|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote: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 +
DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three.
DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map.
Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 21 2016 04:21 monk wrote: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.
Fair enough! Thx for the heads up!
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 04:00 Uvantak wrote: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 ♥
The main issue identified in terms of balance is natural, which has two entrances. This is especially a problem for Protoss specifically ZvP. In all Protoss matchups, you start with only two pylons in the first few minutes of the game. Your expansion nexus provides a ton of supply, so you don't get your third pylon generally for a very long time. These two pylons have to work overtime powering basic buildings, defending pushes, and powering tech. Add to the fact that you can't wall off both entrances in the early game means that Lings will dominate early-game ZvP. I recently had a conversation with Mana about how this would all play out.
Tramontane was a top 23 map and a top 10 map in the Macro category. It finished 8th out of 10th. For the most part, it lost to better maps. A few criticisms brought up in judging thought:
- It's a 2-in-1 map but both of these maps individually aren't great.
- You have a hard time responding to all-ins when you're on three bases particularly in the TR/BL spawns. Pulling workers from your third to your natural just seems impossible.
- Tanks are also a potential issue in all spawns.
Judging for the most part went fairly smoothly. The only issue we identified was with the 1-10 scoring system in the final round. Some judges voted from 5-10 while others voted the entire spectrum from 1-10. This essentially gave the 1-10 judges double the voting power in some circumstances..
|
On May 21 2016 05:31 monk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Hmm... okay. I don't completely agree that it isn't "new" enough since those high ground "battlements" around the natural and third while not "new" looking do result in play that I feel is every new and different from what we normally see on maps. In any case your comments about the execution flaws are certainly spot on. I will bear them in mind for the future.
Thank you very much for the feedback.
|
United States8476 Posts
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. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X9EsIMS.jpg) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay
This map fell in the third round along with 12 other maps. While the concept was cool, we weren't sure if it was executed to its maximum potential. However, the thing that really weighed the map down was that most of your work seems to be concentrated on your first five bases and everything else just seems to be thrown in to complete the map. Specifically, I have no idea what either of the two golds or the watch tower are there for. Also, why is the middle so wide and open? This seems more like a proof of concept map rather than a finished product. Nothing about the actual layout really impresses me.
Also, like I mentioned to Uvantak, unless you have a really good reason for having two entrances to your natural, don't do it. It causes more problems than it's worth.
Finally Tanks. In the end, even though we initially thought this was close to a finalist map, upon closer inspection, it was actually quite far away.
|
haha rekt! Thanks + I'll see if I can rework it for future contests and such.
|
On May 21 2016 06:16 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote: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 + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three. DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map. Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here.
Thanks Monk, I really appreciate the feedback.
Can you explain why it wasn't considered in the gold base category, since that was my suggested 2nd category? You make it sound like I was just wrong about the category, since it's so clearly not a rush map, so how did it fare as a gold map? I ask this because, if I'm being frank, I think it's better than the finalists in that category as far as gold bases go, and I'm a little salty because apparently Avex did not submit Gojira under gold base at all, but there it is.
and man if the judges think the central path being key to that map is a downside, I just wish it could have been a finalist so I could prove you all wrong
and PS guys thanks for being clear about the Skype thing, mostly I was afraid of potential backdoor communication and just wanted to hear some reassurance
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 12:31 Xenotolerance wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 06:16 monk wrote:On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote: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 + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three. DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map. Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here. Thanks Monk, I really appreciate the feedback. Can you explain why it wasn't considered in the gold base category, since that was my suggested 2nd category? You make it sound like I was just wrong about the category, since it's so clearly not a rush map, so how did it fare as a gold map? I ask this because, if I'm being frank, I think it's better than the finalists in that category as far as gold bases go, and I'm a little salty because apparently Avex did not submit Gojira under gold base at all, but there it is. and man if the judges think the central path being key to that map is a downside, I just wish it could have been a finalist so I could prove you all wrong and PS guys thanks for being clear about the Skype thing, mostly I was afraid of potential backdoor communication and just wanted to hear some reassurance
All maps were considered for all categories. However, none of the judges really thought that DWR really belonged in the Gold category especially. The Gold bases on DWR just simply do not play as much of a central role to the map as the Golds on Gojira.
Also, Blizzard had the final say on which maps belonged in which categories. In the end, it was determined that DWR belonged in New over anything else (which I can get behind). Both the judges and Blizzard agreed that Gojira fit Gold more than Macro. In the end, it probably didn't matter for any of the maps which category you submitted your map in. If it makes you feel better, it would not have placed no matter what category it was in as it scored 6.8. The lowest scoring maps out of the finalists scored 7.0.
|
On May 21 2016 12:42 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 12:31 Xenotolerance wrote:On May 21 2016 06:16 monk wrote:On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote: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 + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three. DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map. Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here. Thanks Monk, I really appreciate the feedback. Can you explain why it wasn't considered in the gold base category, since that was my suggested 2nd category? You make it sound like I was just wrong about the category, since it's so clearly not a rush map, so how did it fare as a gold map? I ask this because, if I'm being frank, I think it's better than the finalists in that category as far as gold bases go, and I'm a little salty because apparently Avex did not submit Gojira under gold base at all, but there it is. and man if the judges think the central path being key to that map is a downside, I just wish it could have been a finalist so I could prove you all wrong and PS guys thanks for being clear about the Skype thing, mostly I was afraid of potential backdoor communication and just wanted to hear some reassurance All maps were considered for all categories. However, none of the judges really thought that Dasan really belonged in the Gold category especially. The Gold bases on Dasan just simply do not play as much of a central role to the map as the Golds on Gojira. Also, Blizzard had the final say on which maps belonged in which categories. In the end, it was determined that Dasan belonged in New over anything else (which I can get behind). If it makes you feel better, it would not have placed no matter what category it was in as it scored 6.8. The lowest scoring maps out of the finalists scored 7.0.
I'm now super confused about how the categories worked - you gave me great and detailed feedback on it directly relating to the category I (erroneously) submitted it under, but all maps were considered in all categories, but then the finalists were basically picked on a point system, and Blizzard sorted them into categories?
|
and we are still talking about DWR right I don't know what dasan is
plus like, if you want to tell me the golds on DWR aren't as central to the map as the golds on gojira, I don't know what to think. I mean they are literally more off to one side I guess
|
sorry I'm tired and getting whiny, I'll sign off for tonight. thanks for the communication, it's more than you owe anyone who didn't place. and thank you for running the contest, it needed to happen
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Maps were evaluated for how well we thought they fit the category. Maps were sorted into the category(ies) that it fit the best. Most maps fit one category, others straddled two (e.g. Dasan Station was considered as both a rush and a new map, Gojira was a macro and a gold map). Maps were judged within those categories. Blizzard had the final say on which category a map should be in after the judging had taken place.
|
United States8476 Posts
Sorry, I meant DWR instead of Dasan, fixed all instances of that.
Blizzard had the final approve on the categorization of maps. We simply did our best to sort the maps into the correct categories beforehand. We looked at every map to determine which categories they could potentially belong in. I believe there were four maps that were specifically considered for multiple categories: Apotheosis, Dasan Station, Gojira Greenhouse, and Honorgrounds. Except for Apotheosis, Blizzard approved the maps for the secondary category that we assigned instead of the primary one they were submitted under. Again, DWR wasn't considered Gold enough by either the Judges or Blizzard..
A separate problem came in with the rush maps; a lot of Rush maps, however, including DWR, were deemed not true Rush maps and thus didn't fit the category. Together, we collaboratively decided to just advance the top four Rush maps that were considered under Rush even though many didn't fit the category.
|
Out of curiosity how far did these two make it, if at all:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5bsTPiZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rodmcy8.jpg)
Edit: Mind the path, i'll leave it there lol.
|
I'm really interesting about why not 'Zerus one project', 'Erebus Mt.', 'Korhal highstreet' and why 'Dasan Station' ranked top 15. so many korean community predict map like my think. but that think is really missed. plz tell me my other map's rank and opinion.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 18:13 eTcetRa wrote:Out of curiosity how far did these two make it, if at all: Edit: Mind the path, i'll leave it there lol.
Both maps (Obelisk and Refuge) got cut in Round 2. Refuge in particular was cut for the biggest pitfall of being an "island map" similar to that of Arkanoid. It's way too hard to scout so you'll run into a lot of build order wins.
|
Eye of Shakuras
+ Show Spoiler +
I have noticed some weak points myself already, enough to warrant a rework. But I'd like to know what other people (dis)liked before I start reworking it.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 18:21 Enekh wrote:
I'm really interesting about why not 'Zerus one project', 'Erebus Mt.', 'Korhal highstreet' and why 'Dasan Station' ranked top 15. so many korean community predict map like my think. but that think is really missed. plz tell me my other map's rank and opinion.
Zerus One Project: Got cut in the second round. Not bad but the double backdoor has the potential to cause a lot of balance concerns and the concept didn't seem cool enough compared to other concepts presented. One of the best maps that was cut in the second round.
Erebus Mt.: Finished fourth in the Gold category. The gold was seen as maybe too hard to take and the natural might have been a bit too wide.
Korhal Highstreet: Got cut in the first round. Free three bases = not fun.
Dasan Station: Just crazy enough to work. We all had major potential balance concerns about it but this was a map everyone wanted to see pro players play on.
|
Dahlgur Oasis
+ Show Spoiler +
The Dragon Awakes/Leang
+ Show Spoiler +
Solaris Temple
+ Show Spoiler +
Annihilation Station
+ Show Spoiler +
last one is mostly for the correction period, I've got some thing in mind I wanted to change but those are pretty big changes to the point where it might not feel as the same map that got finalist anymore, so would like some smaller detailed point.
Also, is there anywhere we can view pictures of the judging/formating and how maps scored, or lists of what made it past each cut?
|
I'm not a judge so take with a grain of salt. The only minor issue I have with annihilation is the top left bottom right bases seem unnecessarily huge for no apparent reason other than to fill out the map in order to achieve the square look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/61ZUWzP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ttoViYV.png)
![[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/kVrEJ2T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ww1jS10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2YQVKpO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UE1P1Lv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0EoiXZ9.jpg)
