TLMC6 began with over one hundred maps. After the success by the last TLMC Open, we decided we'd run another tournament, trying to fit it before the voting process this time. We are very excited about all the finalists, which we will announce soon, and are looking forward to see how they will play out!
Registration opens on Monday, May 04 4:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00) []
Players may register up until one hour before the tournament begins. That is, they may register until Sunday, May 10 4:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00). After that, players will be required to check-in to confirm that they will be attending. Check-in occurs between Sunday, May 10 4:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00) and Sunday, May 10 4:55pm GMT (GMT+00:00). Players must both sign up before check-in time and check-in within the 55 minute period to enter the tournament.
To register, go to this page, click on the word "Register" at the top of the page and complete the online registration form. After you fully and accurately complete the registration form you will be registered to compete in the tournament.
RULES
Some Key Rules can be found below:
The tournament will be held on the North America Server .
Players will not be permitted to use a Barcode for their Battle.Net Account name.
Sign ups for this tournament are completely open, and spots are first come first served
There will be a maximum of 256 players
The rounds of 256 and 128 will be Best of One
Every round thereafter will be BO3 with the finals being a BO5.
The first map of every round will be pre-determined with following maps in a series being loser's pick from the round of 64 onwards.
Players caught cheating will be disqualified.
Semi Finals series will be played one after the other followed by the Finals
We are pleased to announce that once again we have officially partnered with BaseTradeTV, who will provide the primary English stream. Both semi-finals and finals matches will be thanks to their glorious casting.
For the rounds of 256 until the final four, we will allow community casters to help provide additional coverage not provided by our main casting partners. If you are interested in being a community caster please PM Teoita. to apply!
Community Casters: So far the community casters are:
The TeamLiquid Strategy Team would like to take this opportunity to thank all participants ahead of time! We would also like to thank the mapmakers for all their entries into TLMC6. Without you we wouldn't be able to put on an event such as this.
On May 08 2015 02:38 Heyoka wrote: We'll be announcing the final winners of the map contest later today so stay tuned for the actual maps you will play on!
The teasssseee! I'm at work, I shouldn't be on atm, but I saw TL Open and was just like, omg maps! Clicked on it, no maps. Oh, this is just for the TL Open signup...rats!
Raaaage! Definitely tuning into this tournament though and can't wait til later tonight to see the maps! =)
Map winners will be decided again before the tournament? can't we just have the finalist and than base the votes on what will be seen during the tournament? or is it too difficult to set up?
Guys the OP shows that registration opens on Monday, May 04. I know it's not technically false but it's strange to have the registration open 3 days before the announcement d:
On May 08 2015 04:18 SC2John wrote: It turns out the maps are all Blizzard-approved classic maps from back in the day: Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, etc.! We're all winners!
So excited; sorry I can't be a part of this one, Mothers day + work + birthday. I feel TelecoM's pain T_T. I'll watch part of it from the office at least!
On May 08 2015 02:38 Heyoka wrote: We'll be announcing the final winners of the map contest on the 8th (PST) so stay tuned for the actual maps you will play on!
STAY TUNED I SAY
And edit without an edit, you cheeky bugger
Regardless, hype levels through the roof. I need a drink.
Im busy saturday so i guess i have no time to analyze the maps at all before the games. Maybe i can quickly memorize the location of spawning positions and naturals. But there is no way i can think of different map specific strategies.
Incase you actually want to have the maps "showcased" instead of people playing them as if they were ladder maps, i would suggest you postpond the tournament 1week later as releasing the map pool took so long.
On May 09 2015 00:16 insitelol wrote: AZURA wins! Anounce it already!
blah i hope not. One of iezael's other maps would be perfectly fine, but please no more 3p maps in TLMC lol. it's really pretty but 3p maps just aren't that good
Day 364. Still no sign of map results. Still refreshing page. Now on the 31st F5 key. To those who are still out there if you can hear me, Don't give up yup! Today is the day we shall see results.
On May 08 2015 02:38 Heyoka wrote: We'll be announcing the final winners of the map contest on the 8th (PST) so stay tuned for the actual maps you will play on!
STAY TUNED I SAY
What time zone is PST? Is it GMT -30?
EDIT: nvm lol. but opdate the OP of this thread please.
On May 09 2015 22:51 saltisas wrote: I would love to watch new maps tournament but it just way to late. Why it is organized at such inconvenient EU time ?
On May 09 2015 22:51 saltisas wrote: I would love to watch new maps tournament but it just way to late. Why it is organized at such inconvenient EU time ?
7pm is inconvenient?
7pm onwards. Or 8pm onwards for me. With Bo3 and match management, there should be atleast 1hour between rounds. Week day after tournament and it gets pretty late. Goes after midnight if u make it far.
ok my impressions: Mutiny is kind of broken? Zerg can spine rush the the backdoor (which is a stupid build and shouldn't be encouraged IMHO) or GG because of the far away 3rds
So many of those maps are so silly. I wish we could get some healthy standard maps with the one or other innovative feature out of the TLMC for once, not always jump from the one extreme to the other.
I'm not sure this is the right place or time to start this discussion, but this really annoys me. There have been some great examples of maps trying to push a single feature - Frost, Habitation Station, Expedition Lost - that really create some fresh breeze but are on the verge of being broken in one way or another. And next we get maps that just implement that feature with only half the care and 2 more such features, that -oh what a surprise- turn out unplayable.
Hey, since I played 10 ish games on these maps I figured to share my opinion on the maps themselves.
Terraform - it's too similar to the GSL map (I forgot the name), it will be very hard to get into macro game on this map in any match-up so it will most likely just be 2-3 base allins 2/5 score.
Dash and Terminal - Terran can float to gold and you cannot expand on this map as Terran because natural is way too messed up, which will result in Terrans always floating to the gold 0.5/5.
Ecosphere - this map would be maybe 2.5/5 if it had no back rocks, since it has back rocks it's just bad.
Noah's Ark - I played this map in Starbow quite a lot and I like it, it's different but i'm not sure if it fits into SC2 play style in general. I'd give it 2.5/5.
Bridgehead - I love the concept of this map, I guess the idea for this map was taken from BW map which name I cant remember again Remove the rocks on the natural base, remove the rocks from the main ramp and make the main base a bit bigger (hard to make production buildings), add some air space behind main/natural and you'll have really solid map in my opinion because it's different and interesting. If you do those things it's 4.5/5, if it stays the same it's just bad.
Moonlight Madness - this map not only it has back rocks, but it has rocks to your back rocks, please no.
Mutiny - remove the back rocks and I can see this map becoming the new overgrowth, although some air space would be needed behind main and natural (it would be hard to break Terran as Zerg with no mutas because of lack of air space and hard to break Protoss as Z/T) I'd give it a 4/5. Otherwise, if you leave the rocks where they are, then it's just bad map.
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad.
i think you got that a little wrong, its not the fault of the mapmakers that almost every finalists here has backdoors or alot of rocks in general. im sure the ratio of submitted maps without rocks to maps with rocks is propably 95% to 5%, so its more the people who judge (in this case for the first time blizzard aswell) are to blame.
for me there is a clear agenda or rather direction blizzard wants maps to be and thats what we got here.
my guess is that blizz is looking for a direct replacement for expedition lost. sometimes they can be kind of literal in map replacements, looking to preserve a specific style or feature.
On May 11 2015 05:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Yeah, not sure why they like back rocks so much :/. Expedition Lost already showed us why they aren't good.
Expedition Lost just seems zerg favored against Terran in general, not sure how big the effect of the backdoor is for that, but I'd say it's somewhat small. Otherwise the backdoor isn't bad on that map. ZvP and TvP the map seems to be balanced in general, though the gold base rushes are a bit obnoxious - however, that seems to be the flair of the month on any map with gold bases and zerg these days.
On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote: Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad.
Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /:
Well, wasn't that something about unstoppable proxy immortal and voidray rushes and the map being unplayable PvT?
Yep, and you can add all the pressure variants à la Stats vs Bogus in their NSSL match
But that's mainly just Protoss having some more variations of bullshit on top of already having too much bullshit, no? It doesn't really break the map. I think the way the 3rd base is designed and its distance to the natural, as well as the blockage of all reaper jumping spots is much a bigger deal than the backdoor rushes. They all seem kind of the usual bullshit strategies that are in the game regardless.
Not that backdoors aren't improblematic, but I think this particular one is very well done. I guess it turns every matchup against Zerg into the same crap that is Protoss matchups early game. But sincerely, when I see high players complain about the backdoor when they aren't spotting for it and then a huge army waltzes in I just question why they aren't spotting for it. That isn't different at all from a bunch of high speed medivacs, or a mutaball or a warpprism suddenly appearing somewhere and fucking you over. If anything, with the backdoor at least you know where it can come from.
But regardless, given that Expedition Lost is quite zerg-favored in ZvT and backdoors are problematic in general, I agree that it is a mapfeature that might not be worth looking into too much. If someone comes up with a great concept for one, cool, let's try it. If not it's no loss to not have such maps around.
On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote: Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad.
Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /:
Well, wasn't that something about unstoppable proxy immortal and voidray rushes and the map being unplayable PvT?
Yep, and you can add all the pressure variants à la Stats vs Bogus in their NSSL match
But that's mainly just Protoss having some more variations of bullshit on top of already having too much bullshit, no? It doesn't really break the map. I think the way the 3rd base is designed and its distance to the natural, as well as the blockage of all reaper jumping spots is much a bigger deal than the backdoor rushes. They all seem kind of the usual bullshit strategies that are in the game regardless.
Not that backdoors aren't improblematic, but I think this particular one is very well done. I guess it turns every matchup against Zerg into the same crap that is Protoss matchups early game. But sincerely, when I see high players complain about the backdoor when they aren't spotting for it and then a huge army waltzes in I just question why they aren't spotting for it. That isn't different at all from a bunch of high speed medivacs, or a mutaball or a warpprism suddenly appearing somewhere and fucking you over. If anything, with the backdoor at least you know where it can come from.
But regardless, given that Expedition Lost is quite zerg-favored in ZvT and backdoors are problematic in general, I agree that it is a mapfeature that might not be worth looking into too much. If someone comes up with a great concept for one, cool, let's try it. If not it's no loss to not have such maps around.
Expedition lost is a good map because its back door is mixed with plenty of other features that makes the maps playable and enjoyable for very different styles and strategies, it's a kind of mysterious alchemy, but it works.
On the other hand, it should be just an exception, seeing backdoor with rocks on every maps is kind of wierd, lol.
More generally speaking I think map makers should refrain from using rocks at all, as it's mainly a cheap fix for issues that should be fixed by imagination and overall better though designs. If a map needs 16+ desctrutible rocks to be fun and balanced, maybe something is wrong with the initial layout?
On rare occasions, like KSS natural backdoor rocks, it's a cool feature, but most of the time it's crap.
Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote: Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote: Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
This can be argued, but I don't want to enter this debate. However, I'd like to point out that while constraints may be, in certain cases, fuel for imagination, it is only when they are reasonably limited. Too many constraints leave no room for imagination.
On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote: Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
Constraints just force imagination. Placing a rock can help you fix a potential problem with one click that might be extremely complicated if rocks were not an option.
Theoretically adding more mapping tools would allow to do more different things with map increasing creative potential. But if there is always that easy solution to what do with a certain part of the map, people will do that, if there is not an easy solution people can come up with a really amazing solution with the weaker mapping tools. And if there were other tools to do it, the same thing might not even seem amazing at all, people would just think "why didnt he just simply add X instead".
On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote: Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
I find this pretty arbitrary. Rocks can be used in imaginitive ways, and can make imaginitive concepts more viable for balance. Imagination is necessary in the face of constraints, but unnecessary constraints are like telling painters they are not allowed to use a certain brushstroke to produce the effect they desire. Some good painters may not like using that brushstroke, but that doesn't mean those that do use it aren't also good when they use it correctly/skillfully. And occasionally a certain look needs that brushstroke to be fully depicted, just as rocks are sometimes necessary to make a creative map concept balanced without changing the concept. Occasionally, they are part of the concept itself. They are nothing less than a tool that can be used lazily, necessarily, or creatively.
On May 11 2015 06:18 Teoita wrote: LOL somehow the lightning fix on dash and terminal was removed
Which puzzles me, as it seems as if the correct changes were otherwise made.
Aw man. That's my bad. Copied incorrect values and never noticed. Real sorry to everyone who had a rough time playing it. And to rifkin, who may have become retroactively ill before exposure. The version I uploaded (1.4) should be fine, but the tlmc-tagged one is still wrong (will edit upon change).
Thanks to everyone who played and who helped put this on. I did enjoy all the games except the one on D&T.
EPT
Some more love for Friday / Saturday please!
