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.
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...
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
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...
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.
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.
On September 18 2017 05:51 Zweck wrote:Ametrin: + Show Spoiler +
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.
On September 18 2017 05:51 Zweck wrote:Supply Block: + Show Spoiler +
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.
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.
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.
ok then only one quick respond so I have something concrete. Just confirm that has a better baselayout and is more balanced than Dark Origin. I wont bother you anymore if you just answer this.
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.
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.
So you asked for feedback, got the feedback and made the effort to read it? Crazy.. You know there are others here who actually like to know what people and specially tlmc judges think about their maps.
aesthetic design here you find a lot of useful stuff including how to properly cliff. The 12 and 6 o'clock bases on Booma could be improved I guess.
On September 18 2017 09:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote: 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)?
On September 18 2017 09:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote: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).
I sadly cant write about asphodel atm, I hoped yesterday to be able to do the write up about the map, but wasnt able, hope the vid for Yopico makes out for it somewhat, and this weekend I'll have more time to write more as I need to catch up to the other guy's maps aswell.
On September 18 2017 09:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote: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).
I sadly cant write about asphodel atm, I hoped yesterday to be able to do the write up about the map, but wasnt able, hope the vid for Yopico makes out for it somewhat, and this weekend I'll have more time to write more as I need to catch up to the other guy's maps aswell.
Thank you very much for the feedback--I appreciate it.
I would specifically appreciate feedback on the concept of the split gold bases and how control of the opposing high grounds effects them. Also, if there were any thoughts on the expansion pattern.
I figure the rush distance is too short for its other features to work, but I want to just confirm. I get the impression it was discarded quickly for this reason.
I guess my concern is, how well did it do, and what was the specific reason other maps were chosen instead? Looking back I feel its pathing is slightly convoluted.
Did this map hit any targets for what constitutes a New map, in the judges' opinion? Was it a blatant imbalance of some sort that knocked it out, or something more subtle?
I really enjoy seeing the ideas Greywater has on the map, the bridges/choke points on the center, with the two highground wings around it. I really like those kinds of concepts as I consider them to be very, very solid, yet Greywater on my eyes suffers from some execution issues.
Where red are the biggest culprits, yellow are "livable" problems.
The area used/"wasted" on the highground passage between the third and the main base, I really consider would have been put to better use on other parts of the map, I really dont see almost any use for that highground to be there, other than offer harassment to an already considerably exposed base, the rocks at the end of the passage are basically 100% necessary because you have the passage in there on the first place. Remove the passage and re-use its space into making the forward "third" more holdable, or making the center a bit more interesting/maybe better polished.
Now going into the 2 and 7 corners of the map, all of that area could have been better used as part of the map itself, it is clear to see that the lowground "wings" around the edges of the map are rather cramped, yet that unused space on the very corners is right there to use, but wasnt, my advice would be to re-design that area, partially at least in order to better use the space you have available.
Yellow parts, for example the pond there, it is a bit on the oversized side of things in comparison to the size of the highround where it is located. Not the end of the world by any means, but because of the other issues with space it becomes highlighted.
Even when I kinda see the xel'naga towers as kind of accidental on their positioning, I really liked where they ended up being, as they work as anti-drop xel'nagas helping protect the main bases, and to spot a bit into the violet arrow which represents the "central attack lane", and that can help the map overall against too many baseraces and base trades as players can more easily spot the enemy army moving to attack.
For the most part, the map is alright, tho it suffered from execution problems, which meant it dropped places quick against other better executed maps in the highly competitive standard category.
Thanks for the feedback! Expected this about the forward base high ground and already changed it in a newer version, but the cramped low ground was news to me. I think you are very right though, having that extra space from the corners could help with some other problems. One quick note: the circle around the xel naga tower is slightly larger than drawn here, it covers pretty much the entire ramp under the violet arrow and they are not placed accidentally In an earlier version I had it on the high ground, not covering the big ramp but even more potentially drop routes. But that made the sides of the map and the "runby path" even less important so I moved them.
i'd love to have some feedback, too. Specifically third base, gold base, spacing (openness, chokes, distances) and expansion layout. + Show Spoiler [Verdure Island] +
On September 22 2017 08:10 Uvantak wrote: Now going into the 2 and 7 corners of the map, all of that area could have been better used as part of the map itself, it is clear to see that the lowground "wings" around the edges of the map are rather cramped, yet that unused space on the very corners is right there to use, but wasnt, my advice would be to re-design that area, partially at least in order to better use the space you have available.
I personally don't consider corner compression a big issue when used correctly. Like on abyssal reef, ascension to aiur (very slight), hwangsan, asteroid barricade, defender's resorts, grime, (anomaly if you remove the islands), +++ can't look up more maps to list them all right now)... Even star station re-edit did it well too. But it had issues because air blockers not being standard at the time. 30% air space in the corners lol (hello Catallena).
I think a lot of maps would benefit from rounded corners instead of just filling out the space with islands or bases. Not all, but some. For example Mech Depot is a map I'd have no problem with shifting the corner bases a little to the center horizontally on. Not saying every map should be a perfect circle or have rounded edges but it's not that bad. A slight round-off like on Abyssal Reef has a high-ish chance of making the map better imo.
edit: just wanna make clear that this was really sound feedback on the map. Filling out the corners is probably the best fix. It'd also be interesting to increase the map height to allow for more room to breathe too in the tops/bottoms of the midfield. Can also keep the corners a little bit rounded then.
On September 22 2017 18:14 Insidioussc2 wrote: Thanks for the feedback! Expected this about the forward base high ground and already changed it in a newer version, but the cramped low ground was news to me. I think you are very right though, having that extra space from the corners could help with some other problems. One quick note: the circle around the xel naga tower is slightly larger than drawn here, it covers pretty much the entire ramp under the violet arrow and they are not placed accidentally In an earlier version I had it on the high ground, not covering the big ramp but even more potentially drop routes. But that made the sides of the map and the "runby path" even less important so I moved them.
Yeah, I realized too late that the xel'naga range on the image is smaller than it should be, but not a big deal as I'm interested on you getting the idea more than all of the people in the thread :p
And regarding what snute said, yeah, I agree with you on the rounded corners, thing is that the rounded corners thing is very map dependent, so that takes away from using it as wide spread feedback for everyone because most often than not you will end up facing maps which could have been improved by using the corner space more efficiently, and it is easier to fix the corners (remove the corners) on a well spaced map, than it is to convert a badly spaced map without corners into a well spaced map. Sorry if it came out mangled, what I mean is that it is easier to crop corners, than to re-size every area on a map.
On September 18 2017 09:16 The_Templar wrote: If this is too much, just Vaunted Lab
On September 18 2017 09:16 The_Templar wrote:and Incubation is fine.
