|
United States8476 Posts
Here we go, some insight to the judging of TLMC and feedback on your submitted maps. Before we begin, here are some comment threads from previous TLMCs. The suggestions from these two thread are still very relevant and I'll be reiterating what's said in following two threads a lot.
My Thoughts on TLMC2
Plexa's Thoughts on TLMC4
The Judging Process
- 130 Maps in Total were submitted.
- The First Cut involved 5 TL Strategy judges independently looking at each map and voting Yes, Maybe, or No to see if they would move onto the next round. If a map got 5 No's, 4 No's and 1 Maybe, or 3 No's and 2 Maybes, it would be stopped dead in its tracks here. In total, 48 maps were cut at this stage.
- The Second Cut involved all 5 TL Strategy judges getting in a call to discuss each remaining map individually. In general, the judge who had the dissenting opinion on the map was asked to defend his stance and we debated until we all got to a decision we were comfortable with. The aim of this round was to cut the remaining map pool to less than 40 maps, so that we wouldn't waste the pro player judges' time. 47 Maps were cut in this stage. An additional 20ish maps were put in the borderline category, and the rest moved on.
- The Third Cut involved revisiting all the "boardline" maps to see if they stood a chance against the advanced maps. These were the most difficult cuts and in the end, we cut 13 maps from this stage, bringing the final shortlist to 23 maps.
- At this point, we brought in the Pro Judges. A total of 8 Pro Judges were invited to take a look at the remaining maps to give feedback and vote. These 8 Pros as well as 5 TL Strategy Judges composed the final Judging Panel. Each judge was given a judging sheet and asked to rate each map on a scale of 1 to 10 (Overall Impression) as well as rate maps in three categories: Layout, Aesthetics, and Creativity. No judge could see the other judges' sheets. In the end, we averaged all the "Overall Impression" scores to determine the winners. The other categories were only used to guide judges and provide us with some cool stats; they did not directly affect the outcome of the final ranking at all.
Why did my map get cut?
First, refer to the other two threads I linked above. The most common reasons your map got cut include:
- Clear inexperience as a mapmaker: These are most of the first wave of cuts.
- Poor use of space/proportions: Related to inexperience as a mapmaker.
- Glaring imbalances and not enough redeeming features to warrant the headache to correct them: Relatively rare in this contest. The LotV metagame isn't developed enough for us to really spot clear imbalances as easily.
In addition, each category had its own specific quirks in terms of what got cut.
- Macro: As noted in the finalist announcement, this was by far the most difficult category. A very large portion of maps were cut for simply not being good enough; other maps did the same concept better. This category really tested mappers' execution.
- Rush: So many of the submitted maps were just not rushy enough. In fact a lot of these maps seemed to be just standard maps that had somewhat short rush distances and submitted to this category because they didn't belong in any other category. We really wished we could see a bit more creativity in the submissions from this category as we do admit that yes, Rush maps are hard to execute in a way that player will actually enjoy to play on.
- New: All about creativity here. A lot of maps didn't go far enough here. Others went in a creative direction but had poor execution in way that wouldn't lead to interesting games.
- Gold: A lot of maps were cut immediately for not utilizing Gold bases in a way that would drive the direction of the game. In general, all successful maps in this category must have a Gold base as one of your first potential three bases. We really judged based on how well the Golds were utilized in this category.
Now, unlike the previous contests, I won't go too deep into more general tips about mapping. First, I think the previous two threads I linked already do that pretty well. And second, the LotV metagame hasn't developed enough us to add specific tips.
If you would like feedback on your maps that didn't make it, post the name of your map, a picture of that map, and any questions you may have. Also, let us know if you would like to know when your map dropped out of the competition. We'll try to give you feedback on these maps slowly but surely.
|
I hope to learn from the judges infinite wisdom 
Here are the maps I submitted :
Dead Man's Bridge in the macro category :
+ Show Spoiler +
Aemon's Wrath in the rush category :
+ Show Spoiler +
Black Water Mesa in the macro category :
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'd like to know what feedback my map got.
Nazca + Show Spoiler +
And as for questions, I'd like to know if the aesthetics were too distracting, if the middle of the map was too restrictive, and if the fourth base was too distant, and if the watchtowers are a mistake. Also I'd like to know when my map dropped out.
Thank you very much for doing this.
|
Any feedback in the map I submitted would be appreciated.
Assiduous Expanse+ Show Spoiler +
I also made a alternate version (after conclusion of TLMC), so tell me if you think it improves the map from the last picture at all. + Show Spoiler +
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Here's a point of general feedback that hasn't been covered in previous threads. I think this is a key differentiator between the best maps and good maps and is something generally reflected in my judging. Every isometric grid on your map should be there for a reason. Every feature should be on your map for a reason. Every design decision you make on your map should be contributing to an overall theme or idea that you want to see expressed on your map.
So many maps look polished but don't do this well at all.
EDIT: Sorry Solstice, but I'm going to pick on you as an example. This is by no means exclusive to your map, but was one that suffered from this criticism.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2RHyZBn.png)
There's nothing inherently wrong with any one of the design decisions made here, but when added together things don't add up. The first obvious feature is that the third bases are actually really close together (relative to other maps) which isn't a bad thing; this is something that needs to be explored still so it's a good idea. The blue base in the center (which could be seen as a fourth) reinforces the idea that this map is all about contested expansions and lots of conflict.
In this light, what on earth is the gold base doing on this map? It's a 'safe' base (relative to other bases) and it's high yield making it more attractive as an expansion option. It's completely in tension with the design decisions regarding the third. You could build the map around the gold; but I think the number of interesting strategic decisions to be made with this kind of gold base are less than the interesting strategic decisions about a map with lots of contested expansions. In either case, a design decision needs to be made and the rest of the map built to support that theme.
Now look at the bottom left/top right. The intention here is that one player gets a natural stronghold over one of the corners while the other player can control the other. In other games you can have contested expansions, but realistically one race will elect to take a base in one of the corners and the other race will take a base in the opposite corner for safety. How well does that work with the rest of the map? The corners diffuse the tension around the third-fourth blue bases by offering safer alternatives and that's why they feel out of place.
Each of the three major design decisions (gold base, corners, close thirds) is independently a fine idea. But when combined they fail to add up to a cohesive concept for the map. This kind of conceptual/critical eye is something that everyone should strive for imo.
|
did you just look at the maps?
|
On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote:
Here's a point of general feedback that hasn't been covered in previous threads. I think this is a key differentiator between the best maps and good maps and is something generally reflected in my judging. Every isometric grid on your map should be there for a reason. Every feature should be on your map for a reason. Every design decision you make on your map should be contributing to an overall theme or idea that you want to see expressed on your map.
So many maps look polished but don't do this well at all.
But Plexa, Sc2 uses a rectangular grid 
This is definitely one of my major struggles, giving an identity to individual chunks of the map. This applies to *all* good maps even outside of SC2.
|
On May 21 2016 01:35 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote:
Here's a point of general feedback that hasn't been covered in previous threads. I think this is a key differentiator between the best maps and good maps and is something generally reflected in my judging. Every isometric grid on your map should be there for a reason. Every feature should be on your map for a reason. Every design decision you make on your map should be contributing to an overall theme or idea that you want to see expressed on your map.
So many maps look polished but don't do this well at all. But Plexa, Sc2 uses a rectangular grid This is definitely one of my major struggles, giving an identity to individual chunks of the map. This applies to *all* good maps even outside of SC2.
That's why if an isometric grid shows up on your SCII map you better have a damn good reason.
|
On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with any one of the design decisions made here, but when added together things don't add up. The first obvious feature is that the third bases are actually really close together (relative to other maps) which isn't a bad thing; this is something that needs to be explored still so it's a good idea. The blue base in the center (which could be seen as a fourth) reinforces the idea that this map is all about contested expansions and lots of conflict.
In this light, what on earth is the gold base doing on this map? It's a 'safe' base (relative to other bases) and it's high yield making it more attractive as an expansion option. It's completely in tension with the design decisions regarding the third. You could build the map around the gold; but I think the number of interesting strategic decisions to be made with this kind of gold base are less than the interesting strategic decisions about a map with lots of contested expansions. In either case, a design decision needs to be made and the rest of the map built to support that theme.
Now look at the bottom left/top right. The intention here is that one player gets a natural stronghold over one of the corners while the other player can control the other. In other games you can have contested expansions, but realistically one race will elect to take a base in one of the corners and the other race will take a base in the opposite corner for safety. How well does that work with the rest of the map? The corners diffuse the tension around the third-fourth blue bases by offering safer alternatives and that's why they feel out of place.
Each of the three major design decisions (gold base, corners, close thirds) is independently a fine idea. But when combined they fail to add up to a cohesive concept for the map. This kind of conceptual/critical eye is something that everyone should strive for imo.
This is alot of stuff. I was never told before the conclusion of the contest. Let me quote from a piece of a PM I had received on the 15th.
We are currently in the middle of a grueling process to narrow down 23 maps to 15 finalists. However, we expect that we'll need to make some changes to many of your maps before they're ready for public display if we deem them finalist worthy. Thus, I'll need to be able to easily contact you during this week, specifically between Tuesday and Thursday of this week to make edits.
I received no such contact in regards to map feedback in that time-frame, although I am sure there are things that could have been said to improve my map before conclusion, whether deemed finalist worthy at the time or not. I am kind of disappointed with the lack of communication, but at least you guys are communicating about map feedback now, and I can always try again next time.
And allow me to make myself clear. I am not sad or mad my map did not make the finals, I am simply sad this feedback wasn't really provided before it really came down to it.
|
Thank you for the transparency.
I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced?
Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen?
Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave?
Lastly I'd really like some feedback on Cassiopeia in particular, and also DWR. Can you tell me which map I had in the top 23?
DWR
+ Show Spoiler +
Cassiopeia
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Italy12246 Posts
All the changes we did to the maps were minor tweaks tied to potential balance issues; for example, Galactic Process was deemed too blink-friendly so we added the chasm behind the third's minerals. Most maps weren't changed at all. Plexa's (as well as other judges') criticism of Assiduous Expanse would require much bigger changes, and ties in to the overall map design rather than small potential issues.
The true iteration phase hasn't happened yet (per the TLMC7 announcement thread), and will be after the BTV tournament, so we have a good amount of games to base decisions on.
edit: and yeah, adding on to what Barrin says, not all judges have the same opinion of every map of course.
second edit: It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen?
Not at all. We literally just sat on skype for hours and discussed every map submitted as we selected which to keep and which to not keep. That was it.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 02:32 Solstice245 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with any one of the design decisions made here, but when added together things don't add up. The first obvious feature is that the third bases are actually really close together (relative to other maps) which isn't a bad thing; this is something that needs to be explored still so it's a good idea. The blue base in the center (which could be seen as a fourth) reinforces the idea that this map is all about contested expansions and lots of conflict.
In this light, what on earth is the gold base doing on this map? It's a 'safe' base (relative to other bases) and it's high yield making it more attractive as an expansion option. It's completely in tension with the design decisions regarding the third. You could build the map around the gold; but I think the number of interesting strategic decisions to be made with this kind of gold base are less than the interesting strategic decisions about a map with lots of contested expansions. In either case, a design decision needs to be made and the rest of the map built to support that theme.
Now look at the bottom left/top right. The intention here is that one player gets a natural stronghold over one of the corners while the other player can control the other. In other games you can have contested expansions, but realistically one race will elect to take a base in one of the corners and the other race will take a base in the opposite corner for safety. How well does that work with the rest of the map? The corners diffuse the tension around the third-fourth blue bases by offering safer alternatives and that's why they feel out of place.
Each of the three major design decisions (gold base, corners, close thirds) is independently a fine idea. But when combined they fail to add up to a cohesive concept for the map. This kind of conceptual/critical eye is something that everyone should strive for imo. This is alot of stuff. I was never told before the conclusion of the contest. Let me quote from a piece of a PM I had received on the 15th. Show nested quote +We are currently in the middle of a grueling process to narrow down 23 maps to 15 finalists. However, we expect that we'll need to make some changes to many of your maps before they're ready for public display if we deem them finalist worthy. Thus, I'll need to be able to easily contact you during this week, specifically between Tuesday and Thursday of this week to make edits. I received no such contact in regards to map feedback in that time-frame, although I am sure there are things that could have been said to improve my map before conclusion, whether deemed finalist worthy at the time or not. I am kind of disappointed with the lack of communication, but at least you guys are communicating about map feedback now, and I can always try again next time. And allow me to make myself clear. I am not sad or mad my map did not make the finals, I am simply sad this feedback wasn't really provided before it really came down to it.
You were one of four mapmakers who was asked to make small changes during the judging process. This is because your map was one of the final 23 that had potential, but we couldn't see it going through on the iteration you submitted. Your change helped, but it was not enough to push it through. All four changes consisted of a short "Most of the judges think changing X would improve your map".
We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps and give detailed feedback on each map during the contest as Plexa just did due to the sheer volume of work involved. I would actually say that you got more feedback during the contest than any other mapper. The stage where we'll try to provide as much feedback as possible is during the Iteration Phase AFTER the 15 finalists have been picked.
In addition, Plexa was not a first round judge this time. He was only brought in to help cut down maps from 23 to 15. This judging occurred after I sent you the PM. If Plexa were judging the first round, your map probably would have been cut much earlier due to the sweeping changes it would require (in his opinion).
I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced?
Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen?
There was a fair amount of communication to the map cave during the judging process. Leak is probably the wrong word as I simply just wrote it out. However, communication from the map cave to judges in no way affected the results of this contest.
Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave?
This was just a courtesy PM to inform you that we MIGHT need to contact you in the coming days. If I needed to find you, I would have found a way.
|
So, Ok, I'm really running out of time here, I should showering already, but can it be expanded as to why Laniakea was considered "imbalanced"? Which features on specific did the judges considered were detrimental to the balance of the map?
