EPTWhy is it so hard to put a Wikipedia link on the top of the page like any other tournament does??
$4000 WardiTV Team Liquid Map Contest Tournament 2 - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
RandomPlayer
Russian Federation389 Posts
Why is it so hard to put a Wikipedia link on the top of the page like any other tournament does?? | ||
|
Wardi
England896 Posts
16 - System Shock The map just doesn't really make sense - the watch towers give you very minimal information vs Terran/Protoss (I suppose you can watch for when the Natural is taken? Otherwise you just build everything outside of watch tower view.) For Zerg however if you spawn top side your Larva can be seen from the watchtower which is so insanely broken because people can see what is being built. No balance here and it naturally lead to very quick games. 15 - Backpfeifengesicht I'm always down for the cool ideas of giving players a choice of bases and their being a high risk vs high reward feature of a Natural gold, but I think the games really just showed us that holding a mineral line which is so open and easily attacked from the other side just doesn't work. I enjoy the idea of the map and if I was judging this was definitely a great idea, but it just doesn't work well in practice sadly. 14 - Kherrisan Rift This map saw its best showing in the finals with a long game of INnoVation vs soO, but I think this is more because INno chose to just sit, wall off and do nothing. Obviously it is a macro map and the idea is to create a map which allows for long games and makes it harder to attack on, but compared to the other macro maps this map really felt like it was just way too difficult to attack in mid-late, which is why a lot of players looked to end games early instead of letting it go on. Way too choke heavy, force field/zone control friendly. 13 - Travincal I don't think this map really made much of an impression on me. The "new" feature of the LOS blockers was tough to see in so few games and so it just felt like an ordinary map with a super defensive four bases. Maybe it didn't get the games it deserved, but just felt uninteresting when we saw it. 12 - Fracture I wanted to enjoy Fracture more, but I was pretty neutral about this map. I'm putting it low down because I feel for a "standard" map there were just better options (I would probably prefer to play this map more than others I rate higher honestly, but that's not how I'm doing my ranking :D). Three bases on high ground and easy to defend feels standard, but it's so quick to push across and I really felt this limited the games we saw. Also it feels difficult to find an open space to attack, with the choked center / rocks which allow you to play the choke points all the way until you reach your opponents base. 11 - Lost and Found The faded colour scheme / lighting on this map made it very difficult to watch games. Whatever setting it was that's been changed affected health bars, writing and all sorts. Multiple players complained that their units just looked different because of it and sometimes it was hard to see units too. I think the lighting has hurt this map more than anything else. It showed us a fun ZvZ between Bly and Solar, which showcased the heavy amount of ramps, but I felt there was also good amounts of space to fight on too. 10 - Cybros Relay Station A rush map that didn't really get me too excited, but still provided some fun games. I feel MMA vs Nerchio really showcased the weakness of this map later game, which is going past a fourth can be very difficult for a non-Zerg with so many pathways to attack on and the size of the map allowing rotations of fast moving runbys to take advantage. I feel the top right/bottom left of the map rarely got used and I'm still unsure about that big rock on the third. Wouldn't say I disliked the map, but the other rush maps definitely gave me more of a buzz. 9 - Dreamcatcher This map feels huge for a rush map! I originally rated this one higher in my list, because we didn't see bad games on it, but the more I think about it the less I like it. Drops feel maybe a bit too good and it can be very easy to hold a lot of bases. I think the map lacks some structure in general, because when we never really saw a lot of interesting occurrences in the center of the map and there were limited reasons to go anywhere other than through the shorter rush distance. 8 - Cerulean Falls The size of this map really surprised me when I got in-game! I don't have a lot to say about this one sadly, I feel a lot of the games on this map were alright but nothing spectacular. We saw very standard three bases, which it does well, but it's hard to know how the rest of it's architecture really plays out. I think the combination of choking the open areas while also having ramps leading into them can be interesting, but not sure how well it plays out. 7 - Treachery A more well-executed macro map which I feel I only rate so low because it kind of does its job so well : it creates macro games with not a lot happening. Easy map to split and take multiple bases on early, while creating scrappier games in the later stages because beyond 6 bases you really have to extend out to expand further. I'm personally not a fan of the 'macro category' in general, I feel like having one macro map in a map pool is fine, but they aren't the maps that get me the most excited. I can't fault this map though, it definitely does its job. 6 - 16 Bit This map does a pocket expansion well. I love it and I love the simple and clean decoration too (something which for me who looks at the maps a lot while casting is a big part of how much I like some of them ;D but not the only thing!!) I really wonder if there is a way to make this map just a tiny bit smaller, because I feel its only flaw is that it is slightly too large. An in-base expansion is always a fun way to have one map be different to others on the map pool and I was pleasantly surprised that more of the macro maps didn't use it as a way to simply be "macro". It never felt like the bases were being taken for free (something I felt on Treachery/Kherrisan for example), but it still had the macro feel. Multiple pathways, different expansion patterns, I was genuinely surprised the players vetoed this map so often. 