Ladies and Gentleman, today I want to announce that the members of the TPW mapmaking team, who over the course of the last two years made numerous melee maps and up until half a year ago were arguably the strongest mapmaking team in SC2, have lost interest to continue making maps for SC2.
We want to thank the following members for their participation in the team: lefix - Maps, Samro225am - Maps, Meerel - Maps 1and 2, monitor - Maps, Meltage - Maps, wrl - Maps, Icetoad - Maps and some of the people who didn’t make maps for longer Johanaz, NullCurrent, Archvil3, Antares and Ragoo.
Hopefully we will all remain friends and once again make maps another time.
Furthermore a big thanks to any other mapmaker who we always had a good relationship with and worked together. Thanks also for the efforts that Tim Frazier made to get our maps into IPL, to Plexa for organizing the TLMC, iGrok for making the Map of the Month happen in the past and basically everyone who thinks he should be thanked here.
Before I talk about why we retire I want to clarify why people would even start to make maps.
Basically what most mapmakers would say is their main motivation to make melee maps is that they are huge fans of Starcraft as an esport and thus they want to contribute to get the best possible spectator experience. And as far as the game itself is concerned, making high quality and diverse/interesting maps for the game is the only way to go.
Yes some mapmakers simply have fun making aesthetics, playing on their own maps (with friends) or just create silly ideas. But the end goal and what drove people to make maps at such a high level was always to make SC2 a better and more enjoyable esport.
I want to briefly address the claims I often hear that mapmakers would see money as a goal. That is absolutely ridiculous; money was never a goal by any mapmaker or an incentive to make maps. It’s just not an issue and not nearly as important as getting the best maps played. Furthermore all competition amongst mapmakers and teams always was friendly and they cooperated a lot. Also I think nobody ever felt entitled about their maps having to be used by tournaments. But I believe everyone always felt that maps is an aspect of SC2 that could always be improved and we fought for a common goal.
Now that we have established a reason why people would want to make maps, let me clarify why they would stop. Now first disregard all the things that could be different, that could make mapmaking feel shit and hopeless and who is to blame. Disregarding the fact that Bnet was and still is shit, disregard the fact the fact that foreign tournaments barely did care about well thought out map rotation/map pools, disregard the fact that this community as a whole is rly conservative when it comes to maps (and TLMC vote results are skewed heavily to favor the least innovative maps), the fact that Blizzard never tried to reach out and use the –free- resources we were providing, the fact that other companies (*cough* Valve) are doing a much better job at rewarding and working with content creators, the fact that mapmakers have many serious issues with how the game is designed (see r/starcraft Protoss design thread from some days ago and read Lalush posts to get a good idea; also lack of highground advantage), the fact that his game may or may not be dying or the fact that Blizzard randomly without asking changes the maps they add to ladder.
I may or may not write a longer post about the things that went wrong from our point of view (altho I may have done some of that already here).
At its core the simple reason why people stopped being motivated to make maps is that the maps never get used.
If on average 10 high level mapmakers make a map every 2 months, every map takes at least 40 (but easily a lot more) hours to do and they do this for 3 years. Well you do the math, and this is only including maps that I would consider high quality (for their respective time ofc). Plus you have to look at all of the hours of practice, discussion and watching/playing Starcraft to even get to the level to be able to produce high quality melee maps.
When at the end of the day I can count on one hand the maps by the foreign community that were used in important tournaments you can see why the amount of work put in is not in a healthy relation to what anyone gets out of it.
Compare to the Korean mapmaking scene which is tiny in comparison and thus has less depth and arguably also had less individual quality. Yet they always had the support of GSL and now Kespa that really cared to make the best possible map pools and have a healthy map rotation, and also cared for maps to be diverse.
What else is there to say, now that DF and TPW is officially retired the foreign melee mapmaking scene is practically dead.
Then again, despite all of the hours of work put into it I’m not sure you could have ever called it alive and healthy.
On August 24 2013 20:37 digmouse wrote: What??? WHY?? I know DF but I totally didn't expect this...
Pretty much a ragequit. Mapmaking always has been hard but it's not surprising at all how it went .
Oh in case it seems like this was solely triggered by DF retirement. Yes and no. We are all inactive for some time now, DF retirement post just made me think that I should probably write something official about it as well so people know.
On August 24 2013 20:45 Stijn wrote: So there's 7 people in this team, and they all collectively decided to never start the Galaxy Editor again?
Is it really so unbelievable? Making competitive maps for StarCraft II has always been an uphill struggle, and Blizzard hasn't exactly been entirely receptive to integrating the community maps into the ladder for a long, long time. Barring the two TLMC events, there's always been a nigh-impregnable barrier for mapmakers to deal with in order to get any sort of return on their time.
While I'm saddened by the disbanding of TPW's incredibly talented team of cartographers, I unfortunately can't say I'm very surprised by it either. Good luck to all of you fine people.
It's really sad how little support there has been in the foreign community for mapmakers.
It's sad to see you guys go. Hopefully Blizzard gets their act together at some point and hopefully it'll be enough to bring some life back into the community.
On August 24 2013 20:51 Vindicare605 wrote: It's really sad how little support there has been in the foreign community for mapmakers.
It's sad to see you guys go. Hopefully Blizzard gets their act together at some point and hopefully it'll be enough to bring some life back into the community.
The issue with saying statements like this is that these people were never hired by anyone. I'm pretty sure the teams that make maps for Kespa/OGN are all on staff are they not? Admittedly it's still shit and it has been for a very long time, but the SC2 community thanks to terrible game design for the entirety of WoL and maybe even now cannot seem to accept that not every map has to be Ohana. I singlehandedly blame that map for the majority of problems the map making community has.
Ironman I'm sorry, but you made a very stale and boring map to watch and play, yet people lapped it up for some reason and since that map and Daybreak stayed in the pool for so long, the majority of people won't accept the more off the wall maps that these teams create. Korpulu for example was by far the most interesting map in the TLMC and because it didn't resemble Daybreak/Ohana/other boring as hell easy 4 base maps, people hated it and didn't vote for it.
The issues with map making outside of Korea are numerous. Blizzard may be one yes, but the community at large is the largest. Any time a map appears with 4 spawns people protest that it be made cross spawns. I mean what is the point of even bothering to make a 4P map if it's only going to have 2 sets of possible spawns? Why not just make a 2 player map? That issue alone stagnated the entire metagame in WoL due to the lack of variety in maps in WoL and is starting to do the same in HoTS too.
I wish you guys the best of luck as Monitor and Terranlover made some of my favourite maps, it's a shame you all lost your passion and drive but I can understand why. I wish it didn't have to end like this ;/
On August 24 2013 20:45 Stijn wrote: So there's 7 people in this team, and they all collectively decided to never start the Galaxy Editor again?
Is it really so unbelievable? Making competitive maps for StarCraft II has always been an uphill struggle, and Blizzard hasn't exactly been entirely receptive to integrating the community maps into the ladder for a long, long time. Barring the two TLMC events, there's always been a nigh-impregnable barrier for mapmakers to deal with in order to get any sort of return on their time.
