We're very proud to announce the fourth edition of the Team Liquid Map Contest and another opportunity for the community to get maps into the ladder and WCS. This map contest will be looking for maps to be considered for use for WCS Season 3 -- if you missed Blizzard's announcement regarding the map pool for WCS Season 2 you can find that here. We're also including a team play map section for this seasons contest. The high placing maps in that contest will also be considered for use for on the ladder.
The TLMC has a very proud history of creating truly exceptional maps which have become tournament staples and which have served as a canvas for some of the best games in SC2's lifespan. Maps like Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, Frost, Yeonsu and Habitation Station all found their way into tournament use through the TLMC. We're excited to see what new and interesting maps the community will create for this contest.
For the 1v1 portion of the competition there is one very important restriction for this season -- maps with only two spawn positions will not be considered. This means we will only be considering maps with 3-5 spawn positions for this contest. Please consult the FAQ for more information about this restriction.
How to Enter
Please PM your map(s) files to TL Map Contest with the following format before Saturday, Apr 19 6:59am GMT (GMT+00:00):
Map Name:
[img]A picture of your map[/img]
Main to Main distance: (in game seconds using a worker from town hall to town hall)
Natural to Natural distance: (in game seconds using a worker from town hall to town hall)
Entries not in this format may be excluded from consideration. Please do not send questions to the 'TL Map Contest' account; contact TLMC organizer Plexa instead.
Each edition of the TeamLiquid Map Contest has seen a high number of submissions, and we don't expect that to be any different this season. As such, we are restricting the number of entries per mapmaker to two per category. This means you can submit up to two 1v1 maps and two team play maps.
The contest has two categories - 1v1 and team play. Mappers can submit up to two maps to each category.
We suggest maps follow the following restrictions: 1. Normal bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers 2. High yield bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers 3. Don’t change values on Neutral units. For example: a. Don’t change Xel’Naga watch tower or destructible rock graphics b. Don’t change values on mineral patches, geysers, or rock health/armor values c. Don’t resize mineral patches or rocks 4. Map sizes should be sensible, use the current map pool as a guide.
Maps with locked start positions are okay. This means "two in one" four player maps are acceptable entries.
The following map art guidelines should be followed to ensure a smooth QA process if the map is in contention for WCS/ladder use: - Avoid excessive use of water - Avoid weather effects like falling snow, snow drift doodads, etc. - If using the Ice tileset, avoid using the CliffGlacier* doodad series - Avoid excessive stacking/overlapping of doodads in concentrated spaces - Excessive use of decals, custom decals - Excessive use of doodads that produce dynamic shadows - Doodads under the terrain - Clusters of large/complex doodads
Maps which encourage the meta-game to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.
Entries are not limited to non-Koreans, Korean mapmakers are welcome to submit entries.
Maps which have already been used in premier competition are not eligible for submission. If you are unsure, check with Plexa.
Don't steal other peoples work and try to claim it as your own, although this should go without saying!
Any maps which are selected/considered for the final shortlist may undergo changes which the judges request for balance purposes. Any maps selected for use in WCS/ladder will undergo an extensive QA process by Blizzard. If the QA guidelines above are not followed it is possible that your map may not be considered for use!
Submissions are open until: Saturday, Apr 19 6:59am GMT (GMT+00:00)
Judging
Once the maps have been submitted they will be checked over for quality and the remaining maps will be passed to representatives from the Team Liquid Strategy team for judging. As the people on this website who spend the most time thinking about strategies and the metagame we feel that the strategy team is the perfect group to decide the best maps. They will also suggest tweaks for the finalists to correct any minor balance issues. We will announce the finalists as soon as possible.
Once the finalists are announced the public will have the opportunity to vote on which map they like the most in both the 1v1 and team play sections of the contest. Appropriate members of the Team Liquid staff (including the strategy section) and appropriate progamers will also have an opportunity to voice their opinion on the finalists. More information about this will be made available once the voting thread is up. Everyone will have at least one week to cast their vote for the contest.
FAQ
Q: Will the winning map automatically be included in WCS?
No. The top 3 maps will be submitted to Blizzard for consideration for use in WCS/ladder. If they feel like none of the maps are what the map pool needs for season 3 then it is possible that no map will be picked up. Similarly, if they feel the second or third place map is a really good fit for the map pool then that map may be chosen over the first place map.
Q: Why can't I enter two player maps?
It's no secret that two player maps are the most popular kind of map created by the community. But this also means that most of the maps that are considered for WCS use are also two player maps. When discussing with Blizzard about what kinds of maps would be most beneficial to the health of the map pool we both agreed that three to five player maps would fill a void in the map pool whereas a two player map probably wouldn't. We know that three to five player maps pose unique challenges to map makers to ensure that they're playable, but we've seen well executed multiple spawn maps submitted in the past and we're confident the community will rise to the challenge this season.
Q: But I really really want to submit my two player map, please let me?
Sorry, no can do. Hold on the map for next season and submit it then!
Q: Does the `two spawn' restriction apply to team maps?
No, you're welcome to submit 'two spawn' team play maps! For 4v4 maps this is probably necessary!
Q: How crazy can my maps be?
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) If you map passes that test and complies with the guidelines above then your map is acceptable! Of course, if you are concerned that your map may not be suitable for ladder then please PM Plexa and he will tell you whether or not it is appropriate.
Q: I want to make an FFA map for the team map contest, can I do so?
Unfortunately, at this stage we are not accepting FFA maps as part of the 'team play' component of the contest.
Q: What are the prizes for this contest?
At the moment prizes beyond being considered for WCS/ladder use have not been confirmed. Once we receive updates on this we will communicate this information.
If you have any unanswered questions please do not hesitate to ask them below or PM Plexa who will be happy to answer them. Best of luck in the competition.
For the 1v1 portion of the competition there is one very important restriction for this season -- maps with only two spawn positions will not be considered. This means we will only be considering maps with 3-5 spawn positions for this contest. Please consult the FAQ for more information about this restriction.
Eh, I really hate rotational imbalance and scouting luck. I guess it would be considered to abnormal, but maybe we could have some kind of weird map with 5 spawns that pings your opponent's spawn at the beginning.
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.)
Rising lava is so interesting, easy to understand and would add so much to a map pool.
For the 1v1 portion of the competition there is one very important restriction for this season -- maps with only two spawn positions will not be considered. This means we will only be considering maps with 3-5 spawn positions for this contest. Please consult the FAQ for more information about this restriction.
Eh, I really hate rotational imbalance and scouting luck. I guess it would be considered to abnormal, but maybe we could have some kind of weird map with 5 spawns that pings your opponent's spawn at the beginning.
"Scouting luck" is a term used by those who are used to only having to scout a single spawn location. Whatever happened to the old BW days of sending two workers in opposite directions (or any other combination of scout units) when you really needed to see your opponent's base?
Rotational imbalance is a sad issue though; it's unfortunate that Blizzard decided to make air play so dominant in SC2. Really puts a damper on the terrain design.
I found 4 players map so boring to look at. Too much mirroring, and expandig into someone else's natural feels so... unnatural. Will try to draw something workable on paint.
On March 29 2014 04:49 ConCentrate405 wrote: I found 4 players map so boring to look at. Too much mirroring, and expandig into someone else's natural feels so... unnatural. Will try to draw something workable on paint.
Such things were status quo in Brood War. Not sure why it'd be a bad thing now.
On March 29 2014 04:49 ConCentrate405 wrote: I found 4 players map so boring to look at. Too much mirroring, and expandig into someone else's natural feels so... unnatural. Will try to draw something workable on paint.
Such things were status quo in Brood War. Not sure why it'd be a bad thing now.
