Clarifications/Changes: Rush distance for Rush maps has been changed from "about 35-50 seconds" to "about 35 seconds".
The definition of Macro map has been changed to: "A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions."
New Rule: You may use permanent neutral abilities onto all maps such as Force Field or Blinding Cloud. However, note that if these features cause performance issues on lower end computers, these maps may be edited or not considered for ladder.
On February 10 2017 21:21 Liquid`Snute wrote: As someone who really enjoys maps like overgrowth, coda, daybreak,etc. i gotta chime in here about the discussion on page 3-4 about those maps. Please forgive me for this massive wall of text, it might be worth it tho.
All those maps have standard-ish 1-2-3-4 layouts and sizes, but their midfields are vastly different. And those differences make a huge difference to gameplay, and i think it's unfortunate that maps get a bad rep just for having a straight 1-2-3-4 and relatively similar rush distances and general size when they actually aren't the same at all:
Coda's midfield has single centered watch tower surrounded by heightened grounds. Long destructible rocks, locked-down double side tunnels - completely different from OG's midfield: OG has different ramps, nasty forest with watchtower x2 and gold bases. And those two maps are again different from Daybreak's 3-lane stale-mate/splitmap problem with the tension that brings. There's even a lot of differences in how your 1-2-3 layout/ramps etc looks alone, on those maps.
Interesting details? Take the cool smokescreens on daybreak, often forgotten: some cute map design. The attacker can set up a huge concave around the center 4th behidn it. Or the little destructible rock tower on Coda - remember that one? It did make a difference to some games. Overgrowth's watch tower forest presents some tough choices when it comes to army movement. I could list more differences, cool features, etc. about all of these seemingly standard maps but there's too many things to write about, just between these 3.
There's a lot of real variety that does affect strategy and tactics. Terrain does matter, attacking on Frozen Temple is different from attacking on Daybreak. Straight up maps with interesting details and differences like these are great, for beginners and pros. Different ways to shape your game and move armies, without the need to learn a new map-specific meta or build order just to stay on top of the game or ... to be fair ... not get messed up by a spine crawler backdoor rush at minute five. Add some varied terrain aesthetics, and you get a great varied experience you won't grow tired of, even with seemingly "standard" maps, even without the weird one-off experimental map:
Bridgehead for example reduced my enjoyment in the ZvZ matchup for months with its Mass roach Tunneling Claws ZvZ meta. One could just enter the main base through the back and one would require what seemed like 5+ overseers just to guard lanes into one's base in order to position defenses properly. Attackers' advantage became so big and overseers so expensive, that in a large portion of the games, players started blindly giving zero cares about anything: The leading strat? Baserace amoved burrow roach blobs into each others' mains, wait to see who comes out on top with 3 roaches more. It was not uncommon to see this strategy used in other games - but here, it was repeated way too often, and that became extremely dull. I'd rather play 10 games on daybreak/coda/echo/overgrowth/frozen temple than having to repeat a map-specific Bridgehead meta, or Dasan meta, or Ulrena meta 10 times - in fact, the strategies on those maps become predictable and repetitive, once you learn them. It's a deceptive and fake kind of strategic variety. I even liked Ulrena and did well on that map. But I can see why people would rather replace it and I'd be totally ok with that.
I think it's a challenge and occasionally rewarding to learn new rules for maps that are as extreme as Dasan and Ulrena. But it can also be frustrating and feel like a chore. As a whole the experience is negative compared to learning just another new map, at least for me personally. Learning a new, standard-y map is a lot of fun, because you can take advantage of details and have that be a bonus rather than being destroyed by something at 5 minutes (take backdoor spines) or being forced into repetitive strategies (see above example).
---
Regarding inbase expansions it's good to see that requirement removed. I didn't run a survey, but I'm pretty sure if you ask most pros and other players, probably 80%+ would vote in favor of straight 1-2-3's or 1-2-triangle3rd/straight3rd rather than inbase naturals. (my personal assumption.) Layout wise (nvm the visibility issues), Abyssal Reef is a great example of a solid macro map that DOESN'T require an inbase natural. It's much better to have options for 3rds and 4ths imo.