"New" category maps are imo probably the hardest ones to judge, as one simply lacks any measurement to which compare them to, but Incubation even when it is based on some good ideas here and there its execution isnt the best, and even when it is considered a "New" map I dont think it is stable enough and playable enough for it to reach ladder.
Here's one example:
I know it looks bad to leave this image ↑ just posted here, as you very well might have wanted that base to be easy to siege, but the thing is that on a map which is intended to be played ad nauseam for the next 3 to 6 months, having this kind of easy exploits is not "ideal".
Can be extremely hard to pull off because of the limited amount of attack paths between the players + Show Spoiler +
Because the small amount of attack paths can easily lead to stagnation and "general dullness" in games, as harassment with ground units becomes increasingly hard has the game advances, because of this very reason it can also lead to balance problems down the road, as races such as zerg count on ground based harassment to "make things work", and even when for Z itself it might not be the end of the world to have a map where ground harassment is less viable, there are other balance memes which hurt this map, like for example PvT dealing with liberator pushes, because of the central lanes there are basically no flanking options on the map, be it for Z or P against T pushes.
Anyhow, Assailant's Paradox actually is a pretty solid map, I now gotta leave, but if you were to make changes to it, I would start by making the blue thirds closer to the nat, and probably lowering 2 levels the central ridge/highground, so it is on the lowest level, and when that's done you could also add destructible rocks with loS Blockers behind the gold bases Also, make sure that players can easily wall off the natural base in the way showed, in order to allow them the choice to "not take" the half gold bases.
Thanks a bunch for the analysis, Uvantak. Incubation was a last-minute map so I didn't really think in-depth about what the impact of the two wide split paths would be, definitely something to keep in mind. Assailant's Paradox: I definitely should move those vertical bases closer - got that feedback elsewhere as well. That's a really interesting way to open up the center which I was having problems with, so I might give that a try. As it is, all attack paths either go towards that small ramp or cut through the rocks near the in-base golds.
As for Vaunted Lab, I think the forward third base being so exposed to the low ground is the result of me not realizing the vertical third was as far away as it was. I might make changes to both thirds but leave that low ground or place another base there. (I don't see an island base in Dusk Towers, so I'm not really sure what you meant by this comment?)
Tried to bring out different features with the return of the gold base, all the little ramps toward the middle, the potential forward 3rd base for aggressive. Figure maybe it was just too "normal"? I dunno. Thanks!
On September 23 2017 05:36 The_Templar wrote: Thanks a bunch for the analysis, Uvantak. Incubation was a last-minute map so I didn't really think in-depth about what the impact of the two wide split paths would be, definitely something to keep in mind. Assailant's Paradox: I definitely should move those vertical bases closer - got that feedback elsewhere as well. That's a really interesting way to open up the center which I was having problems with, so I might give that a try. As it is, all attack paths either go towards that small ramp or cut through the rocks near the in-base golds.
As for Vaunted Lab, I think the forward third base being so exposed to the low ground is the result of me not realizing the vertical third was as far away as it was. I might make changes to both thirds but leave that low ground or place another base there. (I don't see an island base in Dusk Towers, so I'm not really sure what you meant by this comment?)
@ Vaunted Lab, I'm not sure I agree that the 3rd needs to be rotated like that. It's much more that the alternative 3rd needs to be more takeable (which you did mention doing in the video. kudos). That way it's ok if tanks can hit the close 3rd, because the other option exists. I don't think we should be so close-minded that "tank can hit something = bad".
i.e. if someone wants to take that base vs T when there is another perfectly fine 3rd base option, then they can't really cry imba when siege tanks fuck them because that was their risk to take.
I think with the new setup you showed on the video, that base becomes too turtley. Maybe the best solution is a combination of the two ideas, where you remove the lowground from behind/beneath that base but keep the mineral line the same. That way the base is pretty safe from ground but air harass is still a thing.
I basically loved this one, but it had some issues on ZvZ on the Nats and around the Thirds with tanks, also, the other judges werent impressed with the lack of apparent choice/differences between the north and the south of the map, meaning that it suffered because both wings of the map are basically the same.
I personally have no issue with that what so ever, because the differences on terrain are mitigated by allowing players to show all their stylistic choices when it comes to actually playing on the map, yet the point they made still stands. So if you were to resubmit (which I would be ok with) I would suggest you to make changes to one of the sides of the map, be the north east or south west in order to differentiate it from the other one.
Also, Nat needs to be made safer on ZvZ:
The creep from the hatch needs to reach the choke point in order to allow Z to walloff, I would recommend to add some doodads/destructible rocks. Something like this might do + Show Spoiler +
. Main base ramp also needs to be tucked away more towards the hatch, in order to allow Z players to quickly do queen walloffs, also, in order to achieve that, the main base hatch/mineral/gas might need to be moved slightly closer to the Main ramp aswell, just 1 hex more or around that.
Tanks might also be a problem:
Possible solution? It might still not be enough, but that highground might give enough of a edge to the defender.
Overall I really, really liked the map, this is one of those that Im sad it didnt made it to the finalists.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Crimson Aftermath + Show Spoiler +
at least partly on purpose, but this is one of those things that plays out well on shorter map cycles than the current 3 to 6 month one blizzard is using atm, by the time the cycle comes the map would be hated by all the community.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Red Dragon + Show Spoiler +
Someone mentioned Red Dragon had a heated debate surrounding it so I'm curious there
The Red Dragon discussion centered around this, the relative openness of the highground in front of the Third, and how crucial it is, specially around early-midgame on PvZ.
I really, liked the layout of the map, and even when it has rough edges on other parts, the execution at a "terraining/mapmaking level" of the idea is very well done, but balance wise it doesnt quite hold up. specially when accounting for the far away "alternative" third, and how exposed it is aswell.
Even when accounting for the "Rush" category the map was on, the bases atm are simply too exposed, or they make the toss army that would need to defend them become too exposed, and therefore they would lead to balance issues.
Another point of contention is this area:
Specially the two ramps at the center left, thing is, that I personally dont really dislike them much, because I can't see many alternatives to them being the way they are, as they (imo) are necessary in order to slow down big enemy armies, maybe adding LoS blockers on top of the highground might make them more palatable?
The area marked on red,I also dont consider it strictly necessary for it to be heavily re-designed, but yes maybe re-worked so the "optional" third is closer to the nat ramp, not as exposed, and overall fit better.
Going back into the highground in front of the third, probably a rework on this lines will help regarding openess, specially when we take into account the future addition of Shieldbatteries.
its not just that you absolutely cant wall, theres also so much space where you can get lings and banes almost unseen and hide them. This base is like 240° open without a wall. You can almost get into the main unseen. it is soo open theres like 0 chance for roaches to hug a wall somewhere. cant even put a queen/roach behind the minerals. On most maps, where you couldnt make a whole wall you could at least wall a bit iirc. I can understand the ZvZ problem..
