TLMC14 Feedback Thread - Page 2

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 All

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

April 02 2020 11:02 GMT

#21

i think thors should be renamed, we wouldn't want to disrespect the viking religion, would we?

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 12 2020 04:04 GMT

#22

On March 07 2020 07:53 SirZachary wrote:
Laser Tag
Macro
+ Show Spoiler +

The single rich gas base. Was the distance and rock on the ramp enough to clearly define it as a fourth, or was the map looked down upon for a having a "rich third"?

Proplayers are currently not "delighted" with regards to low high-yield vespene geysers, let alone double ones

The feedback is mostly remove all the rich vespene geysers and this would be an okay map

That said, from a mapmaking perspective there are several things which make me quite unease about the current version

First is this

[image loading]

Not only can tanks easily reach said base, but also burrowed Lurkers at the ramp with the range upgrade can deny it very easily

Corners themselves also need to be reformatted into being more interesting, as currently they simply do not cut it because they are simply some open areas

[image loading]

Maybe doing something such as this:

[image loading]

.... could work to make the corners become slightly more interesting, but they would still need to be altered because as stated they are just open empty areas

When it comes to the actual way the unpathable area is laid out, that's another problem, there's no visual communicator what areas are unpathable and which are not in the same problem as Lockout during Mapper's Delight #2, and even when sending unfinished maps to TLMC is ~kind of accepted, sending this is not

[image loading]

Map currently lacks reaper jump path from the back of the frontal third base towards the main as well, something which personally I would highly recommend, nothing too big, just a small extra entrance

Lastly, as outlined by the pros, the center of the map is quite interesting, the map only suffers from some relatively minor issues on corners and spacing, be sure to ask for feedback on the mapcave as you advance on getting those issues corrected

On March 07 2020 07:53 SirZachary wrote:
Spacelab 2020
Macro
+ Show Spoiler +

Did the pocket base kill this layout?

Kind of, the map is exceedingly large on far too many areas

+ Show Spoiler +

... Which led to very unkind ratings across the board

I'm sure that the fact that the map is dark grey without any visual flair did not help on that regard either. But the openness and the easy 5 bases are the dagger to the heart of the concept sadly

Skypirinha1

14 Posts

April 15 2020 11:46 GMT

#23

sorry for asking the question you said we shouldn’t ask, but in these cases i don’t know whats problematic. Thats why i need feedback telling me what is. Nevertheless I added my guesses.

Ancient Cistern, Macro
[image loading]

https://i.imgur.com/jqbiw3j.png
Q: Third bases especially triangle third to vulnerable for macro? Problem with Corner bases? Spacing issues like base distances and choke and open area sizes? reaper jump spots & blink problematic? To maze like, to few pathways, to restrictive terrain? To few air space?

Tropical Island, Rush
[image loading]

https://i.imgur.com/4PPHKoo.png
(only one reaper cliff problem? To less incentivizing aggression? Problem with corner bases? Spacing issues like base distances and choke and open area sizes? to restrictive terrain? To much air space next to main? bad middle design?

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 19 2020 01:13 GMT

#24

On March 08 2020 09:09 Agaton wrote:
Cryostation
Standard category
+ Show Spoiler +

One of my biggest concerns was the placement of the triangular third. The long distance between natural and third was to be compensated by having only one true attack path that required quite the commitment and also due to the long rotation distance between natural and triangular. There was also a more standard third as an alternative. Was it dismissed because of this area or were there other concerns?

What did judges think of the feature where one of the gases could be used to reduce number of structures needed to wall off the natural?

