|
Hi guys, first congrats to all the TLMC9 finalists! This thread is mostly dedicated to those that didnt made it to the finals to ask questions about their maps.
Tho be first check out previous "Mapping Guidelines" and the TLMC8 feedback thread before you submit your questions, as I don't have much time and I have to use it where counts.
Here's another tool that some of you might find useful, it is a list of suggestions of changes for the post tournament alteration period for the TLMC9 Finalists.
If you would like to receive feedback on your map, post the name of your map, the overview and any speficic questions you might have, I sadly dont have much time, but I'll try to get to as many of you as possible.
/Edit: Important! please try to ask specific questions, and not asking for "General feedback", as doing that will make me less likelly to give you feedback because of the considerable amount of time it would take me to write all the ideas down.
I'll also probably next week try to publish at least some videos going by some hand picked maps finalists and non-finalist and pointing out errors and things that could have been improved in order to increase its chances amongst the judges.
|
lovely, thanks for doing this!
Id love to have some Feedback on:
Flourish:
+ Show Spoiler +
So what Issues i see afterwards now is, the area around the nat/third is still a bit to tight maybe, and its super hard to reaperscout on the map, but that cant be the reason to dismiss the map since it can be fix in seconds.. i cant think of the gold being the issue, because its in range of the watchtower. I was thinking maybe the Watchtowers are the problem, but they can see only the very mid, and miss 2 attack paths. And even all that could be change in seconds, remove the XNT, make the gold blue... So maybe is it the overall flow of the map just in general? Is it too boring? I tought the nat/third layout with the cooling tower would bring the quantum freshness to the standard map that it is. And the decision to have the 4th either aggressive with the gold, or safer with the other 4th would make it interesting. I cant really think of a specific question really sorry, because if i would, i would know the issue it has in the first place. Same goes kinda for the other maps. Still i would love to hear the comments...
Ametrin:
+ Show Spoiler +
Maybe too boring too? I tought making a rather standard map, just very small-ish could be quite fun. It tried to make it interesting by not adding crazy featuers but subtle details with smaller chokes alternating with larger ones and strategically interesting highgrounds. I just cant think of any issues here, beside of maybe being to standard.. i guess thats the problem right? God i hate that i love "too standard", i mean i just dont want to tell people how to play, they should be allowed to use any strategy. But Maybe im totally wrong here and the map has some issues i dont see? But then again i cant really ask sth specific about it right? I mean there are always some very standard maps in the finalists like catalyst for example, but mines are obviously not executed as good as them, but what is it thats missing? Thats my question lol :D
Supply Block:
+ Show Spoiler +
Even though i think this was maybe my weakest submission, i think it brings at least somewhat new with its layout.
Maybe the issue here is that its too turtly? Then again there are maps in the finalists, that have 4 easier defendable bases imo. I dont know what the Issue is, otherwise i would have changed it in the first place lol.
So yeah.. sorry to not be able to pinpoint any real specific questions. I hope you can maybe still just write down some of the tought process...
|
Need feedback on how to improve Artana (on phone so can't link image, just search for it).
|
|
|
On September 18 2017 05:51 Zweck wrote:lovely, thanks for doing this! Id love to have some Feedback on: Flourish: + Show Spoiler +
Flourish got very, very close to being a finalist, I consider it to be a pretty good map, a thing that hurt many maps was the categories they were submitted into, for example here in Flourish the first 3 bases are probably too safe for it being labeled or sent to the standard category, which sadly meant that the map couldnt rise as high as it might have otherwise (not saying it would have been a finalist, as the the competition for macro and standard was very fierce).
I personally really liked the way the center is laid out, with the small lowgrounds on the middle, tho a big problem for the map is that the center is probably way too choky, and with strong tanks, liberators, disruptors, that's bound to generate issues, specially because even when we had other chocky maps like EastWatch, Blackpink etc, the amy movement around those maps is slightly "freer" as they are bigger maps and they also dont have xel'nagas right on the center of it restricting enemy army movement.
The golds were also a bit of a contentious issue, as it was highly discussed if they would be too much of winner's gold, and if they werent, then the xel'nagas with overlook the gold mineral line might cause players to not even risk taking them when their opponent has the capacity to deny mining on them.
Last thing is that the area in front of the natural with the collapsible tower (why is it there exactly?) is probably way too choky for LotV.
+ Show Spoiler +
Advice: make the map overall more open, find a way to correct the gold's problem, maybe recategorize it in order for it to get higher relative rankings.
Good solid map, problem is, that this isn't really a "rush" map, nor does it really add any idea to make it more on the "rush" side, yeah, it is on the slightly smaller side, but it is still a small standard map. The idea with the terrain holes at the third 3/9 and near the highground middle is neat, the map is well excecuted, but it fails to attract as to why it is a "rush" map and not a "smaller standard" map.
This map showcases well one of the core ideas or core issues atm with the ways we are using categories, because there is a very blurry line between a "good" rush map, and a "small standard" map, and I think ametrin might be a good example of this categorization issue. It is something that has been kind of a constant issue that pops up now and then, and we will need (all of us, as a Mapmaking community) to think how to solve it, or reduce it.
This one aswell suffered categorization issues, it was sent as "Standard" and even when it "kinda is" the ease of all the bases make it basically a "Macro" one.
Im running out of time atm, but I dont think I need to go very deeply into the problems as they imo are glaring enough, the layout is fine and well excecuted, but core ideas like the winners gold at the middle, or the overall lack of interesting bases around the map made it a no, the central highgrounds are cool tho, I personally always have enjoyed that kind of layouts, even when on sc2 because of worker pairing/economy they dont always work as intented.
Also, aesthetics.
|
Lol nooo now youve already written sth, while i was editing to questions stuff...
But thx, love to read this. Still it makes me so sad, because what i basically read is: the categorys were just kinda choosen wrong? I mean like the golds and stuff could have been fixed quickly.. But thanks again for doing this and investing so much time in TLMC and stuff <3
|
On September 18 2017 06:54 IronManSC wrote:
Need feedback on how to improve Artana (on phone so can't link image, just search for it).
I personally considered Artana to be a very good contender, it is far from being a "bad map", but because of the center and basically the straight line between naturals it failed to attact too much interests from the judges, it wasnt "loved" but it also wasnt hated, it also lacked a shtick other than the straight line between nats, and even when that's not bad per se, it also isnt particularly attractive either.
I can't say much else, as I mentioned the map is imo solid enough, most if not all of your maps are very solid, but this particular one doesnt really spark interest on it, and as such it fell to the sidelines when it came to voting.
|
On September 18 2017 07:01 Zweck wrote:
Lol nooo now youve already written sth, while i was editing to questions stuff...
But thx, love to read this. Still i makes me so sad, because what i basically read is: the categorys were just kinda choosen wrong? I mean like the golds and stuff could have been fixed quickly.. But thanks again for doing this and investing so much time in TLMC and stuff <3
Yeah, sadly, we had a huge discussion about recategorizing maps which we thought were good but were on the wrong categories, but we had a ton of technical problems with timeframes and schedules which were out of our hands as judges which heavily cut into the time we had to judge, and as such we had to decide to not recategorize maps and work with the categories you guys sent us the maps on. We also discussed about how recategorizing maps would go against the spirit of this TLMC as it was explicitly asked of you to submit your maps to a single category, and overwriting your decisions as mapmakers might cause issues down the road for us and the TLMC when another mapmaker comes to us asking why we also didnt re-categorize his map aswell.
The whole category thing has been a very tricky subject, as on my personal opinion they are 100% needed in order for mappers to know what Blizzard and the judges are looking for, but at the same time they can cause this kind of problems, so yeah, tricky subject.
|
Oi Uvantak!
Thank you for judging TLMC9 and for providing this thread friend.
Im curious on feedback for:
The Beneath:
and Ophilia RE:
|
Even when the map was sent as new assymetry is a delicate thing, third bases for example will be harder for a player than for the other and because 4p maps are already held to rather higher standards than 2p maps, this lead to the map being cut early.
Also, next time you make maps such as this one make them easier to read as the counter clockwise third base looks as is if it were on the lowground, when it is on middle ground.
This one got rather close, it is not a bad map, even when it could be improved spacing is alright, the fourth and fifth bases might be a tad too easy to take but that's not the end of the world because it was sent as macro map, tho it indeed suffered from not standing out, it still has issues like execution on cliffing, being bigger on bounds than what would be ideal, the passage leading to the bases at top right/bottom left could have been improved by trying to find a way to merge it with the rest of the map, because as it stands now, it is just a simple passage to those bases, which doesnt really add much strategic depth to the map.
Lost in the Temple overall suffers from rather poor spacing, the central casm of the map, the one that's crossed by bridges could have had its width reduced and then you would have had more space to do other things, same with for example the near the natural bases, there's a rather lengthy hallway on what would be the natural choke point, that space could also been put to better use somewhere else on the map, or just reducing the size of the map overall.
Exposed main base mineral lines line that wont also make you many friends, even when the map is tagged as new, liberator, mutalisk, even siege tank+marine drop abuse is something that must be very carefully weighted.
Dark Origin got close to making it actually, the overall idea of having the "three lanes" separated by the rocks interested the judges, specially on such a small rush distance, yet sadly the same issue as with the previous maps its excecution wasnt the best, top right/bottom left highground bases are just kind of "there", they are not really serving much and using a considerable amount of space that could have been put to better use on other areas of the map, on a map of this size and design 8 bases per player are not really that necessary, overgrowth itself had 6 bases per player, and even when it was a different economy and all, it is better to have well used space than to have more bases on a map.
Also, just a technicality (kind of) but you might want to change the diagonal rocks on the middle bridges of the map to horizontal or 6x6, I can't really find a reason why you might need diagonal rocks instead of horizontal or 6x6 ones there. And also, the version of the map that you submitted had 3 900 mineral patches on the mains instead of 4.
Also, guys try to be more mercifull with me and preferably ask me specific questions about your maps, as even when I want to give solid feedback, writing general ideas for each of the maps you guys published (like 100 freaking maps) takes a long freaking time and I just can't really do it because job/life and such, remember that this isnt "my job" per se.
|
Ok, I agree with you that the base layout in the coners of Dark Origin is a bit weak, but first these are just corner bases on a rush map, where short distances matters, and where bases beyond 4-5 are less likely taken. And second I'd like you to convince me that the base layout is worse than on the other rush maps, expect Catalyst. Actually the only obvious thing I see is that you are prefering your good friends maps.
|
On September 18 2017 08:41 IIEclipseII wrote:
Ok, I agree with you that the base layout in the coners of Dark Origin is a bit weak, but first these are just corner bases on a rush map, where short distances matters, and where bases beyond 4-5 are less likely taken. And second I'd like you to convince me that the base layout is worse than on the other rush maps, expect Catalyst. Actually the only obvious thing I see is that you are prefering your good friends maps.
Oh no, please lets not get into this... -.-;
I really dont want to spend time arguing things which I consider are non-sensical but at the same time I realize that it is important to quickly clear up this kind of trust issues, so I'll need to be clear.
Actually the only obvious thing I see is that you are prefering your good friends maps.
I dont "like" "my friends" maps, because they are "my friends", I "like" their maps because they are " overall good", and "polished".
The corner bases are not a "small problem", they show that you didnt put thought into them, space which could have easily benefited the rest of the map, the core idea had potential indeed, that's why it got further than many other Rush maps, including maps from "my friends", but a map with such core problems and overall lack of polish can only get so far on a TLMC, it hurts me to say, but this is not a charity league, it is a competition, and maps which dont cut it, get cut. Dark Origin even when it had good core ideas, the execution of said ideas was poor, therefore got cut.
I dont need to make a lengthy explanation of my thought process to you specifically, because I'm not accountable to you, I'm accountable to the whole of the Mapmaking community and to the other TLMC judges, yet, if there is a will from other Mapmakers in order to know more deeply why Dark Origin didnt made it in, I'll happily make a video explaining the thought process that went into it, I'm sure such a video will help you and other newer mapmakers better understand how to achieve higher quality maps.
Also, please dont read this post on an "angry" defensive tone and such, it is not intended that way, I just want to be as clear as possible when touching things that could lead to trust problems down the line.
Broodie I'll try to make the write up tomorrow evening, now I'm quite delayed on cooking, doing dishes and other "modern human" things.
|
Your Country52491 Posts
Can I have feedback on my four maps: Vaunted Lab, Assailant's Paradox, Spaceship Station and Incubation?
If this is too much, just Vaunted Lab and Incubation is fine.
|
Could I get feedback on Yopico (+ Show Spoiler +), and specifically about how it compares with Neon Violet Square (since both maps start from the same concept)?
Also any general feedback about Asphodel (+ Show Spoiler +) would be appreciated (I have a pretty good idea about what's wrong with it though, so if there's a high volume of questions feel free to skip it).
|
Really appreciate you doing this again!
I would like some feedback about Greywater + Show Spoiler +
|
Honestly I feel like Yopico has random holes everywhere, whereas Neon Violet has them placed in a manner that looks aesthetically pleasing and not too messy.
|
On September 18 2017 09:44 Avexyli wrote:
Honestly I feel like Yopico has random holes everywhere, whereas Neon Violet has them placed in a manner that looks aesthetically pleasing and not too messy.
It does look much nicer though personally I find some of the blocker positions questionable. For example the blockers at the pocket third will never matter. The focus is different too I think--Neon Violet focuses more on disrupting how armies move on the map (and affects thor, siege tanks, archons and ultras disproportionately), whereas Yopico focuses more on affecting the sites of engagement. With hindsight I think the blockers end up mattering way too much on Yopico and not enough on Neon Violet.
|
No rush or priority at all (feel free to answer mine last) but I'll throw my other 3 into the ring here
Ancient Confines
+ Show Spoiler +
Crimson Aftermath
+ Show Spoiler +
Red Dragon
+ Show Spoiler +
Someone mentioned Red Dragon had a heated debate surrounding it so I'm curious there
|
|
|
ok then only one quick respond so I have something concrete. Just confirm that ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/TLMC9Maps/Battle_on_the_Boardwalk.jpg)
has a better baselayout and is more balanced than Dark Origin. I wont bother you anymore if you just answer this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/DfECXrK.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3Az35k4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zb1ETrT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/d514/yke18nalx99kf3zzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/bcc5/q5dlqr9s9jjjibjzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/0728/rrdc3ckprzk8rbazg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6404/s8dqpuv57kceqmhzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WueWX3C.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/aIFBqnz)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/1wuS5Q9)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/rQ7RrlV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/boDSYcn.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qQWLGnB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QYloSUQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IElyhs7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rmfZj6D.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/R5zACA2.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Q9uTPlf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/h8akj7V.jpg)