Just a side-track about 4p maps. Maps like alterzim and deadwing are pretty extreme imo. 4 player maps get a huge (mostly negative) weirdness factor just by being 4p and having spawn imbalances. 4p maps mostly play out as bloated 2p maps with a totally unnecessary base count and excessive amounts of airspace. I think WW and Cactus are pretty good maps, I especially enjoy the destructible inner circle rocks on cactus. But spawning positions bother me more often than not and I think it takes away from a lot of great midfields, midfields that could've just as well been there on large 2p maps. Out of the new maps this season I think Abyssal Reef's map layout is really cool. It's a map that very easily could've ended up as 4p but didn't. A big part of what I like about it is that it has a very straight up 1-2-3 and so many choices beyond that. But it does not suffer the spawn issues, nor coinflip scouting issues that 4 player maps have. And it does not have the excess bases of 4 player maps. Every base seems meaningful with very real choices.
I think it's better to encourage some new standard-esque maps such as Abyssal Reef too so we can discover the next amazing maps that pros and beginners can enjoy without having to (re-)learn multiple map-specific build orders (ulrena, dasan station, bridgehead) and still enjoy exotic features such as rock towers, smoke, attack layouts, bridges, etc. in the midfield. I do think this is better, than repeated use of maps like Ohana and Bel'shir Vestige, as good as they were.
Okay so you don't want maps to become too generic, but honestly it takes a lot to NOT make a map pool varied enough. If anything, maps are still going way too far individually. A lot of maps throughout the last years have simply had too much crazy stuff going on at once, often overshadowing great details. Think about it for a bit - take some maps, think about how much is actually going on with them. If I say King Sejong Station, you think.. backdoor rocks in natural? And then aha, forward natural. Hard to take 4th maybe? Kinda icky edges. Okay fair. Now if I say Korhal Carnage Knockout, oh my goodness. 3 player map, rock towers at your main and 3rd, AND to the outside, circle layout, rocks between the bases, GOLD in the middle, and those watch towers and the river between the outer and inner circle ... there sure was a lot of stuff going on there, no wonder it seems so daunting? Experimental features have NOT had mainstream success when there's too many things being pushed at once. Moderation does create better maps imo. King Sejong saved itself just before the line that Korhal Sky Island, Korhal Carnage Knockout, and Dasan Station crossed (again, imo).
I liked one feature of Dasan Station, its cool reverse dual side lane from the back of its mains. But then you add a mineralblock gold base in the middle and now you've overshadowed an experimental feature with another one, and another one, there's just too much in the package and you can't necessarily appreciate it as well as a player, perhaps after 50 games worth of practice and theorycrafting across all match-ups but ... one can only play so many games right? (personal opinion, some players might manage just fine and find the package exciting/amazing). Dasan Station had some great games such as Scarlett vs Stats but I also think a larger Dasan without gold base in the middle would've showcased its side dual lane concept well, too.
It's easy to get confused when people talk about SC2 mapping being stuck in being either too standard or not experimental enough or anything, when honestly the experiments have been plentiful and imo too much. Look closely at the midfields and the expansion patterns of 'standard maps', imagine the match-ups play out and you will realize how much variety is already there and how much is actually being pushed. Look closely at Inferno Pools, and ... well, yes. The map pool has definitely been a bit too experimental at times.
I read a lot of topics here and there and have played everything that's been chosen for ladder, some outside of it too. And I always end up with this bad feeling that some of the probably most balanced, standard maps get overly screwed for <reasons>. I can imagine something like New Boralis by Caevrane would probably be shut down for being 'too much like Overgrowth' or 'too similar to Daybreak' to co-exist with either of those maps in an imaginary ladder map pool. I could totally put Daybreak and New Boralis in the same map pool and feel good about it. The differences are there and they are sufficient and significant. maps that are like New Boralis are a pleasure to load up starcraft and play on. Like Match Point in BW.