Maps in general used to be a lot more interesting, if not super balanced, which was great to see more often than not. In SC2 it seems like the only maps that get played and don't suffer from massive amounts of community backlash are super standard, boring macro maps with run-of-the-mill layouts. Although with SHOUTcraft clan wars and now another one of these, I really hope things will change even a little bit, although last time I checked quite a few of the resident TL mapping judges were very conservative. (anyone remember the days when everything that wasn't a Daybreak clone got criticized and slammed into the ground? yeah...)
For the 1v1 portion of the competition there is one very important restriction for this season -- maps with only two spawn positions will not be considered. This means we will only be considering maps with 3-5 spawn positions for this contest. Please consult the FAQ for more information about this restriction.
Eh, I really hate rotational imbalance and scouting luck. I guess it would be considered to abnormal, but maybe we could have some kind of weird map with 5 spawns that pings your opponent's spawn at the beginning.
"Scouting luck" is a term used by those who are used to only having to scout a single spawn location. Whatever happened to the old BW days of sending two workers in opposite directions (or any other combination of scout units) when you really needed to see your opponent's base? Rotational imbalance is a sad issue though; it's unfortunate that Blizzard decided to make air play so dominant in SC2. Really puts a damper on the terrain design.
Nobody sends 2 workers because it hurts your economy too much for how much it's worth. You rarely see Protoss send 2 scouts vs. Zerg when Forge expanding but I haven't seen it for a long time. In PvP especially players do really risky greedy builds often because they know they might not be scouted.
For the 1v1 portion of the competition there is one very important restriction for this season -- maps with only two spawn positions will not be considered. This means we will only be considering maps with 3-5 spawn positions for this contest. Please consult the FAQ for more information about this restriction.
Eh, I really hate rotational imbalance and scouting luck. I guess it would be considered to abnormal, but maybe we could have some kind of weird map with 5 spawns that pings your opponent's spawn at the beginning.
"Scouting luck" is a term used by those who are used to only having to scout a single spawn location. Whatever happened to the old BW days of sending two workers in opposite directions (or any other combination of scout units) when you really needed to see your opponent's base? Rotational imbalance is a sad issue though; it's unfortunate that Blizzard decided to make air play so dominant in SC2. Really puts a damper on the terrain design.
Nobody sends 2 workers because it hurts your economy too much for how much it's worth. You rarely see Protoss send 2 scouts vs. Zerg when Forge expanding but I haven't seen it for a long time. In PvP especially players do really risky greedy builds often because they know they might not be scouted.
Are you ready to have your mind blown?
When 2 scout patterns are standard for everyone on 4 spawn maps, it's no longer detrimental. It also opens up opportunities for players to gave multiple gradients of greed (2 scout = safe, 1 scout = semi-risky, 0 scout = maximum risk). The reason you haven't seen 2 scout patterns in a long time is because the vast majority of the map pool is dominated by 2 spawn maps. Given the disparity, it's not efficient for players to spend vast amounts of training time to map out 2 scout patterns for only 1-2 maps in a 7 map pool. You're better off accepting the scouting risk, especially since the only 4 spawn maps in the pool at the moment have highly defensible 3-base layouts and very long rush distances.
Any tips are suggestions? :D That will help me avoid a rough start? :D
(Or links to threads) Thanks in advance, can't wait to see how this pans out.
I never really jumped in on (2)s but.. with (4)s only.. and my love for art, and the game.. I want to give it a go.
As a child I spent a lot of time in Warcraft 2 map maker, haven't ever touched the Starcraft 2 scene, hope the skills roll over.. from so many ages ago.
Keeping a close eye on this. I hope the judges will be open-minded. I'd love to feature one of the finalists in Clan Wars at least, but it would need to be something more than Daybreak 2.0
Given the fact that we can't do 2 players maps and that 3 players maps usually have a lot of empty air space can we use air pathing blockers? I'm guessing that we can't, right?
On March 29 2014 05:23 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Quick question, has anyone ever made a 5 spawn location map before?
There are some, Pompei for one, there are a couple others, but they are uncommon because the space to work with is very very limited, and that usually means that you need to do workarounds which hamper the rush distances and such.
I'm so stoked for this - interesting maps for http://sc2ctl.com/about - any mapmakers that would like to get their maps used every week by several hundred players send me a PM and I'd be happy to oblige!
On March 29 2014 06:16 TotalBiscuit wrote: Keeping a close eye on this. I hope the judges will be open-minded. I'd love to feature one of the finalists in Clan Wars at least, but it would need to be something more than Daybreak 2.0
Hey now let's remember we had a map last time that used a gimmick where lava covered most of the middle at regular intervals.
On March 29 2014 09:29 SidianTheBard wrote: Oh man, 3, 4 & 5 player maps only eh? Time to modify Darkness Falls since that was I think the last 4player map I ever made, haha.
Got about 3 weeks though, so I guess I'll try to get the motivation to create something new.
Probably just do some 4player maps though, 3 and 5 take too much effort lol.
On March 29 2014 09:29 SidianTheBard wrote: Oh man, 3, 4 & 5 player maps only eh? Time to modify Darkness Falls since that was I think the last 4player map I ever made, haha.
Got about 3 weeks though, so I guess I'll try to get the motivation to create something new.
Probably just do some 4player maps though, 3 and 5 take too much effort lol.
On March 29 2014 04:19 IeZaeL wrote: How crazy is Sacred Path ? Eligible for voting ? Dunno if i should submit it or i'd waste a spot.
Sacred Path's design is totally okay, there are some other aspects of the map which would need tweaking (such as mineral counts and whatnot). I'll contact you via PM to explain the changes that would need to be made to make it eligible.
Entries are not limited to non-Koreans, Korean mapmakers are welcome to submit entries.
This has to be said? Jeeze
Despite being open to Koreans, we only had entries for the first TLMC from them it's worth reminding them that if they wish to enter then they're welcome to (particularly if they're not a member of Crux!)
On March 29 2014 06:16 TotalBiscuit wrote: Keeping a close eye on this. I hope the judges will be open-minded. I'd love to feature one of the finalists in Clan Wars at least, but it would need to be something more than Daybreak 2.0
On March 29 2014 10:13 NewSunshine wrote: those art rules? is that why the new Blizzard maps have like 6 doodads apiece? anyway, RIP Kaldir.
Something tells me the art rules won't be enforced much. The only doodads they took out from Hab Station where some of the rocks/plants/vines that I had sunk in the ground. It makes sense when I think about it though because if you burrowed on them you would not be able to see the units. Plus, zerglings/marines were sometimes a little tough to see. Otherwise, Hab Stat has a ton of overlapping doodads and pretty much all those protoss doodads are moving or have lights and shit.
Also, the weather I could see being a problem, since they ended up taking it out of Polar Night due to visibility issues, but everything else, meh, I'll be overlapping the shit out of doodads.
I have some interesting ideas about this now that I've been thinking about it for awhile. Thinking about some fun 4p makes with some No-Fly zones. Although, making the no-fly zones bug free might be a pita.
On March 29 2014 10:13 NewSunshine wrote: those art rules? is that why the new Blizzard maps have like 6 doodads apiece? anyway, RIP Kaldir.
Something tells me the art rules won't be enforced much. The only doodads they took out from Hab Station where some of the rocks/plants/vines that I had sunk in the ground. It makes sense when I think about it though because if you burrowed on them you would not be able to see the units. Plus, zerglings/marines were sometimes a little tough to see. Otherwise, Hab Stat has a ton of overlapping doodads and pretty much all those protoss doodads are moving or have lights and shit.
I have some interesting ideas about this now that I've been thinking about it for awhile. Thinking about some fun 4p makes with some No-Fly zones. Although, making the no-fly zones bug free might be a pita.
It's really just about keeping performance reasonable on a map for various hardware configurations. Many maps perform just fine with the art that is chosen. In our experience there are certain factors that can contribute to lower performance, so it made sense to offer some suggestions up front to try to help map makers avoid possible issues with the final map.
I recently posted a general breakdown of the preparation that goes into getting a map ladder-ready. It's not an extensive breakdown, but it provides a glimpse into what goes on once we decide on a map that we want to use for the ladder.