I'm just confused by the collectivity these map making teams display I guess. I've not been keeping eyes on Starcraft 2's mapmaking scene too closely, but I've played enough other games where map making was a thing, and while people sometimes got together it wasn't like they would collectively quit the scene or anything like that. Teams disbanded, but that didn't mean all members also retired at the same time.
As I was saying on IRC, I've yet to encounter a game where the chance of having your map be a hit with players is worth banking on. I understand that with the ladder being so important, and Blizzard having tight control over what maps go on ladder, that's even harder in Starcraft 2, but hasn't that been clear from the start? I remember when the first TLMC came around, the chance of actually getting your map in the ladder pool was seen as a pretty unexpected and extraordinary. That has never really been different I think. To see both map making teams that have called it quits cite Blizzard's lack of cooperation as a reason to quit raises the question of why this cooperation, or expectation of cooperation, was ever a factor in continuing at all - which it apparently was - as it's never been something you could count on.
Map making is dead because no tournament organizers has the drive to implement new maps. Is it sad ? Most certainly but I barely play nowadays and I've no quarrel with seeing rocks all over maps once again because that's what will happen now.
As I was saying on IRC, I've yet to encounter a game where the chance of having your map be a hit with players is worth banking on. I understand that with the ladder being so important, and Blizzard having tight control over what maps go on ladder, that's even harder in Starcraft 2, but hasn't that been clear from the start? I remember when the first TLMC came around, the chance of actually getting your map in the ladder pool was seen as a pretty unexpected and extraordinary. That has never really been different I think. To see both map making teams that have called it quits cite Blizzard's lack of cooperation as a reason to quit raises the question of why this cooperation, or expectation of cooperation, was ever a factor in continuing at all - which it apparently was - as it's never been something you could count on.
But back then mapmakers atleast had tournaments to fall back on as ladder wasn't all that relevant when it came to maps.
I guess having some maps in a relatively small and obscure mod is really just not cutting it. Very sad, I for one really liked the TPW maps that we had for Starbow. Ty for the maps and gl hf
On August 24 2013 21:18 Azelja wrote: I guess having some maps in a relatively small and obscure mod is really just not cutting it. Very sad, I for one really liked the TPW maps that we had for Starbow. Ty for the maps and gl hf
I think Mereel will still make some maps for such mods. He often just randomly throws a map out there that made really quick even nowadays hehe. It just won't have the TPW tag so whatever.
On August 24 2013 20:45 Stijn wrote: So there's 7 people in this team, and they all collectively decided to never start the Galaxy Editor again?
No I'm basically just officially announcing that we are all more or less inactive. This didn't happen over night.
sad, I always loved browsing through topmaps. However I gotta say you are being very harsh on blizzard/community. Neither the players, nor the viewers want to have 20+ tournament maps around. Mappools will simply be kept small and rotate slowly.
It's not on the maps to revolutionize the metagame, it's on the players. (no matter how many out-of-context BW replies I get for this sentence, I will put it out)
On August 24 2013 21:26 Big J wrote: sad, I always loved browsing through topmaps. However I gotta say you are being very harsh on blizzard/community. Neither the players, nor the viewers want to have 20+ tournament maps around. Mappools will simply be kept small and rotate slowly.
It's not on the maps to revolutionize the metagame, it's on the players. (no matter how many out-of-context BW replies I get for this sentence, I will put it out)
Ehm 20+ maps is a horrible idea. I never proposed such a thing. In fact I think for the longest time we had too many tournament maps around.
More maps means maps and map pools can be less unique or you have a hard time practicing.
In BW map pools were 4 or 5 maps big but they were really well made and diverse plus they were rotated more often which would be a more desirable state.
On August 24 2013 21:26 Big J wrote: sad, I always loved browsing through topmaps. However I gotta say you are being very harsh on blizzard/community. Neither the players, nor the viewers want to have 20+ tournament maps around. Mappools will simply be kept small and rotate slowly.
It's not on the maps to revolutionize the metagame, it's on the players. (no matter how many out-of-context BW replies I get for this sentence, I will put it out)
Ehm 20+ maps is a horrible idea. I never proposed such a thing. In fact I think for the longest time we had too many tournament maps around.
More maps means maps and map pools can be less unique or you have a hard time practicing.
In BW map pools were 4 or 5 maps big but they were really well made and diverse plus they were rotated more often which would be a more desirable state.
Well, blizzard makes a few maps per season. Kespa makes a few maps per season. Gom makes a few maps per season. A few maps of various community mapmakerteams and contests make it into the mappools every few seasons.
There is not a lot of room for any other maps, unless you want the united global mappool to be bigger.
On August 24 2013 21:26 Big J wrote: sad, I always loved browsing through topmaps. However I gotta say you are being very harsh on blizzard/community. Neither the players, nor the viewers want to have 20+ tournament maps around. Mappools will simply be kept small and rotate slowly.
It's not on the maps to revolutionize the metagame, it's on the players. (no matter how many out-of-context BW replies I get for this sentence, I will put it out)
Ehm 20+ maps is a horrible idea. I never proposed such a thing. In fact I think for the longest time we had too many tournament maps around.
More maps means maps and map pools can be less unique or you have a hard time practicing.
In BW map pools were 4 or 5 maps big but they were really well made and diverse plus they were rotated more often which would be a more desirable state.
Well, blizzard makes a few maps per season. Kespa makes a few maps per season. Gom makes a few maps per season. A few maps of various community mapmakerteams and contests make it into the mappools every few seasons.
There is not a lot of room for any other maps, unless you want the united global mappool to be bigger.
And why not, Korea already has exclusive maps why can't NA and EU also have exclusive maps.
And why the hell does Blizzard have to make maps? It's not their strongest area so why do it when they can have maps for free from the community who has some experts for mapmaking.
On August 24 2013 21:41 Big J wrote: Well, blizzard makes a few maps per season. Kespa makes a few maps per season. Gom makes a few maps per season. A few maps of various community mapmakerteams and contests make it into the mappools every few seasons.
There is not a lot of room for any other maps, unless you want the united global mappool to be bigger.
That is just entirely not true Big J I don't know where you pulled that from.
Blizzard might make a new map every WCS season, and it would probably be a bad map. We can assume that Gom and Kespa will continue to be alternating seasons, so the hosting company might get an allocated map for their season. "A few community maps" simply don't get added every few seasons. Every couple years sure.
Ideally every WCS season we're getting one new map from Blizzard (we shouldn't be, they are bad) and one Kespa/Gom map. That leaves room for one new community map (for a reasonable rotation) EVERY season. 3 new maps 4 old maps every season.
What would be better is one new Gom/Kespa map and two new community maps (or vice versa)...