The above are just my opinions and I'm not trying to bias against experimental maps for the sake of it, but I've played probably more than 40000 games and a lot of them have been some pretty bullshit games such as vertical spawns inferno pools against a terran opening up with reapers and just damn it, worst spawns, reaper in my base, can't expand without it being either towards terran or a stupid siege-able gold in the middle ... already in trouble ... you know? There's a lot of real starcrabs experiences behind my agenda for fair maps, and I do love experimental features, just in moderation. It's just not healthy for competition when you have maps like Waystation that are either amazing for ZvT (cross) or awful (close) (Note: ZvT absolutely worked like this in hots, while it was possible to win in close it was not favorable on average). The official ladder and tournament map pools have if anything been experimenting far beyond what would seem reasonable imo. And this misconception that maps are too similar or that ladder pool requires more and more variety and experiments has really been hurting the ladder/wcs pools as a whole throughout the years. It is also time that map lighting and visibility gets taken far more seriously than it is today. Dark maps, problematic lighting, etc.
I'm just one guy and can't change the map pool, my level of influence is the same as any progamer. But when I read stuff like Coda and Overgrowth are the same I just can't help myself to not write a proper nice wall of text and I hope my thoughts resonate with someone. And that maybe the ladder pool can be more focused on having balanced and fair maps with cool, NEW variations over successful themes, on varying sizes, maybe with some new spice in there. one can have inventions while still keeping solid fundamental qualities intact.
September 11 We’ve clearly seen how stale the game becomes both in terms of playing and watching when we’ve had map pools that everyone agrees is ‘good.’ The matches are all very standard and similar in terms of playstyle, and we want to clearly avoid this from ever happening again.
With that said, because we are constantly exploring new things that can potentially be cool for the game, obviously there is a higher chance of making a mistake. Maps such as Daedalus Point are examples of something that we tried that didn’t work out. However, we believe the positives that we gain from pushing map diversity outweigh the negatives. If necessary, it’s easy to remove a map that doesn’t work out mid-season, and we’ve seen from experience this doesn’t happen on a regular basis.
October 29 We know that there are many of you out there including top tier pros who prefer the same, standard maps every time. As we’ve discussed many times over and over again, it’s much more exciting in terms of playing and watching to have map diversity which leads to strategic diversity as well.
December 11 The general idea here is the same as it always has been: we want to push map diversity so that the game is more interesting to play and watch due to not every single map having the exact same build orders, attack timings, and strategies per matchup.
February 4 Obviously, map diversity is something we must push for the game, because we’ve seen in the past that when all 7 maps in the pool were basically the same, we were only seeing 1 timing/strategy/build order per matchup and the game became stale really quickly.
March 8 We’ve also seen this same sort of thing when all the maps in the map pool were of the same type: you play the exact same strategy capitalizing on the exact same timings on every map, so every game felt too similar.
The quotes from Blizzard would make sense in a BL infestor or HOTS era but it doesn't line up with LOTV today. I watched a LOT of games on LOTV Overgrowth from the map pool before this one. And players do not play the same strategies at all, I've seen a crazy variety of games on overgrowth and daybreak. Bio, mech, hydra lurker, broodlord, timing attacks, turtle games, proxy spines, you name it. There are far more viable unit compositions and players have stylistic preferences that will show if you don't force players into stupid stuff (bridgehead). Just vary the map sizes, have some different chokes and ramps, different base counts, layouts etc., and games will naturally be varied and have varied unit compositions. It really sounds like underestimating starcraft as a game, there's a lot more variety to it now and these concerns from before are imo unwarranted and should be a 1%-afterthought at most, not a primary concern. I think there are a lot of amazing and very varied maps out there, and that the categories in this TLMC are rather limiting.
Overall, TLMC and its support from Blizzard is a positive for the scene and I do hope that the end result of this - the most important - will be a high quality ladder map pool packed full of 7 quality varied and balanced maps that will be loved by the player base. Looking forward to it and ... hoping for the best...!
This reads like a long, intelligent, thought-out and articulate complaint of a tennis player that hard courts can provide a great variation in the ball speed therefore there is no need to play on either grass or clay that require court specific strategies. It also makes as much sense.
For a vast majority of players (including me) map pool is irrelevant - whatever the imbalances it has plays much lesser role than the limitations of their skill. For the small minority of GM level players and pros having to go out of their comfort zone and adapt to experimental maps is good - because it still provides something different than the current metagame for viewers; and if the map is balanced it favors better players - because they are generally better at playing on a map they haven't practiced much due to ability to rely on natural talent and hope it would carry them through.