On March 29 2014 10:13 NewSunshine wrote: those art rules? is that why the new Blizzard maps have like 6 doodads apiece? anyway, RIP Kaldir.
Something tells me the art rules won't be enforced much. The only doodads they took out from Hab Station where some of the rocks/plants/vines that I had sunk in the ground. It makes sense when I think about it though because if you burrowed on them you would not be able to see the units. Plus, zerglings/marines were sometimes a little tough to see. Otherwise, Hab Stat has a ton of overlapping doodads and pretty much all those protoss doodads are moving or have lights and shit.
Also, the weather I could see being a problem, since they ended up taking it out of Polar Night due to visibility issues, but everything else, meh, I'll be overlapping the shit out of doodads.
I have some interesting ideas about this now that I've been thinking about it for awhile. Thinking about some fun 4p makes with some No-Fly zones. Although, making the no-fly zones bug free might be a pita.
On the other hand Yeonsu had about 50% of the doodads removed. And everything else changed. Can't really predict what Blizzard will do.
On March 29 2014 10:13 NewSunshine wrote: those art rules? is that why the new Blizzard maps have like 6 doodads apiece? anyway, RIP Kaldir.
Something tells me the art rules won't be enforced much. The only doodads they took out from Hab Station where some of the rocks/plants/vines that I had sunk in the ground. It makes sense when I think about it though because if you burrowed on them you would not be able to see the units. Plus, zerglings/marines were sometimes a little tough to see. Otherwise, Hab Stat has a ton of overlapping doodads and pretty much all those protoss doodads are moving or have lights and shit.
I have some interesting ideas about this now that I've been thinking about it for awhile. Thinking about some fun 4p makes with some No-Fly zones. Although, making the no-fly zones bug free might be a pita.
It's really just about keeping performance reasonable on a map for various hardware configurations. Many maps perform just fine with the art that is chosen. In our experience there are certain factors that can contribute to lower performance, so it made sense to offer some suggestions up front to try to help map makers avoid possible issues with the final map.
I recently posted a general breakdown of the preparation that goes into getting a map ladder-ready. It's not an extensive breakdown, but it provides a glimpse into what goes on once we decide on a map that we want to use for the ladder.
On March 29 2014 06:16 TotalBiscuit wrote: Keeping a close eye on this. I hope the judges will be open-minded. I'd love to feature one of the finalists in Clan Wars at least, but it would need to be something more than Daybreak 2.0
Can we recommend maps for Clan War specifically? I've had an idea I've wanted to try for a long time, but it'll never pass for a ladder map.
On March 29 2014 10:13 NewSunshine wrote: those art rules? is that why the new Blizzard maps have like 6 doodads apiece? anyway, RIP Kaldir.
Something tells me the art rules won't be enforced much. The only doodads they took out from Hab Station where some of the rocks/plants/vines that I had sunk in the ground. It makes sense when I think about it though because if you burrowed on them you would not be able to see the units. Plus, zerglings/marines were sometimes a little tough to see. Otherwise, Hab Stat has a ton of overlapping doodads and pretty much all those protoss doodads are moving or have lights and shit.
Also, the weather I could see being a problem, since they ended up taking it out of Polar Night due to visibility issues, but everything else, meh, I'll be overlapping the shit out of doodads.
I have some interesting ideas about this now that I've been thinking about it for awhile. Thinking about some fun 4p makes with some No-Fly zones. Although, making the no-fly zones bug free might be a pita.
On the other hand Yeonsu had about 50% of the doodads removed. And everything else changed. Can't really predict what Blizzard will do.
Oh, guess I really need to load up the Yeonsu thread and check it out. For some reason I guess I didn't think too much got removed. My bad!
I made a really crappy version as soon as SC2 editor was released. I would work on it for this competition if it allowed 7 player maps. Either way, it wouldn't get into WCS though so it wouldn't be my main map.
On March 29 2014 14:15 LongShot27 wrote: Too many restrictions, I don't expect to see any viable maps out of this
Why is that? Almost all of the restrictions are completely reasonable, with the only controversial one being the refusal of 2 spawn maps (not really a big deal, since there are plenty of other spawn options).
I'm all for multispawn maps only, we definitely need more interesting ones and more of them. I'm rather disappointed that 2-in-1 maps are allowed; I assume a lot of people will try to do this as a way to make a 2p map, because that's all they are. As a component of a map pool, 2-in-1 maps are rather gimmicky and not a good stand-in for the generally higher quality 2p maps you'd have instead in that slot.
On March 29 2014 15:35 EatThePath wrote: I'm all for multispawn maps only, we definitely need more interesting ones and more of them. I'm rather disappointed that 2-in-1 maps are allowed; I assume a lot of people will try to do this as a way to make a 2p map, because that's all they are. As a component of a map pool, 2-in-1 maps are rather gimmicky and not a good stand-in for the generally higher quality 2p maps you'd have instead in that slot.
I don't think it's really fair to dismiss 2-in-1 maps as gimmicky. In a way, cross-spawn only 4p maps were a form of 2-in-1 maps; identical terrain design, but different angles. That would be the other end of the spectrum from gimmicky 2-in-1 implementations, but I definitely think there's a middle ground to be had. There really hasn't been a lot of experimentation in the area.
On March 29 2014 15:35 EatThePath wrote: I'm all for multispawn maps only, we definitely need more interesting ones and more of them. I'm rather disappointed that 2-in-1 maps are allowed; I assume a lot of people will try to do this as a way to make a 2p map, because that's all they are. As a component of a map pool, 2-in-1 maps are rather gimmicky and not a good stand-in for the generally higher quality 2p maps you'd have instead in that slot.
I don't think it's really fair to dismiss 2-in-1 maps as gimmicky. In a way, cross-spawn only 4p maps were a form of 2-in-1 maps; identical terrain design, but different angles. That would be the other end of the spectrum from gimmicky 2-in-1 implementations, but I definitely think there's a middle ground to be had. There really hasn't been a lot of experimentation in the area.
I would dismiss cross spawn 4p on the same grounds and as a bad quick fix.
All I'm saying is 2-in-1 is categorically different than multispawn so I don't think it should be included if the goal is multispawn maps, but if the gimmick value of a coinflip 2p bundle counts for getting away from "true" 2p for the purposes of variety, so be it. You know I will always root for gimmicks even as I blithely label them as such with apparent condemnation.
It might be a crazy stupid idea, but could toppling rock towers be used to create a destructible (or permanent) "bridge" between two highgrounds that units can pass?... I think that could be quite an interesting gimmick to have to allow certain timings and positional plays.
Aww I thought I had a good map and bam I placed all the minerals wrong. Going to have to read through more tutorials, are there any links to example 4 player maps I can look at?
On March 29 2014 23:11 KatatoniK wrote: Aww I thought I had a good map and bam I placed all the minerals wrong. Going to have to read through more tutorials, are there any links to example 4 player maps I can look at?
If you go File > Open > Battle.net > Login > Search
You can search for maps on battle.net. For instance, do that and search for Frost, you can then load up Frost and look around the map to get a feel for it. Also, if you want to place mineral fields properly you can just select the mineral fields in Frost and just copy/paste them into your map. Then you'll know they will be correct.
On March 29 2014 04:07 Plexa wrote: The following map art guidelines should be followed to ensure a smooth QA process if the map is in contention for WCS/ladder use: - Avoid excessive use of water - Avoid weather effects like falling snow, snow drift doodads, etc. - If using the Ice tileset, avoid using the CliffGlacier* doodad series - Avoid excessive stacking/overlapping of doodads in concentrated spaces - Excessive use of decals, custom decals - Excessive use of doodads that produce dynamic shadows - Doodads under the terrain - Clusters of large/complex doodads
"Doodads under the terrain"? Like, lowering doodads until you can't see them anymore? Why would anyone do that? I must be missing something here...