I basically loved this one, but it had some issues on ZvZ on the Nats and around the Thirds with tanks, also, the other judges werent impressed with the lack of apparent choice/differences between the north and the south of the map, meaning that it suffered because both wings of the map are basically the same.
I personally have no issue with that what so ever, because the differences on terrain are mitigated by allowing players to show all their stylistic choices when it comes to actually playing on the map, yet the point they made still stands. So if you were to resubmit (which I would be ok with) I would suggest you to make changes to one of the sides of the map, be the north east or south west in order to differentiate it from the other one.
Also, Nat needs to be made safer on ZvZ:
The creep from the hatch needs to reach the choke point in order to allow Z to walloff, I would recommend to add some doodads/destructible rocks. Something like this might do + Show Spoiler +
. Main base ramp also needs to be tucked away more towards the hatch, in order to allow Z players to quickly do queen walloffs, also, in order to achieve that, the main base hatch/mineral/gas might need to be moved slightly closer to the Main ramp aswell, just 1 hex more or around that.
Tanks might also be a problem:
Possible solution? It might still not be enough, but that highground might give enough of a edge to the defender.
Overall I really, really liked the map, this is one of those that Im sad it didnt made it to the finalists.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Crimson Aftermath + Show Spoiler +
at least partly on purpose, but this is one of those things that plays out well on shorter map cycles than the current 3 to 6 month one blizzard is using atm, by the time the cycle comes the map would be hated by all the community.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Red Dragon + Show Spoiler +
Someone mentioned Red Dragon had a heated debate surrounding it so I'm curious there
The Red Dragon discussion centered around this, the relative openness of the highground in front of the Third, and how crucial it is, specially around early-midgame on PvZ.
I really, liked the layout of the map, and even when it has rough edges on other parts, the execution at a "terraining/mapmaking level" of the idea is very well done, but balance wise it doesnt quite hold up. specially when accounting for the far away "alternative" third, and how exposed it is aswell.
Even when accounting for the "Rush" category the map was on, the bases atm are simply too exposed, or they make the toss army that would need to defend them become too exposed, and therefore they would lead to balance issues.
Another point of contention is this area:
Specially the two ramps at the center left, thing is, that I personally dont really dislike them much, because I can't see many alternatives to them being the way they are, as they (imo) are necessary in order to slow down big enemy armies, maybe adding LoS blockers on top of the highground might make them more palatable?
The area marked on red,I also dont consider it strictly necessary for it to be heavily re-designed, but yes maybe re-worked so the "optional" third is closer to the nat ramp, not as exposed, and overall fit better.
Going back into the highground in front of the third, probably a rework on this lines will help regarding openess, specially when we take into account the future addition of Shieldbatteries.
Really incredible feedback, thanks. The drawings are awesome. I see the logic and agree with a high % of it. I know Grime had a similar ZvZ walling problem before I fixed it pre-submission, so it looks like that is something I need to keep an eye on a lot more. (it would be nice if Blizzard designed their game better so we didn't have to have 20 bandaids per map for different nuanced things like this, but oh well)
@ the one third option being somewhat close to the highground cliffs (and hence siegable) on Crimson Aftermath, I'd like to explain my reasoning for any judges who might see this (just to kind of expose you guys to how mapmakers might be thinking of things, and maybe it will help in the future? idk. transparency is good)
1) it's a pretty easy 3 base if you have the base really far from the cliff. Mech and protoss possibly become cancerous. 2) the picture shows zerg taking a base there and terran being able to siege it, but the idea was that there are multiple 3rd and 4th base options. So against Terran you simply don't take that base until much later.
i.e. Zerg just wouldn't be taking that base against Terran, especially not as a third.
3) In non-terran MUs you still want that base near the cliff so that air harass can still be attempted. Which is why I had the geysers on that side. It being behind double rock I find the base needs to be at least somewhat contestable.
I do appreciate that you acknowledged that it was on purpose and not recklessly placed. lol
To expand on this, IMO people have been thinking about thirds wrongly in SC2 for a while. Me and Sidian have been on this train for a while, but the gist is that if you have multiple third options the chances that people will figure out a way to succeed on the map with their race.. skyrockets. Maps with optional expo paths almost always do well in terms of winrates (assuming there is not some huge imba thing that affects the entire map and overshadows it, such as the long length of apotheosis)
Also it's nitpicky but I'll share why I didn't make this base a half-base
to defend that base from harass you need to have control of all 3 areas (red dots). Kind of hard to do at the same time. Or you can merge the 2 highground dots if you defend on the lowground, but then.. you're on the lowground Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.
1) it's a pretty easy 3 base if you have the base really far from the cliff. Mech and protoss possibly become cancerous.
Not a big worry, because of backdoor rocks+lotv economy avoids it becoming HotS level cancer.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:2) the picture shows zerg taking a base there and terran being able to siege it, but the idea was that there are multiple 3rd and 4th base options. So against Terran you simply don't take that base until much later.
i.e. Zerg just wouldn't be taking that base against Terran, especially not as a third..
Yeah, understandable, problem is that on PvT, the alternative thirds are not close enough/too open for P to take, so P would be forced to take the backdoor third and getting into the same issue.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:3) In non-terran MUs you still want that base near the cliff so that air harass can still be attempted. Which is why I had the geysers on that side. It being behind double rock I find the base needs to be at least somewhat contestable.
Seems fair, tho if you want that I would recommend to change the min line so it is like so: The vespene geysers even when "important" are a lower worker density resource (nª workers mining/resource's footprint area) than minerals and they have the building HP, so if you wanted to make harassment easier on that base you would prefer to make the Mineral line the exposed target instead of the geysers, as making the geysers the target for harass actually reduces the overall damage harassment can make to the enemy's workers/economy, because of the lower worker density the resource has in order to be mined.
Did a small math thingy, hopefully it is easy to understand:
In short, Minerals are small and packed, while Geysers are 3x3 footprints and spaced out, therefore if someone wants to do economic dmg, he will head to the mineral line, where the bigger concentration of workers exist. Going by this placing geysers as the "harassment focused point" goes against what you are trying to achieve. At least that's how I see it, unless you are counting on the harasser's air units parking on the corner? And harassing from the corner's of the map inwards?
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:To expand on this, IMO people have been thinking about thirds wrongly in SC2 for a while. Me and Sidian have been on this train for a while, but the gist is that if you have multiple third options the chances that people will figure out a way to succeed on the map with their race.. skyrockets. Maps with optional expo paths almost always do well in terms of winrates (assuming there is not some huge imba thing that affects the entire map and overshadows it, such as the long length of apotheosis)
Yeah, that works for the most part, I did it on Miserere and Bastion to a certain degree, and it is also why Defender's Resort got to the finalists, because of all the optional thirds and fourths.
But the thing with Crimson Aftermath and to a certain degree Red Dragon is that the optional third bases are not as close as you want them to be in order to have the idea work solidly on P related MU's. There's the case that Shield Batteries might allow P's an easier time securing thirds, but that's not assured, it will depend on Meta development, and we still dont have shield batteries on the actual game. So even if things worked out in the future, the map still doesnt quite work right now.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:Also it's nitpicky but I'll share why I didn't make this base a half-base
to defend that base from harass you need to have control of all 3 areas (red dots). Kind of hard to do at the same time. Or you can merge the 2 highground dots if you defend on the lowground, but then.. you're on the lowground Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.
I wasn't saying it because of Midgame shenanigans, I was saying it because on late game there's probably too many resources on that area of the map in too much close proximity
Taking the central highgrounds on lategame might lockdown the entire bottom right side of the map leaving air harassment to the main, and attacks by the highly defensible "backdoor" rocks/path as the only "alternative path". Thing is that for this specific layout, I dont thing this is per se "bad", I just find it icky, and maybe too turtly, SC2 is no BW, the economy on this game basically doesnt allow constant inefficient trading b/c Worker Pairing, pathing, units are different, I think that even when the map is solid I'm just not convinced on the lategame games on it. But yeah, overall not sure, I guess at the end this is basically a rant on why does SC2 need to have poor economy, and if it whether because of that we might see maps like this one being more solid.
1) it's a pretty easy 3 base if you have the base really far from the cliff. Mech and protoss possibly become cancerous.
Not a big worry, because of backdoor rocks+lotv economy avoids it becoming HotS level cancer.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:2) the picture shows zerg taking a base there and terran being able to siege it, but the idea was that there are multiple 3rd and 4th base options. So against Terran you simply don't take that base until much later.
i.e. Zerg just wouldn't be taking that base against Terran, especially not as a third..
Yeah, understandable, problem is that on PvT, the alternative thirds are not close enough/too open for P to take, so P would be forced to take the backdoor third and getting into the same issue.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:3) In non-terran MUs you still want that base near the cliff so that air harass can still be attempted. Which is why I had the geysers on that side. It being behind double rock I find the base needs to be at least somewhat contestable.
Seems fair, tho if you want that I would recommend to change the min line so it is like so: The vespene geysers even when "important" are a lower worker density resource (nª workers mining/resource's footprint area) than minerals and they have the building HP, so if you wanted to make harassment easier on that base you would prefer to make the Mineral line the exposed target instead of the geysers, as making the geysers the target for harass actually reduces the overall damage harassment can make to the enemy's workers/economy, because of the lower worker density the resource has in order to be mined.
Did a small math thingy, hopefully it is easy to understand:
In short, Minerals are small and packed, while Geysers are 3x3 footprints and spaced out, therefore if someone wants to do economic dmg, he will head to the mineral line, where the bigger concentration of workers exist. Going by this placing geysers as the "harassment focused point" goes against what you are trying to achieve. At least that's how I see it, unless you are counting on the harasser's air units parking on the corner? And harassing from the corner's of the map inwards?
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:To expand on this, IMO people have been thinking about thirds wrongly in SC2 for a while. Me and Sidian have been on this train for a while, but the gist is that if you have multiple third options the chances that people will figure out a way to succeed on the map with their race.. skyrockets. Maps with optional expo paths almost always do well in terms of winrates (assuming there is not some huge imba thing that affects the entire map and overshadows it, such as the long length of apotheosis)
Yeah, that works for the most part, I did it on Miserere and Bastion to a certain degree, and it is also why Defender's Resort got to the finalists, because of all the optional thirds and fourths.
But the thing with Crimson Aftermath and to a certain degree Red Dragon is that the optional third bases are not as close as you want them to be in order to have the idea work solidly on P related MU's. There's the case that Shield Batteries might allow P's an easier time securing thirds, but that's not assured, it will depend on Meta development, and we still dont have shield batteries on the actual game. So even if things worked out in the future, the map still doesnt quite work right now.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:Also it's nitpicky but I'll share why I didn't make this base a half-base
to defend that base from harass you need to have control of all 3 areas (red dots). Kind of hard to do at the same time. Or you can merge the 2 highground dots if you defend on the lowground, but then.. you're on the lowground Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.
I wasn't saying it because of Midgame shenanigans, I was saying it because on late game there's probably too many resources on that area of the map in too much close proximity
Taking the central highgrounds on lategame might lockdown the entire bottom right side of the map leaving air harassment to the main, and attacks by the highly defensible "backdoor" rocks/path as the only "alternative path". Thing is that for this specific layout, I dont thing this is per se "bad", I just find it icky, and maybe too turtly, SC2 is no BW, the economy on this game basically doesnt allow constant inefficient trading b/c Worker Pairing, pathing, units are different, I think that even when the map is solid I'm just not convinced on the lategame games on it. But yeah, overall not sure, I guess at the end this is basically a rant on why does SC2 need to have poor economy, and if it whether because of that we might see maps like this one being more solid.
Interesting points. I think my initial idea with having the geysers being exposed to that side (in the initial position) was if they're being sieged by tanks/whatever then said attackers can actually kill the refineries/prevent mining from them which can be damaging. For air harass / sheer # of worker kills you are right about the mineral line being the preferred choice tho, touche.
@ PvT, I don't think P absolutely needs a choked off / super close 3rd to take it. They've definitely been managing on many LotV maps that don't have either. It does limit their options on how they can open, though, I will agree with you that far at least.
I think it's a delicate tightrope to walk. If you give several super close 3rd options (especially if 1 or 2 of them are "easy for protoss") then the ones he didn't take as his 3rd become easy 4ths and suddenly you're fucking zerg pretty hard
On September 18 2017 21:45 Meltage wrote: Id like to have feedback on Swarms End
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.
Swarm's End is a very, very solid early HotS map, but it has some conception problems, you will probably try to choke up the central ramps and pathway, all of em, in order to divert armies walking through the middle more towards to the "wings" of the map, think of the rocks on the central ramps along the main to main central attack path on Cloud Kingdom.
The use of space needs to be improved, specially around the central highgrounds, Tanks now days are very, very strong, and coupled with Liberators, and widow mines they are dictating map design and map spacing, using space ala Crossfire or even Bel'shir Vestige might lead to your map being imbalanced on T MU's because of lack of alternative pathways/open flanking options.
On September 18 2017 21:45 Meltage wrote:Are the thirds too difficult to take?
The forward third probably isn't, but barely so I think, the clockwise "optional" third which is farther away is also probably too far away. Gold base is probably too easy to take given the problems Bloodboil had on previous season aswell.
On September 18 2017 21:45 Meltage wrote:ADo the paths through the map and expansion pattern create an interresting flow, or is there something to it that would make it play badly?
Flow is pretty good, maybe a bit too much so, as the 3x sized ramps around the edges are good, but they allow for a probably excessively easy army movement, at the same time harming the ease at which players can secure their lategame bases.
It is a bit hard to explain, the way I see it is kinda like this:
It goes on the same line as circle syndrome where the attacker has to travel a smaller distance to the "far" corner bases than the defender, but with the twist that now we need to take vision into account, if the attacker "plays well" he can go a long way into his own attack before getting scouted by his opponent, and by when the defender can react the attacker's army is at a shorter distance to the base than the defender's army is.
Hopefully this one explains it better: To players: Please dont take this image too seriously, it is meant to convey an idea, yes, I know people are meant to scout for where the hell the enemy army is.
The pink line represents the "sensible" extent of vision for red player, he (think it as toss, which is the weaker race vision wise) probably wont be seeing farther than that on a continued/persistent way, which means that he probably wont be able to react in time to reach and defend his "outer" bases, on this case the fifths.
The point I'm trying to make is that atm Swarm's End is pushing the player's armies too much into moving towards or alongside the "outer" edges of the map which tend to be areas where players dont commit much scouting, this is caused by the rather large ramps, choky central highgrounds, diagonal rocks blocking the pathway, and xel'naga vision. And the problem with the defender being unable to react in time to an enemy attack is caused because the bases are too spread apart from each other.
There also are other issues such as chokepoints (purple) placed on positions which harm the defender:
And tweaks to the third and use of space like this:
Might help to avoid possible problems with things like composite Tank+Lib pushes, tho on the image above I think I opened the top left area a bit too much.
To recap:
Optional third too far
Try to recover/gain as much space as possible from the cliffing in the central highgrounds as possible (check my suggestions to Avex's Blackpink)
Remove/rework those chokepoints which affect the defender more than the attacker
Probably reduce the size of the ramps along the borders of the map from 3x to 2x and maybe even add 4x4 rocks to some of the new 2x ramps in order to allow easier defense of the bases behind those chokepoints.
Remove diagonal rocks in the middle.
Add rocks or choke up the central attack passage that goes from Main2Main, on a similar fashion Superouman did on Cloud Kingdom.
Maybe pull xel'nagas a bit further towards the top left/bottom right edges of the map, but it will depend on how easy to traverse the new central attack path will be.
Not sure about this, it is kind of icky to me for couple reasons, but it might spark some ideas. Or maybe just remove them/swap em for blue bases.
On my eyes the map clearly had care put into it, but it suffered from being kind of stuck in time, that imo doesnt make it a bad map, just that some of the ideas that used to be valuable in the past have changed.
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.
Yeah, that pretty much kind of sums up my own feelings about Port Aleksander. Stuff like this, is in my opinion not permissible on ladder, the map as it stands is simply too excessively chokey
Which is a pity, as the map itself, the flow of it is good, so is the overall layout, it is a good standard map that falls prey to bad spacing and too many doodads in the wrong places, like in the center:
A T army at the center with some Libs and Tanks will become easily un-engageable at any level, atm the map is simply too tight.
Here's another example of spacing which needs to be fixed:
I really dont want this post to be a series of pics of tanks with their photoshoped ranges, but atm that's probably the biggest problem the map has, tank abuse because of overall tight spaces, and it is a crippling problem.
Other problem is that behind the mains there is probably too much airspace, yeah, it is ok if a map has airspace behind the main to a certain degree, but for Aleksander it is overreach atm.
The distances/flow/layout on Aleksander is overall pretty good, the distances between Nat and Thirds are ok, tho the limited openness of the thirds is a problem, the highgrounds around the thirds atm are also problematic as they allow enemy armies to park in there and menace/siege the base in such a way that the defending player has to give up the base. + Show Spoiler +
On this scenario above, unless red could flood over the enemy sieged up positions in the highground, he might aswell need to give up his third. This is something one really needs to be very careful with every time that one uses highground near Third or even fourth bases, specially so, nowdays with stronger Tanks and siege units.
My general advice for the map, is remove all of the Port City Cargo colored boxes.
And rework the cliffing of the map, so you can space things better around the map and avoid these highly exploitative positions.
Also, Air Unit blockers for "pretty doodads" are NOT acceptable, reduce the height of the doodad and remove the Air Blocker.
On September 19 2017 15:43 Youngrustler wrote: 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'm very hard line regarding this, the last thing I will tell you is to stick to a single map, what I have done over the years is to create things, if they work with reasonable amount of effort and modifications, good, if they dont, then good as well, and I'll scrap it.
I think that the absolute worst thing you can do is to truly attach yourself to your work, you can make re-makes or "Neo" versions of your maps in the future once you are more experienced, but as you are learning, what you need to do is to make as many maps and fuck up as many of them as fast as possible, all the while learning as much as you can from every one, this is what I told avex back on the starbow days, this is what I told Meavis, this is what I tell everyone, try to make as many maps as possible, but dont publish them, dont put yourself under that pressure, just make maps and learn from them, compare them to mine, to New Sunshine's to Negative's to everyone, then copy my maps, NewSunshine's, negative's and learn the proportions. Then ditch that map you are working on, and start over.
Mapmaking is a skill of its own, that one must refine, you could literally be gold, and be a Top 3 Mapmaker on the world, I know because over the years there have been more than a couple of em (Superouman was Plat when he made Cloud Kingdom). Work on bulk, screw those maps up, learn from them, ditch em, and start on a clean slate, repeat, and wherever you have a map that you think doesnt have many screw ups, you can publish that one, and receive feedback about the screw ups you missed.
I wanted to link a couple videos about advice to people who are interested on drawing, but sadly couldnt find the one, but it wasnt far deeper than what I have just said, make maps, that's the best way to improve, then when you are more experienced you can go back and re-do those which you feel could have been improved.
On September 19 2017 15:43 Youngrustler wrote: Norad Refinery
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.
I'll have to leave this one for another day sadly, it is getting late over here.
Thanks Uvantak, I'll look into revisiting this map later on down the road when I feel comfortable with my mapping skills. I see I need to work on checking siege positions and clean up these small mistakes you pointed out. I got too attached to the map and it wasn't the first map I got attached to which was Abandoned Homeworld which has its own flaws. Commenting about the area space behind the main I heard from many people that protoss wanted there space behind mains back so they could have easier time to harass, but maybe I went a little bit overboard.
I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that maps too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored. In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
On September 30 2017 14:14 Crozo64 wrote: I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that map too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored. In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
I do think while most of the critiques here are solid, the fact that Uvantak plays zerg is noticeable there may be a touch of bias even if he is trying his best to be objective.
Thsnks for the fredback! Really fills in holes in my knowledge and actually explains why -very constructive.Its not just the map that is stuck in early hots ... me too
On September 30 2017 14:14 Crozo64 wrote: I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that maps too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored. In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
idk about the openness of Odyssey, I do agree that the gold on it is excessive, same with avex playing around with the rest of the resources in the map, those changes were not necessary. But yeah, the openness on Odyssey unless you have heard it explicitly said about the map, like, explicitly said (Not in passing mentioning something else, but on focus), I dont consider it to be the end of the world, but more like, the new required standard (probably slightly less open than that), the way I'm seeing things shape up you could make Odyssey even more open in the center than it is now, and only then you would start seeing serious problems other than what we are seeing right now (which atm tends to be for the relative distance between your and the enemy gold more than openness, openness just works as a multiplier to that distance). Which is for the most part just metagame adaptation to the hydras+new map pool, I'm not going to tell you it isnt rough, because it is, but the comparative openness on Odyssey specifically isn't something too outrageous.
Here, did a thingy to show.
Lerilak might be a tad too far to the right, but that's ok I suppose, no tears shed for that map.
On September 30 2017 14:14 Crozo64 wrote: I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that map too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored. In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
I do think while most of the critiques here are solid, the fact that Uvantak plays zerg is noticeable there may be a touch of bias even if he is trying his best to be objective.
Huh. That chart is cool (though considering openness on a single axis has its limitations obviously). I'd definitely consider Mech Depot more open than not though. I think if I was given this chart I'd place Port Alek, Mech Depot and Odyssey further right.
I like that the chart has sequencer pretty far to the right. i always thought it was so weird that people thought it was a very chokey map. Like.. just because something has a ton of wide chokes doesn't make it chokey, right? It's the size of the corridors/chokes not the quantity, at least IMO. (and how often said corridors have openings in them to allow flanking) Maybe that is a somewhat ambiguous word though
On October 01 2017 11:40 Fatam wrote: I like that the chart has sequencer pretty far to the right. i always thought it was so weird that people thought it was a very chokey map. Like.. just because something has a ton of wide chokes doesn't make it chokey, right? It's the size of the corridors/chokes not the quantity, at least IMO. (and how often said corridors have openings in them to allow flanking) Maybe that is a somewhat ambiguous word though
it's "psychological chokiness"... that was very much intentional lol
On October 01 2017 11:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Huh. That chart is cool (though considering openness on a single axis has its limitations obviously). I'd definitely consider Mech Depot more open than not though. I think if I was given this chart I'd place Port Alek, Mech Depot and Odyssey further right.
I was thinking of making a 2 axis one at the start, this is the initial one:
but then I would have needed to make a bunch more to explain how "Openness" (in this case the green peak) on SC2 maps drifts and varies over time and across different metagames and balance patches so by the end I would have needed to make like 4 of em, and aint nobody got time for dat.
Also, regarding Mech Depot, even when the map itself is pretty neutral and kind of open in certain areas it has these things:
Red: Open areas.Cyan: Iron's-Choke points
These "pathways" which arent really open, but more like bridges or constant choke points, where big armies have no space to maneuver other than "go forward" and "go back", so it is definitely not an "open map" because even when it has open areas and the choke point themselves for the most part around the center are "rather open", the length those chokes have been elongated to mean that the chokes still will dictate gameplay but on a different way than what we are used to seeing.
On a mapping level I dont really like em, at a gut level, I see them as poorly executed passages, but truth is that I'm interested on how they play out, maybe they work really well with lurker comps (and for certain they work excellent with tank/bio comps), dunno, I think that even when at gut level im not sold on them. Hope they work ok overall.
Mech Depot is a gigantic enough map that forcing fights in those elongated chokes is quite difficult though. It does happen especially in front of the third, but most of the time you can get open battles if you want to. Zergs do quite well on Mech Depot (though that isn't solely due to the openness).
These "pathways" which arent really open, but more like bridges or constant choke points, where big armies have no space to maneuver other than "go forward" and "go back"
i believe the mapmaking term you're looking for is hallway or corridor
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.
Sadly I lost what I had written about this map on a power outtage and really dont have the time to re-write it, but the gist of it was this;
Map is ok, pocket base is ok tho danger from siegetanks, that's not very good, the center of the map on my eyes isnt interesting at all, specially when you think about the attack pathways players/armies take in order to get to the other side of the map and attack the enemy third/nat, they basically dont change at all as the game progresses.
That lack of central choky pathway kind of kills the map for me and makes it overall less interesting, it is really a mixture of a considerable conglomeration of things, examples range from the rocks and collapsible rocks at the counter-clockwise thirds, to the lack of attack pathway variety, to the bases at the corners, lack of real "flanking" pathway to the third cloud kingdom had, and even when the map is macro and that makes up for that lack of pathway, it doesnt make up for the lack of interesting design that pathway brought to the overall design of the map.
I cant avoid but feel kind of bad for the which I consider poor review because this map was on my eyes very, very on the edge, it is probably considerably better than 95% of your standard blizz maps, and it would have made it in had there not been such a highly competitive category.
On September 20 2017 04:49 lorestarcraft wrote: I would appreciate some feedback on Animal, especially on the concept of split gold bases.
Thanks,
Sadly Animal got cut rather early, because even when the gold bases are neat, it is not something that actually called the attention of the judges, most judges saw it as a gimmick more than anything else, the bases are basically winner's golds atm, and they allow for proxy hatches, or Z's taking them against P, and even when they are indeed exposed, as maps like Bloodboil or even going back to Expedition Lost or Foxtrot, Z's take the bases anyways. A gold base skews the overall balance towards Z, basically always, and that was a considerable concern here, tho what put the final nails was the 2 entrances to the natural base, the 2k diagonal rocks are simply not good enough, it leaves the players too exposed, you would need like 8k or 10k rocks in there, mineral wall, or something like that, and even then because of the way the nat is laid out if you did that it would kind of backfire because I see the base behind the rocks as an "alternative third" which then would become inaccessible. Not to mention that the entire position behind the rocks at the nat is strategically important to hold or at least keep an eye on, and 8 or 10k rocks would hamper the defensive capabilities of players trying to keep control of that area, or avoid enemy armies attacking through that area towards the main/natural.
Sadly this map, with this specific layout can't really be easily saved imo, unless you are willing to put considerable amounts of time reworking things around.
On September 19 2017 18:51 Meavis wrote: Labyrinth Looking to rework the center to make it less lane like, outside of that no major changes
I dont think making it "less lane like" is the option, but at the same time yes? I think the option is to make the connections between the lanes wider, so armies can change lanes more easily. But here you would probably need to talk with other judges, not sure.
On September 19 2017 18:51 Meavis wrote: 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
I figure the rush distance is too short for its other features to work, but I want to just confirm. I get the impression it was discarded quickly for this reason.
Yeah, that's sadly one of the reasons, the other is that judges simply didnt saw it as a map which could be balanced, the natural base is simply too exposed, too easily abused. The fact that the "alternative" Nat bases are open to rushes and what not doesnt help the map, and with the small distances... It is a cool concept mapmaking wise, tho when it comes to the actual ladder, it is bound to create too many balance issues.
I guess my concern is, how well did it do, and what was the specific reason other maps were chosen instead? Looking back I feel its pathing is slightly convoluted.
Yeah, you nailed it there, the main concern was that the map is too chockey, specially for the current iteration of LotV with the very strong tanks+Liberators. Mapmaking wise, the map itself has many areas which at least on my opinion show poor use of space, like the bridges in front of the lowground third bases, or the ramps in front of the third which could have used the space better.
Overall, the map might need a fair amount of changes to spacing and what not. Now days maps like Echo, or this one, on my eyes simply wont work well over extended periods of time on ladder, with the tanks+libs plus any future change the dusruptors or other area control units, I just dont see choky maps giving players a stable enough metagame development. I think we need to do a shift and think more on BW levels of spacing, maybe not as much as BW itself, but something along these lines.
Did this map hit any targets for what constitutes a New map, in the judges' opinion? Was it a blatant imbalance of some sort that knocked it out, or something more subtle?
It is pretty interesting working as judge and seeing people do the same core ideas and seeing how differently they execute things:
Unlike Meav's map which fell because of issues like turtling, and around the first ~3 bases, Gridlock didnt made it because of lack of openess and flanking in the center of the map. Even when the core idea is to have a central lane, the lane on Gridlock is simply too tight atm allowing for Tanks, timings and such to become too strong specially against Z ( ). Cliffing and all, the execution of the map is excellent, but balance concerns regarding the lack of openess in the middle is what finally meant the map didnt made it.
Also other technical things like the Mineral wall, it is a cute addition, but sadly without us being able to change the mineral counts on the base, it is just not good, if we were allowed to change resource amounts then it would work, but alas. Also compounding on this, the small droppeable highground right besides the mineral wall, it is also probably too strong, again, if we were allowed to change it, then I guess you could get away with it like on Moonlight Madness.
Gold bases make me kind of icky, but they seem to work well enough here, as Z cant take them as Thirds, and both players should be able to take their own and more or less being able to defend it. I really like the corner bases aswell, but that's a me thing.
Cliffing around the map aswell might be eating too much space, I think that might have played a role regarding the central pathway of the map being too excessively chocky and without alternative pathways for flanking.
A small snipped, the clockwise bases "alternative fourths" at 2 and 8, I think you can change the mineral lines to be diagonal + Show Spoiler +
and push them up a bit further to the edge without creating too many problems with siege tanks getting in range of the main base's ramp.
Other thing regarding around the Nat base is the ease at which Z's can wall off their choke point, and the fact that queens can't reach the main base ramp fast because the main base ramp right is beyond the edge of creep from the natural hatch.
Much appreciated, will take the time to dig into this in a bit. Most of what I skimmed is stuff I learned and have started to practice since then, and I'm steadily refining my approach to layout construction. Thank you for taking the time.
On September 22 2017 21:19 Samro225am wrote: i'd love to have some feedback, too. Specifically third base, gold base, spacing (openness, chokes, distances) and expansion layout. + Show Spoiler [Verdure Island] +
Verdure imo is a very, very solid map, the layout is cool enough, the spacing between bases is also good, but even when things like the bridges are interesting and all it still failed to catch enough attention vs the competition, remember that the standard category is basically the most competitive of them all.
Here's some of the changes I have in mind.
Many of the changes are focused on slightly increasing openess, and small quality of life changes like the overlord spotting highground, adding the small bridge at the middle in order to avoid a straight line attack path and accent even more the bridges that are already set up, reduce the lenght of some of the bridges to have more space for armies moving around, and have more space in case you want to create changes here and there.
Hopefully the feedback better show you some of the issues that left the map out.
Tried to bring out different features with the return of the gold base, all the little ramps toward the middle, the potential forward 3rd base for aggressive. Figure maybe it was just too "normal"? I dunno. Thanks!
Ok, hopefully this comes out alright
Habitation Station 2 had couple issues, but most of them sprout from the changes you made to the center of the map inverting the position where there used to be choke points and where there used to be wide ramps:
More specifically I'm talking about these choke points:
These changes, even when they generate issues which where correctly addressed like the increased danger of things like armies camping in the highground with siege units (read correctly moved the highgrounds away from the third because of siegetank range):
Because the highgrounds were pushed back a bit, they correctly leave enough breathing room for the defender to maneuver
At the same time, that extra needed openness, leads to issues with the third bases being probably too exposed when accouting, for the missing chokes which were present on the version 1.0 of the map:
Specifically, that key choke near the natural ramp is the one which helped slow down armies from being able to fully envelop the defender's army at the base of the Natural ramp.
Habitation Station 1.0 ---- ---- Habitation Station 2.0
The increase in openness above from 1.0 to 2.0 is very clear on the map analyzer.
The main issue here, is that said chokepoint helped a fair amount, on allowing the rather exposed Third base set up on Habitation Station to work, because it helped reduce the flow of the attacker's army, and acted as a small buffer.
Now unlike many of the other maps that I have reviewed on this thread, this map accounted very well for the "Siege Tank Menace", by moving the central highgrounds a bit back, but on doing so, and by removing the chokepoint near the natural ramps, it helped weaken its own Third base set up.
The trick here, is that, if the Shield Batteries that are being tested atm end up working, and allowing Toss players to take more exposed Third bases, then that would indeed mean that this map as it stands might very well work in that scenario, the kicker tho, is that the Shield Batteries atm are not on the main game, and as such, it got dropped off the "Standard Category race".
Now that out of the way, here's a more personal mapmaking angle to other things which I consider issues with the way the choke points were inverted, and it is the creation of a central plateau which is not particularly easy to for both players access to, specially when the armies are roaming around the map on the Early Lategame or Late Midgame. Meaning, I see this plateau as an area where a single player will want to be around most often than not, instead of having the two players interact.
Classic colored map:
By the coloring you can kinda tell what I mean, I consider the center of the map might be too "detached", choke points were highlighted to better show the idea.
And here is how it looks with the attack paths are shown.
Size of arrows, represent difficulty traversing terrain, the bigger the arrow, the easier big armies can travel.
Both maps clearly have the preference for the "top" attack path (bottom on 2.0), which is the mark of Habitation Station, yet, Habitation Station 2.0 also has this almost pendulum like attack path on the middle/central plateau, because on 2.0 it is easier to attack the "enemy" side of the plateau once you "climbed" onto it, than it is to actually "get" your army on top of the plateau because the chokepoints prevent easy access to it when going "up".
So because of those difficulties, at the end, on my mind you kind of end up with something like this:
Where the central plateaus can become kind of like a pendulum. Swaying depending on who's on top of the plateau, and whoever is, because of the inherent difficulty of actually getting there can also keep the other player down, because he has the highground advantage.
Most maps which have mirroed symmetry can become like this, in the close past we have played on Gettysburg which had this kind of feature, yet there the Third base wasnt as exposed as here, nor was it on the same scale, it was for the most part limited to the North of the map, not quite the entirety of the center, and it had the large ramps which made easier to attack up.
All of this leads to a final point, how easy to defend the "bottom" bases truly are, and at least to me, the answer is "not very" defensible.
So, yeah, there also is the entire thing with the 3 gases on the Golds, and Pros were kind of interested on it, I personally, can't really talk about that kind of specific balance, I mean, I could, but I dont feel personally that I know enough of current and possibly future metagame and balance development to for sure say if those Golds will for certain be "broken" or no, tho, I would seriously advice for caution and at least remove 1 of the gases, they are cute as they are a good bonus lategame, but because of the gold minerals, the entire base also gives a considerable boost to any player's economy at any point in the game, so yeah, tricky.
Almost forgot, bigger main base is kind of neat! And you might want to do what Meavis does when he does the square cliffing, to avoid SCV's getting stuck, just a quality of life kind of thing.
You didnt ask for specifics, so I'll just give a general outline.
Map overall is "fine", the core layout is a pretty solid standard map, the spacing between the nat and all the alternative thirds is overall good tho it touches a bit too much on the too close side of things, but that's a detail, the nat choke is also good + Show Spoiler +
.
The space behind the Nat mineral line is also decent, not too big, enough for ovies and the harassing liberator.
Tho beyond those issues, the core idea of standard maps such as this one, isnt too shabby, a bit dull in the center, but solid enough with the highgrounds and the Xel'naga Towers.
On September 22 2017 21:19 Samro225am wrote: i'd love to have some feedback, too. Specifically third base, gold base, spacing (openness, chokes, distances) and expansion layout. + Show Spoiler [Verdure Island] +
Verdure imo is a very, very solid map, the layout is cool enough, the spacing between bases is also good, but even when things like the bridges are interesting and all it still failed to catch enough attention vs the competition, remember that the standard category is basically the most competitive of them all.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the map. Amongst other changes I might reconsider how the centre works. The changes won't make it the most exciting conceptual map,but hopefully very, very solid and a bit more interesting than before.
On October 14 2017 12:34 Uvantak wrote: Here's some of the changes I have in mind.
Many of the changes are focused on slightly increasing openess, and small quality of life changes like the overlord spotting highground, adding the small bridge at the middle in order to avoid a straight line attack path and accent even more the bridges that are already set up, reduce the lenght of some of the bridges to have more space for armies moving around, and have more space in case you want to create changes here and there.
Hopefully the feedback better show you some of the issues that left the map out.
The ideas offered are small adaptations that should be easy enough to make and should be quite effective.
The only thing I am not so sure about is the main ramp change due to distance to the third. Probably I can come up with a bigger overall change in the starting quarter of the map that helps me increase main space, but also have a better ramp setup there and create more space for the cliff-hugging low ground base.
About the changes in the map's centre I am also not 100% sure, since the tight corridor will still not be an open area. Mainly i am unhappy about that area's integration to the gold on the one side and the common base on the other.
hence I consider to increase map width slightly to have some more space for that. In this process I will consider to change how the map splits. Right now there is a diagonal split that creates two parallel low ground buffer zones that are a bit tricky to navigate. If I manage to change the central bridge's/choke's orientation (90°). What I mean by this is that the forward ramp from the gold plateau will no longer move down into a tight lateral transfer zone, but down into a more basin shaped area that has a higher connectivity to the opponents bases (the vertical highroad ledge along the map's borders lefthand right. In my imagination at least this will also create better flow and integration overall without making it too anti-macro.
your mock-up with the three bridges is somewhat close to what the setup was before, btw. yet it will make the lateral zones between bridges and bases even a stronger aspect of the map and i think this would be problematic.
Here are two sketches about the probably somewhat problematic lateral transfer zones and an illustration about the basin-idea with the new central bridge idea for more openness and a more vertical split.
EPT![[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)
![[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://i.imgur.com/GLEFxdY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4TLBKz7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qvQyKID.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cml58Mi.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UzWyy4g.jpg)
In an earlier version I had it on the high ground, not covering the big ramp but even more potentially drop routes. But that made the sides of the map and the "runby path" even less important so I moved them.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tHpOLCK.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xwPjitp.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/DyJvNjt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3LcHW7c.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/d2Jf6zs.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/qqTEDFI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/8I9SoND.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/MoCuzQh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/PAYGG25.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/h9XaPmh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/7NG4P7y.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/AJe7QMy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/4CUXuuf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/DPUjJAd.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/U2hAgyT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/PkRwiuZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/siV9h3w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6qYT1od.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6AnK2bR.jpg)
Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fGRfY9d.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JGnIZZ0.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eyigBeN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pUqjjYn.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vTwZcDc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lK4c6Ng.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VeoLyjZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fYetiKO.jpg)
Not sure about this, it is kind of icky to me for couple reasons, but it might spark some ideas.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/myzsltm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AHRTaTi.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yggRz0n.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xY7ZWRo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/n74eKvi.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HXxwYmy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/X8W5WtA.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sh2J8QL.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0rIiOkz.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/syCwgrv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5NUafCf.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0n2Sf0Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aaS2eRY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ovr7TKv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CG0kyQS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uQT6sd6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RCe5R6H.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rMsesb6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yIN52JT.jpg)
). Cliffing and all, the execution of the map is excellent, but balance concerns regarding the lack of openess in the middle is what finally meant the map didnt made it.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RpeIz3V.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RFuivQ8.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/P7JSNX3.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gd3gLCW.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/XbZz53e.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NqL0wPp.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RNNv734.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/M7UiY7F.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8UUQu6W.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SFlv9NN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bm5cR2H.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/e39qbtX.gif)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4IBumBW.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/lUwrhFg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZqkgOgg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OFETSXb.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7iLX7QQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2KF3ZH0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WRtPqyh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ROS5x9f.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nekRjT7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/XtUcnGS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eILZkCs.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WDS0fJU.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nTgifSw.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/j1GwFbp.jpg)