And I know, it's sacrilege, but I believe that better players are also better suited to overcome a build order loss in a long series because they can make up for it on other maps while for a lesser player it is a nail in the coffin. On the other hand, a build order win can give an underdog a chance that is irrelevant for the favorite. So even bad experimental maps have their advantages for tournaments - and if it came to "that one experimental map" in the game 7 of final it means players are equal enough to not close the match in 6 and either one deserves to win despite what happens next. Someone mentioned here Maru vs Life IEM finals decided on Inferno Pools - if remember correctly in that game Life spawned unfavorably but Maru misplayed so Life won - what is better way to show superiority?
One thing I will miss about Proleague is a steady stream of crazy maps that were introduced; it meant that whatever happens at least for one round some of the best players in the world would spend a week to prepare a build order for this one map. It was a great stress test and a great opportunity for innovation - is it strange that King Sejong Station that many here view as "ideal experimental map" came out of it? And maybe the Koreans vs foreigners dominance partly came from this experience of continuous adaptation which made players to better use their strengths, mask their weaknesses and invent workarounds.
I gave up on posting in this kind of threads as everyone here (especially mapmakers and TL stuff) just seems to be on that elitist train going nowhere. "We are making maps for SC2 everybody praise us our opinions are gold" kind of behaviour.
oh well thank you for throwing every mapmaker in there.
On February 08 2017 07:13 Comedy wrote: overall it's sad that a website like TL.net, whos got years of experience in Sc2/bw, is encouraging of the blizzard school of thought that we need all these maps w/ weird concepts and experimental stuff.
What we need is quality maps. Maps that are solid. Smooth and easy to play on for the people that are left on the ladder. None of this gimmicky shit like we've had in the map pool for the last couple of years.
OverGrowth/DayBreak/Coda Etc .... more of this.....
less of lurilek, ulrena, dasan station, this kind of garbage which is not fun to play on at all and for 95% of the time creates garbage games
Overgrowth, Daybreak and Coda are basically the same map. They all give you the same kind of main, natural and third, and broadly the same paths to and from those bases, and all the general sizes and distances are similar. And we've been playing on all these maps for 5 years. You even have Bel'Shir Vestige and Cactus Valley in the pool right now. The real question is: why didn't we start experimenting sooner? .
Cactus valley is a 4 player map which has huge positional differences between spawning locations for example horizontal is super close distance and makes bases weird, vertical makes dropship play a lot better for terran.
These are all things that increase randomness and overall makes the games worse quality, but that's besides the point.
Yeah Coda, Overgrowth, Daybreak, are all very similar maps in concept. That's why they're the best maps. Everyone loves playing on these maps when they come back because they are smooth, easy to understand, and are solid. They dont include a whole bunch of randomness but instead let superior gameplay shine through because the map is less likely to fuck you over in some way.
I've been around RTS games for a very long time, and for players that take the game serious it's extremely deterimental to have to play on maps with huge randomness. 4 player maps are the most obvious example, but all these weird maps that have been in lotv are the same. Super close rush distance, super weird base layouts, small chokes/paths etc.
You might see the occasional gem of a game that's really unique and you haven't seen before (1 out of 500), but every gem, there's 1000's of really bad games that players have to deal with on ladder and in tournaments as well. Dasan, ulrena, lerilak crest, all super bad maps. It makes everyone massing games on the ladder have a super bad time, enjoy the game less, etc.
It isn't good for the players, at all, especially the pro players who are looking for income from the game and consistency always helps the better players. So standard maps are really good for the most solid players which is good for the competitive scene etc plus as I've already mentioned it really brings forward gameplay. The game shouldnt need super gimmicky and bad maps to be interesting or different, the gameplay is what the game is all about and the best way to put gameplay on display is to use no BS maps. If you're bored of these maps, it's more likely you're just bored of Starcraft 2 in general. That's a shame, but not an arguement to make the people who still enjoy it have a worse time.