On March 29 2014 04:07 Plexa wrote: The following map art guidelines should be followed to ensure a smooth QA process if the map is in contention for WCS/ladder use: - Avoid excessive use of water - Avoid weather effects like falling snow, snow drift doodads, etc. - If using the Ice tileset, avoid using the CliffGlacier* doodad series - Avoid excessive stacking/overlapping of doodads in concentrated spaces - Excessive use of decals, custom decals - Excessive use of doodads that produce dynamic shadows - Doodads under the terrain - Clusters of large/complex doodads
"Doodads under the terrain"? Like, lowering doodads until you can't see them anymore? Why would anyone do that? I must be missing something here...
well I currently have a 2player map in the wait till the contest is over which uses underground gas clouds for some interesting particle effects, it wont hurt the lagg because theyre not visible at all on lower settings.
Spent all day creating something new. I'm absolutely in love with it as well and I can't wait to show it off. Still have some tweaking to do on it and need to do a couple games to make sure it's not too imba but it is probably the most unique map I've ever made. Still need to finish all the aesthetics & border art though, which will take some time.
Then I either need to create another 3-5 player map and try my hand at a team map or just search through my older maps and tweak something up. Hmmmmmm, the choices the choices.
I hope everybody posts their submissions in this thread as well, it's so enjoyable to see what other maps got submitted!
Can't wait to see your entry Sidian, especially after Habitation Station. Still tweaking my map a lot, it probably won't get far in the judging but I dunno, going to try regardless.
For the team play category, can I enter a modified Blizzard map if those modifications effect very different gameplay and the map hasn't been used for team play yet?
I think I'm done with the map itself, I'm just confused with the whole Main to Main and Natural to Natural with a 4 player map, surely those distances would depend on spawn locations at the start of the game?
I love the map contests! The creativity always blows me away. Focusing on something other than the 2-player maps seems like a fantastic idea. I look forward to seeing the results!
On March 31 2014 02:17 KatatoniK wrote: I think I'm done with the map itself, I'm just confused with the whole Main to Main and Natural to Natural with a 4 player map, surely those distances would depend on spawn locations at the start of the game?
Probably just do the closest spawn time and make a little note about that when you go to submit it. At least that's what I'm going to do.
On March 31 2014 02:17 KatatoniK wrote: I think I'm done with the map itself, I'm just confused with the whole Main to Main and Natural to Natural with a 4 player map, surely those distances would depend on spawn locations at the start of the game?
Yes, but they should be relatively the same for close/cross/other spawn between all positions. So we're looking for those three numbers.
On March 30 2014 22:31 And G wrote: For the team play category, can I enter a modified Blizzard map if those modifications effect very different gameplay and the map hasn't been used for team play yet?
Good luck to the current mappers of SC2. Always give it your best work, it truly pays off. It's great to see the TLMC continuing as well, since community is important
On March 31 2014 15:52 IronManSC wrote: Good luck to the current mappers of SC2. Always give it your best work, it truly pays off. It's great to see the TLMC continuing as well, since community is important
I love that we have this continuity of support from "retired" successful mappers!
I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point: + Show Spoiler +
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
I'd assume with that map you'd limit the spawn locations so you can't spawn in close positions. At that point wouldn't it be considered a 4 spawn map?
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
I'd assume with that map you'd limit the spawn locations so you can't spawn in close positions. At that point wouldn't it be considered a 4 spawn map?
As much as a 2-in-1 map is considered 2p, which it isn't.
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
In most circumstances 6p maps are probably pushing things a bit too far, at least for most map makers. Encouraging submissions in a category that is likely to do not do very well isn't very responsible of me! However if you feel that you're capable of designing a 6p+ map which is viable in a 1v1 setting then feel free to contact me about that.
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
In most circumstances 6p maps are probably pushing things a bit too far, at least for most map makers. Encouraging submissions in a category that is likely to do not do very well isn't very responsible of me! However if you feel that you're capable of designing a 6p+ map which is viable in a 1v1 setting then feel free to contact me about that.
The map I'm almost finished with has 8 spawn points...yet should be completely viable for a 1v1 map. Hope it's not a problem! Ask EatThePath, he loves it.
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
In most circumstances 6p maps are probably pushing things a bit too far, at least for most map makers. Encouraging submissions in a category that is likely to do not do very well isn't very responsible of me! However if you feel that you're capable of designing a 6p+ map which is viable in a 1v1 setting then feel free to contact me about that.
You don't encourage it per se, you simply exclude 2p maps. I for one won't be making any 6-spawn maps that I want to submit anyway, but someone might, and it seems odd to exclude them because we don't want 2p maps this time. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks this way? Just hoping someone understands what I'm on about here.
On April 02 2014 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: I find it odd that it stipulates 3-5 spawn positions, given that the real intention is no 2-spawn maps. Though not many, it excludes some other possibilities as well. To make my point:
This was something I made a while back, but anything of that sort has been excluded by the rule. A 3-in-1 map is just as rare, but now it can't be done. I feel most of the rules this time around are just silly, like I don't have enough to worry about making maps normally.
In most circumstances 6p maps are probably pushing things a bit too far, at least for most map makers. Encouraging submissions in a category that is likely to do not do very well isn't very responsible of me! However if you feel that you're capable of designing a 6p+ map which is viable in a 1v1 setting then feel free to contact me about that.
You don't encourage it per se, you simply exclude 2p maps. I for one won't be making any 6-spawn maps that I want to submit anyway, but someone might, and it seems odd to exclude them because we don't want 2p maps this time. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks this way? Just hoping someone understands what I'm on about here.
I do see where you're coming from. But here is where I'm coming from: - If i say no 2p maps, people assume I'm asking for 4p maps - 3-5 makes it clear that 3 and 5 p maps are allowed and encouraged - 5p maps are difficult to create, but by stating that we're okay with them someone may be inclined to experiment - 6p maps introduce a whole new dimension of difficulty in terms of space management, beyond that which most mappers can work out (if it's at all possible)
Hmm, I'm finding it difficult to find time for this. Maybe it would've been better to host this sometime other than finals month. I suppose Blizzard employees don't really have time to cater but it's a bit difficult to put everything together.
Thinking about the contest itself: "Aww maaan, that takes too long. I wanna see dem new maps now!" Thinking about completing own map before deadline: "Crap, I need more time to finish it!!"
Here will be my first submission, I'm not actually sending it in just yet because I'm still experimenting with some gameplay options so I might change up a couple things, but figured I'd show it off and maybe it'll spark some ideas for other mappers.
Korhal Carnage 1v1 Melee Size: 158x154
8 spawn locations but players cannot spawn within the 4 closest adjacent bases from each other! 12 regular mineral bases! 1 gold base in the middle! 4 Extremely powerful watchtowers! 4 creepy crawly scantipedes!
On April 04 2014 10:51 The_Templar wrote: You're insane.
I like it. Not sure about the two entrances to the main, especially as one is on even ground.
Oh I agree, which is why I'm still doing some playtests on it to see. Currently I'm still worried a bit about speedling openers vs protoss and blink vs terran, honestly everything else I don't believe will be a problem. Really hard to make changes without ruining the overall concept of the map either, so I'm letting it play out for the time being and seeing if I really need to change anything up.
I am a bit too dumb to understand the spawn system, sry T_T Assuming that I spawn at the red location, where could ur opponent spawn? I think 1 is irrelevant and all the other unnumbered locations as well. What about 2 - 4? I'd like to understand ur thoughts. EDIT: Lol now that I have drawn this, I think I understand it :DDD hahaha. All shown locations are not possible spawn locations right?
On April 04 2014 16:32 Phaenoman wrote: I am a bit too dumb to understand the spawn system, sry T_T Assuming that I spawn at the red location, where could ur opponent spawn? I think 1 is irrelevant and all the other unnumbered locations as well. What about 2 - 4? I'd like to understand ur thoughts. EDIT: Lol now that I have drawn this, I think I understand it :DDD hahaha. All shown locations are not possible spawn locations right?
