Just as standard, before we start id really like to give a big congratulations to our TLMC#14 finalists this time around! Even when we now are going through changes on the WCS/ESL side of things and personally I don't know when those maps will start on rotation, it will be most interesting seeing several of those being played 👀
That out of the way, this thread is mostly dedicated to those that didn't made it to the finals to ask questions about their maps.
Just like always, for the inpatient souls it is very much recommended to first check out previous "Mapping Guidelines" and the TLMC8, 9, 10 & 12 feedback threads before you submit your questions, as I don't have much time and I have to use it where counts.
As an extra note there is my youtube channel where I have been uploading Mapmaking feedback videos for finalists and non-finalists alike, it is highly recommended for y'all to peruse around. This time around there were no videos for the finalists like on TLMC#12, but we do have the Pre-Judging feedback stream right there. And remember, just because we might have not gone over *your specific map*, it doesn't mean that your map might not share issues which were covered there, so be sure to review it!
Worthy mention, Nathanias has made his Reviewing TLMC#14 Finalists freely available, which is an excellent resource on understanding maps from his perspective:
For time reasons, all mappers can ask feedback for 2 maps, id like to give as much feedback as possible, but it is simply not possible for me to cover all maps, in the same manner, avoid asking "what's wrong with map X", instead focus on what areas you believe are problematic, this way we will save time and not need to spend +3 months on the Feedback Thread again -.-;
Submit your questions on the following fashion:
Map Name
Category the map was submitted to
Map Overview
Specific questions about your map
Just like on TLMC#12 might be videos this time around, there might not! No promises, only hopes and dreams. And in the same fashion, other judges might also join, or might not, it depends on their own personal timeframes.
Was the usage of the AZG's interesting and besides defenders advantage being scarce what are some other issues with the map? Also if you're allowed to speak out about it what was the general consensus regarding this map by the judges. I'm sure me and many others would also like to have that question answered as to gauge whether an idea was cool or not.
ooooop; ignore the LoS on the vertical 4th. never meant to leave it there :o
After looking over my map myself, knowing both it and Risen Memory were kinda awkward for where I submitted them. As they both were designed to be a hybrid of macro and standard (which may of made it just seem too boring) But I might as well ask anyways, was the first 3 bases just too easy on this map? Too easy as in effectively securing the highground third in example meant 1 true route into it due to the debris tower on the smaller ramp.
And due to them being slightly too easy was getting a 4th was just easier and kinda boring/problematic against a zerg in example where they can secure 4 bases and not struggle any defense? (just answer both questions as one for Acidic Fortress)
I've been trying and trying again to get this layout and theme to work out, I already have concerns like the rush routes being a straight line making the triangle third more risky vs zerg (since they can effectively engage and reinforce the attack on that base without much effort.) And I just had concerns but I will limit it.
Was middle just too boring/provided issues you may see with the layout? Going along with the middle due to the currently layout the corners kinda exist and could use a rework. So feedback on mid might give me room to change the corners up a bit, without changing up the highgrounds too much.
Thanks for anything you may say! Though I'd love to have feedback on all of my maps besides Urzagol (Literally I just keep slapping stuff onto it because I cant submit 3 macro maps. And I should just move on from it) But the limitation is there for a good reason.
My question would be what did you think about the feature of ultra-narrow gates and how they affect the early game? Was it the feature itself that was potentially problematic or was the rest of the map unappealing?
My pre-feedback said that it should be a macro map instead and had some comment about "any feedback that’s provided would heavily clash with either if the map stayed in the Standard Category or if it would be moved to Macro" which isn't exactly useful.
Assuming that it stays a standard map (since after all an in-base natural doesn't of itself mean a map is macro, and tbh those categories are really overemphasized given how inconsistent they are anyways), what feedback is there for it?
I want to stress that even though I have submitted specific questions about my submissions, I still feel clueless about the defficiencies of my maps and want to have more general feedback as opposed to just the questions answered.
Did the lack of angular (counter clockwise) expansion bases prove problematic? Did the overlord spot coverage of the natural, despite being subtly requested to be removed, affect the performance too significantly? Did the main size play a role in judgement?
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"?
On March 07 2020 06:00 PolarChibi wrote: Lilac AZG Challenge + Show Spoiler +
Was the usage of the AZG's interesting and besides defenders advantage being scarce what are some other issues with the map? Also if you're allowed to speak out about it what was the general consensus regarding this map by the judges. I'm sure me and many others would also like to have that question answered as to gauge whether an idea was cool or not.
ooooop; ignore the LoS on the vertical 4th. never meant to leave it there :o
The main thing that made the map not perform well and it is quite serious is just how hard to take and secure the third bases are for Protoss and Terran players, they are simply or too far away, or too exposed. I mentioned it some on the pre-judging feedback, and the changes weren't aggressive enough to the judges, specially T and P ones
When it comes to AZG's, they are alright, we had a finalist map that also had a similar set up, tho in the same vein as the Third bases being too exposed, some of the AZG's make the problem worse, specifically that one that's right in front of the passage between the 6/12 oclock lowground third bases and the natural bases. AZG's spur aggression, and that AZG in particular is on a spot which is all too strategically important to give such advantage to the attacker over the defender
When it comes to how it was received, it had a lukewarm reception at best, the distance issues with the thirds, general size, how open bases beyond the "core" (Main, nat, alternative thirds) bases are makes the map not very welcome on an era where there are heightened concerns about Zerg balance and dominance over the map pool
But yeah, the idea is cool, which is why there's a finalist with a similar set up in the finalist*, but the execution issues were too much for this particular map
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?
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.
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 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 now 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?
If I have to name the two maps instead of getting the two best, then Seaside Resort and Polar Night Keep. I will think for a few more specific questions about the maps and updated this reply.
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.
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.
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?
@CharactR feedback about your second map: (with all due respect to religion) Maybe because we're in a sci-fi game, and not a religion based game, the name is not fitting anywhere here, whatsoever.As unfitting as the teddybear zoo in D3 as secret level...
On March 31 2020 07:50 Kertorak wrote: @CharactR feedback about your second map: (with all due respect to religion) Maybe because we're in a sci-fi game, and not a religion based game, the name is not fitting anywhere here, whatsoever.As unfitting as the teddybear zoo in D3 as secret level...
Really? Does it also bother you that in-game goliaths fire Hellfire Missiles?
On March 07 2020 06:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Caspian Gates Macro + Show Spoiler +
My question would be what did you think about the feature of ultra-narrow gates and how they affect the early game? Was it the feature itself that was potentially problematic or was the rest of the map unappealing?
Yeah, it most certainly was the gates feature the one that got in the way
The implementation is simply too aggressive for this map, the gates are excessively close to high contention spots such as the Nat base entrances. The levels of potential problems is just too high, TvZ, TvP timing attacks would wreck just so hard. Tho ZvP from my perspective in the lategame could be quite interesting, seeing which race can overcome the gates the best, akin to RQM's map but for that to happen the ones in the entrance to the Nat and Third have to be changed
The rest of the map is quite standard if not dull, from that angle it would work alright and personally I would not say no to bigger layout changes
On March 07 2020 06:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Moon River Standard + Show Spoiler +
My pre-feedback said that it should be a macro map instead and had some comment about "any feedback that’s provided would heavily clash with either if the map stayed in the Standard Category or if it would be moved to Macro" which isn't exactly useful.
Assuming that it stays a standard map (since after all an in-base natural doesn't of itself mean a map is macro, and tbh those categories are really overemphasized given how inconsistent they are anyways), what feedback is there for it?
The feedback for it is that this sort of layouts don't really work, terrans would insta veto in the judging process it and they do, same with protoss players in PvZ for example
The issue is that the natural bases now days are simply too strategically important to be left in such an exposed way, it makes the players excessively uncomfortable and it is quite funny that it has to be me the one saying that given how much I personally enjoyed creating those kind of scenarios, but the way the TLMC is set up I don't see this map in particular making it pass the first state judges to the finalists let alone being picked by the playerbase unless there were an extreme "taste swing" towards heavily non-standard layouts
The feedback that I wrote is meant on the sense that standard maps are generally seen as maps which allow a wide variety of strategies as a base level without strengthening certain strats in the metagame bubble over others, this map in particular strengthens 2 base allins quite a bit and with the farther away third being what it is, it becomes almost a coin toss which ever direction youd like to make the map go. If you leave the third where it is (as you did) then it is a medium sized non-standard map which we can ballpark into the TLMC Standard category, but if you change it to be where the "natural" ought to be layout wise, then the map transforms into a rather heavily macro map. Hopefully it is more or less understandable where I'm going. The map is currently on the knife edge between categories and which ever change you make to them will push it on either direction. And because of that and the fact that it is not my position as pre-feedback giver to tell you which direction your map "ought" to go I considered it irresponsible to tell you X or Y
So yeah, overall feedback might be, change the in-main nat to a 6 min 1 normal geyser, create a new full base where the natural "ought" to be and change the current third base to a ~4-6 mins and 1hyg or 1 normal geyser
The center is also quite dull, personally id very much recommend trying other types of center with the 3 "daybreak-esq" paths but in a more interesting way than just the bridges there and by that I mean try things like Dreamcatcher's center, Terraform, Oxyde (BW map), Overwatch (Neg0 BW map)
Overall I have always liked the "Ion" layouts, I just find them cool mapmaking wise and Id be super interested in what ideas you can create to make them work better (if at all on the current metagame)
On March 07 2020 07:40 Sanglune wrote: I want to stress that even though I have submitted specific questions about my submissions, I still feel clueless about the defficiencies of my maps and want to have more general feedback as opposed to just the questions answered.
