|
United States7483 Posts
On May 01 2014 08:27 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 08:13 Big J wrote:On May 01 2014 04:38 Corazon wrote:
For those complaining about lack of variety in the maps:
1. Maps with 2 ramps into the main don't really work unless there is a good use of rocks.
2. Maps without a standard ramp don't work at all (PvP)
We received a variety of new and interesting ideas, but most of them were way too out there in order to make it to the playtesting process. What are you talking about with PvP. It's always gping to be balanced. It's pretty shitty that you keep on making up excuses for PvP, meanwhile I have never heard anyone consider that you need a choke coverable by 3.5 large buildings without planting a creeptumor first to not have shitty ZvZ mass zergling gameplay. Without the ability to hold a main ramp with forcefield, it's practically impossible to hold a lot of PvP all-ins. There has been extensive testing on this in previous map contests, and we've come to the conclusion pretty unanimously that it's just not possible to play PvP with a large ramp. Also, we do also spend a lot of time thinking about the distances between main and natural, the size of the main ramp, the size of the natural ramp, the distance of the main ramp to the hatchery, and the distance of natural ramp from the hatchery into account when playing these maps. It just so happens that 90% of the time, these problems happen to coincide with Protoss problems as well. Daedalus Point was a failed map not only for Zerg versus Protoss and Terran, but also for ZvZ, where it was near impossible to get past the ling/bling phase safely because you couldn't wall (and also, your spine crawler didn't quite cover your mineral line AND ramp, which was a pain in the ass). Trust me, we've talked about Zerg as well, TL Strategy isn't actually as biased as some people might think.
A number of maps were shut down because they were impossible for zerg to play on. We're trying to produce maps that are reasonably balanced while allowing for interesting play and newer designs. Deadwing is here because it's a good replacement for a big macro map: it's certainly better than alterzim. The other four maps are all different than what we've had on ladder, but seem reasonably balanced. If it makes you feel any better, Catallena is probably bad for protoss, but we thought it was interesting enough that it was worth making it to this round.
|
On May 01 2014 09:29 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 08:27 SC2John wrote:On May 01 2014 08:13 Big J wrote:On May 01 2014 04:38 Corazon wrote:
For those complaining about lack of variety in the maps:
1. Maps with 2 ramps into the main don't really work unless there is a good use of rocks.
2. Maps without a standard ramp don't work at all (PvP)
We received a variety of new and interesting ideas, but most of them were way too out there in order to make it to the playtesting process. What are you talking about with PvP. It's always gping to be balanced. It's pretty shitty that you keep on making up excuses for PvP, meanwhile I have never heard anyone consider that you need a choke coverable by 3.5 large buildings without planting a creeptumor first to not have shitty ZvZ mass zergling gameplay. Without the ability to hold a main ramp with forcefield, it's practically impossible to hold a lot of PvP all-ins. There has been extensive testing on this in previous map contests, and we've come to the conclusion pretty unanimously that it's just not possible to play PvP with a large ramp. Also, we do also spend a lot of time thinking about the distances between main and natural, the size of the main ramp, the size of the natural ramp, the distance of the main ramp to the hatchery, and the distance of natural ramp from the hatchery into account when playing these maps. It just so happens that 90% of the time, these problems happen to coincide with Protoss problems as well. Daedalus Point was a failed map not only for Zerg versus Protoss and Terran, but also for ZvZ, where it was near impossible to get past the ling/bling phase safely because you couldn't wall (and also, your spine crawler didn't quite cover your mineral line AND ramp, which was a pain in the ass). Trust me, we've talked about Zerg as well, TL Strategy isn't actually as biased as some people might think. A number of maps were shut down because they were impossible for zerg to play on. We're trying to produce maps that are reasonably balanced while allowing for interesting play and newer designs. Deadwing is here because it's a good replacement for a big macro map: it's certainly better than alterzim. The other four maps are all different than what we've had on ladder, but seem reasonably balanced. If it makes you feel any better, Catallena is probably bad for protoss, but we thought it was interesting enough that it was worth making it to this round.