That image is correct. The 3 spawns you left unnumbered are possible spawn locations for the enemy. I actually have it only uploaded to NA because that's where I playtest it with friends, so you're more then welcome to go give it a shot if you'd like.
On April 04 2014 10:43 SidianTheBard wrote: Here will be my first submission, I'm not actually sending it in just yet because I'm still experimenting with some gameplay options so I might change up a couple things, but figured I'd show it off and maybe it'll spark some ideas for other mappers.
Korhal Carnage 1v1 Melee Size: 158x154
8 spawn locations but players cannot spawn within the 4 closest adjacent bases from each other! 12 regular mineral bases! 1 gold base in the middle! 4 Extremely powerful watchtowers! 4 creepy crawly scantipedes!
On April 04 2014 10:43 SidianTheBard wrote: Here will be my first submission, I'm not actually sending it in just yet because I'm still experimenting with some gameplay options so I might change up a couple things, but figured I'd show it off and maybe it'll spark some ideas for other mappers.
Korhal Carnage 1v1 Melee Size: 158x154
8 spawn locations but players cannot spawn within the 4 closest adjacent bases from each other! 12 regular mineral bases! 1 gold base in the middle! 4 Extremely powerful watchtowers! 4 creepy crawly scantipedes!
On April 04 2014 10:43 SidianTheBard wrote: Here will be my first submission, I'm not actually sending it in just yet because I'm still experimenting with some gameplay options so I might change up a couple things, but figured I'd show it off and maybe it'll spark some ideas for other mappers.
Korhal Carnage 1v1 Melee Size: 158x154
8 spawn locations but players cannot spawn within the 4 closest adjacent bases from each other! 12 regular mineral bases! 1 gold base in the middle! 4 Extremely powerful watchtowers! 4 creepy crawly scantipedes!
Blizzard would be mad to not use this as an FFA map, and just as mad to not start looking for them after this. I like it.
It actually looks like a pretty crappy ffa map XD. FFAS want every player to have a chance at not dying in the early game. Here, it'll inevitebly devolve into a 4 player game.
There is a minor balance issue to work out with two more ramps, but for the purposes of looking at it, it's pretty much done. If anyone is curious about the meta and how it plays out so far, or if anyone would like to help test it, I'll be checking back well before the deadline.
On April 07 2014 18:54 CoraBlue wrote: Triskelion.
There is a minor balance issue to work out with two more ramps, but for the purposes of looking at it, it's pretty much done. If anyone is curious about the meta and how it plays out so far, or if anyone would like to help test it, I'll be checking back well before the deadline.
And yeah, first time poster. Sup dudes? :O
Sup'!
Interesting, though the terrain level of the mains still bugs me way too much. Low mains would be quite an issue I'd say.
Otherwise, it seems a bit too clumped, like, there's no real open space anywhere on the map, apart from those brownish bases, and that could be a problem for some zerg playstyles.
I think Terrans would love this map a bit too much to be honest, and Protoss as well though a bit less.
My 2 cents, don't take it too seriously, that's mostly my (gold level) opinion. Oh and I really like the name and the general shape of the map
Damn, I should've started making a 1v1 map Maybe starting one now and keeping it for the next contest, mmmmh.
On April 08 2014 02:57 IeZaeL wrote: Since they are kinda ready i think i'll show my submissions Only maps made before the contest announcement and modified a bit.
Oh hey. I've seen your maps in Shoutcraft. Providence looks extremely strong here, especially the bottom right and top left spawn positions.
Interesting, though the terrain level of the mains still bugs me way too much. Low mains would be quite an issue I'd say.
I completely understand why people are skeptical of lowground mains, but after watching a few pro players in Shoutcraft play on maps like this, I'm convinced that in certain situations it isn't a problem. It creates a really interesting dynamic in choosing your second base in this case. It also helps put a dent in blink.
You're safe from the right for the first 5:45 from a rush, 7:30 for tech, so do you go clockwise and take the highground to shut that down, or do you go counterclockwise towards an easier third and use the watchtower to spot attacks from the other side?
Otherwise, it seems a bit too clumped, like, there's no real open space anywhere on the map, apart from those brownish bases, and that could be a problem for some zerg playstyles.
You would think it would be a problem for Zerg, but ling counters are pretty strong, and swarmhosts can lock down areas fairly well on the map. It's one of those things where I wish I could see people play on it for sure though, to see if drops are too strong and if units are failing to get surrounds.
Check the mineral counts IeZ especially on the 1v1 maps, i'm seeing mineral fields that have 6 or 7 minerals instead of the normal 8, other than that they look quite nice i must say, i'm diggin' Providence quite a bit ^^
On April 08 2014 05:37 Uvantak wrote: Check the mineral counts IeZ especially on the 1v1 maps, i'm seeing mineral fields that have 6 or 7 minerals instead of the normal 8, other than that they look quite nice i must say, i'm diggin' Providence quite a bit ^^
Yup, looks like a symmetry tool problem.
The various issues are found at:
Providence:
Top/Bottom main bases
1st no-name map:
Top left third
Top left natural
Top center third
Top right third
Bottom right natural
Bottom center third
Bottom left third
Second no-name map:
Top center base
Top right main
Bottom center base
Bottom left main
The low ground thirds and the golds look weird too.
On April 08 2014 02:57 IeZaeL wrote: Since they are kinda ready i think i'll show my submissions Only maps made before the contest announcement and modified a bit.
Oh hey. I've seen your maps in Shoutcraft. Providence looks extremely strong here, especially the bottom right and top left spawn positions.
Interesting, though the terrain level of the mains still bugs me way too much. Low mains would be quite an issue I'd say.
I completely understand why people are skeptical of lowground mains, but after watching a few pro players in Shoutcraft play on maps like this, I'm convinced that in certain situations it isn't a problem. It creates a really interesting dynamic in choosing your second base in this case. It also helps put a dent in blink.
You're safe from the right for the first 5:45 from a rush, 7:30 for tech, so do you go clockwise and take the highground to shut that down, or do you go counterclockwise towards an easier third and use the watchtower to spot attacks from the other side?
Otherwise, it seems a bit too clumped, like, there's no real open space anywhere on the map, apart from those brownish bases, and that could be a problem for some zerg playstyles.
You would think it would be a problem for Zerg, but ling counters are pretty strong, and swarmhosts can lock down areas fairly well on the map. It's one of those things where I wish I could see people play on it for sure though, to see if drops are too strong and if units are failing to get surrounds.
Oh well, you seem to have thought thoroughly about these points, good work! It would be interesting to see pros playing it
On April 08 2014 05:51 IeZaeL wrote: Thanks a lot the_templar , the simmetry tool is something really buggy , atleast for me. It just always fails to update correctly.
As for the layout issues , they're still not finished ^^.
If you're doing any sort of rotational symmetry, you have to watch out for things like mineral footprints preventing proper placement due to their 2x1 nature. Generally, I'll only use the symmetry tool for the gas geysers, then do traditional copy/paste for minerals to ensure their proper placement in relation to the geysers.
On April 07 2014 18:54 CoraBlue wrote: Triskelion.
There is a minor balance issue to work out with two more ramps, but for the purposes of looking at it, it's pretty much done. If anyone is curious about the meta and how it plays out so far, or if anyone would like to help test it, I'll be checking back well before the deadline.
And yeah, first time poster. Sup dudes? :O
I really like this. Do you think that maybe the towers will be too strong seeing as they cover the only non-rock entrance to your base? It will be almost impossible to pull off a rush if your opponent holds his own tower and sees it coming from a mile away.
On this map I am worried about blink stalkers and terran cliff hopping with tanks. Wouldn't it be cool if the ramp was moved down here? It might make it difficult for zerg to get a third though.