Obviously only more or less standard maps get in the rotation. Look at Anaconda/Gwanghalli being left out this season while Polar Night (aka 90 degree rotation of some older map) gets in. What's worse? I feel like even GOM is getting very Blizzard-ish recently as their maps seem more and more generic each season. Hell, thats what our community want. No safe 3rd? fuck this shit Rotational symmetry? fuck this shit Big 4-player map? fuck this shit. the list goes on
Hello! I am a broodwar map maker, and I read all SC2 map threads here on tl. Im not sure if you know of me, hence the mini intro, but I have really enjoyed all your creations. Im interested in what you guys are planning on doing next. Personally I am finding pixel art, and also 3d modelling in blender really fun at the moment. + Show Spoiler +
You guys are all expert 3d modellers now, where will you take these talents? Are there any games you are interested in getting involved with? Basically, whats on the cards now?
Alot of mapping concepts from sc2 transfer over to broodwar, so if you fancy doing some broodwar map making, head to broodwarmaps.net There have been over 10 new maps uploaded there in the last week alone, so we are pretty active!
On August 24 2013 20:45 Stijn wrote: So there's 7 people in this team, and they all collectively decided to never start the Galaxy Editor again?
Is it really so unbelievable? Making competitive maps for StarCraft II has always been an uphill struggle, and Blizzard hasn't exactly been entirely receptive to integrating the community maps into the ladder for a long, long time. Barring the two TLMC events, there's always been a nigh-impregnable barrier for mapmakers to deal with in order to get any sort of return on their time.
While I'm saddened by the disbanding of TPW's incredibly talented team of cartographers, I unfortunately can't say I'm very surprised by it either. Good luck to all of you fine people.
ROI? Hmm why not make maps just for the love of the game? Mapmaking as long as I know it always has been about fans of the game giving something. From the first half-life maps, to great maps like cloud kingdom in sc2. Isn't appreciation and love of the community enough? Does there need to be a revenue-model in place?
Still I have enough trust that there will be people making maps simply because they can and want to create stuff they like to play themselves.
On August 24 2013 23:06 Loxley wrote: ROI? Hmm why not make maps just for the love of the game? Mapmaking as long as I know it always has been about fans of the game giving something. From the first half-life maps, to great maps like cloud kingdom in sc2. Isn't appreciation and love of the community enough? Does there need to be a revenue-model in place?
Still I have enough trust that there will be people making maps simply because they can and want to create stuff they like to play themselves.
On August 24 2013 22:41 Arceus wrote: Obviously only more or less standard maps get in the rotation. Look at Anaconda/Gwanghalli being left out this season while Polar Night (aka 90 degree rotation of some older map) gets in. What's worse? I feel like even GOM is getting very Blizzard-ish recently as their maps seem more and more generic each season. Hell, thats what our community want. No safe 3rd? fuck this shit Rotational symmetry? fuck this shit Big 4-player map? fuck this shit. the list goes on
On August 24 2013 23:06 Loxley wrote: ROI? Hmm why not make maps just for the love of the game? Mapmaking as long as I know it always has been about fans of the game giving something. From the first half-life maps, to great maps like cloud kingdom in sc2. Isn't appreciation and love of the community enough? Does there need to be a revenue-model in place?
Still I have enough trust that there will be people making maps simply because they can and want to create stuff they like to play themselves.
On August 24 2013 22:43 CardinalAllin wrote: Hello! I am a broodwar map maker, and I read all SC2 map threads here on tl. Im not sure if you know of me, hence the mini intro, but I have really enjoyed all your creations. Im interested in what you guys are planning on doing next. Personally I am finding pixel art, and also 3d modelling in blender really fun at the moment. + Show Spoiler +
You guys are all expert 3d modellers now, where will you take these talents? Are there any games you are interested in getting involved with? Basically, whats on the cards now?
Alot of mapping concepts from sc2 transfer over to broodwar, so if you fancy doing some broodwar map making, head to broodwarmaps.net There have been over 10 new maps uploaded there in the last week alone, so we are pretty active!
well maybe i will make something with maps in the future, but for now its mostly Dota and rl stuff. we arent really 3d modeller for the most part i think, some made some basic stuff like lefix. i think the skills you get from mapmaking is mostly in leveldesign
i used to make melee maps back in the day for fun but a little hoping something would be used in tournaments. but quickly i realized the structure in tournament formats and blizzard having control i quickly lost hope for it. how maps have been selected and which maps has been played through-out sc2 is a tragedy :/
On August 24 2013 21:26 Big J wrote: sad, I always loved browsing through topmaps. However I gotta say you are being very harsh on blizzard/community. Neither the players, nor the viewers want to have 20+ tournament maps around. Mappools will simply be kept small and rotate slowly.
It's not on the maps to revolutionize the metagame, it's on the players. (no matter how many out-of-context BW replies I get for this sentence, I will put it out)
Ehm 20+ maps is a horrible idea. I never proposed such a thing. In fact I think for the longest time we had too many tournament maps around.
More maps means maps and map pools can be less unique or you have a hard time practicing.
In BW map pools were 4 or 5 maps big but they were really well made and diverse plus they were rotated more often which would be a more desirable state.
Well, blizzard makes a few maps per season. Kespa makes a few maps per season. Gom makes a few maps per season. A few maps of various community mapmakerteams and contests make it into the mappools every few seasons.
There is not a lot of room for any other maps, unless you want the united global mappool to be bigger.
maby rotate more quickly between them?
tpw, gl in everything you will do in the rest of your live
Well that was unexpected, i didn't thought that you guys would release a "press statement", but yeah, TPW had been quite innactive for a good while, but here 'im waiting you guys suck at retiring just like ProdiG ^^
Also what will happen to sc2melee.net will you guys keep updating it? will you give the control of the page to someone? or will you put the web down for good?
On August 24 2013 20:51 Vindicare605 wrote: It's really sad how little support there has been in the foreign community for mapmakers.
It's sad to see you guys go. Hopefully Blizzard gets their act together at some point and hopefully it'll be enough to bring some life back into the community.
The issue with saying statements like this is that these people were never hired by anyone. I'm pretty sure the teams that make maps for Kespa/OGN are all on staff are they not? Admittedly it's still shit and it has been for a very long time, but the SC2 community thanks to terrible game design for the entirety of WoL and maybe even now cannot seem to accept that not every map has to be Ohana. I singlehandedly blame that map for the majority of problems the map making community has.
Ironman I'm sorry, but you made a very stale and boring map to watch and play, yet people lapped it up for some reason and since that map and Daybreak stayed in the pool for so long, the majority of people won't accept the more off the wall maps that these teams create. Korpulu for example was by far the most interesting map in the TLMC and because it didn't resemble Daybreak/Ohana/other boring as hell easy 4 base maps, people hated it and didn't vote for it.
The issues with map making outside of Korea are numerous. Blizzard may be one yes, but the community at large is the largest. Any time a map appears with 4 spawns people protest that it be made cross spawns. I mean what is the point of even bothering to make a 4P map if it's only going to have 2 sets of possible spawns? Why not just make a 2 player map? That issue alone stagnated the entire metagame in WoL due to the lack of variety in maps in WoL and is starting to do the same in HoTS too.