Except why are 20 tightly packed bases even necessary for a "big macro map"? Most mapmakers seem to agree (and I can give sources if necessary) that Whirlwind is a good example of what a large macro map should be - it's big but not so enormous that the 2nd half of the map is never relevant, and it has a high base count but they're spread far enough that some degree of map awareness is necessary to defend 4+ bases. Go much further than that and now you've just crossed the line from macro to turtle.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On May 01 2014 09:29 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 08:27 SC2John wrote:On May 01 2014 08:13 Big J wrote:On May 01 2014 04:38 Corazon wrote:
For those complaining about lack of variety in the maps:
1. Maps with 2 ramps into the main don't really work unless there is a good use of rocks.
2. Maps without a standard ramp don't work at all (PvP)
We received a variety of new and interesting ideas, but most of them were way too out there in order to make it to the playtesting process. What are you talking about with PvP. It's always gping to be balanced. It's pretty shitty that you keep on making up excuses for PvP, meanwhile I have never heard anyone consider that you need a choke coverable by 3.5 large buildings without planting a creeptumor first to not have shitty ZvZ mass zergling gameplay. Without the ability to hold a main ramp with forcefield, it's practically impossible to hold a lot of PvP all-ins. There has been extensive testing on this in previous map contests, and we've come to the conclusion pretty unanimously that it's just not possible to play PvP with a large ramp. Also, we do also spend a lot of time thinking about the distances between main and natural, the size of the main ramp, the size of the natural ramp, the distance of the main ramp to the hatchery, and the distance of natural ramp from the hatchery into account when playing these maps. It just so happens that 90% of the time, these problems happen to coincide with Protoss problems as well. Daedalus Point was a failed map not only for Zerg versus Protoss and Terran, but also for ZvZ, where it was near impossible to get past the ling/bling phase safely because you couldn't wall (and also, your spine crawler didn't quite cover your mineral line AND ramp, which was a pain in the ass). Trust me, we've talked about Zerg as well, TL Strategy isn't actually as biased as some people might think. A number of maps were shut down because they were impossible for zerg to play on. We're trying to produce maps that are reasonably balanced while allowing for interesting play and newer designs. Deadwing is here because it's a good replacement for a big macro map: it's certainly better than alterzim. The other four maps are all different than what we've had on ladder, but seem reasonably balanced. If it makes you feel any better, Catallena is probably bad for protoss, but we thought it was interesting enough that it was worth making it to this round.
First of all, Alterzim is definitely better than Deadwing. Second of all, Deadwing has really no difference in defending 3 bases vs 4, whereas all good macro maps (not boring ones) do. There are also a lot of really beginner-level straight lines and tiny, tiny chokes that don't fit very well in the map.
Also, I'd like to know how my maps did. Can you or someone else PM me about it? (I'm assuming you were part of the judging process based on your post)
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 01 2014 10:03 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 09:29 Whitewing wrote:On May 01 2014 08:27 SC2John wrote:On May 01 2014 08:13 Big J wrote:On May 01 2014 04:38 Corazon wrote:
For those complaining about lack of variety in the maps:
1. Maps with 2 ramps into the main don't really work unless there is a good use of rocks.
2. Maps without a standard ramp don't work at all (PvP)
We received a variety of new and interesting ideas, but most of them were way too out there in order to make it to the playtesting process. What are you talking about with PvP. It's always gping to be balanced. It's pretty shitty that you keep on making up excuses for PvP, meanwhile I have never heard anyone consider that you need a choke coverable by 3.5 large buildings without planting a creeptumor first to not have shitty ZvZ mass zergling gameplay. Without the ability to hold a main ramp with forcefield, it's practically impossible to hold a lot of PvP all-ins. There has been extensive testing on this in previous map contests, and we've come to the conclusion pretty unanimously that it's just not possible to play PvP with a large ramp. Also, we do also spend a lot of time thinking about the distances between main and natural, the size of the main ramp, the size of the natural ramp, the distance of the main ramp to the hatchery, and the distance of natural ramp from the hatchery into account when playing these maps. It just so happens that 90% of the time, these problems happen to coincide with Protoss problems as well. Daedalus Point was a failed map not only for Zerg versus Protoss and Terran, but also for ZvZ, where it was near impossible to get past the ling/bling phase safely because you couldn't wall (and also, your spine crawler didn't quite cover your mineral line AND ramp, which was a pain in the ass). Trust me, we've talked about Zerg as well, TL Strategy isn't actually as biased as some people might think. A number of maps were shut down because they were impossible for zerg to play on. We're trying to produce maps that are reasonably balanced while allowing for interesting play and newer designs. Deadwing is here because it's a good replacement for a big macro map: it's certainly better than alterzim. The other four maps are all different than what we've had on ladder, but seem reasonably balanced. If it makes you feel any better, Catallena is probably bad for protoss, but we thought it was interesting enough that it was worth making it to this round. First of all, Alterzim is definitely better than Deadwing. Second of all, Deadwing has really no difference in defending 3 bases vs 4, whereas all good macro maps (not boring ones) do. There are also a lot of really beginner-level straight lines and tiny, tiny chokes that don't fit very well in the map. Also, I'd like to know how my maps did. Can you or someone else PM me about it? (I'm assuming you were part of the judging process based on your post) I am preparing a post giving some general comments about why maps were not selected. If after that you're not satisfied then feel free to contact me.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On May 01 2014 10:12 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 10:03 The_Templar wrote:On May 01 2014 09:29 Whitewing wrote:On May 01 2014 08:27 SC2John wrote:On May 01 2014 08:13 Big J wrote:On May 01 2014 04:38 Corazon wrote:
For those complaining about lack of variety in the maps:
1. Maps with 2 ramps into the main don't really work unless there is a good use of rocks.
2. Maps without a standard ramp don't work at all (PvP)
We received a variety of new and interesting ideas, but most of them were way too out there in order to make it to the playtesting process. What are you talking about with PvP. It's always gping to be balanced. It's pretty shitty that you keep on making up excuses for PvP, meanwhile I have never heard anyone consider that you need a choke coverable by 3.5 large buildings without planting a creeptumor first to not have shitty ZvZ mass zergling gameplay. Without the ability to hold a main ramp with forcefield, it's practically impossible to hold a lot of PvP all-ins. There has been extensive testing on this in previous map contests, and we've come to the conclusion pretty unanimously that it's just not possible to play PvP with a large ramp. Also, we do also spend a lot of time thinking about the distances between main and natural, the size of the main ramp, the size of the natural ramp, the distance of the main ramp to the hatchery, and the distance of natural ramp from the hatchery into account when playing these maps. It just so happens that 90% of the time, these problems happen to coincide with Protoss problems as well. Daedalus Point was a failed map not only for Zerg versus Protoss and Terran, but also for ZvZ, where it was near impossible to get past the ling/bling phase safely because you couldn't wall (and also, your spine crawler didn't quite cover your mineral line AND ramp, which was a pain in the ass). Trust me, we've talked about Zerg as well, TL Strategy isn't actually as biased as some people might think. A number of maps were shut down because they were impossible for zerg to play on. We're trying to produce maps that are reasonably balanced while allowing for interesting play and newer designs. Deadwing is here because it's a good replacement for a big macro map: it's certainly better than alterzim. The other four maps are all different than what we've had on ladder, but seem reasonably balanced. If it makes you feel any better, Catallena is probably bad for protoss, but we thought it was interesting enough that it was worth making it to this round. First of all, Alterzim is definitely better than Deadwing. Second of all, Deadwing has really no difference in defending 3 bases vs 4, whereas all good macro maps (not boring ones) do. There are also a lot of really beginner-level straight lines and tiny, tiny chokes that don't fit very well in the map. Also, I'd like to know how my maps did. Can you or someone else PM me about it? (I'm assuming you were part of the judging process based on your post) I am preparing a post giving some general comments about why maps were not selected. If after that you're not satisfied then feel free to contact me.
Thanks. ^^
|
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting
|
your Country52798 Posts
On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting
They usually have a separate staff vote, and then they combine the two.
by staff I mean the TL map contest judges
|
On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting
If it had a beach part, I'm sure it'd be first place.
People love beaches more than they like good maps.
|
On May 01 2014 10:42 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting They usually have a separate staff vote, and then they combine the two. by staff I mean the TL map contest judges
No, it was only like that in TLMC 1. Public decides it all now.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On May 01 2014 11:00 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 10:42 The_Templar wrote:On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting They usually have a separate staff vote, and then they combine the two. by staff I mean the TL map contest judges No, it was only like that in TLMC 1. Public decides it all now.
TLMC 2 had pro vote and public vote
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/416739-tl-map-contest-1v1-results
But I see now that you are right about the staff not judging it past determining the finalists. (why not? TT)
|
Will they have a tournament with a bunch of pros like last time?
|
On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting
And this is exactly why the finalists being determined entirely by public vote is a bad idea.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 01 2014 12:14 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting And this is exactly why the finalists being determined entirely by public vote is a bad idea.
Would you relax? I know your map didn't get picked, but these are probably all going to yield at least some fun games.
Again, the maps are uploaded on BNet. You CAN go test them out yourself, you don't have to rely purely on the thumbnail. I encourage everyone to go play a few games on the map and see how they work for themselves.
|
|
|
Hmm are 2 in 1 maps good? The idea seems to be getting popular. I guess it nerfs the loser's map pick in tournaments that use that format. It also affects Proleague because you plan to go out on a map, but don't know which of the 2 in 1 it will be.
|
On May 01 2014 12:23 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 12:14 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting And this is exactly why the finalists being determined entirely by public vote is a bad idea. Would you relax? I know your map didn't get picked, but these are probably all going to yield at least some fun games. Again, the maps are uploaded on BNet. You CAN go test them out yourself, you don't have to rely purely on the thumbnail. I encourage everyone to go play a few games on the map and see how they work for themselves.
The problem with this is a lot of people don't play that much, or are more concerned with how the maps will affect the pro scene than their ladder games.
|
I really like Foxtrot Labs, its beautiful and looks really good for 1v1 play, though quite close to standard map layouts.
CJ Biome is really cool and original, but might have problems in terms of balance.
All the maps are so good! Can't choose my favorite 
|
I like both Foxtrot and Kamala, because they have some interesting gameplay, and don't look like ass. (octopuses are pretty rad, but dirt tileset is so WOL beta)
Do I have to pick a map? Can't I just vote for Uvantak?
|
On May 01 2014 12:23 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2014 12:14 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 01 2014 10:29 Waise wrote:
i voted biome because it looks cool and is cool and i like things that are visually unique and engaging :D if they don't want people voting on whims or based on factors other than gameplay they shouldn't have public voting And this is exactly why the finalists being determined entirely by public vote is a bad idea. Would you relax? I know your map didn't get picked, but these are probably all going to yield at least some fun games. Again, the maps are uploaded on BNet. You CAN go test them out yourself, you don't have to rely purely on the thumbnail. I encourage everyone to go play a few games on the map and see how they work for themselves.
I don't care at all that my map didn't place, I knew it was probably a little too experimental anyway. I'm just disappointed that the general public seems to be favoring a map which most mapmakers have agreed should produce boring and turtley games just because of their initial 5 second impression of the unique aesthetic theme (which upon further inspection really isn't that well done).
|
On May 01 2014 12:56 Die4Ever wrote:
Hmm are 2 in 1 maps good? The idea seems to be getting popular. I guess it nerfs the loser's map pick in tournaments that use that format. It also affects Proleague because you plan to go out on a map, but don't know which of the 2 in 1 it will be.
If you like having mediocre 2p maps, then yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