It really hurts when people like yourself can't see this, and because you might not play 30 games a day because you're just a casual fan of the game, the people who play the most get actively hurt by having the either veto really bad maps or play a ton of low quality games on them :/
Also dude I'm super sorry that you can't understand that I'm dissappointed that I have to spend an entire season laddering on a map which literally makes my eyes bleed unless i tone my graphics all the way down. (Abyssal reef).
If we can't rely on TL for quality I'm not sure where else we can go.
To elaborate, the different catogeries alone are really quite worrisome - for standard macro maps they named 3 really bad ones and left out the standard macro maps I've mentioned. This would give people the wrong idea to create maps more like orbital, alterzim, and dusk towers (not good.) and less like overgrowth, daybreak, coda (good.)
Every single other maps that get mentioned in the opening post by example literally should be examples of what NOT TO DO. They're so bad. The maps that came out of the last TLMC were a fucking disaster.
These are all good maps :
King Sejong (TOP.) Echo (very good). overgrowth coda Metalopolis no close pos Dual sight Antiga shipyard Cloud Kingdom Ohana Whirlwind (if we must accept that 4 player maps are part of a good map pool).| Star station Neo planet S( Not standard at all - but quite cool to play on). Polar Night Frost merry go round (quite a pleasure to play on!) Catallena frozen temple
Where do these maps fit in the catogeries? Most of them do not. But these are some of the most enjoyable maps the game has produced. Why are we drifting into the crap catogery and need to go for more extremes and can't do more of what's already been proven to be fun to play on?
Now it's this website encouraging people to make maps sticking to strange guidelines.
User was warned for this post
I can't beleive this. Please wake me up. Tears literally ran down my cheeks as i read this post cause this guy pointed out every single reasonable aspect about what a mappool in a competetive game should look like. I've never got the patience to express myself in a correct form, everytime i got banned/warned for that. But comedy composed himself and wrote a solid post about what's so wrong with the "modern" mapmaking tendencies and got WARNED for that. How more hypocritical can you be guys?
You warn people for stating reasonable opinions done in a most polite form ever just because you don't like them. As i said im not that tolerant to hypocrisy. I gave up on posting in this kind of threads as everyone here (especially mapmakers and TL stuff) just seems to be on that elitist train going nowhere. "We are making maps for SC2 everybody praise us our opinions are gold" kind of behaviour. I'll remind you that you are making maps not to brag about this on TL but for players to enjoy them. If you don't belive us, humble ladder players who are forced to adjust to these horrible maps every single season and think we are plebs who can't evaluate you masterpeices, take a look at the korean scene. Most played map of all time is overgrowth. Everybody loves it. Because, as comedy stated, its the most balanced and fair map. Koreans never accepted trash like dash and terminal, ulrena, dasan etc.
But as i said i gave up on trying to reason you guys cause you only seem to bother about fitting into blizzard standards of mapmaking so your map can be picked for next ladder season. Okey. That's your choice. But that came a little bit to far. In addition to introducing horrible standards in form of "rush map", "new map" w/e popularised by you and blizzard, we ended up having "abyssal reef" in the mappool. It's not about layout, i can't judge it, because i can't see it.
1) Please take it to website feedback. 2) You can't see the mod note so you don't know the exact reasons as to why he was warned so don't go making assumptions. 3) "But comedy composed himself and wrote a solid post about what's so wrong with the "modern" mapmaking tendencies" That's an opinion. Don't try to state it as a fact and use it to take a stab at how TL moderates.
On February 08 2017 07:13 Comedy wrote: overall it's sad that a website like TL.net, whos got years of experience in Sc2/bw, is encouraging of the blizzard school of thought that we need all these maps w/ weird concepts and experimental stuff.
What we need is quality maps. Maps that are solid. Smooth and easy to play on for the people that are left on the ladder. None of this gimmicky shit like we've had in the map pool for the last couple of years.
OverGrowth/DayBreak/Coda Etc .... more of this.....
less of lurilek, ulrena, dasan station, this kind of garbage which is not fun to play on at all and for 95% of the time creates garbage games
Overgrowth, Daybreak and Coda are basically the same map. They all give you the same kind of main, natural and third, and broadly the same paths to and from those bases, and all the general sizes and distances are similar. And we've been playing on all these maps for 5 years. You even have Bel'Shir Vestige and Cactus Valley in the pool right now. The real question is: why didn't we start experimenting sooner? .