I really like this. Do you think that maybe the towers will be too strong seeing as they cover the only non-rock entrance to your base? It will be almost impossible to pull off a rush if your opponent holds his own tower and sees it coming from a mile away.
This is a pretty good suggestion. I've experimentally moved the towers so that they only cover half of mid. A smart player can still rush by knowing where the towers cover (which means you'll need to scout where your opponent spawned). Let me know if you have feedback.
@CoraBlue: You have a very interesting concept that turned out pretty nice in execution. I would recommend thinking about any ways you could possibly simplify the concept by reducing the number of rocks you need to block the back routes, and also adjusting the chokes around the map. There aren't really any options for attack routes with open space other than those seen by the towers, which aren't even that open.
Speaking of W-sym, anyone doing a, asymmetrical map? I was thinking of attempting this feat if I thought I could come up with a layout that wasn't insanely imbalanced.
On April 09 2014 03:04 TheFish7 wrote: Speaking of W-sym, anyone doing a, asymmetrical map? I was thinking of attempting this feat if I thought I could come up with a layout that wasn't insanely imbalanced.
I was considering it but I sort of want to place this time around >.>
If you guys do manage to make something fair and interesting it will place just because it is asymmetrical and therefore standout. ::weighing the options hand gesture::
If I can't think of another good W-sym layout besides Crusader I'll probably design a three player map that is basically an axially symmetric four player map but with one spawning location replaced by normal bases to make the map positionally balanced in all three spawning patterns, or perhaps a completely asymmetric three player map, since three player maps are inherently asymmetric anyway (unless they are 6-way symmetric). W-sym takes priority at the moment though.
On April 09 2014 04:11 And G wrote: If I can't think of another good W-sym layout besides Crusader I'll probably design a three player map that is basically an axially symmetric four player map but with one spawning location replaced by normal bases to make the map positionally balanced in all three spawning patterns, or perhaps a completely asymmetric three player map, since three player maps are inherently asymmetric anyway (unless they are 6-way symmetric). W-sym takes priority at the moment though.
It wouldn't be completely positionally balanced though. In close positions, one player's later expansions would be a "normal" set of bases, while the other player's would be a main/nat setup (easier to defend by ground due to shared choke).
On April 09 2014 03:04 TheFish7 wrote: Speaking of W-sym, anyone doing a, asymmetrical map? I was thinking of attempting this feat if I thought I could come up with a layout that wasn't insanely imbalanced.
Well being picky, 3 players maps are inherently asymmetrical so i think you could count those as asymmetrical. I really don't think that even if you managed to achieve a balanced and fun asymmetrical would score that high anyways, because you need to take into account the view Blizzard has regarding the new players and the entry barrier for them.
Here's one of the maps i'll be submitting it is not quite finished yet and it lacks a name still, but if anyone here comes up with something fun, i may take the name :3
And some pretty pictures to scare my fellow mapmakers into submission >:D Muahahahaha
On April 09 2014 06:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: It wouldn't be completely positionally balanced though. In close positions, one player's later expansions would be a "normal" set of bases, while the other player's would be a main/nat setup (easier to defend by ground due to shared choke).
That's peanuts compared to typical W-sym problems.
On April 09 2014 07:59 Uvantak wrote:
The left ramp in that picture looks kind of dented, and it doesn't seem intentional. (Edit: Never mind, I see now it's just the debris and the lighting that makes it look that way...)
Also, I see you have low ground mains. I'M NOT SCARED OF YOU!
ATM idk if i'll be adding the lowground mains or expand the natural's area and transform the current mainbase into a in-main natural, but since this map will be submitted it should be able to hold the pass of time well, so i think i'll take the second option :b
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) I
I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity.
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) I
I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity.
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) I
I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity.
There are a lot more built-in features for SC2 than there were in BW; Xel'Naga Towers, LOS blockers, destructible/collapsible rocks, etc. There's a lot that can be done with the tools Blizzard has provided, plus they're much more readable/easier to understand.
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) I
I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity.
Actually i'm surprised that Blizz decide to use Merry-go-round because it has air pathing blockers and those are known for being hard to recognize of where they start and where they end even if they are highlighted with other doodads because of the 3D view we have of the game.
Just put the finishing touches on and sent this in. Holy hell. Balanced 3 player maps are annoying as hell to create, especially when they're manmade structures.
On April 06 2014 14:21 eTcetRa wrote: Also if you're still reading, Plexa, would you happen to know what they deem to be "excessive" in this case:
Avoid excessive use of water
I second this question. Especially, would filling unpathable terrain around the map with water be "excessive"?
Depends on how much unpathable terrain there is any map which we think it worthy of being a finalist that does not meet the QA regulations will be contacted so that the map can be changed to fit those prior to submission to Blizzard. Not meeting the art guidelines won't disqualify an entry, it will just add an extra step between finals and submission.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
I can't even imagine all the amazing siege, reaper, and colossus shenanigans one could get up to if IeZaeL were to implement that feedback.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
Actually it already is a BW map - it's a remake of Iron Curtain.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
I can't even imagine all the amazing siege, reaper, and colossus shenanigans one could get up to if IeZaeL were to implement that feedback.
I think it could be doable if the low ground was entirely surrounded by double elevation cliffs. But the current approach seems set up for reapers and such. So it wouldn't fit.
Doubt anybody would want to get their army stuck on that low ground if cliff walking was out of the picture. Shame SC2 doesn't have a stronger high ground advantage too.
My take on the map was that access to the expansions at the corners of the map needed to be opened up somehow. Feels liek the player that is behind is going to be choked down on 3 bases otherwise and squeezed in that quarter of the map without much prospect of breaking out or ever reaching other expansions on the map. That works in BW but not usually in SC2.
On April 12 2014 11:29 LaLuSh wrote: My take on the map was that access to the expansions at the corners of the map needed to be opened up somehow. Feels liek the player that is behind is going to be choked down on 3 bases otherwise and squeezed in that quarter of the map without much prospect of breaking out or ever reaching other expansions on the map. That works in BW but not usually in SC2.
I'm curious why you feel it doesn't work in SC2. My personal opinion is that people have gotten too comfortable always holding a capped economy.
I don't think level of comfort or what you or I think matters much.
Reason I think that there needs to be an alternative path is because I haven't seen many succesful SC2 maps with a lack of open attack/counterattack paths in the centre. The player that lacks control of the middle is going to be completely cut off from the empty mains unless they employ super passive play and slowly crawl fowards (swarm hosts).
Those green areas are the only areas you need oversight of to be 100% aware of any counterattack movements.
I made this other graphic for a different thread I'm writing on that shows how space tends to be used on a typical 4 player map in SC2.
4 player maps follow this formula regardless of whether you starve the players and provide them with only 3 easily accessible bases on their quarter of the map (fighting spirit), or if you do it like what is currently in fashion: cram 5 bases in a small area.
The difference is the community always spews hate on the starved 3-base 4 player maps. They produce predictable play. Always 2 or 3 base all-ins, nothing else.
So mapmakers default to the other option: "I'm going to cram loads of bases in a small area cuz players aren't going to use the space on the map even if try to force them by starving them of easily accessible bases. Plus my map will actually have a chance of getting picked/used this way".
It's possible my suggestion isn't even feasible for Iezael's map. But the above is my reasoning for why I even thought of suggesting it. To encourage/force more space on the map to be used, and not to make the middle area super restricted. What current 4 player maps at least have going for them is that their middle areas aren't cramped like it is on the iron curtain map.
I've already posted my KCKO map already but this is my actual full submission post. KCKO if it's okay (Plexa, let me know) can be submitted as a 1v1 map, but could also be submitted as a team (2v2) or even a FFA map. I've also created a new 4 player map named Into The Wilds that is pretty unique in it's own sense as well. (If I get more time I might work on the aesthetics of ITW a little more because I'm not completely 100% happy with it, but going to be pretty busy this next week so not sure if I'll have time to work on it) Lastly, I'll be submitting my 4v4 map that I submitted waaay back in TLMC 2 iirc. I made a couple tweaks to it but didn't change much else. KCKO and ITW are both published on NA/EU/KR and they are all unlocked so feel free to open them up if you'd like.
Good luck to everybody! Looking forward to seeing some of the other submissions!
On April 12 2014 21:01 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think level of comfort or what you or I think matters much.
Reason I think that there needs to be an alternative path is because I haven't seen many succesful SC2 maps with a lack of open attack/counterattack paths in the centre. The player that lacks control of the middle is going to be completely cut off from the empty mains unless they employ super passive play and slowly crawl fowards (swarm hosts).
Those green areas are the only areas you need oversight of to be 100% aware of any counterattack movements.
I feel like destroying the rocks and air options would provide some alternative. I do agree that the map could potentially result in split-map games, though. I'm also not convinced that it's the end of the world if a player gets "trapped" on 4 base; that's already more bases than a standard 3 base maximum economy, so you can keep a max economy going for a decent while. As for getting trapped in the first place, I think it's a player mistake in failing to establish map control. Am I wrong in assuming that should be a strategic priority for players to get ahead of (or at least keep on par with) their opponent on this map?
On April 12 2014 21:01 LaLuSh wrote: I made this other graphic for a different thread I'm writing on that shows how space tends to be used on a typical 4 player map in SC2.
4 player maps follow this formula regardless of whether you starve the players and provide them with only 3 easily accessible bases on their quarter of the map (fighting spirit), or if you do it like what is currently in fashion: cram 5 bases in a small area.
#YOLO. One of the things that always drives me nuts about 4p map design is how you have those vast areas that get unused, because you don't need 'em. We need more of this IMO (not the map in particular, but the idea that a macro game spans the whole map):
On April 13 2014 03:59 iamcaustic wrote:One of the things that always drives me nuts about 4p map design is how you have those vast areas that get unused, because you don't need 'em. We need more of this IMO
I completely agree with this, and I think the main design "features" that lead to this are a centre through which basically every major attack goes, and 3 or more bases per player that clearly belong to that player and can safely be taken regardless of where the opponent spawns. It's super noticeable on Frost where you have four bases in each quadrant, and even if you expand to an unused main, your opponent will still attack that expansion by going through the centre. I think 12 bases is a good number for an axially symmetric four player map if four of those bases are located at the edge of the map between spawning positions so neither player can take them when spawning adjacent, and so your position gets stretched laterally when spawning cross. This gives you four to five bases per player that can reasonably be taken and held, and two to four bases that may be contested between players in the lategame.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
I get the impression you don't know this is a 2v2 map. See Shoutcraft Clan Wars for example games.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
I get the impression you don't know this is a 2v2 map. See Shoutcraft Clan Wars for example games.
I believe IeZaeL was also looking to see if he could submit it as a 1v1 map, in which case the feedback would be addressed to that end.
this is Lava Oasis 2v2 map i hope is pleasing to the eyes of the master of mapmaking.[url=http://imgur.com/u5kqLAw][img]http://i.imgur.com/j2lqdZI.jpg[/url][/img]
Man looking at Tyrador Battlements, I really miss the shadows on overview pictures on the maps.. One patch they just disappeared and now all overviews look really ugly.
This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm.
I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable.
I get the impression you don't know this is a 2v2 map. See Shoutcraft Clan Wars for example games.
Ring of air pathing blockers 154x154 0 xel'nagas short rush distances (~178)
I'm not sure which one i'll be submitting, neither of them area ready yet, but i'm heading to submit the first one and the third one, but i may submit an older one like Star Sapphire with some minor editing.
Poll: Which maps should i submit?
Unnamed 1 (Terran Installation 3in1 map (3)
60%
Unnamed 2 (Korhal city 2in1 map) (1)
20%
Unnamed 3 (Desertic temple 3 players map) (1)
20%
Star Sapphire (0)
0%
Other (0)
0%
5 total votes
Your vote: Which maps should i submit?
(Vote): Unnamed 1 (Terran Installation 3in1 map (Vote): Unnamed 2 (Korhal city 2in1 map) (Vote): Unnamed 3 (Desertic temple 3 players map) (Vote): Star Sapphire (Vote): Other
Okay, i think that i can call the first map finished, i'll probably retouch a couple things tomorrow before sending it but for the most part it is done.
On April 17 2014 22:56 IMTB wrote: Close combat 1V1 map <pictures removed for space>
It may be helpful to enable "Tools->Brush->Allow Cliff Merging" in the editor, allowing you to paint different types of cliffs without the editor adding the extra "buffer space" (as seen around your Protoss cliffs). Make sure to cover up the gaps between the cliff types with a "Cliff Gap Filler" doodad or similar! (search "Cliff" or "Gap" in the doodad area.)
Also, I submitted my maps today, also including this Gaema Gowon remake.
(4) Return of Samus
Edit: @NewSunshine: I love those long skinny hallways on Nature Spirit.
lol Gaema Gowon remake <3 Gotta say I love this since at first sight it looks less messy than 80% of the maps in this thread nat to nat distance of close spawn seems worrisome though
This will be my other 1v1 submission, with super close spawns disabled (obviously):
When I started working on the aesthetics I thought it would all look a lot more awesome once finished, but I guess I suck at this. Lava ≠ water, right?
Debris and towers took a fair amount of time to get right. Apparently destructible tower debris explodes if it falls on top the edge of other debris X-D Zerglings getting through cracks made it kind of difficult to get the right positioning on the rocks and towers so that they could fully block off a place without exploding, but I finally got it down.
On April 18 2014 22:14 And G wrote: This will be my other 1v1 submission, with super close spawns disabled (obviously):
When I started working on the aesthetics I thought it would all look a lot more awesome once finished, but I guess I suck at this. Lava ≠ water, right?
you shouldnt play with the lighting so much, standard lighting is usually the best. you can test it with an archon if you messed it up
Can a map submitted for the TLMC have more than 1 mapmaker? Uhmmm it would interesting to see what happens... iirc you guys at TPW did a map this way, one of your very first ones i can't recall th name of it for my life, it was a destroyed city theme iirc
The trick to make a pretty map is just to dump many many hours on it, or at least that's MY trick, also i'll accept if you come up with good names for my maps!
Oh yeah that one, i still don't understand they managed to make a coherent theme with all the plp working on the same map, one thing that disappointed me about TPW is that they never again used that cool custom TPW billboard
On April 19 2014 06:00 Uvantak wrote: Can a map submitted for the TLMC have more than 1 mapmaker? Uhmmm it would interesting to see what happens... iirc you guys at TPW did a map this way, one of your very first ones i can't recall th name of it for my life, it was a destroyed city theme iirc
The trick to make a pretty map is just to dump many many hours on it, or at least that's MY trick, also i'll accept if you come up with good names for my maps!
Names are the other thing I am terrible at
My aesthetics are improving, but so are everyone else's, and faster . . . .| edit: | case in point . . . .v
I never actually ended up submitting mine because I wasn't able to get them to a satisfactory state by the deadline, other things came up. Oh well, making them was fun.
I like Emrel Coast and Southbound Voyager. Look like they'd be fun to play on, even though I don't do many team games.
On April 20 2014 05:48 Coppermantis wrote: I never actually ended up submitting mine because I wasn't able to get them to a satisfactory state by the deadline, other things came up. Oh well, making them was fun.
I like Emrel Coast and Southbound Voyager. Look like they'd be fun to play on, even though I don't do many team games.
Same here, oh wells, make good maps for next time! I only had one layout I really liked for entry specifically for this TLMC with it's given restrictions, but I only perfected it with 2 days before the deadline. Make a pact with me -- we shall complete our maps and have them waiting in the armory for use in the next contest. Keep forging.
To mappers: remember it's not about winning, it's about making the game better.