Overall the center is super cool imo, tho a bit too open for the early-mid game phases but that can be corrected easily

[image loading]

The map has a bit of that death by a thousand cuts to it, things such as this:

[image loading]

Are quite frowned upon by Terrans and Protoss players, as you can expect given the strong banebusting mineral lines gameplay of today

This area is overly exposed to blink harassment

[image loading]

And as you well said, the area highlighted in yellow makes it very hard to secure the pink attack path, and even if you try to take the base as an optional fourth it is simply so far away that makes it basically indefensible to Protoss, let alone Terrans which also on the current Meta have a hard time securing and maintaining fourth bases which are farther away from their main attack path. A TvP would be an interesting MU to watch on this map, but any Z related MU is just problematic for the most part

The thing is that there's lots of space to play too, here's a quick iteration on some ideas

[image loading]

Different side bases:

[image loading]

There's lots of space to play around with different ideas, and ensure that T players have an easy time doing their main base simcities around the main base ramp

On March 08 2020 09:09 Agaton wrote:
What did judges think of the feature where one of the gases could be used to reduce number of structures needed to wall off the natural?

It is not particularly interesting or practical, a better move would be making it easier to wall off for Terran with a single CC+Bunker which is something I have been heard repeated many times from T players, that's an easy way to make a map easier for macro T build orders.

Lastly, be careful with cannon rushes, there's a 2 pylon cannon rush in the natural base behind the vespene geyser. I don't consider that particular 2 pylon cannon rush to be all that problematic, but I'm sure you can find plenty people whom might disagree

On March 08 2020 09:09 Agaton wrote:
Corrosive Sky
Rush category
+ Show Spoiler +

Basically want to know what the biggest issue with the map was. If it has to do with the category, why and would it better fit into standard? I'd really like to know any comments made during the judging discussions.

This one went by the wayside without much care for it, the top right side of the map really ought to be re-designed, the way the ramps interlock with each other is interesting from a mapmaking perspective, but simply not from a gameplay one, the spacing in that area is very iffy. The triangular third base is also a tad too far away and it goes hand in hand with the main base being slightly oversized. If the main bases were to be pushed slightly more towards the corners it would open up lots of space which could then be put to use in reworking top right areas.

After lots of more careful review in the editor, I do believe that it is alright on the Rush category, this is one of those maps that from my perspective fall on the spectrum between categories, so it could go either way

As a final comment, if you decide to do changes and resubmit, be sure to look into the un-used space around the map

[image loading]

And as a final final comment the wrong version of unbuildable plates were used, ensure to use the "Unbuildable Plates (Destructible)" ones 🤐

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 26 2020 05:20 GMT

#25

On March 12 2020 07:24 -NegativeZero- wrote:
In Absentia - Rush
+ Show Spoiler +

Did the judges dislike any particular feature, such as the narrow bridges / restricted pathing, or was it just a case of "other maps happened to score slightly higher"?

I personally don't have much comments for this map, maybe tighten the lowground entrances to the corner bases with 1 6x6 rocks so it is more similar to Overgrowth's fourths which from my perspective worked very well. Mainbases are slightly too big and leave a bit extra space for Nyduses between them and the third base. Maybe increase the size of the very central bridge into a more Etcetra styled bridge to still have the chokepoint, but be weaker for small armies

Personally as stated I believe that this map is of very high quality, but in the same manner as those maps by Pklixian, I would recommend you to DM or contact P and Terran players to see what they have to say about it, because I feel that this map is very much into those kind of things which they will be able to break up than I can. So yeah, it was very much the second situation of other maps being able to get those small nudges over it than something absurdly game breaking about it

On March 12 2020 07:24 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Monument of the Makers - Challenge
+ Show Spoiler +

Did this even make it anywhere near the finalists? Were there legitimate gameplay concerns or was it just too unusual looking?

These are some of the actual judging scores of the map

[image loading]

So yeah.... It was the second bit again, it was simply far too unusual. Progamers still have kind of a bad aftertaste from Sequencer style layouts, tho it is not really because the map style is not too imbalanced but merely because it makes them uncomfortable to play on :/

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 26 2020 06:13 GMT

#26

On March 12 2020 07:35 Legan wrote:
I don't really know whtch maps to ask about. I mostly want to know if maps should be reworked and continued for next TLMC or just abandoned. Thus, I would like to get feedback for the two maps with the best score that I submitted: Seaside Resort (Macro), Polar Night Keep (Macro) and Ion Fazekath (Standard). Generally I want to know what were the biggest issues or worries even while the maps got are really standard with layout and were okay based on feedback. For the macro maps I want to now if they being bigger than guidelines preferred actually had effect on the grade or where they okay?