5 - Arashi So this map has be super torn. We didn't get to see any super long games on this map (which I suppose is what is meant to happen on a rush map?), but I have to say I think the idea of it was really nice. It sticks to it's nature of being a rush map in so many ways. While it gives you a high ground third, there is a lot of space on the high ground so it is still difficult to hold. Later there are also rocks that can go down to open it up even further. It really is a rush map from the start of the game until the later stages, which is why I rated it so highly, I think it does its job in a unique way. I like how the rocks going down on the third actually create the fourth base too. Really fun map in its concept, which is why it is this high in my rankings. 4 - Artana It's getting difficult to split up my rankings for the last few maps because I like #2-#4 about the same amount I feel for different reasons. Artana gave us some fantastic games, it has a unique third being on the low ground but accessible from multiple directions and can even lead into a choice of expansions. The map is maybe a bit too choked on the right and left hand side (feels very difficult to attack into the fourth above/below the main?) but has some good open spaces as well. This map pleasantly surprised me in how it played out, which is why it is #4 in my ranking. It's standard in a fun way! 3 - Digital Frontier Okay I really didn't know whether to put this map at #3 or #2, but I put it at #3 because I think it is slightly less interesting at what it does than #2. It has some fun sets of rocks which change the map as it goes on as well as a third base that you can hold but not without some defensive units. This is definitely the definition of "clean, simple and fun to look at" when it comes to maps for me and I just enjoyed watching all the games on this one. Fun pathway options throughout the map as well mixes it up and allows each game to feel different with how players choose to move their units. 2 - Para Site Ahh! I didn't think I liked this map so much but the more I thought about it I really think it's a macro map I can get behind. It doesn't feel stupidly large, it gives you a fairly easy three and four base set-up (with a choice of fourth bases depending on how you want to expand). A fifth base comes down in a more forward location, allowing for engagements to be created towards your opponents base. And while these bases are easy to defend, the choices on how you can move your army stop it from feeling too split-map friendly. soO vs INno in the finals showed what this map can allow for, fun back and forth games with a lot of engagements, positions you can fall back to defensively but also locations you can push more easily. This map just felt right. 1 - Blueshift If this map isn't in the next ladder map pool I'm going to be heartbroken. First up it's straight up beautiful to look at (some players said it was a bit dark, but I've never had this issue of maps being too dark so it may be dependent on settings.) Secondly I love the way that you can almost tell how this map was made, it's taken aspects of maps that have worked so well in the past and adapted them to make it different enough, but still great to play. For me it reminds me the most of Catalyst, with a similar base structure but different high/low ground options. Obviously the pathway through the center has a lot to do with that, which is made interesting as the game continues due to the rocks which give the map more complexity as the game goes on. What I love about this map is it takes away some of the split map presence Catalyst has, by not having the forward base, which creates a more spread defense for armies later in the game. I really feel it creates fun macro games that promote moving around the map rather than sitting back doing nothing. Everything on this map works for me, which is why it's my number 1. Was awesome to get to run this tournament again! Apologies for the Group D cast where I was on a bit of a life tilt, as well as for the issues we had with some of the players (not much I can do here apart from not invite them back in the future.) If any of the map makers have any feedback on how the tournament phase went I would love to hear it so that I can improve on it if I get the chance to run the tournament phase again in the future. Thanks! | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On February 21 2018 00:31 RandomPlayer wrote: how am I supposed to find out about the results? Why is it so hard to put a Wikipedia link on the top of the page like any other tournament does?? Why is it so hard to open liquipedia yourself? | ||
|
Weavel
Finland9221 Posts
On February 21 2018 01:12 Ej_ wrote: yes it is.Why is it so hard to open liquipedia yourself? | ||
|
Executer08
Germany163 Posts
On February 21 2018 01:12 Ej_ wrote: Why is it so hard to open liquipedia yourself? to be fair you need a very high iq to copy paste the tournament name in liquipedia (or even google) | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On February 21 2018 00:48 Wardi wrote: Was awesome to get to run this tournament again! Apologies for the Group D cast where I was on a bit of a life tilt, as well as for the issues we had with some of the players (not much I can do here apart from not invite them back in the future.) If any of the map makers have any feedback on how the tournament phase went I would love to hear it so that I can improve on it if I get the chance to run the tournament phase again in the future. Thanks! I think you did a great job Wardi, even when I havent been able to tune in much b/c work and such, it was very fun watching the vods (thank you for making them available). I really dont have basically any request, I thought it was a great weekend+ of casts. Tho that said, could you PM me a .zip/.rar replay pack of the tournament, so I can make that pack available for all mapmakers to analyze? So yeah, even when it is not directly my call to make, hope to see you casting wherever the next TLMC comes around ^^! | ||