On April 20 2014 05:48 Coppermantis wrote: I never actually ended up submitting mine because I wasn't able to get them to a satisfactory state by the deadline, other things came up. Oh well, making them was fun.
I like Emrel Coast and Southbound Voyager. Look like they'd be fun to play on, even though I don't do many team games.
Same here, oh wells, make good maps for next time! I only had one layout I really liked for entry specifically for this TLMC with it's given restrictions, but I only perfected it with 2 days before the deadline. Make a pact with me -- we shall complete our maps and have them waiting in the armory for use in the next contest. Keep forging.
To mappers: remember it's not about winning, it's about making the game better.
I can only make the game better if I win though ;_;
On April 20 2014 05:48 Coppermantis wrote: I never actually ended up submitting mine because I wasn't able to get them to a satisfactory state by the deadline, other things came up. Oh well, making them was fun.
I like Emrel Coast and Southbound Voyager. Look like they'd be fun to play on, even though I don't do many team games.
Same here, oh wells, make good maps for next time! I only had one layout I really liked for entry specifically for this TLMC with it's given restrictions, but I only perfected it with 2 days before the deadline. Make a pact with me -- we shall complete our maps and have them waiting in the armory for use in the next contest. Keep forging.
To mappers: remember it's not about winning, it's about making the game better.
I can only make the game better if I win though ;_;
Give the judges the best possible pool of maps to choose from.
On April 20 2014 05:48 Coppermantis wrote: I never actually ended up submitting mine because I wasn't able to get them to a satisfactory state by the deadline, other things came up. Oh well, making them was fun.
I like Emrel Coast and Southbound Voyager. Look like they'd be fun to play on, even though I don't do many team games.
Same here, oh wells, make good maps for next time! I only had one layout I really liked for entry specifically for this TLMC with it's given restrictions, but I only perfected it with 2 days before the deadline. Make a pact with me -- we shall complete our maps and have them waiting in the armory for use in the next contest. Keep forging.
To mappers: remember it's not about winning, it's about making the game better.
Quite. It is good that TLMCs are becoming more regular, more chances!
For 1v1 it is hard to pick... but I like Purifier, Catellana, Shrine of the Fallen, Providence, and Boondock wastes. I think the judges have a tough job this time.
On April 21 2014 01:06 Plexa wrote: Thank you to everyone who submitted. We had over 90 entries in the contest and quite a number of fresh faces entering!
We are aiming to have the finalists announced and voting begin on the 29th of April. Voting will conclude on the 4th of May.
Again really simple altho it doesn't look as visually nice from the overview. The way natural and third are set up however is so unique! Also noteworthy that this is the absolute rare case for a 3p/4p map where taking other starting positions doesn't feel like you take 2 free bases (natural and main) at once.
Certainly much more complex but the distribution of open areas and chokes, the many different pathways and the mix of rotational and mirrored symmetry makes for a whole lot of possibilities on this one. Also the aesthetics by Samro are stunning as usual.
This one probably takes the old standard of a turtly 4p mirrored and just makes it a little harder to defend all around which is great. 3 bases could still be static but overall the concept of the backdoor nat to allow all spawns won me over. Good to see someone reused Korhal Compound aesthetis as well.
With the nat/third mineral line facing inwards right against the cliff defending three bases will be quite unqiue on this map. The island bases fit right in. In horizontal spawns there could defintiely be the scenario where you even skip that closest base and go for the island or the other starting position as a third instead. Overall just many map specific possibilities and strategies while keeping the overall layout very simple, which is great.
Good 12 base 4p rotational. It has good aggressive potential early on, it has decently hard to take bases overall and it has some unqiue features but the terrain is quite simple really. I like it.
This one already not made finalists in another TLMC but I still think it's great. Defending three bases should be roughly equal from every position but the real cool thing are those middle bases (altho Frost certainly did sth very similar later). It's a solid little map imo.
Honorable mentions are IeZael's maps. If you can actually take your third on these they are quite good. Also Nature Spirit by NewSunshine, Foxtrot Labs by Uvantak, Jungle Remedy by Timetwister and etcetra's maps which all make a good effort but are not in my personal top7.
If you could be more specific I couldt provide a good answer.
In general I guess I prefer maps with very few drastic new ideas and then the simplest execution with clean aesthetics. Barely do I like maps which get overly complicated and are lost in an abundance of features with aesthetics that are too complicated and not helpful to easily see what is going on.
On April 22 2014 21:12 Ragoo wrote: If you could be more specific I couldt provide a good answer.
In general I guess I prefer maps with very few drastic new ideas and then the simplest execution with clean aesthetics. Barely do I like maps which get overly complicated and are lost in an abundance of features with aesthetics that are too complicated and not helpful to easily see what is going on.
I agree with you there, strong simple design is hard to come by. I guess we just have different dealbreakers such as 3rd base or close spawn viability that rule out maps for me that otherwise look good.
EPT
Guess its time to take a break from arcade mapping!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9qjqCNx.png)
Rising lava is so interesting, easy to understand and would add so much to a map pool.
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/thumb/f/f7/Hwangsanbul.jpg/400px-Hwangsanbul.jpg)
Hwangsanbul![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/105_Evolution%20Predators%202_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s30.postimg.org/t4mg5oulr/Versus_Terminus.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OJ9l878.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4x04aXq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RJzMZIF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J7w4WvS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iQjMLMN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w89GN9T.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AaFpnOl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E1i9qvM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zVDiGkG.jpg)
[/url]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ASnZ5rl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zY7vyzO.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NSGIU3m.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOMeXCE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eWIaGvm.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XSquW1k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9nXhpyQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tAiBZHG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sy3s4OC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9NiwTqE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uZLlLl1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u0g33OY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M6k6lcd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wp5I0eK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R0aP3w3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YDjehTp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dmbDwoY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PRIn0xv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zg1WASf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SKE8IwLl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xG5R4sDl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5nEmUCE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/olR0pwr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BurGHDh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7eOzuie.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JkdnjhO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tjaTPAW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3GG9ndz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lrY8n6d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gnNGsSu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JfOWu1Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RwHEyUp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/65xyp3x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUnQLNV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1fBMICy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OSTYmU3l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AeIMmBZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vaHfkGwl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KQdLZOU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z5R6MfY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2TLvYQ5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JtAp4Wj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k6xsLTm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tX4wP1V.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q2weoLQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2ZLb1ro.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tgydu3T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xIbYCzu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IN10xWr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TfCEX2E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cMIiVNf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oUCaEeB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xfDNtII.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z3Ppjqy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KNYYXe9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WGva0cH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8dvhH3i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TRlUe0N.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JvvLNzR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lpBOVQ4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HvHPazb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UG1UX4F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ir3nHGK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/crusw600glqwi.png)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/noaa-walrus222kpwf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tWrtQEhl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D7vtz46.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b2KJbVL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cDxWm3Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UJEKpa0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/62ae/81sb48a1y0xhhayfg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/b254/2m8msgeg0oyyz1rfg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PTqET79.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/17jr3nu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e4bRJBv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YAC2m0Q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/acG8b21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WErIReH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/huXpwv4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1kxUKAY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8ljWyap.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OjSpMjo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IyIwm40.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zASyEhI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0CWuj4i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sejcV6s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WtnDTsB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/paraf600rrq9r.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iIiJHRX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dWQMlYd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IgwYxGd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5uDR95o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bc80mfg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YWXPIWw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S8KuVah.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/37O2kfx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lz07SwH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qvpvX7y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dKrmJ3i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qeRiqfP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vV5Pg8B.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EkdUWSI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FekdYOB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KcGY7uE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LqBwuSo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/F9ol6Mo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dF8n8U4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sbcRMOe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HaSia3y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KbEBBCe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KxbCnKF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P5JH2NX.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZZ1qUfz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YglZhJe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NuGUtn6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6XmRYyU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GaNs4qG.jpg)
. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xXMekH4.jpg)