The map sizes you submitted are nothing out of this world, 136x140, 142x142 are acceptable sizes for macro maps. Of course one should keep in mind of current metagame requirements of wanting to make them slightly smaller and increase a bit the air space for harassment etc. Those points will overall help

[Macro] Polar was better received by the Terran judges than Seaside Resort. Which is understandable given the central highground over the flat lowground of Seaside. But the rich gas has been quite attacked by Protoss and Terran players for being a map feature which reinforces Zerg openings too much over T and P ones, so that's most certainly a strong sticking point which should be used with considerable more care, if possible not use 8 mineral 1 rich vespene bases, or use 6 mineral 1 rich vespene instead to avoid these kind of problems such as was the case in Seaside

If personally I were to tell you to focus on two maps, id say Seaside and Fazekath, BUT, first I would recommend you just like Negative Zero to message a Terran or Protoss player and tell you feedback on Polar, because you will want to learn what things they see there which they might feel are valuable or better for their race compared to Seaside!

Here's a small segment of potential Seaside changes from my perspective:

[image loading]

The texturing is not necessary, I would personally recommend it anyways, not this way of course, but to reduce the amount of total noise and increase readability

Also, these areas:

[image loading]

Which used to be larger are a quite big issue atm, as they are eating far too much space on strategically important positions. For multiplayer maps we sadly don't really have the luxury of creating pretty mid maps vistas and such, simply because of how of a gameplay premium those areas are :/

When it comes to Polar

[image loading]

All these can be reduced in some way or another while still keeping the gameplay value, and when doing so you will quickly see how much more space you have to make cool terrain bits

Other important point, that I really don't want to get into, because I feel only very high level Terrans or Protoss have the technical proficiency to answer it is how much they perceive these baneling harassment attack paths to be a problem

[image loading]

And I know that I'm not answering many of the questions posed, but when it comes to these matters I most certainly prefer to give a non-answer or a task for you or other mapmakers to inquire than to give something of an answer which could end up giving you problems down the road

algue

France1436 Posts

April 27 2020 17:38 GMT

#27

On April 02 2020 08:06 Kantuva wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes, yes they are [image loading]

Care to explain why 4p maps do not work in the current meta? It has been years since Sc2 hasn't had a 4p map on the ladder. Seems a bit dogmatic to me that an entire category of map is 100% banned from the game (can't have one (1) single 4p map on the ladder) because "The Meta" doesn't allow it. What happened in LotV that didn't exist in BW, WoL and HotS that's so bad that 1 single 4p map on the ladder is at risk of breaking the game?

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

April 27 2020 17:45 GMT

#28

On April 28 2020 02:38 algue wrote:

Show nested quote +

12 worker start for one.

And the other big difference is that in LotV pros have the ability to gatekeep map features they don't want on ladder through the TLMC, whereas they didn't have that ability to nearly the same extent in WoL, HotS or BW.

And Darkness Sanctuary was on ladder back in 2018 (and was horribly imbalanced though that wasn't due to being a 4p map per se).

And no it wouldn't by any means break the game. Just add a bunch of unwelcome scouting RNG.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

April 30 2020 20:17 GMT

#29

On April 28 2020 02:38 algue wrote:

Show nested quote +

Sorry for being late, but it is basically what Ziggurat said

I believe that if 3p or 4p were to hit the ladder it would need to happen in the same or similar manner Darkness Sanctuary did, some important tournament gets a 4p map in their ladder and DevTeam picks it up, because currently even if I were to give it an absolute 10 rating (just hypothetical, I would probably never do that) a 4p map would also need to be very well liked by the rest of the judges to make it in, which is just highly unlikely

From a mapmaking perspective we have also had the same discussion many times in the past. What extra value does a 3p/4p map bring to the table compared to a well executed 2p map doesnt? Timmay had the idea (which I partially agree with compared to 4p) that 3p maps have a stronger flavor than 4p and 2p

I think that the best way forward to achieve something like that, are 2in1 or 3in1 maps, but that's just no true 4p either

KillerSmile

Germany84 Posts

May 09 2020 20:32 GMT

#30

Rush:
- Fighters' Poison
- Sun Temple

Standard:
- Last Endion
- Containment

Macro:
- Bed of Chaos

Challenge:
- Sky Machine

Those were my maps. Since I have no clue at all how they fared, because the TL map contest doesn't give out any scores I will have to resort to you oh mighty member of the TL map contest judging panel to give me the name of the 2 maps out of these 6 you deem most worth taking a look at. I will then form questions for the 2 maps you so valiantly choose for me, because clearly I can't be trusted to interpret 6 numbers and choose for my own which 2 of them stand out as worthy of taking another look at.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

May 09 2020 22:34 GMT

#31

On March 13 2020 06:04 Zweck wrote:
Kill Switch - Rush
Overview: + Show Spoiler +

Specific questions about your map:
Was it maybe the rush distance being too short, even for a rush map? Was the fourth base maybe too hard to secure?

What slaughtered the map was the rocks at the entrance. And I say slaughtered because it just didn't fare well at all, proplayers weren't optimistic of the concept.

That said. I think that you do have space to change the rocks to a mineral wall and reshape the natural some in order to allow for sturdier walloffs, which currently are a very high concern

When it comes to rush distance, I personally dont see it that much of an issue, the natural walloff is a bigger problem

regarding the fourth bases, that's a trickier question, specifically from a P or T perspective, T would be happy to take the forward base after taking the lowground third. But when it comes to T or P taking the clockwise highground Third, it does become quite problematic to take the corner base as a fourth simply because of sheer distance. I believe that this could be adressed via adding a half base between the highground clockwise third and the corner base. But I'm not particularly certain, currently I'm reaching to other judges on this particular point, because it is a very tricky situation, so you might need to wait a bit before I can bring you more comments about it

Other potential sticking point might be that the central rocks are overly tight for army movement. Not that they are a bad idea, just overly tight atm, replacing them with 4x4 rocks and increasing the central area some would go a long way in my opinion

There are some relatively minor things which ought to be fixed with the map as well, such as the main base ramp being blockable with 3 pylons

[image loading]

And specifically this:

[image loading]

These kind of situation happened to me as well on Echo, it was rather hard for Terran players with their buildings to path units from one side of their little Barrack-Factory-Starport simcity/wall to the other, but on this particular map it would be more problematic because of harassment. TvT specifically

The fix for it would mean moving the CC or to the "right" or the bottom, so siegetanks (!) and other units could path from one side of the wall to the other without needing to take the long route through the mineral line. If youd want to move the mineral line to the bottom one hex then it might entail needing to remove the cliffing bump as the picture shows to avoid problems with cannon rushes in the main, which even tho it is not that common of a problem it would be basically left to you how you would like to proceed

This little fellow + Show Spoiler +

As a personal comment I quite liked this map, it evokes Terraform, Dreamcatcher and Zen in a good way , I was quite sad that it was not better received by the rest of the judging panel, but I'll see what comments I can gather for you

On March 13 2020 06:04 Zweck wrote:
Shamrock Fane - Standard
Overview: + Show Spoiler +

Specific questions about your map:
Was it maybe downvoted because of distracting texturing, or was it just not good enough in general?

Shamrock got on a triple tie for 6th place, so it most certainly isn't a bad map, but one of the "pack" where it gets super competitive and decimal points make or break the finalists

As actual feedback, Shamrock just strikes me as oversized. Even tho the map is not huge, it does have big areas such as these highlighted in orange, which from my perspective almost scream "I am too big!"

[image loading]

Meanwhile the red circles could potentially be rocks. Currently Shamrock has got this problem:

[image loading]

Where the lowground third base is just too open, specially for T whom has to make supply depot walls to fend off harassment.

I should mention that Submarine received praises from Terran players exactly *because* their third base arent as exposed to harassment, and that's something that everybody ought to have a look at. Maybe not carbon copy it, as we currently are on an era of strong metagame shifts and with the upcoming balance patch things are kind of up in the air, but something to most certainly look at as a potential avenue of future Terran/Protoss friendly development

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

May 19 2020 00:17 GMT

#32

Thank you so much for the detailed Feedback! But still i dont really get, why players had a Problem will the natural Rocks on Kill Switch, since they are very similar to the ones on Abyssal...

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

May 22 2020 19:12 GMT

#33

On May 19 2020 09:17 Zweck wrote:
Thank you so much for the detailed Feedback! But still i dont really get, why players had a Problem will the natural Rocks on Kill Switch, since they are very similar to the ones on Abyssal...

Hard to say sadly, I'll reach out to other judges to get further comments

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

May 22 2020 20:33 GMT

#34

On March 19 2020 23:14 Superouman wrote:
Did Acqueducts not fare wall because of the low amount of paths in the middle? Do you think adding a path where i painted in green would help?

I also removed the pillar in the mid to open up that area.
I'd put rocks (in brown) on the ramp to lower the amounts of paths at the beginning of the game.

+ Show Spoiler +

Ok, finally can get around to providing the feedback

The biggest block the map faced was concerns on PvT from the P perspective on its inability to achieve strong flanks on the T army, and how "mazelike" the map was/is, specifically the central highgrounds with the bases on them were a concern regarding siege tank positioning in battles and how a P force would need to go all the way around it in order to get a positional advantage

One smaller concern I had was regarding the third bases and bane run-byes, on this particular map I saw it as a "well achieved balance", and there were no particular worries on it, the bane run-bye is a balance problem, which they hope will be reduced with the upcoming nerfs

As far as potential fixes the changes you propose would indeed help some, but I believe that the highgrounds in the center might need to go as well. Or rather be rethought, because currently these highgrounds are too overpowering for T

I was thinking maybe something like Dreamcatcher or Terraform with the thin unpathable highgrounds

[image loading]

Clean version
+ Show Spoiler +

That's more or less what I am thinking, which is just a slightly more aggressive version of what you had thought currently

Should be noted that the map didn't had an overly high rating, it did well, top 10 on its category, so be sure to try and reach out to proplayers as currently the map is not the best when it comes to pleasing the requirements of protoss players specifically

For Waterfall I am still waiting some messages from other judges, but I just can't keep the feedback of other maps waiting forever because of it, so I'll need to skip it for now, but, a very high concern on my end were the thirds, they look far wider than they actually are, but I would still consider making them slightly safer with rocks/debris, so they can be blocked with a 1 3x3 and a 1 2x2 instead of 2 3x3+1 2x2. But still, I'll get you the messages as they come. Should be noted that Protoss judges also were the ones that gave the map the lowest ratings

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

May 22 2020 20:58 GMT

#35

On March 25 2020 13:37 CharactR wrote:
Quicksand
+ Show Spoiler +

not 100% sure what to ask specifically.

Main reasons it didn't make finalist? (If it even came near finalist which i do want to know)
Thoughts about the mineral wall and if the los blockers were even needed?
map not interesting enough?
was the base in the rush path too unappealing? which as a result means there's one real choice of third which performs worse with the judges?
I honestly don't know
obviously you don't have to answer all of them especially if they don't apply I'm not even sure what's worth asking tbh.

The attack path is fine
One of the constant issues this TLMC were the rich vespene geysers, because of the metagame development in the months leading to TLMC#14 these geysers benefit Zerg more than the other races, which made judges terran and specifically protoss players very distasteful of them overall, and when used on bases such as the ones here, it makes them uneasy

When it comes to the actual map itself, it is overall too open with few tight chokes, and those that exist only have rocks to accentuate them, which just will lead to more openness as the game progresses (read as: zerg benefits more)

[image loading]

Overall I would say see what you can do to create a more interesting layout/stripping the rich vespene geysers and make the map chokier for more positional lategame engagements

I did some sketches and quick changes, but at the end I discarded them all because there are too many options of potential paths and it felt like it would be me the one kind of designing the map at that point, but be sure to post to the discord server #WIP and ping me so I can help some if you want

On March 25 2020 13:37 CharactR wrote:
Hellfire
+ Show Spoiler +

Were the tight chokes overkill? distances between opposing sides bases too short?
any concerns in general? things other rush maps executed better that this didn't/ Just in general if there was a way to tweak or better execute the same thing?

You ought to know that Hellfire performed very well, achieving 6th place on the Rush category

I think that the best advice would be for you to use a softer less noisy texturing on the map as currently it is just way too much noise which makes it hard to read, and it applies for both lowground natural and middle ground space textures, highground is alright, keep the tones of the textures, but maybe replace the normals, or simply play around to achieve a more instantly readable tileset

As feedback, see this more as a challenge than a "much change". You have seen that I have been recommending mappers to watch out for their corner fourth bases, and Hellfire is no different, I see very, very little utility to this chunk of terrain other than to make the life harder for protoss players fourth bases and terrans

[image loading]

If you review most of the feedback I have given since TLMC#12 or so you know that as mapper I don't see value to these areas, I think that the Overgrowth route of a pocket-ish fourth is simply more stable given the 3 base syndrome SC2 has, and currently with LotV and the bane run-byes being what they are, it just makes me uneasy to have that large entrance there, but yeah, at the end of the day, it is very much up to you how you wish to implement something there (if you want to at all)

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

May 22 2020 21:17 GMT

#36

On May 10 2020 05:32 KillerSmile wrote:
Rush:
- Fighters' Poison
- Sun Temple

Standard:
- Last Endion
- Containment

Macro:
- Bed of Chaos

Challenge:
- Sky Machine

Those were my maps. Since I have no clue at all how they fared, because the TL map contest doesn't give out any scores I will have to resort to you oh mighty member of the TL map contest judging panel to give me the name of the 2 maps out of these 6 you deem most worth taking a look at. I will then form questions for the 2 maps you so valiantly choose for me, because clearly I can't be trusted to interpret 6 numbers and choose for my own which 2 of them stand out as worthy of taking another look at.

Fear not mere human, for I have finally arrived at your puny request

The highest scoring ones were:

Standard
6th place: Containment
7th place: Last Endion

Rush
8th place: Sun Temple

Generally you would have received a DM from me informing you of the high achieving maps such as I did on TLMC#12 and TLMC#11 etc but bc of time problems I simply wasnt able this time around, apologies for that

Just as a note, it was quite brave to send Fighters' Poison, it sadly got dead last on the Rush category and Bed of Chaos got some very low score as well, that was because of the in-main bases are not very well liked by proplayers since that dark temple map Avex and iirc ATTx (?) did years ago which soured how pros perceived in-main bases, which of course should be noted, the fact that it had a rich vespene geyser made it all the more problematic because it allows Z to take basically instant 3 base gas income

I wanted to make some comments on the spacing of last endion, and sun temple, which albeit very pretty, the rocks between the natural and third are from my perspective, very, very, very problematic balance wise. Main bases are also undersized and other issues also related to spacing around the center of the map. Do remember that it is perfectly ok to sacrifice the perfect cliffing for better gameplay spacing of areas

In any way, be sure to ask the questions that you wanted, otherwise I would be happy to give general feedback of the issues I perceive

KillerSmile

Germany84 Posts

May 24 2020 20:52 GMT

#37

Thank you for the information. I will focus my questions mainly on Containment since it is the map I probably focus on to submit to the next tlmc.

Map image:
+ Show Spoiler +

I should start off asking about the vulnerability of the first few bases. Currently there is reaper access on the main and nat next to the ramp. I have a feeling that many pro players would rather like to see that reduced. I have 3 points to reduce reaper effectiveness:
a) make the reaper access to the main smaller/easier to wall
b) close off jump spot in the natural with doodads
c) deny jumping from nat to main with doodad fence
Is any of these 3 ideas necessary or advised?

Blink access into the main could aso be reduced be increasing the dead space behind the mineral line of the triangle 3rd. Stalkers already have many cool angles to get into the triangle base undetected by jumping from the lowground middle or the huge diagonal rocks, so even though I would prefer to not reduce pathable area behind the triangle minerals, I feel reducing jump spots into the main to just the reaper ramp is a necessary change. Would you agree?

Another point is the way to natural walloff works. Currently Terran needs 3 depots and a CC to wall by the ramp. I could add a small doodad next to the fake overlord pillar to make that 2 depots. I don't think it's necessary because of the relatively long rush distance, but I feel terrans would appreciate it.

Currently the triangle third uses a rock tower to make securing this base easier to compensate for only having defenders access through a relatively narrow 2x ramp and a potential opening through a big rocked off ramp at the bottom. Looking back at Blackpink I noticed it had a similar setup with a rocktower at a third base, but it later got removed. Rock towers are not the most mainstream feature anymore, so maybe a setup with a just a single 6x6 and a tiny choke similar to the lowground third on Lost and Found might be a more welcome alternative. What did the judges think of that area?

In general the cliffing style turned out to be harder to decorate than I thought. I planned on adding more doodads, but I realized the way the cliffs zigged and zagged already takes away from the area that gets pathed effectively. Should I try to make chokes smaller with doodads or is that just too much on a map with symmetry that too easily devolves into a hard split map scenario?

So yeah, these are the things I pondered while creating the map and looking it over. If you have any other things to add and think are also worth talking about, be it layout, decoration or anything else all feedback is welcome.

My other 5 maps will probably get thrown out and replaced. Maybe Last Endion has a chance of a complete overhaul/remake, but now that 2000 Atmospheres, which is kinda similar in idea and layout, has made it to finalist and probably will make ladder I don't think that's really worthwhile.

PS: I'd still prefer to just get an automated dm with map scores after the contest. It's pretty weird that it's such a whisper down the lane kind of process with you in the middle as the hub directing everything. I appreciate it tho.

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

June 07 2020 10:06 GMT

#38

On May 25 2020 05:52 KillerSmile wrote:
Thank you for the information. I will focus my questions mainly on Containment since it is the map I probably focus on to submit to the next tlmc.

I very much tried to take screenshots and go in detail about feedback, but I am sure that a video will be simply a far better way to convey the feedback and modifications

Kantuva

Uruguay204 Posts

June 12 2020 07:54 GMT

#39

On April 15 2020 20:46 Skypirinha1 wrote:
sorry for asking the question you said we shouldn’t ask, but in these cases i don’t know whats problematic. Thats why i need feedback telling me what is. Nevertheless I added my guesses.

Ancient Cistern, Macro
[image loading]

In video form:

As a quick recap, the issue was basically the same as Aqueducts map by Superouman, it is overly maze like, something which affects Protoss players overly so, map also suffers from issues surrounding the "fortress" like Main-nat-Third.Fourth base set up where the ramps leading up to it are overly tight, overly discouraging aggression. Even when the map is a macro map already, these ramps are overly tight

On April 15 2020 20:46 Skypirinha1 wrote:
Tropical Island, Rush
[image loading]

This one is far, far harder to diagnose, in general it suffers from the same issue as above, where the central highgrounds are causing issues for PvT and to a lesser degree ZvT with the zoning capabilities of Terran armies, the big core issue here though is that even when that's the feedback for the map, it ought be heavily noted that we are on a current strong metagame change, and that feedback might not be entirely aplicable on 9 months from now which just overall leaves a bad taste on my mouth when providing it :/

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

TLMC14 Feedback Thread - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming