The center is pretty clogged up with rocks and empty terrain; should those rocks exist? is there any decision that a player should make about those rocks? should the center not be completely pathable?
2) The gold bases; what is up with them? Why are they rocked? Since they're likely to be taken late in any circumstance it seems like the rocks are not useful. Are those gold bases even necessary?

I think if you can answer those two questions then your map is about as good as it's going to get without playtesting. Personally I feel like there needs to be more room to move around to really make this a classic map (like maybe deleting the highground path between he gold and the center and deleting the rocks?). Overall I like the map; I think players would enjoy playing on it but might lean towards being a little boring in pro play so Blizz might not go for it.

Can you snap a picture of the radius of the watch tower?

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

May 04 2016 04:38 GMT

My maps suck? Wow, there is no respect these days

[↑ There are two versions one with Mineral Patch Wall (I wish I could send that one) and other with standard rocks at 2ndary Main ramp]

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

May 04 2016 04:59 GMT

#10

On May 04 2016 13:33 Plexa wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

The range does show on the map if you zoom in although it's very faint so hard to see, here ya go, that's close enough:
+ Show Spoiler +

Regarding:
1: Main reason why I added the rocks in the middle section was just to add another layer of help for the attacker if the defender eventually takes that as a 5th. The defender will want to keep the rocks in-tact so it feels safer but then if the attack positions above the high ground that 5th base is as good as dead. I also wanted to limit early game movement a bit, forcing you to the edges rather then going straight through those middle ramps 100% of the time.

As for Macro Oriented. I could remove that empty terrain in the middle, or just make it smaller, definitely something to play around with. Currently it's:
+ Show Spoiler +

so originally working it out I figured that was large enough. My thought process was wide open main/nat, ramp as a choke. Wide open 3rd/4th/5th, ramps as chokes, wide open middle (maybe not wide enough?) So a defending protoss might sit his army by a ramp to have the choke, where as a zerg might fall back and let them push into their bases to get a better surround. I can always play around with it some more regarding chokes, probably won't submit anything until at least this weekend.

For the gold bases, I could change them to regular bases, although I think it's just another way to make different strategies useful on the map. I honestly thing terran going 3 base, parade pushing then when the main starts mining out, rally your troops through your gold, take the gold and suddenly you can keep parading for a looong time. Either way, I want a base at the place where the gold is for either a 4th or 5th choice.

2: I 100% only rocked the gold bases because I didn't want early game hidden expos on gold bases. I know in LOTV it's not as much of a problem, and I"m okay with removing the rocks but honestly, that's 100% the reason why I did it lol.

I'll probably head off to bed soon, but I appreciate the feedback bud! Love hearing your thoughts.

Fatam

1986 Posts

May 04 2016 05:30 GMT

#11

A second set of eyes is always helpful

, thanks much for taking the time.

First one is still pretty raw, haven't iterated on it as much as some of my other templates but I think it might have some potential. Nothing too outlandish here, the biggest thing is the 3rd that can be taken as a nat (and probably should be, in some matchups) as it is the same distance from the main ramp (actually it's a square or two closer). The "safe" nat can be fired upon from below, so unless you are needing the wall-off you might consider the forward nat. XNTs were a recent addition, not 100% sure about them yet. Haven't messed with los blockers or anything.

144x144

[image loading]

You said not to post 10, but maybe I can get away with 2?

If so, here it is. I've been slowly chipping away at it for a while. The top left/bottom right has gone through a crapton of iterations. A bit more experimental to be sure.

182x132

[image loading]

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 04 2016 06:28 GMT

#12

On May 04 2016 13:59 SidianTheBard wrote:

Show nested quote +

The range does show on the map if you zoom in although it's very faint so hard to see, here ya go, that's close enough:
+ Show Spoiler +

Macro oriented isn't a bad thing, just something to be aware of (i.e. accomodating for large army movement). Thats why I suggested removing the high ground bridge between gold-center becuase then you can widen the rampes leading into the center and it might be less frustring to move through the middle of the map. Moving up to your gold base then moving across the center seems cumbersome.

The rocks should probably go regardless. The gold base concerns you highlight are legitimate, especially given there are two gold bases on offer. Might be better just to blue them.

On May 04 2016 13:38 Uvantak wrote:
My maps suck? Wow, there is no respect these days

[↑ There are two versions one with Mineral Patch Wall (I wish I could send that one) and other with standard rocks at 2ndary Main ramp]

For Eris I'm not sure why there's a double entrance to the main. I think you get way more mileage out of your central feature without the double entrance (since that means units are more frequently passing the central feature). I like the central feature, I think it can offer interesting gameplay, so anything you can do to make it more important is an upgrade imo. The lower left and upper right bases seem like after thoughts (which is a common complaint with your maps). I think breaking symmetry in the corners might free you up to do something a little more adventurous/interesting because at the moment they're obviously the weakest part of the map.

For Bastion the issue I've always had with it is that something doesn't feel quite right. To me it seems like the map is fighting itself to work out what it wants to be. Like I get you get that weird expansion into the middle and then get the flexibility to expand whereever you like, but I'm not sure what else I should be looking at here that makes this map interesting. Is it the destructible rocks? Because I don't see what interesting decisions there are to be made there (defender always wants them up, attacker wants them down). The center has access severely resitrcted, but it seems like you don't want units to go through there anyway with the architecture of the rest of the map. Ultimately I don't know what about this map you want to appeal to people.

On May 04 2016 14:30 Fatam wrote:
A second set of eyes is always helpful

You said not to post 10, but maybe I can get away with 2?