![[image loading]](https://ktvmaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ktv-laniakea-0-00-32-70c2ba.jpg)
Other infos and such:
https://ktvmaps.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/ktv-laniakea/
Also, if you have the time, what do you guys think was the nail in the coffin for Tramontane?
Also nº2, what do you consider are things that could be improved upon in the 1st judging phase? More of a Post Mortem kind of thing.
Much fun, gotta go, I'll try to write more when/if I come back XOXO ♥
|
lolol, I just came up with a strange idea. I will even go as far as saying it is probably a stupid idea, but I wanted to show it non the less. What if I moved those rocks at 3rds opening to the rest of the map, to the larger opening in the just above base? And the collapsible rocks at nat to the other ramp instead?
I based it on the alternate version I showed a picture of in my first post in this thread, tho I can always apply it to TLMC version if ya guys want to see.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 00:39 algue wrote:I hope to learn from the judges infinite wisdom Here are the maps I submitted : Dead Man's Bridge in the macro category : + Show Spoiler +Aemon's Wrath in the rush category : + Show Spoiler +Black Water Mesa in the macro category : + Show Spoiler +
A glaring problem with all three maps is that they're all variations of each other and that they're all specifically Whirlwind clones. Another factor you're really up against is that four player maps with all spawns enabled are really hard to execute well for a variety of reasons. First of all, players are always going to hate it for scouting RNG positional imbalance is always a factor. Finally, it's really hard to make sure all spawns are balanced. It's a huge hurdle to overcome which makes four-player maps sort of start with a disadvantage in the TLMC. Thinking back to well-liked four-player maps with all spawns enabled in the history of Starcraft that were well-liked, you basically have Whirldwind and Frost (maybe Entombed Valley). And that's it. You can see it from the TLMC7 finalists as well: all 15 finalists are two-player maps or pretty much two-player maps.
Dead Man's Bridge is almost an exact Whirlwind clone.
Aemon's Wrath in particular isn't really a rush map, especially in Cross positions.
In addition, all three maps also share another problem in the sense that you seem to designing them in two separate parts: the first three bases and the rest of the map. I could mix and match these two components on each of your maps and still get similar results.
In general, none of the maps were special enough to warrant a high placement.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Adding on to what monk said, it doesn't mean they are bad maps per se, just that they had really strong competition and didn't manage to come out on top.
|
Hey all. I know I managed to sneak a map into the finals in so I can't complain, but I was just curious what the judges thought of Revanscar Relay and what they felt its major (or minor too) issues were. Any non judges feel free to thrash it too, lol. I'm very fond of the concept so if I can iterate it to something worthwhile in the future I'd love to do so.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X9EsIMS.jpg)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay
|
On May 21 2016 04:44 Fatam wrote:Hey all. I know I managed to sneak a map into the finals in so I can't complain, but I was just curious what the judges thought of Revanscar Relay and what they felt its major (or minor too) issues were. Any non judges feel free to thrash it too, lol. I'm very fond of the concept so if I can iterate it to something worthwhile in the future I'd love to do so. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay
I'd imagine balance concerns. Using the other side of those minerals right in front of the natural as a forward position and dropping marines and marauders to attack the natural/third/fourth, with more marine and marauders and tanks behind the minerals to act as support would be nasty and near unstoppable. In general dropping on one side of the minerals then picking up and dropping on the other side would be incredibly frustrating to deal with especially for zerg.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 00:47 ZigguratOfUr wrote:I'd like to know what feedback my map got. Nazca + Show Spoiler +And as for questions, I'd like to know if the aesthetics were too distracting, if the middle of the map was too restrictive, and if the fourth base was too distant, and if the watchtowers are a mistake. Also I'd like to know when my map dropped out. Thank you very much for doing this.
This map unfortunately dropped out in the first wave, though I will say it was one of the best maps that didn't survive the first cut. The main issue here is that it really isn't new enough. I read your description of the map again and I still can't see anything particularly new about it.
- Aesthetics too distracting? Slightly, but i wouldn't worry too much about that.
- Middle too restrictive? Yes. The issue is that there's only three ground paths of attack and they happen to be as far apart from each other as possible. This makes attack too easily predictable and doesn't allow for as dynamic games.
- Watchtower? Yea, I don't know why that's there. With only three paths of attack, a defensive tower shouldn't be able to completely cover one of them. In general, I don't like defensive watch towers unless they're executed extremely well.
- Fourth too far? Yes? Maybe? There are some strategies that require a fast fourth base like Dark's Ling/Bling style against Protoss (which takes a fourth around 5:00. I don't see that being viable on this map.
Another issue might be the lack of air space. I like maps that really pay attention to where Zergs would typically place their Overlords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BSzprtE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zi7jhCv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/168G07o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yxt0CRu.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VPA9uo1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/61ZUWzP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ttoViYV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s9xJ1t5.png)