I wish you guys the best of luck as Monitor and Terranlover made some of my favourite maps, it's a shame you all lost your passion and drive but I can understand why. I wish it didn't have to end like this ;/
Ok? It's not like I haven't heard this complaint before, and I even admitted several times that it has become a boring map. You guys keep on throwing it out there, don't you? What's your point, ultimately? Like any map, you don't know exactly how it will play out. When the meta-game changes, so do play styles on any particular map. I'm willing to bet that you did not know that Ohana was boring and stale in its beginning stages. It just happened to turn out that way. It seems like you are implying that Ohana set the baseline tone for what maps are accepted and what aren't until further notice. Sorry to disappoint you guys, but seriously, it's about time you get over the ohana thing.
It is a real shame to think of all the wasted potential. To think that maps like derelict watcher and newkirk precinct are being used in tournaments while maps like strangewood mire get tossed aside. I mean here are guys that took melee mapping, which is basically glorified chessboard redesign, and turned it into an art form.
On August 25 2013 11:43 TheFish7 wrote: It is a real shame to think of all the wasted potential. To think that maps like derelict watcher and newkirk precinct are being used in tournaments while maps like strangewood mire get tossed aside. I mean here are guys that took melee mapping, which is basically glorified chessboard redesign, and turned it into an art form.
that map honestly looks like it would lag for some of us
I always thought the reaction from Pros is wanting a more standard map pool between all the tournaments. For awhile it was pretty crazy to see so many different pools. But was nice if there was only 1-2 different maps.
I get the feeling from TL posts of most mapmaking teams that they verrrry butthurt whenever their maps are not used.
Are there weekly cups that use your maps? Do pros help test your map and give their comments on it? If you feel like your map is the best thing since sliced bread, but no know has played it, how do people expect it to be picked for a map pool?
On August 25 2013 11:43 TheFish7 wrote: It is a real shame to think of all the wasted potential. To think that maps like derelict watcher and newkirk precinct are being used in tournaments while maps like strangewood mire get tossed aside. I mean here are guys that took melee mapping, which is basically glorified chessboard redesign, and turned it into an art form.
To be honest, I find that Newkirk Precinct (and the Redevelopment version) provide a lot of good games so far. Taeja vs Innovation from WCS Season 2 Finals and Zero vs Trap in Proleague Finals for example.
On August 25 2013 12:05 Sufinsil wrote: Are there weekly cups that use your maps? Do pros help test your map and give their comments on it? If you feel like your map is the best thing since sliced bread, but no know has played it, how do people expect it to be picked for a map pool?
The hard thing is, there are a few weekly tournaments that sometimes use community maps, but not many. They can't really get people to play the map without it being in tournaments or the TLMC. I don't blame the tournaments very heavily for not picking community maps, they have obvious reasons for doing so. It's just sad that the way Blizzard and tournaments work keeps the map pool so stale, and gives foreign community maps such little gameplay
TPW, I've always enjoyed looking at your maps in the forum, and have been impressed countless times. You will be missed!
The supply of creative, well-designed maps far outpaces the demand for them.
Blizzard's ladder system extends the lifespan of maps tremendously. Pros want a small & consistent set of maps to practice on, and viewers want to watch games on maps that they can play on - ladder provides a nearly-unified map pool to satisfy both groups. If ladder rotated faster, tournaments would rotate faster, and we would actually need to draw on community maps, rather than recycling the same Blizzard, GSL, and KESPA maps until they've been completely played out.
The upcoming season with Frost, Yeonsu, and Polar Nights is a step in the right direction.
On August 24 2013 20:51 Vindicare605 wrote: It's really sad how little support there has been in the foreign community for mapmakers.
It's sad to see you guys go. Hopefully Blizzard gets their act together at some point and hopefully it'll be enough to bring some life back into the community.
The issue with saying statements like this is that these people were never hired by anyone. I'm pretty sure the teams that make maps for Kespa/OGN are all on staff are they not? Admittedly it's still shit and it has been for a very long time, but the SC2 community thanks to terrible game design for the entirety of WoL and maybe even now cannot seem to accept that not every map has to be Ohana. I singlehandedly blame that map for the majority of problems the map making community has.
Ironman I'm sorry, but you made a very stale and boring map to watch and play, yet people lapped it up for some reason and since that map and Daybreak stayed in the pool for so long, the majority of people won't accept the more off the wall maps that these teams create. Korpulu for example was by far the most interesting map in the TLMC and because it didn't resemble Daybreak/Ohana/other boring as hell easy 4 base maps, people hated it and didn't vote for it.
The issues with map making outside of Korea are numerous. Blizzard may be one yes, but the community at large is the largest. Any time a map appears with 4 spawns people protest that it be made cross spawns. I mean what is the point of even bothering to make a 4P map if it's only going to have 2 sets of possible spawns? Why not just make a 2 player map? That issue alone stagnated the entire metagame in WoL due to the lack of variety in maps in WoL and is starting to do the same in HoTS too.
I wish you guys the best of luck as Monitor and Terranlover made some of my favourite maps, it's a shame you all lost your passion and drive but I can understand why. I wish it didn't have to end like this ;/
I wouldnt blame the community as much, because the general design of the gameplay makes certain exciting map features rather overpowered or at least bad.
There was a KeSPA map with one narrow parth around the whole map to the backdoor of the enemy base and another narrow path to the second or third base. Those chokes are far too abuseable by Forcefield and they are far too easy to defend against the massive armies of SC2. That map was a recreated BW map and had been acceptable for that other game with its lower amount of units on the battlefield. So any "narrow stuff in the middle" - which would make the terrain exciting - goes against the core concept of SC2, which is "massive battles with lots of units and crowd control spells are acceptable". As the end result the trend surely goes towards relatively boring large maps with open center and open 3rd+ bases.
"The community" cant really go for non-ladder maps because it has been trained by Blizzard to be lazy and dumb and just hit the button and let the machine "think" for you to get a new opponent to play against and the only ones who would have the chance to play on new maps would be people who want to play with their friends in unranked games. Those are a tiny tiny minority of the community, because "playing for fun" has become secondary to "proving how good you are at being better than others" on the ladder. The "oh I just switched to mass producing Zerglings and Banelings and bust you now" design of the game where you need to react to a threat within a small amount of time is to blame for not being able to play for fun .... its simply too easy to produce far more than your friend with only a small switch in your focus in the game and whoever makes that switch first just overruns the opponent with no chance of defense. So playing "for fun" isnt really possible. A slow game economy and production like BW had made it much easier to play a "not-so-serious" game while NOT outpacing your friends by miles.
It's sad to see the map community closing the doors one by one. I remember being one of the first mappers to help start TPW way back, and boy were we burning with passion to make maps. After nearly three years and so many shortcomings and being neglected by blizzard and organizers (this goes for all map teams, not just TPW), it's really not surprising to see this happen. When fire stops receiving oxygen, the fire gets snuffed out.
It was always a pleasure working with the TPW guys from time to time. Take it easy fellas.
