EPTTL Map Contest 6 - Finalists - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
klipik12
United States241 Posts
| ||
|
Hondelul
1999 Posts
On May 10 2015 02:33 neteX wrote: doesn't IeaZeL or w/e creates maps? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/profile.php?user=IeZaeL you probably mean him? Your post seems a bit out of context, is it a jab at his map Azura he submitted for the contest? ^^ But to answer, yes he makes maps. But he didn't advance to the finals in this case. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On May 09 2015 22:17 NasusAndDraven wrote: Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be. Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke? EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking. I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently) | ||
|
neteX
Sweden285 Posts
| ||
|
Kosko_s
Malaysia24 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 10 2015 05:43 Semmo wrote: I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently) Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit. | ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
On May 10 2015 06:21 NewSunshine wrote: Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit. Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Some of this maps are so full of bugs I'm starting to doubt they really tested them as well as they said they did. Also the no mention that non standard maps would be favored, shouldn't that something important enough to be said at the beggining? And what does this means? As always, map were initially screened to see if they were appropriate with the contest. | ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
On May 10 2015 08:28 [Phantom] wrote: You know what dissapoints me? Some of this maps are so full of bugs I'm starting to doubt they really tested them as well as they said they did. Also the no mention that non standard maps would be favored, shouldn't that something important enough to be said at the beggining? And what does this means? Im sorry what bugs? Care to list and point out where most of them are? | ||
|
MrMotionPicture
United States4327 Posts
I like the first two and the last one best. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 10 2015 08:28 [Phantom] wrote: If you find bugs, please list them in the thread. For instance, the high ground being pathable in bridgehead was the result of an unintended consequence of an edit done to the map. You know what dissapoints me? Some of this maps are so full of bugs I'm starting to doubt they really tested them as well as they said they did. with -> for It means that we removed maps that we felt didn't fit the contest. | ||
|
Skobe
8 Posts
I'm even slightly dumbfounded that Ferisii's Para Bellum didn't make the finalists. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/483149-2-para-bellum Regardless, big ups and congratulations to all the finalists! | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I'd be upset if the maps were any more standard than this tbh. But there's enough here I see forward progress if not anything mindblowing... At the very least anything strange in these maps is now officially "allowed" for all map makers to try to do things with in the future. There are rules I've followed that are broken in some of these maps and freeing myself from those seems like a win for me, even if I can't win the contest. No need to be salty. | ||
|
Skobe
8 Posts
Anyway I don't want to come across as ungrateful, thanks to all the guys who make TLMC happen because I'm sure as hell it ain't no easy task. | ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
On May 10 2015 10:46 Gfire wrote: What's the point of new maps even if aren't non-standard? I mean, when there are consistently bad maps in the pool (which we may still) we might bet for new maps to replace those, standard or otherwise. However, if we have good standard maps already why even bother changing to other (and potentially worse) maps that are still going to have the same gameplay? I'd be upset if the maps were any more standard than this tbh. But there's enough here I see forward progress if not anything mindblowing... At the very least anything strange in these maps is now officially "allowed" for all map makers to try to do things with in the future. There are rules I've followed that are broken in some of these maps and freeing myself from those seems like a win for me, even if I can't win the contest. No need to be salty. If blizzard wanted to get a vote on which maps to replace the first place they would take that suggestion would be the prologues. | ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
On May 10 2015 10:58 Skobe wrote: Tbh I'd rather mappers produce 1 highly polished map instead of making 3 average maps hoping that one will have that specific something the judges are looking for. Anyway I don't want to come across as ungrateful, thanks to all the guys who make TLMC happen because I'm sure as hell it ain't no easy task. You have alot of time between now and the next TLMC | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19398 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 10 2015 07:32 Rukis wrote: Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off. Not the walloff, just how you have minerals and a geyser sitting right in front of the ramp, getting in the way of stuff, it's unseemly. I liked most everything else about it, but I could never get behind that, it's just off. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
On May 10 2015 10:13 SidianTheBard wrote: Or maybe mappers shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. Every TLMC I do 1 standard, 1 nonstandard & 1 remake of an old map, at least that's how I always try to do it. It's not my fault you decided to do 3 super standard maps or 3 super non-standard maps, that's your choice. Hmm I agree it's usually good to diversify with things like this which is why I submitted 1 standard-ish map and 2 weird, while also being different sizes. However, I think saying people should blindly do anything (whether it's to put eggs in one basket or diversify, or anything else) is a lame/faulty argument when talking about a contest where all rules should be explicitly stated. This TLMC there was clearly an invisible rule: "Map has to have at least one weird feature like a main backdoor, or it won't be considered." I think most people will agree that invisible rules are BS. (there was a controversy recently in a prominent hearthstone tournament regarding this very thing, and the winner actually ended up being a different guy because of a rule that no one knew about). If you were a suspicious person you might even think the invisible rule was created to make sure someone different won this time around, since several of the finalists last time around are extremely good at making excellent maps that deviate from standard a bit but not a ton. I am not one of those mapmakers so it didn't hurt me personally, but I feel for them cuz needlessly unfair things really suck. I say all this even though I am someone who loves unusual maps, and I certainly don't hate this map pool. I just think it should be mentioned that the invisible rule is actually a big deal and shouldn't be ignored or swept under the rug. Some mappers likely did get screwed, and then you throw a little money on the line just to rub salt in the wound, and whew. Be transparent next time, guys!  | ||
| ||
