TLMC12 Feedback Thread - Page 2

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 All

Superouman

France2195 Posts

March 13 2019 08:51 GMT

#21

Redshift had a backdoor base that didn't block vision and i don't remember any complains about blink.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

March 14 2019 16:35 GMT

#22

On March 11 2019 07:09 monitor wrote:

Show nested quote +

Is it considered a problem that the entire nat/in-base third can be blinked/DT shaded/infested terran/etc. over without vision?

Not really, the DT thing is considerably minor, as it is a lategame scenario where players will have counter play measures, the Blink stalker aspect might be slightly more problematic, but even then that's still minor because TvP with stalkers isnt meta, and the main aim of blink stalker allins is more than anything to be able to break the main base or do harassment there than the natural itself.

The infested marines part is also not quite much of a problem given that they arent used for 2base timing pushes, but as lategame anti-air tools.

monitor

United States2403 Posts

March 14 2019 17:34 GMT

#23

On March 15 2019 01:35 Kantuva wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 11 2019 07:09 monitor wrote:

On March 10 2019 08:02 Kantuva wrote:

On March 08 2019 11:37 themusic246 wrote:
Stellara Seabed:
+ Show Spoiler +

Was the usage of IZGs not appealing enough, or were other aspects of the map too weak?

As you well noticed the biggest issue from my personal perspective was the fact that first the overly diverging attack paths mean that players armies can't easily meet in the center creating a higher preponderance to base race situations.

+ Show Spoiler +

Then you have got the overly easy map split axis

+ Show Spoiler +

Players have been focusing more and more on these map split situations in the latest TLMC's, and as you might have seen aswell it is becoming pretty standard for maps to reach such late stage games, therefore going forward it would be very recommended for mapmakers to focus more in making sure that said lategame stages arent problematic causing overly passive gameplay.

The last factor was of couse the slim usage of Slowing Zones specially in the areas where players will interact the most, and the alternate issue of them being in areas that will promote overly passive gameplay.

If you want more feedback on it, id recommend asking Avex, as he also probably had other things to say.

On March 08 2019 11:37 themusic246 wrote:Sands of Rak'Shir:
+ Show Spoiler +

Was the meta of the gold walls and natural ramp walls too much? Or was the meta too advanced for the noobs? Any other glaring issues?

For this particular map, I think that the mix of Gold patches with the new wall patches is just too much for overall playerbase, that's it without even mentioning the metagame from such a thing, just picture a Z taking a proxy hatch there, getting some spines mining from the gold patches like people used to do on Expedition Lost and wall patches only to then gain a second entrance to the enemy base by mining the patches at the ramp. It is simply too much synergy.

I think that the idea of having alternative entrances to the nat with the new mineral walls is certainty something that everybody needs to explore more of, specially now that we saw that RQM did with Thunderbird and the 5 mineral patches, but we still gotta be careful with how we set up these sort of things.

When it comes to structural spacing of the map, I feel that there's simply too much space not used efficiently enough, around the 3 and 6 oclock areas, right "behind" the natural bases there is some air space that isnt strictly needed, and could have been better used by pushing the main and natural bases closer to the edge of the map, therefore releasing space to be used more in the center, and that way you could have done something more interesting than the long thin path, maybe something of a snakey path? Akin to a horizontally mirroed Anomaly. That said, it would still be problematic because as you know the mirror symmetry doesnt lends itself to creating all that interesting SC2 maps.

Is it considered a problem that the entire nat/in-base third can be blinked/DT shaded/infested terran/etc. over without vision?

Right, that all makes sense to me. The only other point of view that I can think of is that you don't want players being 'surprised' by builds they didn't realize were possible - for example, a hand full of blink stalkers appearing behind your natural without the P player having gotten a robo would be confusing. Or a dark templar appearing at a terran's in-base third that they assumed would be protected by detection at the natural if the P player never got a robo. Of course, these scenarios could be fixed fairly simply with highground or LoS blockers lining the edge of the bases (would need to be on the defenders side with ignore placement requirements so there are no corners with vision).

Edit: Forgot to mention that it is the 'standard practice' to assume that your natural cannot be blinked or DT shaded into except for the front choke without vision, because that is how every map is with the exception of an unexpected sightline in the natural on Blackpink, which was abused in the GSL. On a map like Redshift, I can see how the set up is much less problematic because it is in fact a prominent feature of the map, and would not be a 'surprise' to players for blink stalkers to show up without a robo.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

March 14 2019 21:18 GMT

#24

On March 15 2019 02:34 monitor wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 15 2019 01:35 Kantuva wrote:

On March 11 2019 07:09 monitor wrote:

On March 10 2019 08:02 Kantuva wrote:

On March 08 2019 11:37 themusic246 wrote:
Stellara Seabed:
+ Show Spoiler +

Was the usage of IZGs not appealing enough, or were other aspects of the map too weak?

Then you have got the overly easy map split axis

+ Show Spoiler +

On March 08 2019 11:37 themusic246 wrote:Sands of Rak'Shir:
+ Show Spoiler +

Was the meta of the gold walls and natural ramp walls too much? Or was the meta too advanced for the noobs? Any other glaring issues?

Is it considered a problem that the entire nat/in-base third can be blinked/DT shaded/infested terran/etc. over without vision?

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from, but even then I think that we have got enough head space in order to create those situations, I dont think it is bad to allow said places in certain maps, but only if those scenarios are telegraphed correctly to the player, and in here I think that the gap is short enough to provide players with the idea that it will be blinkable.

Now when it comes to actually responding to said scenario happening, I think that can also to a degree be pushed out to players, specifically because I dont see as the mapmaker's responsibility to assure that players do the proper level of scouting and respond to it, that said, I do consider our responsibility to create scenarios where players are nudged into doing the proper scouting and dont get overly screwed when they dont , but given the current metagame situation I dont consider that to be a high priority problem for Stellara atm

On March 15 2019 02:34 monitor wrote:
Edit: Forgot to mention that it is the 'standard practice' to assume that your natural cannot be blinked or DT shaded into except for the front choke without vision, because that is how every map is with the exception of an unexpected sightline in the natural on Blackpink, which was abused in the GSL. On a map like Redshift, I can see how the set up is much less problematic because it is in fact a prominent feature of the map, and would not be a 'surprise' to players for blink stalkers to show up without a robo.

Hmmmm, I think..... I think that issue in particular of naturals being "safe areas" should be brought up to the DevTeam to answer as it touches into too many areas for "us" to decide.

I think that, it is pretty clear given past maps Blizzard and DevTeam have released that they arent all too concerned with creating aggressive natural bases, specially if we measure that factor by the openness of the natural chokepoints or something of the sort. Now when it comes to actual TLMC, judges have been raising the issue of exposed naturals but with a different gist, they generally want the natural bases to be "above battling ground", meaning, it would seem that players want naturals to be quite safe, with a ramp leading down from it. From my perspective and from theirs that would be an answer to things like Lurker pushes, and other sorts of timings. The general opinion is mixed tho because either natural base set up has got different challenges and benefits from both mapmaking and gameplay angles, and I wouldnt advocate one of the other for mappers to do. But yeah, something to keep in mind.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

March 16 2019 21:34 GMT

#25

On March 08 2019 21:37 KillerSmile wrote:
Sunken Endion
+ Show Spoiler +

-Specifically looking at the bases and area around the xelnaga tower.

-Would it be wise to turn this map into a standard map and try next TLMC?

I played this version of the map while judging, I found it actually pretty good, imo you did a good job with the judging feedback and time available

When it comes to the area near the xel'nagas, even when it makes me kind of icky, I think that the area and the exposed base in the lowground are more or less okay, I do consider that maybe you might want to do a full walloff with the mineral line in order to promote movement across the very edge of the map, which would also have the double effect of making that base less exposed/farther to attacks from the central highground

[image loading]

Tho my actual issue would be with this area.

[image loading]

Something like this maybe?

[image loading]

Hopefully the changes express my thought process, as I consider the very corner bases to have clear "owners", I disagree with the slowing zone being "on the side" of the defender hurting its defender capabilities or retreat of probes further accenting how exposed the base feels to air harassment specially from T with drops

The changes to the 2 ramps, would be in order to "open up" that area that way hopefully avoiding problems with armies being able to deny "forever" the "exposed" lowground base, tho it would have the drawback of making the highground 3rd base considerably more exposed to players, a possible fix for that besides the slowing zones in the cardinal ramp might be to add 6x6 sets of rocks on "the closer to the third" side of the ramp.

The terrain object there in front of the third base would probably be biting slightly too much into pathable area, maybe you could find fitting replacements for that shard doodad in the actual doodad section.

Lastly, this collapsible rock...

[image loading]

I really dont like it from a "mapmaking perspective", but having played the map I do think that it can be pretty handy to have there and it actually accents gameplay, but I dont know, I think there might be a better way, tho as the image shows I would 100% reduce the size of the little overlord pod there

Other alternative for the bases near the xel'naga

[image loading]

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

March 16 2019 22:11 GMT

#26

On March 08 2019 21:39 Sanglune wrote:
Hana no Shimada
+ Show Spoiler +

I'm aware of a lack of overlord pods and potential liberator issues at the horizontal third.

Currently I placed overlord pods above both rocks (clockwise behind them). I have an updated image with aforementioned pods but since they were not part of the official submission you're free to ignore it.

Furthermore, I'm in no rush with feedback so feel free to put this last (or even ignore it) if the workload becomes too much.

First and foremost, for all that's holy, please make the map easier to read, the texturing already makes it hard to read, but there are wayyy too many areas that arent instantly recognizable to the pathable, even more so given that you are using plants scattered across different levels, or areas which give false choices such as overlord pods that arent so.

[image loading]

It is 100% alright to have cool aesthetics, like the walking area behind the third, but do not create situations where players can easily get confused.

On March 08 2019 21:39 Sanglune wrote:
Since they were not part of the official submission you're free to ignore it....

No....

In the ovie pods in front of the lowground third, those are false choices because if one where to park units there those units could rather easily get sniped by units standing or giving vision from the highground.

On March 08 2019 21:39 Sanglune wrote:
and potential liberator issues at the horizontal third.

Given the current metagame, liberator spots near third bases arent that much of an issue anymore, that said, I still would not advice you to do what you did with the air blockers. Just dont use them, it is far better to have an open-ish area near the bases than to use those to patch up a problem that shouldnt exist to begin with...

_________________________________________

I know this is 100% a meme now... but... maybe?.... <.<
+ Show Spoiler +

KillerSmile

Germany84 Posts

March 17 2019 17:02 GMT

#27

Kantu dishing out more ice than my local italian gelateria =D
(I know, it's for visibility)

Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it. Turning the exposed base into a mineral wall is certainly the right choice and really clever. Guess I'll have to come up with interesting terrain leading into the very corner bases of the map.

I was hoping the slowing field that makes the corner base harder to take was tolerable, since the distance to the last expansion is so low and could encourage the taking of the lowground third (where the slowing field directly guard the base instead). I get it tho. Would probably be more annoying than interesting most of the time and not work out as planned.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

March 23 2019 18:12 GMT

#28

On March 08 2019 23:40 SidianTheBard wrote:
Into The Beyond:
+ Show Spoiler +

Curious what the biggest issue with this map is because it has the standard main/nat, has a choice of thirds and from each third you have many options for a 4th so the expansion pattern of the map would be constantly changing and thus bending to the styles of the players. Each base offers plenty of harass opportunities to keep it from being too turtlish. I'm guessing maybe the middle is too restricted and judges didn't like that? Although, it's something that we don't see often and would force engagements in the middle where it's choked I figured.

Correct, the center throws the map out of whack because there simply arent true ways to go from one side to the map to the other without needing to retread beyond the center, and even then for players to do that they still need to take down rocks.

There isnt nothing wrong with having maps with a very tight center, I think maps with a center even tigher than this would be alright as long as measures are taken to avoid said center from "ruling" the map, the issue here with Into The Beyond is that said counter measures werent taken.

The main attack path is overly linear, and without true flanking options

[image loading]

The main attack paths are simply too strongly etched into the map, the rocks, even when they open it up a bit more, it just isnt enough. Even if the rocks where removed the main attack path is still probably too strong.

The front of the Natural would be the most "open-ish" spot where engagements could be taken against siege armies, but even that spot has got its own problems given that it will still need to be a head on engagement without the option for flanks

[image loading]

That position would be super problematic in TvZ, ZvP and TvP, or any MU where surrounds to a siege army are needed.

....

For as generic as it might be, something like this could be better.

[image loading]

Still not ideal because of the rather short distances, but still would be a positive step.

On March 08 2019 23:40 SidianTheBard wrote:
Blood Trials:
+ Show Spoiler +

Would prefer to know what the biggest issue with this map is and if you believe it's the gold or not? Having a super easily takeable but super harassable gold base seems like a huge risk vs reward which would be fun.[1] The rocks block early game movement and also help hold / harass the gold. The pathways, especially once open are everywhere around the map, plus there aren't too many super wide open spaces so even moving armies anywhere on the map doesn't make you feel completely exposed. Yet, there are plenty of attack paths so flanks can easily happen. I believe this map is improved on from the TLMC11 version which judges said the middle lowground bases didn't serve a purpose but still curious.

Issue is that those are simply winner's golds, whom ever takes and maintains the base basically wins, or gets a considerable advantage. Just because of those golds ZvZ becomes broken, not to mention ZvP.

I was very much rallying against Hyper Rich bases, because we saw a high amount of them, and in the past we have already had issues with "simple" gold ones, Hyper Rich bases only make things worse.

I'm still very open to the idea of "a next Habitation Station", in Gold base usage. But adding 2 Rich Vespene (each equivalent to 2 normal geysers btw) to it just isnt the way to go.

[image loading]

Something akin to this ↑ maybe?

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

March 23 2019 19:03 GMT

#29

On March 09 2019 05:44 Zweck wrote:

Dispatch
+ Show Spoiler +

Mostly i had my hopes for this map. I like it. Was it dismissed because of the offensive highground? Thats what i maybe would expect, but i think it is far away enough, even with offensive tanks. And it wasnt called out in the pre-feedback. Is it maybe just too "standard" in a way and brings nothing new?!

For the most, personally I liked the map a fair amount. I was certainty worried about the central highground and "downstream pushes" from it, changing it to a lowground indeed makes it feel "safer"....

[image loading]

But it also I feel takes away from the map itself, personally I have got a platonic love for those central highgrounds, probably because I really like Matchpoint. But with past experiences players arent all too comfortable with them, and given that there are indeed several pro-player judges, I can very easily see that feeling players have getting in the way of slightly higher scoring.

That said, I dont consider the map "overly dull", or too standard, I think it is kind of a sweet spot, I would certainty recommend you to re-submit it, and lastly I would recommend to try to make open areas, slightly more open, as personally currently even when those areas are "ok", because of the cliffing that you are using said areas just feel more choked up.

Tho.... First fix dis! ↓

+ Show Spoiler +

On March 09 2019 05:44 Zweck wrote:
Shamrock Fane
+ Show Spoiler +

In the Pre-judging Feedback i was suggested to move the IZG away from the center. We'll i didn't. And explained my thoughts in the submission message... + Show Spoiler +

A solid standard map, that has a little bit of a different middle part. The XNT is very powerful, so the straight way through the middle is blocked off with Inhibitor zones, to even this out. In the older Version of the map from TLMC11, the small lowground in the middle could be totally blocked off with 4x collapsible rocks, which was interesting, but created some little racial imbalances. So the inhibitor zones were just perfectly to balanced out the XNT. The middle part of this map, was just predestined for inhibitor zones.

Despite the Presubmission feedback, i didnt change the inhibitor fields, after thinking about this for a long time. Im not a fan of placing more inhibitor zones and combine those with additional rocks or such. I think it would make the map too complicated and a bit annoying to play on. The introduction of inhibitor zones themself add a pretty new features, that needs to be used very carefully. They need to be introduced in a gentle way, if they should be ladder apropiate, and not used all over the place to overkill the players in like 6 different places with 2 different appraches to it.
Players shouldn't be forced to move through them at some point. The map should mostly be played in a normal fashion, with a little twist, or they end up like RMTs.

Also im completely not a fan of a Inhibitor zone+ rock combination to block off a path. First a smaller army, ist just faster when it moves through the field. Later a bigger army might clear the rocks quicker, but then there will be a path that is half affected from an inhibitor zone, half not. An army moving through will be half quick, and half slow, and gets scattered, or you wait with the quicker part for the slower part to catch up and in the end you could have just blocked the complete path with the inhibitor field anyway.

I think have a path half affected from the inhibitor zone, can be very annoying. Image you are always forced to manually funnel a bigger army through the thin part of the path that is not affected by the zone, because the ai will not care of the zone when it calculates army movement. You would have to split your army into smaller parts and move them one after the other, to be quicker then move them all at once.

This might add something to do for the player and rewards the player that micromanages more, but for eventual viewers it is more entertaining to watch actual interaction between players, and not players trying to properly move smaller parts of an army around the inhibitor zones. Sc2 has enough action to offer we dont need aditional minigames on the map. Also it is just annoying for players that dont have a proper apm to micromanage you army movement like that and still keep up your macro. Just my thoughts.

TLDR.:
I really wanted few IZGs and i wanted to balance out the powerful XNT with a XNT + IZG combo.
As we saw in the tournament people don't really micro around the IZGs and tbh dont really interact with the IZGs at all. They mostly just didnt care, the IZGs had little impact. Wouldnt it be nice when players are forced to interact with the IZGs because its combined with a powerful XNT and dont just move through them somewhere on the map by chance?
So was it maybe dismissed because you think XNT + IZG isnt as cool of a combo as i thought, and i didn't spam IZGs enough everywhere?

Regarding the Slowing Zones, we had others maps that were submitted that had suuuuper soft usage of Slowing Zones, yet the issue is that, on many of these maps the usage was so soft so as to make it that the Slowing Zones didnt affect games played on the maps, or that they could be almost ignored altogether, and the problem with that is that it goes against the idea of having said areas be introduced and having players actually interact with them to begin with.

I think that you are indeed right on realizing that it wouldnt be all too fun for players to need to avoid Slowing Zones all the time, yet, Shamrock itself goes too light on it. Having slowing zones on the Xel'naga is alright, yet not having them anywhere else when there's a good potential for them is missing the chance.

I think that the suggestion to add more IZG's, it showed screenshots on too many areas, I consider that maybe adding half of what you saw/was suggested would have been a more than acceptable middle ground.

DevTeam wants players to experience different flavors with the Slowing Areas, the issue with Shamrock and a couple other maps is that said extra flavour is simply overly diluted, and even when you are indeed correct of players not really interacting strongly with Slowing Areas, that still isnt "good" for shamrock itself and the density and positioning of said IZG's, specially because even when the Xel'naga is indeed pretty stronk, it isnt that important either, not to mention that players usually send a single unit to it.

All of that out of the way, Shamrock got indeed quite close to the Finalists with a Top 6 spot, so dont be disheartened as it is a good map, and Id recommend resubmitting just like with Dispatch.

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

March 24 2019 19:55 GMT

#30

thx for feedback!! <3

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 13 2019 18:54 GMT

#31

Feedback is back on the menú boyos! 👀

On March 09 2019 09:19 monitor wrote:
Commodore
148x128
+ Show Spoiler +

1) Do the judges feel that the backdoor would be too powerful for an attacker?
2) Do the judges feel that the lowground full-base third is too open?

1) Yes, even when you did good with how you managed the distances specifically for siegetanks only being able to barely reach the natural vespene geyser, it is still super spooky, because armies that set up in that position can still do lots of damage.

I really like the usage of mineral patches akin to good ole destination, the issue atm from my perspective is that the way the base is set up means that an army that attacks through it with siege units, specifically terrans can exploit that area thoroughly, and that alone raises lots of concerns;

[image loading]

Stuff like this isnt seen all that often now days, but wherever a map that strongly favors it appears, be sure that it will be exploited

Then you will have areas such as this one;

[image loading]

Even when now days it isnt that much of a problem because of a metagame change some months ago, on this particular set up it is potentially problematic

And over those problems you have got the overly linear central attack path

[image loading]

And that is so, over a rather extreme map split axis

[image loading]

That can potentially lead to a very strong circle syndrome scenario

On March 09 2019 09:19 monitor wrote:
Percolator
148x128
+ Show Spoiler +

1) Do judges feel that a layout as crazy as this will always be automatically disqualified in the TLMC (short of a crazy natural/third set up challenge)?
2) This map isn't the most aesthetically pleasing. Did that come up with judges, and if so, how heavily is that weighed?

Looking forward to your feedback and insight into the judging process!

1) Not... Really.... Remember that Sidian's Battle on the Boardwalk was a quite non-standard layout when it came to the gold base, but this one is certainly far more non-standard than that one.
In this case the pro-player section of the Judging Panel was quite far from actually linking the map, it was simply far too non-standard

That's the classic thing, remember that maps which hit ladder need to be stable and balanced for considerable timeframes, and the more a map goes into the side of being non-standard the higher the risk that wont be the case creating problems for WCS, proplayers and balance

2) Judges very rarely actually care for aesthetics, what matters is the gameplay

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 13 2019 19:06 GMT

#32

On March 09 2019 10:26 JaleVeliki wrote:
Map name: Double Agent
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 09 2019 10:26 JaleVeliki wrote:
- what were the biggest problems with the map?

Biggest issue are the 9 oclock gold bases, they are basically winner's gold bases.

The problem with them is that, the gold bases in Habitation Station worked is exactly because they werent all too easy to take down because of the highground and the distance between the cliffline facing the xel'naga and the townhalls, and that coupled with the ramps facing each player allowed a "possible" defense of the bases. That simply isnt the case here.

If the bases were just blue, and the collapsible rocks where changed by a mineral wall, then we could be talking, but that just isnt the case.

On top of that problem you have got the 3 oclock bases, which are severed from the center, but at the same time connected to each other, that just isnt good because it heavily foments players sniping each other's townhalls wherever their armies get out of position. It is always a good idea to make sure that players can take both closest bases at the same time, if anything to avoid these kind of problems, as it stands they are quite awkward from a mapmaking and gameplay perspective

On March 09 2019 10:26 JaleVeliki wrote:
- would turning the gold into a regular base make it less of 'a winner base'?

Yeah, but other changes would be ideal as well, because it is not ideal having bases from different players that close to each other, and it would also be beneficial to give a some kind of a small bonus to players that overextend in order to take those bases.

On March 09 2019 10:26 JaleVeliki wrote:
- comment about the aesthetic?

Personally I think it is kind of dull, the red/black mix always look "ok", but the overly clean space platform feels fake. Generally we dont really care for those kind of things, but having a empty overly clean space platform map makes me recall of those old super dull blizzmaps and that isnt good :/

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 13 2019 20:11 GMT

#33

On March 09 2019 15:06 RQM wrote:
Uldolmok
+ Show Spoiler +

Kantu kindly informed me of how the map didn't make it. It was too vanilla with uninteresting middle and it was more like a macro map.

To resubmit it in a standard category, can removing rock towers at the thirds' entrances work?
Also I'm having a hard time fixing its middle since its external high grounds are already compactly placed. I can't really put more elevations there... Can bridges or simple chokepoints work there? Or a single obstacle on the middle to make it doughnut shape? I think the middle is alright or just hard to fix without handling outer basins.

The biggest problem as you say is caused because of how compact everything is, but once the central water filled unpathable areas are removed you quickly realize that there's still space that can be used

[image loading]

But the problem at least in my opinion can't really be fixed by just adding or moving some limited spaces around, it would need to be a bigger change than that...

Here I made some changes to the map, hopefully those express my train of thought

[image loading]

Those changes still have their own downstream problems, and there are issues with usage of space, specifically around the 2 and 7 oclock corners of the map which can be improved, but I feel that this version still retains the idea of it being a very "linear" map when it comes to the main attack path, but not overly so to the point that all attacks have to path through the middle of it.

On March 09 2019 15:06 RQM wrote:
Seorabeol
+ Show Spoiler +

Hard to make any specific question for this map. This map is very standard macro map. I fixed the map after pre-judging feedbacks to make it more interesting. It is highly defensive but that cannot be a problem?

Maybe its relatively small mains were the problem? Or were there too many chokepoints? I'd really like to know any comments from judging processes.

Seorabeol suffered from being a quite solid, yet overly dull design
The changes to the center certainty helped, but the central area, just like with Uldomok is excessively important to the map, overly so

[image loading]

The only real attack path that doesnt go through the middle lowground is the red arrow one, and even then there's still an alternative attack path to reach the same position which might be a better alternative to it

The map isnt bad, it is just like uldolmok's first version, it is overly linear.

That's why I generally advocate to choke up the central most attack path akin to Cloud Kingdom

[image loading]

Cloud Kingdom itself, because of how relatively choky the center is, it makes players want to take the side routes of the map. Superouman itself also made the map in a way that those players that actually take a longer route end up gaining a positional advantage, so players are encouraged to not only explore the map, but to play strategically.

Now, it is not necessary for all maps to do that, but when it isnt thought about too much it leads to overly linear maps where players will always end up using the same attack paths time and time again which is overal not very fun gameplay

In short... ideally more of this ↓

[image loading]

RQM

Korea (South)104 Posts

April 23 2019 09:13 GMT

#34

Thanks for the feedback! I should really be making/editing some maps again,,

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 27 2019 20:00 GMT

#35

On March 09 2019 20:23 Meavis wrote:
Zeta orion
+ Show Spoiler +

The key issue is that, many of the slowing areas arent really been used in an interesting fashion for the map, even after all the changes done to it, it certainty improved drastically, but the usage of the slowing zones such as for example in the corners of the map is still very much in doubt, there were other maps that did similar things and they also didnt score all too highly. It should be noted that Zeta didnt made a bad run, it got in the upper 3rd of all the category submissions.

Now when it comes to actual feedback the very first thing to note is that, from a mapmaking point I really like the central highgrounds, the geometry, the way that area is executed is very cool

[image loading]

Specifically the ramps at the back, and how the entire highground is "shaped" with the two bases on it, that said, I still think that these highgrounds provide too much of an easy attack path, taking away too much from the very center

I know that the two 6x6 rocks close by each other have become such a meme, but maybe.....?

[image loading]

The area where the cardinal ramp leads to, the lowground area would need to probably be reworked in order to help reduce the openness of it. That area in general on the non-edited version of the map is already quite open.

[image loading]

Even when the triangular highground third to the right is well... on highground, the base itself is still super exposed to attack, overly so, I fully get why it was made that way, because of the center a single ramp is too little area for armies to path through it, leading to problems with expansion patterns and therefore breaking the map, that said, this fix to that has too many problems, it might be even better to just make that base be in lowground and fix the area around it, removing the four ramps and removing the droppeable highground for a better flow than to have it be the way it is. On a separate note, i wonder if you could experiment by adding mineral walls or slowing zones here to help correct the problem

On March 09 2019 20:23 Meavis wrote:
Dream eater
+ Show Spoiler +

if I had a clue as to whats wrong I wouldn't post here

The main problem is too many bases behind too few chokes, players now days since Acolyte players dont really enjoy having full 8 minerals in-main nat bases, it is simply too many resources. And in this map case, the fourth as well is too easy to take.

Now when it comes to personal choices I really consider the center of the map to be just dull, the gap in the middle isnt really interesting, and it is oversized for its purpose.

[image loading]

↑ Maybe?

When it comes to the corners of the map, Dream Eater also slacksoff some, they are highground corners which is cool, but besides "existing" they arent giving much to the map, ofc dont take this criticism of the corner bases too hard because those are always hard to make work well....

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 27 2019 20:35 GMT

#36

On March 10 2019 05:07 Achamian wrote:
Thank you for doing this!

Ishual
+ Show Spoiler +

Looking to see the biggest problem areas. I spent ages on the aesthetic, like (4 weekends!,) so I'm hopeful I could work some feedback in and resubmit it.

The biggest problem with it is the center itself;

[image loading]

There is simply not enough "contrast" between the chokepoints in orange, and the "open areas" in green-ish

[image loading]

Generally the main aim of central areas is to provide open-ish areas surrounded by some tight chokepoints, I would really recommend you to go read past TLMC's Feedback threads which are listed in the OP. This particular idea, or doctrine of making maps dates back to Superouman ideas of bridges usage in maps, and to provide players with flanking potential without falling into balance problems with having Zerg be able to outflank players armies all too easily. This is certainty the hardest part of understanding how to do maps, so dont hit yourself too strongly about it. But know that it is important for you to grasp

Good advice would be that I heavily recommend you to do this with the cliffs:

[image loading]

You are doing it through the map, and even when it looks alright, it only eats up the precious space that you need to balance up the gameplay areas.

Now this isnt the end all be all, but hopefully could show you more or less what I mean with it

[image loading]

As you can hopefully see, the map just "feels" more open, yet there are still some good chokepoints in there to provide cover and players can retreat to them or use them to their advantage.

As it stands siege armies pathing through the middle of the map can very much stand unopposed vs other ground armies, and that can cause some very, very frustrating experiences to players

Now talking about the main, nat and third;

[image loading]

The overlord pod at the back is nice, specifically for ZvZ, but it would be just better to have one at the front, it is a less "all or nothing" situation, Z indeed wants to have a look at the saturation of his opponents mineral lines, but simply adding the overlord pods in there at the back can be too overwhelming for non-Z players, so it is better to leave it at the front and force Z players to risk their ovies if they want to scout.

Oh, also watch out for siegetanks attacking the natural from the lowground, add doodads to avoid the problem

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 27 2019 20:53 GMT

#37

On March 10 2019 11:29 Legan wrote:
Thihoi Isle
+ Show Spoiler +

(Overview is from latest version.)

The main/top-left/bottom-right corner of map has got most of the previous feedback and I have made changes based on it. But the other bottom-left/top-right corner and middle of map has received only little feedback. Thus, I would like to hear any feedback about those areas, not colorized with cyan.+ Show Spoiler +

Is there any possible issues with layout and flow of the map? Are “chokes” reasonably sized or are they too wide and make paths too monotonous and corridor like? Also how you view the LOS blocker usage on map?

As newer map maker I don't really know what to polish. Polish only texturing, decoration and on smaller scale pathing or address bigger issues not yet mentioned?

One thing that's key the map is missing is an overlord pod at the natural chokepoint, I dont really remember if the initial version of the map submitted actually had it or not but that's something I noticed and is of key importance.

I think, that the biggest hurdle the map is facing is that, it is "ok", at least from my perspective, it is certainty in the "very big" category for a 2p map, and given current developments with terrains at least being perceived as underperforming, judges were not feeling all to kind of bigger sized maps leading to a lower overall score even for what might be again an "ok" map.

In the same vein, when focusing on the top right and bottom left, the map is just "overly standard". I personally would focus on making the main attack paths more interesting

[image loading]

The areas highlighted in purple just dont really add much to the map, they dont change the attack paths, or overall strategy of the map.

I think this feedback could be very, very hard to be "actionable", because this is something even experienced mappers can struggle with. But if it came to feedback for the top right bottom left areas and the center, I would really advice to focus on that, maybe adding a set of rocks, or adding harder chokepoints in order to create more decision making and more tactically valuable terrain

In terms of visuals, and aesthetics I would recommend to add a strong accent color to the map, as currently with just the green, brown and cyan from the water the map visually feels generic or empty, maybe add big monlyth crystals tinted orange with high HDR would look alright, experiment some with some cool color combinations.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 27 2019 21:32 GMT

#38

On March 11 2019 01:58 Marras wrote:
Atlantean Rift
[spoiler] [image loading]

On March 11 2019 01:58 Marras wrote:
- How much impact did the base count have? There's only 14 bases on the map but I don’t think I could really fit any more in. In the pre-judging feedback there were some concerns about having only 14 bases for a macro map, so do you feel that I should try to keep this macro or would it be better to have it as standard, and if so, should some things be changed in order to make it more standard or would it be ok as it is? What I would be concerned with is that it would be too large for a standard map as it is 154x136 in size.

14 bases is a perfect number for a 2p standard map, anywhere from 12 to 15 is ok, and 14 is the sweet spot. An issue with Atlantean is that the map very much walks the fine line between standard and macro, from my perspective the map is certainty more standard oriented than macro. Wherever reading TLMC judge feedback remember that the categories you submit the map into will be accounted for in the feedback, so in this case if you submitted a map that falls within the "standard-ish" spectrum of maps to a "macro" category, then the feedback will be that said map should probably have more features that would better represent the macro aspect of it in order to rightfully belong to the category.

Atlatean as I said, it very much feels like a "big standard map" more than an actual "macro" map, so it is very much in the gray zone when it comes to that.

Talking about the map itself, I think that you did the right call for submitting it to the macro category.

On March 11 2019 01:58 Marras wrote:
-If I were to keep it as macro, are the thirds still too open? I guess the lowground third could be made a bit safer to take than what it is now. I did make the choke at the highground triangle narrower already after the initial feedback. Apart from making the thirds safer, are there some other ways to make it more macro?

I actually think that your worry should be more in like to "raw improve" the map than fitting it to category definitions.

In this case a possible improvement point would be to actually open up the lowground third in front of the nat, and you could do that by replacing one of the geysers for a rich vespene while removing the other more exposed one:

[image loading]

My perspective is that if something like that makes the map fit better into the standard category, then so be it. This might not make you less nervous about the map, but it is a solid one, and improving it regardless of categories is at least imo th surest way to score well

On March 11 2019 01:58 Marras wrote:
-And lastly, have I overlooked any other issues that should be fixed?

Add doodads here between the cliffs, to highlight that the area can't be jumped by reapers;
[image loading]

And as a comment, I'm kind of uneasy about this area in front of the third base;
[image loading]

Problem is that, said area might be bitting too much into the center of the map. And it is not that I dont like that quality as a "giving flavour to the map" kind of thing, but that I'm slightly worried that the lowground area that's right in front of the ramp might be too choky, something like this;

[image loading]

Where the "aggressor" can position itself in such a way as to make it particularly hard for the blue defender to set up a flank, you can replace the siegetanks there with disruptors, lurkers, immortals or marauders, the case is that because of the way the ramp is set up, and the rather long way around it, it gives the red player the time to get free potshots from the highground to the flanking forces, but this is a tough one to fix, maybe you could move the ramps or something to keep the overall feel of the area without breaking it too much

Removing the area certainty fixes the problem, but it makes the map overall more dull aswell

[image loading]