I agree with Plexa that this seems like a pointless thread. TPW was inactive for a looong time and then TLMC2 was announced, they came back with some new stuff and now are inactive again. I think it's ridiculous because I know if TLMC3 gets announced 95% of all these mappers will come back, working together and getting feedback from anybody and everybody. I mean, hell, that map makers skype channel is basically 1 giant team.
If you aren't having fun mapping then why bother. I still randomly get on the editor and pump out something new and I have fun doing it. I absolute hate trying to find a layout I enjoy because that's the hardest part, but once I find that layout I like, doodading the fuck out of it is so damn enjoyable for me lol. Hell, I haven't really played sc2 for months, so I make these maps and they get played by my 2 RL friends and maybe a handful of people that see it on TL. Good enough for me.
Honestly there is no need for Blizzard to make melee maps by their own internal mapmakers and I have no idea why they choose to do so. There are just so many great maps and mapmakers out there. They can easily pick and choose from the large amount of melee maps by community mapmakers.
It saves their money, makes the mapmaking community happy, and to be honest, most Blizzard's maps are simply not as good as maps by these top community mapmakers.
This seems very pointless. As have been stated by others, this team tends to only be active around the TLMC these days.
What i find problematic is the timing really. Blizzard just announced that 3 new community maps are entering ladder. They have never implemented 3 community maps at once before. At a time where map diversity is at an all time high, you choose to announce your retirement? Serriously, it sends the completely wrong message. I realise that the past 3 years have been hard, but this really is a bad move. In 6 months if we got the same map stagnation as we saw in WOL, Sure announce your long-comming retirement, but not now.
you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
So it is untrue that because Terrans have the MULE the number of "realistically useable Gold expansions" kinda had to be reduced or phased out?
So it is untrue that because Protoss have Forcefield and Zerg have Fungal AND the fact that the game is "designed for massive battles" any maps with chokes or smaller pathways in the middle have been considered badly balanced and had to be taken out? Incineration Zone was pretty good for Siege Tanks for example ... too good in fact and was considered a bad map.
So it is untrue that because of the massive amount of production small maps are really bad?
The bottom line is that yes there may be some neat mechanics which mapmakers can add to the game, BUT there are quite a lot of things they cant do simply because of the way the game is designed. Your "flat denial" sounds kinda black-and-whiteish as if the opinion of Ygritte cant be true because you find some examples which prove the opposite. The community has been trained by Blizzard to only expect "mass army play". It simply is very risky in SC2 to split off a part of your army and for some races the efficiency of small chunks is rather limited.
Four Marauders and a Medivac are very powerful and able to deal a lot of damage if they arent responded to as a drop. Take four Stalkers and a Warp Prism and you wont have the same efficiency as harrassment. This is the fault of the design of the game and it limits the options available to players AND ultimately makes funky maps with neat and nifty play favor one or two races too much.
Thus these maps are less viable for "balanced ladder or tournament play". Even the "KeSPA rock map" is nowhere to be seen anymore, probably because people feel that the game needs early harrassment to balance the races due to the necessity of "dont let him get there"-counter strategies which are required against some races.
The game is designed around "high speed" [production and economy] and easy to use massive armies and this limits map design in the same way greater speed in a car limits the tightness of bends you can safely drive through. Limited production speed and economy AND most importantly unit control/density force spreading your units and make more interesting maps less of a problem.
again thank you for the maps, they were fun. Wasn't unexpected though if you followed the custom map thread. Wish tournaments would have been more active, before it was to late.
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
the only reason i believe that is because i play the game.
one simple example: every natural is basically the same on every map that is played (some may have a tiny bit smaller entrance than others). we do not have naturals like the one xel naga caverns anymore. why is that? because pvz is balanced around that.
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
So it is untrue that because Terrans have the MULE the number of "realistically useable Gold expansions" kinda had to be reduced or phased out?
So it is untrue that because Protoss have Forcefield and Zerg have Fungal AND the fact that the game is "designed for massive battles" any maps with chokes or smaller pathways in the middle have been considered badly balanced and had to be taken out? Incineration Zone was pretty good for Siege Tanks for example ... too good in fact and was considered a bad map.
So it is untrue that because of the massive amount of production small maps are really bad?
The bottom line is that yes there may be some neat mechanics which mapmakers can add to the game, BUT there are quite a lot of things they cant do simply because of the way the game is designed. Your "flat denial" sounds kinda black-and-whiteish as if the opinion of Ygritte cant be true because you find some examples which prove the opposite. The community has been trained by Blizzard to only expect "mass army play". It simply is very risky in SC2 to split off a part of your army and for some races the efficiency of small chunks is rather limited.
Four Marauders and a Medivac are very powerful and able to deal a lot of damage if they arent responded to as a drop. Take four Stalkers and a Warp Prism and you wont have the same efficiency as harrassment. This is the fault of the design of the game and it limits the options available to players AND ultimately makes funky maps with neat and nifty play favor one or two races too much.
Thus these maps are less viable for "balanced ladder or tournament play". Even the "KeSPA rock map" is nowhere to be seen anymore, probably because people feel that the game needs early harrassment to balance the races due to the necessity of "dont let him get there"-counter strategies which are required against some races.
The game is designed around "high speed" [production and economy] and easy to use massive armies and this limits map design in the same way greater speed in a car limits the tightness of bends you can safely drive through. Limited production speed and economy AND most importantly unit control/density force spreading your units and make more interesting maps less of a problem.
1) It's actually false that MULEs make gold bases bad for map balance. MULEs don't mine extra from gold bases. Usually the argument is that gold bases make it too hard to come back from because you generally can only hold gold bases if you are ahead, and if you are ahead and have a gold base you get further ahead. 2) GSL Red City is an example of a recent map with small pathways and rocks everywhere, and it was not particularly Protoss favoured. 3) I have no idea how small maps have anything to do with massive production. Obviously a smaller map inhibits mass macro play because there just are not enough safe bases. If anything the community generally do not like small maps because they don't like getting cheesed. 4) Obviously 4 stalkers and a warp prism won't do much because stalkers are bad units in general. Warp prism play is getting really popular. It is a staple of templar-first play in PvT (4 zealots in prism around 10 minutes in). Just don't put bad units inside warp prisms 5) Your last paragraph is vintage Rabiator and I won't even waste time arguing.
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
the only reason i believe that is because i play the game.
one simple example: every natural is basically the same on every map that is played (some may have a tiny bit smaller entrance than others). we do not have naturals like the one xel naga caverns anymore. why is that? because pvz is balanced around that.
it's not just PvZ... go ahead and make a natural that can be attacked from 360degree, or even just 180degree. You can't play standard TvZ on it either, because you can't defend so many angles early, against many zerg rushes. At least not with standard gameplay. Similarily you will have trouble against hellions in TvZ and TvP. Or doublewide (not blocked) main ramps...
Sure, those maps could work out differently. But are Proplayers going to play those maps if they have to realrean everything?
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
So it is untrue that because Terrans have the MULE the number of "realistically useable Gold expansions" kinda had to be reduced or phased out?
So it is untrue that because Protoss have Forcefield and Zerg have Fungal AND the fact that the game is "designed for massive battles" any maps with chokes or smaller pathways in the middle have been considered badly balanced and had to be taken out? Incineration Zone was pretty good for Siege Tanks for example ... too good in fact and was considered a bad map.
So it is untrue that because of the massive amount of production small maps are really bad?
The bottom line is that yes there may be some neat mechanics which mapmakers can add to the game, BUT there are quite a lot of things they cant do simply because of the way the game is designed. Your "flat denial" sounds kinda black-and-whiteish as if the opinion of Ygritte cant be true because you find some examples which prove the opposite. The community has been trained by Blizzard to only expect "mass army play". It simply is very risky in SC2 to split off a part of your army and for some races the efficiency of small chunks is rather limited.
Four Marauders and a Medivac are very powerful and able to deal a lot of damage if they arent responded to as a drop. Take four Stalkers and a Warp Prism and you wont have the same efficiency as harrassment. This is the fault of the design of the game and it limits the options available to players AND ultimately makes funky maps with neat and nifty play favor one or two races too much.
Thus these maps are less viable for "balanced ladder or tournament play". Even the "KeSPA rock map" is nowhere to be seen anymore, probably because people feel that the game needs early harrassment to balance the races due to the necessity of "dont let him get there"-counter strategies which are required against some races.
The game is designed around "high speed" [production and economy] and easy to use massive armies and this limits map design in the same way greater speed in a car limits the tightness of bends you can safely drive through. Limited production speed and economy AND most importantly unit control/density force spreading your units and make more interesting maps less of a problem.
1) It's actually false that MULEs make gold bases bad for map balance. MULEs don't mine extra from gold bases. Usually the argument is that gold bases make it too hard to come back from because you generally can only hold gold bases if you are ahead, and if you are ahead and have a gold base you get further ahead. 2) GSL Red City is an example of a recent map with small pathways and rocks everywhere, and it was not particularly Protoss favoured. 3) I have no idea how small maps have anything to do with massive production. Obviously a smaller map inhibits mass macro play because there just are not enough safe bases. If anything the community generally do not like small maps because they don't like getting cheesed. 4) Obviously 4 stalkers and a warp prism won't do much because stalkers are bad units in general. Warp prism play is getting really popular. It is a staple of templar-first play in PvT (4 zealots in prism around 10 minutes in). Just don't put bad units inside warp prisms 5) Your last paragraph is vintage Rabiator and I won't even waste time arguing.
1. Ok, I didnt notice that change to the MULE, but why arent mapmakers using gold bases more then?
2. Red City was only used in GSTL Season 1, right? Far too few games to come to a conclusion.
3. Just consider how Zerg plays ... they are gearing up economy and then suddenly switch to massive production. The same is true for Terrans - who start increased production when they get their first reactor or have added 2-3 Barracks - and Protoss - who start mass production once they added X Gateways. The game will only be "balanced" or even "interesting" if both players have the same amount of army, but if one player starts this increased production earlier than the other its going to be a walkover because there is no time for emergency Spine Crawlers or blocking the ramp with buildings and so on ... Small maps are basically "cheese maps with auto-proxy Gateways, Barracks and so on" and thats why they are bad/unviable.
4. Exactly the point ... not every race has units which are awesome in small "strike teams". Zerg can do it because their units are relatively cheap, Terrans can do it because their units are reasonably cheap and efficient, but Protoss units are expensive and with relatively low efficiency, so it only become viable to do such things when they have a big economy and can easily send 6-10 Zealots on a suicide runby mission. That easily makes "nifty maps" - where you have to spread out or where there are several attack paths which are unconnected with each other - bad for balance. Warp Prisms with High Templars can only attack workers and the biggest strength of Marauders is the ability to quickly demolish a hatchery. Buildings are more important than workers sometimes, because without a hatchery those Drones are useless too ...
5. Maybe because you cant prove me wrong? C'mon ... give it a try and prove me wrong! I am still waiting for the first one to do it.
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
So it is untrue that because Terrans have the MULE the number of "realistically useable Gold expansions" kinda had to be reduced or phased out?
So it is untrue that because Protoss have Forcefield and Zerg have Fungal AND the fact that the game is "designed for massive battles" any maps with chokes or smaller pathways in the middle have been considered badly balanced and had to be taken out? Incineration Zone was pretty good for Siege Tanks for example ... too good in fact and was considered a bad map.
So it is untrue that because of the massive amount of production small maps are really bad?
The bottom line is that yes there may be some neat mechanics which mapmakers can add to the game, BUT there are quite a lot of things they cant do simply because of the way the game is designed. Your "flat denial" sounds kinda black-and-whiteish as if the opinion of Ygritte cant be true because you find some examples which prove the opposite. The community has been trained by Blizzard to only expect "mass army play". It simply is very risky in SC2 to split off a part of your army and for some races the efficiency of small chunks is rather limited.
Four Marauders and a Medivac are very powerful and able to deal a lot of damage if they arent responded to as a drop. Take four Stalkers and a Warp Prism and you wont have the same efficiency as harrassment. This is the fault of the design of the game and it limits the options available to players AND ultimately makes funky maps with neat and nifty play favor one or two races too much.
Thus these maps are less viable for "balanced ladder or tournament play". Even the "KeSPA rock map" is nowhere to be seen anymore, probably because people feel that the game needs early harrassment to balance the races due to the necessity of "dont let him get there"-counter strategies which are required against some races.
The game is designed around "high speed" [production and economy] and easy to use massive armies and this limits map design in the same way greater speed in a car limits the tightness of bends you can safely drive through. Limited production speed and economy AND most importantly unit control/density force spreading your units and make more interesting maps less of a problem.
1) It's actually false that MULEs make gold bases bad for map balance. MULEs don't mine extra from gold bases. Usually the argument is that gold bases make it too hard to come back from because you generally can only hold gold bases if you are ahead, and if you are ahead and have a gold base you get further ahead. 2) GSL Red City is an example of a recent map with small pathways and rocks everywhere, and it was not particularly Protoss favoured. 3) I have no idea how small maps have anything to do with massive production. Obviously a smaller map inhibits mass macro play because there just are not enough safe bases. If anything the community generally do not like small maps because they don't like getting cheesed. 4) Obviously 4 stalkers and a warp prism won't do much because stalkers are bad units in general. Warp prism play is getting really popular. It is a staple of templar-first play in PvT (4 zealots in prism around 10 minutes in). Just don't put bad units inside warp prisms 5) Your last paragraph is vintage Rabiator and I won't even waste time arguing.
1. Ok, I didnt notice that change to the MULE, but why arent mapmakers using gold bases more then?
2. Red City was only used in GSTL Season 1, right? Far too few games to come to a conclusion.
3. Just consider how Zerg plays ... they are gearing up economy and then suddenly switch to massive production. The same is true for Terrans - who start increased production when they get their first reactor or have added 2-3 Barracks - and Protoss - who start mass production once they added X Gateways. The game will only be "balanced" or even "interesting" if both players have the same amount of army, but if one player starts this increased production earlier than the other its going to be a walkover because there is no time for emergency Spine Crawlers or blocking the ramp with buildings and so on ... Small maps are basically "cheese maps with auto-proxy Gateways, Barracks and so on" and thats why they are bad/unviable.