|
themusic246
United States211 Posts
1. A short on stream interview with a mapmaker would be fun. Maybe someone who has a map in the current ladder, etc. 2. Ask the players their thoughts on the map during stream, would be cool to get their perspective right after they played on it. 3. Give some advice/resources for viewers who are interested in creating maps but dont know where to start. 4. Cocaster might be good at times Quality tourney though and some really good games. The players cancelling last second is unfortunate, ask for 20k prizepool next time and they will stick around  Thanks for the good content. | ||
|
Wardi
England896 Posts
On February 21 2018 05:44 themusic246 wrote: Suggestions: 1. A short on stream interview with a mapmaker would be fun. Maybe someone who has a map in the current ladder, etc. 2. Ask the players their thoughts on the map during stream, would be cool to get their perspective right after they played on it. 3. Give some advice/resources for viewers who are interested in creating maps but dont know where to start. 4. Cocaster might be good at times Quality tourney though and some really good games. The players cancelling last second is unfortunate, ask for 20k prizepool next time and they will stick around Thanks for the good content.1. Something I did last time with Avex. I actually wanted to produce a bunch of extra content for this map contest tourney, but it's very difficult because I am giving the finalists just about a day in advance of the tournament beginning and at that point it's difficult to find time to organize, produce and put together the content. My personal feedback for this event is maybe giving me a couple more days between finalists being decided and the tournament phase next time around! 2. Something I can definitely try and do more -- finding a balance of keeping the games moving and not distracting them mid-series and also asking them would be cool. Maybe short interviews with group winners or so could be arranged (for the English speaking players) 3. That's something I can look into more as well! Glad you enjoyed and thanks for the feedback! | ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
MMA vs Creator Creator's first oracle died to a widow mine before it could do anything. This game could have been very interesting if Creator managed to kill MMA's medivacs full with units instead of the ones with nothing. soO vs uThermal uThermal's two proxy barracks were immediately scouted by soO. This was a waste of a game for everyone involved. ByuN vs MaNa ByuN proxied a reaper in MaNa's natural and killed four probes with it. ByuN leveraged that advantage to victory. Solar vs INnoVation Solar rallied 15 drones into INnoVation's hellbats. Solar pulled off a zergling run-by, but it didn't do nearly as much damage as his blunder a few moments earlier. Bly vs Solar Bly placed a Nydus Worm in front of Solar's natural, and continuously pumped out roaches. This could have played out the same way on any map. INnoVation vs soO INnoVation was already up 5-1 in the series. soO tried to roach/ravager all-in with a proxy hatchery and failed. Some Thoughts: 1) There were a lot of factors outside my control that prevented good games. I am one of the few map makers who will defend players doing all-ins and proxies on new maps, as I think those builds need to be in a player's toolbox to properly text maps. However, when a map is only played six or seven times, multiple all-ins can rob us of useful feedback, especially when the builds are not map specific. 2) Comments like, “the map is too open,” are not useful when ignoring the rush distance and other factors. If I reduce the openness or shrink the map, tank pushes will likely become too strong. It might not be perfect, but I think I did a good job balancing the amount of chokes with the distance between players. If I don't see other high level games on this map that prove otherwise, it would be really hard to justify making changes. Some people seem to want an Eastwatch level of openness, but Eastwatch is a much larger map (148x154 vs 136x136), so it needs to have more chokes. 3) The orientation of the main and natural mineral lines might make drops too strong, but I did leave a lot of room behind the resources to compensate. If enough people think these spots are too easy to abuse, I will consider moving the resources. However, please consider the main and natural are flush against the corner of the map, leaving a smaller perimeter to drop compared to the majority of maps. 4) Based on stream comments, Dreamcatcher seemed to be very polarizing. None of the haters ever bothered to expand upon their comments, so please forgive me when I disregard them. 5) Dreamcatcher's symmetry is confusing some people. The most recent angled mirrored map on ladder was Dash and Terminal, which was removed over two years ago. One person in chat claimed Dreamcatcher is asymmetrical (it's not). It should only take one or two games for a player to get used to the symmetry, but unless the map gets added to ladder, no one will bother. 6) Wardi is the right caster for map tournaments. With the tournament starting a day after maps were announced, he put effort into learning the 16 maps as fast as possible. | ||
|
gnuoy00
26 Posts
| ||
| ||