Did the lack of angular (counter clockwise) expansion bases prove problematic? Did the overlord spot coverage of the natural, despite being subtly requested to be removed, affect the performance too significantly? Did the main size play a role in judgement?
Overlord pods don't really affect the performance of maps significantly, It is the layers upon layers of features which end up benefiting certain races over others which create issues
Example here is mostly the overall openness of the map which ended up being its demise, and I don't say that on "make maps tighter overall" but add more meaningful and strong choke-points to it so players armies can't be surrounding as easily or just incentivize players to move out without featuring counter attacks to their third bases. Main base size is certainly an issue, specially with modern strong Nydus play, albeit it has been less of a problem now days it still remains a concern. Larger air space being main bases is also another point, in order to allow more harassment from T or P vs Z.
When it comes to implementation of cool chokepoints id very much recommend you to look at some BW maps like Bloody Ridge's center. Also, be sure to message Jason, Pig, Winter or other streamers or progamers about general feedback, maybe not for this map but the next one, or if you make changes to it, as they are generally very warm about it
On March 07 2020 07:40 Sanglune wrote: Cheruno 9 Standard + Show Spoiler +
Did the lack of angular (counter clockwise) expansion bases prove problematic? Was the low base density near the player spawns cause for concern?
I would recommend very much to start adding second reaper entrances to your main bases, as that is a concern players have spoken about. It is not just make a single entrance wallable with +2 buildings, it is a broader issue than that as scouting is important for T just like any other race
Generally from my perspective Cheruno has very similar issues than 11th Dragon with only minor changes such as the center and slightly more terrain height variation, you are currently at that step where it is needed to take the next step towards polishing the standard layouts by adding more non-standard features to them and make them stand out, so as you were saying from my perspective it is fairly normal that you feel kind of lost atm. Also, be sure to take ideas from older flavorful BW maps
On March 31 2020 07:50 Kertorak wrote: @CharactR feedback about your second map: (with all due respect to religion) Maybe because we're in a sci-fi game, and not a religion based game, the name is not fitting anywhere here, whatsoever.As unfitting as the teddybear zoo in D3 as secret level...
Hellfire missiles, Hellbats, Hellions, there's literally a mission in wings of liberty called "The Gates of Hell" , there's a campaign upgrade for missile turrets called Hellstorm batteries, One of the songs in the wings soundtrack is called Heavens Devils, there's another mission called "The Devils Playground", Need I continue? I Highly Doubt a map being called Hellfire would be an issue, Also is just a map name that describes the hellscape that is that map. what does religion have to do with it other than the fact it has hell in the name?
I'm done,I mean... Hell, it's about time!
edit: Also Doom would like to have a word with you.
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
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
Maybe doing something such as this:
.... 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
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
... 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
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
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
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?
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
The map has a bit of that death by a thousand cuts to it, things such as this:
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
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
Different side bases:
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
And as a final final comment the wrong version of unbuildable plates were used, ensure to use the "Unbuildable Plates (Destructible)" ones 🤐
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
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 :/
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:
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:
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
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
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
On March 07 2020 07:30 Timmay wrote: Map: Last Fantasy Category: Challenge + Show Spoiler +
Question: Are 3p maps illegal?
Yes, yes they are
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?
On March 07 2020 07:30 Timmay wrote: Map: Last Fantasy Category: Challenge + Show Spoiler +
Question: Are 3p maps illegal?
Yes, yes they are
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?
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.
On March 07 2020 07:30 Timmay wrote: Map: Last Fantasy Category: Challenge + Show Spoiler +
Question: Are 3p maps illegal?
Yes, yes they are
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?
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
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.
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
And specifically this:
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
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!"
Meanwhile the red circles could potentially be rocks. Currently Shamrock has got this problem:
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
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...
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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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)
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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?
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 :/