4. Exactly the point ... not every race has units which are awesome in small "strike teams". Zerg can do it because their units are relatively cheap, Terrans can do it because their units are reasonably cheap and efficient, but Protoss units are expensive and with relatively low efficiency, so it only become viable to do such things when they have a big economy and can easily send 6-10 Zealots on a suicide runby mission. That easily makes "nifty maps" - where you have to spread out or where there are several attack paths which are unconnected with each other - bad for balance. Warp Prisms with High Templars can only attack workers and the biggest strength of Marauders is the ability to quickly demolish a hatchery. Buildings are more important than workers sometimes, because without a hatchery those Drones are useless too ...
5. Maybe because you cant prove me wrong? C'mon ... give it a try and prove me wrong! I am still waiting for the first one to do it.
1. Because they thought they were bad. KeSPA's mapmakers did not, see Neo Planet S (imo, really great map). 2. WCS Kr Season 1 too. 3. Not really. 4. Warp Prisms with HTs is best way to avoid EMP, what are you talking about?
Well, people can do whatever they want, no point in arguing. I'm thankful for all the maps we got to see, and hope that somewhere in the future we can have something similar again, be it in this game or the next.
On August 25 2013 16:48 Ygritte wrote: you are making maps for a game which is designed in a way that every map is extremely limited and has to be roughly the same with minimal differences. then you cry about that only boring and the same kind of maps are used. i do not understand. you picked the wrong game and didn't realize for 3 years i guess oO
That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.
Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.
Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.
So it is untrue that because Terrans have the MULE the number of "realistically useable Gold expansions" kinda had to be reduced or phased out?
So it is untrue that because Protoss have Forcefield and Zerg have Fungal AND the fact that the game is "designed for massive battles" any maps with chokes or smaller pathways in the middle have been considered badly balanced and had to be taken out? Incineration Zone was pretty good for Siege Tanks for example ... too good in fact and was considered a bad map.
So it is untrue that because of the massive amount of production small maps are really bad?
The bottom line is that yes there may be some neat mechanics which mapmakers can add to the game, BUT there are quite a lot of things they cant do simply because of the way the game is designed. Your "flat denial" sounds kinda black-and-whiteish as if the opinion of Ygritte cant be true because you find some examples which prove the opposite. The community has been trained by Blizzard to only expect "mass army play". It simply is very risky in SC2 to split off a part of your army and for some races the efficiency of small chunks is rather limited.
Four Marauders and a Medivac are very powerful and able to deal a lot of damage if they arent responded to as a drop. Take four Stalkers and a Warp Prism and you wont have the same efficiency as harrassment. This is the fault of the design of the game and it limits the options available to players AND ultimately makes funky maps with neat and nifty play favor one or two races too much.
Thus these maps are less viable for "balanced ladder or tournament play". Even the "KeSPA rock map" is nowhere to be seen anymore, probably because people feel that the game needs early harrassment to balance the races due to the necessity of "dont let him get there"-counter strategies which are required against some races.
The game is designed around "high speed" [production and economy] and easy to use massive armies and this limits map design in the same way greater speed in a car limits the tightness of bends you can safely drive through. Limited production speed and economy AND most importantly unit control/density force spreading your units and make more interesting maps less of a problem.
1) It's actually false that MULEs make gold bases bad for map balance. MULEs don't mine extra from gold bases. Usually the argument is that gold bases make it too hard to come back from because you generally can only hold gold bases if you are ahead, and if you are ahead and have a gold base you get further ahead. 2) GSL Red City is an example of a recent map with small pathways and rocks everywhere, and it was not particularly Protoss favoured. 3) I have no idea how small maps have anything to do with massive production. Obviously a smaller map inhibits mass macro play because there just are not enough safe bases. If anything the community generally do not like small maps because they don't like getting cheesed. 4) Obviously 4 stalkers and a warp prism won't do much because stalkers are bad units in general. Warp prism play is getting really popular. It is a staple of templar-first play in PvT (4 zealots in prism around 10 minutes in). Just don't put bad units inside warp prisms 5) Your last paragraph is vintage Rabiator and I won't even waste time arguing.
1. Ok, I didnt notice that change to the MULE, but why arent mapmakers using gold bases more then?
Overall you are listing a lot of limitations and its true there are lots of limitations. Cos like obviously if you just made a starting position out in the complete open or you put 3 inbases in your main or you put lots of extreme chokes in certain areas things may become imbalanced. Yet even with all these limitations there is still a lot of things you can work with and explore.
Also I would argue that not every map should be chosen 100% for balance reason. Sure assuming a map pool with 5 maps, like 3 should just be quite solid and balanced maps. But for the other two there is good reasons to put exciting and innovative maps in there even if you have slight concerns with balance here and there.. It's not that big of a deal, BW had imba maps all the time which were also rotated rather quickly in comparison. And BW was still extremely stable.
About your gold base question I can answer that quickly. In a game where there is already basically a 3 base cap and extremely fast/big economy and 200/200 timings, why would you want to have bases that give even more income. We'd rather use bases with less income but as you may know Blizzard won't allow us to use half bases.
Thank you for all the (sadly unappreciated) you put into it. I was looking up to TPW when i started to make maps for SC2, and it was a sad experience to see them fade into inactivity. But i understand it's only the logical conclusion of all the neglect the mapping scene has seen.
This is the shit that Blizzard "designs" and decides to throw it into the ladder pool for its community.
And people are asking why the mapmakers leave the scene, if not the game altogether?
Because this map was single handedly the coolest experience of the last 2 years on the ladder but hey, because it's not a daybreak clone and it actually forced people to use their brain instead of copying pro builds it's supposedly 'bad'.
About your gold base question I can answer that quickly. In a game where there is already basically a 3 base cap and extremely fast/big economy and 200/200 timings, why would you want to have bases that give even more income. We'd rather use bases with less income but as you may know Blizzard won't allow us to use half bases.
You know gold bases give you about the same income as a normal base but for less workers right? Exactly what people have been trying to achieve.
This is the shit that Blizzard "designs" and decides to throw it into the ladder pool for its community.
And people are asking why the mapmakers leave the scene, if not the game altogether?
Because this map was single handedly the coolest experience of the last 2 years on the ladder but hey, because it's not a daybreak clone and it actually forced people to use their brain instead of copying pro builds it's supposedly 'bad'.
About your gold base question I can answer that quickly. In a game where there is already basically a 3 base cap and extremely fast/big economy and 200/200 timings, why would you want to have bases that give even more income. We'd rather use bases with less income but as you may know Blizzard won't allow us to use half bases.
You know gold bases give you about the same income as a normal base but for less workers right? Exactly what people have been trying to achieve.
I imagine that gold bases have quicker saturation and therefore higher average income.
SiskoGoatee that is not exactly what people have been trying to achieve. With gold you crank up people's income rates but you change very little else in their behavior.
Half the map is still dead and unused space in a 4 player map. Probably the reason why 2 player maps are so popular in relation to all other map types. And very much the likely reason why 3 player maps don't work in SC2 (hint: nobody has any reason to give a fuck about the third main's existence).
On August 25 2013 22:42 LaLuSh wrote: SiskoGoatee that is not exactly what people have been trying to achieve. With gold you crank up people's income rates but you change very little else in their behavior.
What it changes is that you need fewer workers. This is the situation BW was in. In BW, every worker harvests more compared to SC2.
The major flaw in SC2 to me is that workers harvest less money but produce more quickly, which is okay in theory, but the one big flaw is that they still cost the same supply. In both games if you get more than 80+ workers it's going to compromise your maxed out army, the difference being that 80+ BW worekrs cover far more bases than 80+ sc2 workers. There are multiple ways to approach this problem, one is simply letting workers cost half supply, another is letting bases require less workers and give mroe income much like BW or what they attempted with fighting spirit. I still feel the simplest fix is raising the supply cap to 300 or 250 because that doesn't affect the early game balance.
On August 26 2013 00:14 Grumbels wrote: Wasn't there an experiment once with having only gold bases on a version of Fighting Spirit that didn't make it?
On August 25 2013 16:12 larse wrote: Because their maps didn't get to #3 in TLMC and Blizzard didn't choose their maps in Season 5?
I got second place in both TLMC's, and I quit for similar reasons. You obviously don't follow the map scene at all if you think it is because of mere jealousy.
On August 25 2013 16:12 larse wrote: Because their maps didn't get to #3 in TLMC and Blizzard didn't choose their maps in Season 5?
I got second place in both TLMC's, and I quit for similar reasons. You obviously don't follow the map scene at all if you think it is because of mere jealousy.
I love you Ironman. Ohana is probably my favorite map of all time, and it deserved to win the TLMC. It sure survived a lot longer than Korhal Compound which I knew was a bad map the first time I played it.
Blizzard not exclusively using community made maps and putting in trash maps like Slag Pits and Klontas Mire is evidence of how inept they are.
On August 26 2013 01:21 NarutO wrote: Did they make any known maps? :x
Not really anything that would be known to many people no.
Even tho last Teamliquid Map Contest we had 5 out of 9 finalists. But because they were all more or less "weird" maps they didn't survive the public/pro poll at the very end.
On August 26 2013 01:21 NarutO wrote: Did they make any known maps? :x
Not really anything that would be known to many people no.
Even tho last Teamliquid Map Contest we had 5 out of 9 finalists. But because they were all more or less "weird" maps they didn't survive the public/pro poll at the very end.
I still think the majority of maps TPW got into the final were better than the three that actually got top 3. :\
More original at the very least. The winner in particular is so extremely unremarkable it hurts. CK back in the day actually set a new standard for maps. Frost, no one is anything remotely excited about Frost currently.
Sad about this even if its been up there for a while. Blizzard could have made it a lot different and actually made a system to help out the map makers and Starcraft 2 in the same time.
Make an official pool with the ladder and WCS, add in maps and taking away the oldest map forcing change and innovative play.
It is actually a failure on the part of foreign tournaments - all of them, and GSL too - to not use a more diverse and rotating map pool. How fucking long did we play on Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak? Lol KESPA are the ones who are competent in this area. I mean dear God why would you use the same maps for a year plus when there were so many good and creative maps available.
On August 26 2013 13:30 Doodsmack wrote: It is actually a failure on the part of foreign tournaments - all of them, and GSL too - to not use a more diverse and rotating map pool. How fucking long did we play on Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak? Lol KESPA are the ones who are competent in this area. I mean dear God why would you use the same maps for a year plus when there were so many good and creative maps available.
Shame on Dreamhack, MLG, IPL, NASL, IEM and GSL.
Agreed, we weren't really asking for much in my opinion. But when tournaments just ignore everything from the foreign mapping scene, and most of the korean scene, it more or less removed most of the incentive to make melee maps in the first place.
I mean, why do we make melee maps and not custom maps? Because we want to see ordinary games on the maps and improve the game itself by providing more diverse maps which look good and play well. And how do we get a melee map played by more than 10 people? We have to get it into some kind of tournament. And that is where everyone failed, mappers (though not for lack of trying), tournaments, blizzard and even the community itself failed the melee mapping scene.
Now I can't see myself making a melee map anymore. If I do make a map it will most likely be a custom map or a map for SC2BW if anything, but that is highly unlikely as it just is not worth the effort. I have not started the editor in more than one and a half year.
@NullCurrent: Yea, that period of stagnancy in the last 6-12 months of WoL was especially bad. Basically every tournament just used the same maps they've been playing for at least a year again and again and again. It just became so boring. Not just the BL/infestor bs, but the usual map pool also stayed the same:
MLG Pro Circuit 2012 Fall Championship: • Antiga Shipyard • Cloud Kingdom • Daybreak • Entombed Valley • Metropolis • Shakuras Plateau • Tal'Darim Altar in Fall 2012!
That was the worst for me to see to be honest. Most people don't even know that there are even alternative maps that could be used right away. But because i was interested in mapping i knew exactly what we could play on instead. But there was just no map rotation at all. Now due to HotS we see some, but we'll see if it is going to last. Due to HotS the entire map pool got swapped. Hopefully we'll continue to see new maps getting introduced at a steady rate other than 1-2maps every year or so. I'm kind of afraid that we might see an period like in the end of WoL again, where a lot of people just lose interest in the game, because it became stale. Unlike LoL you can't just put new champions in the game to keep it fresh. So you're stuck with changing maps. So why not just remove 3 maps each season? The two most veto'd and the oldest map, and introduce three new ones? It's not that hard to do.
GSL did an alright Job, but they only stuck to their own team mostly. And did have some on-off maps like Metropolis, which they only used for one season. Then they realised it was horrible and threw it out. Took the rest of the year for the other tournements to figure out.
Taldarim Altar and Shakuras did go out of flavor but Ohana took the place. And that stood still for about 8 months. MLG especially was really bad at this.
On August 27 2013 01:55 9-BiT wrote: I don't know a single person in this group and I have never heard of it, an inference of the great support map makers have.
There are two reasons you've never heard of them.
1) Blizzard and tournaments shunned MANY of these maps made by not just TPW, but by every foreign map team
2) You never followed the map scene to know who any of us are
You can't say we didn't make ourselves known (or try to).
Well, GSL has no problems still using Jacky even after he went to ESV. There's a definite difference in Korean and foreign mapmaking styles. Semmo even though on Crux has a more foreign style and I've never seen his maps in the GSL. Is Semmo a Korean or speaks Korean?
The reason GSL doesn't use foreign maps too often might be a stylistic thing. Koreans like their circle syndrome, foreigners don't.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CCxOs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/1/15/Klontas_Mire_TE.jpg/569px-Klontas_Mire_TE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V8dgol.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Uq433oe.png)
Another sad day...
