• Log InLog In
• Register

TLMC10 Feedback Thread - Page 2

Post a Reply Prev 1 2 All

Uvantak Uruguay1381 Posts March 01 2018 19:21 GMT #21 After a small delay, the Feedback videos for the finalist Rush category maps has been published! TLMC#10 Finalists Feedback: Rush For those interested the final feedback videos on the Standard category maps should be uploaded probably by Sunday

Uvantak Uruguay1381 Posts March 02 2018 20:35 GMT #22 Ok, so because of the considerable amount of Standard Maps, I had to divide the amount of work into parts, so here's the first part of the Finalist Feedback for the Standard Category maps! TLMC#10 Finalists Feedback: Standard part 1 Ideally, the final batch of Feedback would come somewhere around Sunday, maybe Monday. And after that I would retake into giving feedback to the non-finalists.

octomologyst 12 Posts March 08 2018 16:48 GMT #23 For Khala Sanctuary, was it too chokey to be considered standard? The rock at the linear third definitely doesn't need to be there. I felt pretty good about this map but I suppose I did submit it to the hardest category. Were there any other major flaws? + Show Spoiler + Moment's Notice: I liked this map as well, but I assume the path outside the nat was the killing blow? + Show Spoiler +

Uvantak Uruguay1381 Posts March 08 2018 18:48 GMT #24 Here it is! Finally out, the second and final set of the Standard Category maps. [TLMC#10 Finalists Feedback: Standard part 2 This concludes the feedback towards the finalists themselves which Sidian and others asked about, so I'll take a couple "off" days (like 4), and after that I'll continue doing written & video reviews of the maps posted on this thread :3

Meavis Netherlands1299 Posts April 03 2018 15:36 GMT #25 so, thats it again?

Uvantak Uruguay1381 Posts April 03 2018 18:10 GMT #26 On April 04 2018 00:36 Meavis wrote: so, thats it again? No, I'll continue, but I havent been able because I have been doing other things, like contacting you all (including broodwar and korean mapmakers) to get you recognition prizes from Blizz. My time is limited Meavis

Uvantak Uruguay1381 Posts April 06 2018 22:04 GMT #27 On February 15 2018 07:44 Meavis wrote: Overpass got cut rather early because it is a non-standard map sent to the standard category. The walloff at the natural is non-standard And the rocks mean that if you do the walloff you will still be exposed to a degree in the lategame wherever your opponent tries a "sneaky" attack taking down the rocks and catching you out of position. The counterplay to that is take down the debris yourself, but that leaves you exposed to shelling from the highground right in front of the pathway between the nat and previously blocked fourth (third?) base. We also have got the issues with the third base. Tanks even when they cant reach, Terran can still exploit Medivac/marine with tank support combinations from the highground to take down/heavily cripple enemy Toss/Zerg players. And because of the rocks which because of their high HP can't be taken down easily early game (too high of time commitment), means that the non-T player will have a veeery hard time trying to deal "head on" with the sieging enemy army. Then accounting for the Xel'naga up there it means that you just wont be able to get any surprise surround because you will be easily spotted doing so The entire idea of the elevated highground is cool, but currently unless some deep changes are done to the map, it just doesnt work balance wise. On February 15 2018 07:44 Meavis wrote: iirc we spoke about this one, iirc, agreement between the judges was that the map would favor Z too strongly because of the rich mineral line in the back and the distance between players. The changes to the center were good, but metagame has changed since the creation of the map and current metagame dictates that the size of the map it is slightly too big. Treachery is iirc around the same size (ish), but it also has a lower resource density in the initial bases making it "less dull" for today's meta. A good comparison might be with Neon Violet Square regarding resource density, but that map's bases are harder to defend than Labyrinth's (easier to win a positional battle there because the defender has a hard time getting in position to defend big attacks to his bases in front) On February 15 2018 07:44 Meavis wrote: Black Lotus had little discussion, but the biggest issue is this one: The walling off area is too much forward, I know that this is a design thing, but it was/is too easily exploitable by Z players, specially so in the early game. Solution is straight forward, allow players a secondary walloff point close to their TownHalls I can't say much else regarding how easy to split, or how the map might be too macro friendly, if you want that kind of feedback id suggest you to annoy Snute and Pengwin, they as Zergs might have other things to say about the macrofriendliness of the map.

Prev 1 2 All

Please log in or register to reply.