If so, here it is. I've been slowly chipping away at it for a while. The top left/bottom right has gone through a crapton of iterations. A bit more experimental to be sure.

182x132

[image loading]

Yeah I like what's going on with the main-nat-third-fourth in the first map. There's an interesting decision to be made between taking the more convenient to defend third or safer natural. So you might see different races deciding to take different bases (i.e. zerg the convenient one, terran the safer one). Changes to emphasize this decision would be good for the map. I don't like the center; seems unreasonably restrictive. Definitely has potential, keep at it.

The second one I'm less enthusiastic about. I don't understand what you're trying to do between the main-nat-third. There's some cute ideas going on in the corner bases (with those small paths providing backdoors) but the rest of the map doesn't support the skirmishing potential those paths offer. I think the big problem here is the high ground third (or fourth) in the middle. They're way too strong positionally and I think the map would be better if you got rid of them (along with the high ground pod) and made improvements from that point. (The strong position of that base is one reason why the bottom right/top left goes to waste).

RoomOfMush

1296 Posts

May 04 2016 07:22 GMT

#13

I wanted to try creating a map too. This one is not finished yet, there is no texturing and no doodads but I consider the layout pretty much final.
[image loading]

What I tried:

Ambigious expansion pattern
Two entrances into the natural
Strategic usage of highground, rocks and rock towers to control the main attack path
A gold base you can easily take but comes with a risk

Thanks for the feedback.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 04 2016 12:27 GMT

#14

On May 04 2016 16:22 RoomOfMush wrote:
I wanted to try creating a map too. This one is not finished yet, there is no texturing and no doodads but I consider the layout pretty much final.
[image loading]

What I tried:

Ambigious expansion pattern
Two entrances into the natural
Strategic usage of highground, rocks and rock towers to control the main attack path
A gold base you can easily take but comes with a risk

Thanks for the feedback.

That gold base looks pretty free. I'd imagine first expand gold would be a common strategy here. Other than the gold base not much interesting is going on so it means this is probably a map which is going to be considered in the standard/macro category. This map probably won't fare favourably because the quality in that category is really high and this map is basically giving us the same basic standard formula rather than doing anything to be interesting. Not ncessarily a bad thing, but you need to make sure the map is Coda or Echo levels of quality for it to stand a chance.

In terms of direct comments; the islands are useless. You're better off not having them. Although you can work them into a kind of "backdoor" base like Rush Hour or Steppes of War did. I also think you've over compensated in the center of the map; removing the rocks there would be the to maps advantage to facilitate movement between the different parts of the map (making the map more dynamic and weakening the gold a tiny bit). You might consider placing two watch towers in the center of the map which can overlook the gold bases (maybe in one of the high ground corners close to the gold).

RexTerran

54 Posts

May 04 2016 12:50 GMT

#15

Published in ALL server.

Name: GSLTV_Battle Royal.

Hello I'm RexTerran.

The character of this map is the different style of starting to third bases. and third base's feature.

For example, if you are the 11:50 starting, you can have 11o'clock, edge of the map bases as the your third base. and if your base is on the 11o'clock, you shoud owe the 9 O'clock base as your third one. also, there are ways to third bases as you are on 11, 1, 4, 7 o'clock. therefore that bases have two ways to the back door. that style has been designed as fan style.

Also, it is for 1vs1 map, the starting which is the enemy's bases located is restricted. I'll show the enemy's locations as you are 11:50 or 11

1. if you are on the 11:50, the enemy's base's location.
[image loading]

2. if you are on the 11, the enemy's base's location
[image loading]

THE YELLOWS CAN NOT BE THE ENEMY'S LOCATION.

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

May 04 2016 15:50 GMT

#16

Please tell me how these maps suck.

[image loading]

Map Dimensions: 144x120

[image loading]

Map Dimensions: 144x112
The central pathway is 2x2 wide, and can be blocked by a depot/pylon.

Thanks!

Edit: ignore this one if 3 maps is too many, but I also have this map. It is probably stupid:
[image loading]

It has 4 rock-blocked (terran can't land before the rocks are destroyed) gold island bases.

The nat is practically an in-base, but further bases via land are difficult to get, this is to encourage use of the gold islands (in theory).

The weird highground pod that overlooks the nat entrance probably makes the natural more dificult to defend, It'll probably be changed so that the nat is a true in-base, and the entrance to the main will be a single ramp up into a unified highground.

Meavis

Netherlands1300 Posts

May 04 2016 17:59 GMT

#17

Hello, I'm back to be your personal hell.
(for real tho, not trying to be a dick of anything, just really eager to get a different perspective on my works over the past year)

so here goes
+ Show Spoiler +

bonus concept maps if you feel like it
+ Show Spoiler +

fluidrone

France1478 Posts

May 04 2016 18:20 GMT

#18

let me tell you why your map sucks

Avexyli

United States702 Posts

May 04 2016 18:59 GMT

#19

Macro: Synchestra (156x156)
+ Show Spoiler +

Other Macro option; Detox (148x180)
+ Show Spoiler +

Rush: Namaste (148x148)
+ Show Spoiler +

New (Island according to Blizz standards): Slipstream Station (156x156)
+ Show Spoiler +

Gold: Colossus Falls (148x160)
+ Show Spoiler +

Viperbird

United States118 Posts

May 04 2016 20:35 GMT

#20

Nerazim Outpost 140x132
Spawns are top left and bottom right.
In base expansion blocked by rocks (low hp, can be killed with a few zerglings/marines/zealot quickly.)
Central watchtower covers most of the high ground area in the middle.
[image loading]

1 2 3 4 5 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Let me tell you why your map sucks

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming