On September 18 2017 17:46 IIEclipseII wrote: ok then only one quick respond so I have something concrete. Just confirm that + Show Spoiler +
has a better baselayout and is more balanced than Dark Origin. I wont bother you anymore if you just answer this.
Eclipse dude. Don't be so confrontational. The fact that some of the finalists may or may not have flaws that the judges didn't spot is wholly irrelevant to the weaknesses of your maps. Frankly, while I disagree with some of the judges' selections, I don't think your maps are deserving of top 16 in their place and they are certainly not so incontestably ahead of the rest of the field that the only conceivable explanation for them not being selected is bias on the part of the judges.
Saying that "this or that map is worse in this respect" whether true or not doesn't make your maps any better. Focusing on improving based on the given feedback does.
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.
I kind of agree. Besides the fact that the blockers don't do anything at all there, I'm not a fan of partial bases as early game bases anymore. Who is taking that base exactly? The only race that might have a tiny bit of trouble taking the normal third is Protoss, but they won't want to take the partial base because it only has 1 gas. Maybe if it was 4m2g it might make a little more sense.
The map would probably be much better if he just removed that base completely, shifted the main over to the corner, then the once impossible-to-take 5:30/11:30 base could be shifted as well. Fixes everything.
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.
I agree with Avex here. The concept of holes/boxes has a lot of potential, but Neon Violet Square did it better. Yopico seems like a mediocre map with holes added in to make it different. Neon is a cool looking map to begin with, and RQM made the defining feature fit in with the map. However, I think both maps went overboard with the concept. I played a long ZvT on Neon, and it was one of the most painful games I have ever experienced. Maybe I could get used to the concept after more games, but getting Ultralisks stuck in the half base is miserable (The blockers at the third matter a lot, just in a bad way). There are so many blockers that you can't take a path away from them. Certain races can exploit the blockers more than others, which creates a problem.
On September 18 2017 17:46 IIEclipseII wrote: ok then only one quick respond so I have something concrete. Just confirm that (Battle on the Boardwalk) has a better baselayout and is more balanced than Dark Origin. I wont bother you anymore if you just answer this.
I doubt Battle will end up being balanced, but you can tell that Sidian put effort into the layout design and aesthetics. Dark Origin seems lazily designed in comparison.
I doubt Battle will end up being balanced, but you can tell that Sidian put effort into the layout design and aesthetics. Dark Origin seems lazily designed in comparison.
Just sounds like some very generic claim with the low aim or provocating, are you capable of beeing more precise?
Edit: I have to be more specific. Ok so is there some major flaws to the map I may be blind to? Im a mapper not up to date with WoL. Are the thirds too difficult to take? Is the gold imba, because zerg could take it as a third and become too strong? Do the paths through the map and expansion pattern create an interresting flow, or is there something to it that would make it play badly?
I suspect the map plays standard and doesnt bring anything interresting to to the table. Or does the layout have issues?
On September 18 2017 17:46 IIEclipseII wrote: ok then only one quick respond so I have something concrete. Just confirm that Boardwalk has a better baselayout and is more balanced than Dark Origin. I wont bother you anymore if you just answer this.
I think it does...hands down. Early game, it's more of a rush map. It has a riskier out of base natural which hopefully encourages aggressive. Or, you can play more defensive and take the "in-base" gold but it's a looong distance away. Currently in the TvZ games we've seen, most players take the normal natural. It then slowly starts to turn from an aggressive game where you're pushing through tiny chokes into more of a split map towards the end which then all the tiny chokes turn more into good run-by spots. It makes you use your brain to attack, do I push through the top boardwalk and have to push my army out of this single 2x2 choke into a massive potential concave or do I swing around the bottom of the map, creating a longer rush distance but allowing me less of a chance to get caught off guard. Do I break the rocks and do a complete sneak attack through the outer boardwalk? It's good in theory because it's a backdoor into the main, but it's also a LOONG way away from your bases, so if you aren't prepared, as you're trying to push the outer boardwalk, he could push the rush boardwalk.
My only worries on Boardwalk are two things, if PvZ and ZvZ will be a massive clusterfuck due to the more open natural. Maybe P will have to use their 2nd pylon to wall of the aggressive choke? Maybe P will be forced to gold base early? Same goes with ZvZ, I'm worried it could just be ling/bling wars every game. My other worry, is that when it does go endgame, can zerg survive? Sure, soO beat Optimus end game but it can be really easy to split the map 6 bases per player and honestly, a mech terran should be able to just turtle on 6 base and starve the zerg out.
___
Enough about Boardwalk though, let's go back to your map. As even you said yourself, and let me quote unless you go back and delete it:
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.
The corner bases on your map are...well...quite poorly made. If you can't even get behind your own layout and think it's a weak part of your map, why should anyone believe otherwise? You're the creator for christ sake, you should be telling all of us how you designed it that way because XYZ and this is why you think it'll work. Also, because it's a Rush map, you don't think bases matter? Really? What's the point of ever designing 4th, 5th or 6th bases when 80% of the games never reach that far. Am I right?!?
Not only those corner bases but the two bases closest to it. The one with the watchtower and the one right next to it on the same ground level. How, in gods name, are either of those bases suppose to get taken? Remember, it's a rush map, with a bunch of awkward ramps and chokes so army movement is difficult around the map and now you're planning on players to cross the entire horizontal size of your map to defend? I honestly believe the giant clump of 4 bases on each of the corners is completely poorly made and will almost never see any play what so ever. Which means, 8 out of your 16 bases on your map are useless. That's 1/2 the bases on your map! Remember, you're always going to have to park your army by the two ramps right outside your natural or else you might just get busted right up that ramp due to how rush heavy it is.
So therefore: When 1/2 the bases on your map are poorly made, that is probably the reason the map isn't a finalist.
I can go into more detail about some other problems I see with the map, but what's the point? I'm just suppose to call your map bad, right?
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).
Strong map, but this was also the strongest category. Key point of feedback is that it felt a little too much like a rehashed super standard map that probably would play out just fine, but lacked an X factor to make it stand out against its peers.
I heard a lot of feedback from different people including yourself on the map. Some of these include corner bases being weak, map being very choked and needs to be opened, and also too standard and nothing to give it a X factor like other maps. Just really want to improve this map since I feel its my cleanest map I have made so far would like to improve it as much as I can.
I would also like to hear some feedback on this map, some concerns I could see are the third options the one near the main being too far? Map not being too interesting? This map was more of my recent maps created so hasn't seen too much fine tuning.
As for the other two maps I have seen your suggestions for Defender's Resort and working towards those and also watching the map tournament to see if there is any other more major issues I can see and fine tune. Aruarian seem to fall into the trap of a rush map that has a gimmic that was a standard lay-out. I also probably should stop trying to get two entrances into the natural into the contest, but I did anyways lesson learned. Thanks again for the feedback to me and others, since this is to help improve not to attack you or any of the judges decisions.
ok come on Sidian, to be honest there are 2 entrances into your natural, the bases beyond are also way too open, there is a second entrance into your main when the rocks are down. All the bases are too close to togheter, if a player can overwhelm an army at one base he will easily continue onto the next one, which will very likely in most cases end the game. You are apperantly very good at making others work bad, I just remembered how you ciritized IronMans maps too, but you are completely blind when its about your own work. Back to my map, actually the only base thats weak on Dark Origin is the very corner base 8/2 o'clock. The only weakness of this base is that its simply not neccessary but also wont play a huge role in most games becouse how far its away from each player. Apart from that variety in economic or unit based strategies but also tactical gameplay benefits from the whole map layout, whereas your map has all the mentioned weaknesses but also has a boring and flat expansion pattern. The only interesting part is the gold base which is very hard to hold, but might work for some 2 base allins.
Could you two take your dick measuring contest somewhere else? This thread's meant for asking feedback from the judges. You got yours Eclipse, so if you don't want to listen to it that's your problem.
@ young I'm not a judge but the reason I didn't put Norad on my predictions list for finalists is it's way too turtley IMO. Free 3rd, and even once the attacker knocks those rocks down they're going up a 2FF ramp only, which is still fairly close to the natural so pretty easy to defend. Also the base underneath the main is pretty easy when you take down the collapsible rock tower. I imagine the judges had similar reasons as me to not include it. The middle is nice, though!
On September 19 2017 16:29 Fatam wrote: @ young I'm not a judge but the reason I didn't put Norad on my predictions list for finalists is it's way too turtley IMO. Free 3rd, and even once the attacker knocks those rocks down they're going up a 2FF ramp only, which is still fairly close to the natural so pretty easy to defend. Also the base underneath the main is pretty easy when you take down the collapsible rock tower. I imagine the judges had similar reasons as me to not include it. The middle is nice, though!
Interesting, I was very concerned when adding the rocks for both 3rds that it would be hard to hold, for the pocket 3rd it could just be the ramp size that can adjusted and for the main one removing the rocks into the 4th base option down that ramp could open it up more.
On September 18 2017 08:11 Broodie wrote: Oi Uvantak! The Beneath:
First vid on the series, hope it is not too rough, messy or cringe inducing.
On September 18 2017 08:11 Broodie wrote: and Ophilia RE:
I sadly, even when I really enjoy the idea of having the nat bases on this fashion, I just dont think that they will (ever) be accepted by the playerbase, it is simply too nonstandard, the distances between the 8m2g Natural and the Main's ramp is too long, even atm the distance and positioning of the Main's ramp in reference to the half base nat might be already problematic, as on ZvZ for example lings can fast and easily stream up the main base ramp because it is set up "pointing" towards the center of the map instead of being rotated 90º clockwise, which would make it easier to wall and force the enemy lings to make a sharp turn in order to go up the ramp, and even when it might not seem much ZvZ can be easily decided on matter of seconds.
Now going into the TLMC itself it really bit you in the ass to classify the map as Macro, Ophilia should have been clasified as New or Rush as the Main, Nat, Third set up is clearly nonstandard.
It is sadly getting way too late over here, so I just can't continue writing (vid rendering and uploading took maybe too long), but the concept itslef of the first 3 bases of Ophilia imo is not bad, I'm on the camp that even when we havent quite found a stable way to make them work, that doesnt mean that we might never find a way to do so. Ophilia overall on my opinion is a well executed map, the corner bases are maybe a bit weak, but that's not really a big issue here.
A last thing is probably try to work more on color palletes/color harmonies, your maps werent particularly egregious on this area, but it still is a very necessary and usefull skill for mapmakers/level designers to have: + Show Spoiler [links] +
Already had some short exchanges of which im planning these changes and would like feedback from there
Neon sunset Will be scrapping it entirely, was fun to do the theme and practice layouts a bit but gues its not that good
Labyrinth Looking to rework the center to make it less lane like, outside of that no major changes
Black lotus Remove the rocks at the natural Remove the rocks at the third Close of the base in the corner with rocks to still have semi island bases on the map
Octane Changes to the ramps to elevated bases are still being considered based on the ongoing map test tournament. Sadly games so far have been rather awful and resulted in very poor data and would like feedback from pro players specifically on why these games play out like they do.
On September 19 2017 16:29 Fatam wrote: @ young I'm not a judge but the reason I didn't put Norad on my predictions list for finalists is it's way too turtley IMO. Free 3rd, and even once the attacker knocks those rocks down they're going up a 2FF ramp only, which is still fairly close to the natural so pretty easy to defend. Also the base underneath the main is pretty easy when you take down the collapsible rock tower. I imagine the judges had similar reasons as me to not include it. The middle is nice, though!
probably not the real issue since backwater, which has a free 3rd with no backdoor at all, got chosen
On September 19 2017 16:29 Fatam wrote: @ young I'm not a judge but the reason I didn't put Norad on my predictions list for finalists is it's way too turtley IMO. Free 3rd, and even once the attacker knocks those rocks down they're going up a 2FF ramp only, which is still fairly close to the natural so pretty easy to defend. Also the base underneath the main is pretty easy when you take down the collapsible rock tower. I imagine the judges had similar reasons as me to not include it. The middle is nice, though!
probably not the real issue since backwater, which has a free 3rd with no backdoor at all, got chosen
idk, they are pretty different in my mind since backwater's is very harassable by air (and siegable as well) whereas that isn't the case on norad. But i'll let the judges speak to what they liked and didn't like
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.
Ok I actually made the effort and read your opinion.
1. Sorry, I can't in no way agree with you that the map is not standing out. I won't even bother to evidence my claim. I'd like you to explain that to me a more precisely.
2. what is cliffing?
3. I don't exactly understand what you mean with bigger bounds, as the bounds for a macro map are already fairly small.
4. And I'm completely confused by your last argument. Just a passage to a base and no strategic depth? Should I make it an island base?
I'd be really happy if you could explain those points more exactly.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/TLMC9Maps/Battle_on_the_Boardwalk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/90IlOxV.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zGlSeut.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wBumEgt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n0hEdn5.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/aIFBqnz.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/1wuS5Q9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/0728/rrdc3ckprzk8rbazg.jpg)