Cactus valley is a 4 player map which has huge positional differences between spawning locations for example horizontal is super close distance and makes bases weird, vertical makes dropship play a lot better for terran.
These are all things that increase randomness and overall makes the games worse quality, but that's besides the point.
Yeah Coda, Overgrowth, Daybreak, are all very similar maps in concept. That's why they're the best maps. Everyone loves playing on these maps when they come back because they are smooth, easy to understand, and are solid. They dont include a whole bunch of randomness but instead let superior gameplay shine through because the map is less likely to fuck you over in some way.
I've been around RTS games for a very long time, and for players that take the game serious it's extremely deterimental to have to play on maps with huge randomness. 4 player maps are the most obvious example, but all these weird maps that have been in lotv are the same. Super close rush distance, super weird base layouts, small chokes/paths etc.
You might see the occasional gem of a game that's really unique and you haven't seen before (1 out of 500), but every gem, there's 1000's of really bad games that players have to deal with on ladder and in tournaments as well. Dasan, ulrena, lerilak crest, all super bad maps. It makes everyone massing games on the ladder have a super bad time, enjoy the game less, etc.
It isn't good for the players, at all, especially the pro players who are looking for income from the game and consistency always helps the better players. So standard maps are really good for the most solid players which is good for the competitive scene etc plus as I've already mentioned it really brings forward gameplay. The game shouldnt need super gimmicky and bad maps to be interesting or different, the gameplay is what the game is all about and the best way to put gameplay on display is to use no BS maps. If you're bored of these maps, it's more likely you're just bored of Starcraft 2 in general. That's a shame, but not an arguement to make the people who still enjoy it have a worse time.
It really hurts when people like yourself can't see this, and because you might not play 30 games a day because you're just a casual fan of the game, the people who play the most get actively hurt by having the either veto really bad maps or play a ton of low quality games on them :/
Also dude I'm super sorry that you can't understand that I'm dissappointed that I have to spend an entire season laddering on a map which literally makes my eyes bleed unless i tone my graphics all the way down. (Abyssal reef).
If we can't rely on TL for quality I'm not sure where else we can go.
To elaborate, the different catogeries alone are really quite worrisome - for standard macro maps they named 3 really bad ones and left out the standard macro maps I've mentioned. This would give people the wrong idea to create maps more like orbital, alterzim, and dusk towers (not good.) and less like overgrowth, daybreak, coda (good.)
Every single other maps that get mentioned in the opening post by example literally should be examples of what NOT TO DO. They're so bad. The maps that came out of the last TLMC were a fucking disaster.
These are all good maps :
King Sejong (TOP.) Echo (very good). overgrowth coda Metalopolis no close pos Dual sight Antiga shipyard Cloud Kingdom Ohana Whirlwind (if we must accept that 4 player maps are part of a good map pool).| Star station Neo planet S( Not standard at all - but quite cool to play on). Polar Night Frost merry go round (quite a pleasure to play on!) Catallena frozen temple
Where do these maps fit in the catogeries? Most of them do not. But these are some of the most enjoyable maps the game has produced. Why are we drifting into the crap catogery and need to go for more extremes and can't do more of what's already been proven to be fun to play on?
Now it's this website encouraging people to make maps sticking to strange guidelines.
User was warned for this post
I can't beleive this. Please wake me up. Tears literally ran down my cheeks as i read this post cause this guy pointed out every single reasonable aspect about what a mappool in a competetive game should look like. I've never got the patience to express myself in a correct form, everytime i got banned/warned for that. But comedy composed himself and wrote a solid post about what's so wrong with the "modern" mapmaking tendencies and got WARNED for that. How more hypocritical can you be guys?
You warn people for stating reasonable opinions done in a most polite form ever just because you don't like them. As i said im not that tolerant to hypocrisy. I gave up on posting in this kind of threads as everyone here (especially mapmakers and TL stuff) just seems to be on that elitist train going nowhere. "We are making maps for SC2 everybody praise us our opinions are gold" kind of behaviour. I'll remind you that you are making maps not to brag about this on TL but for players to enjoy them. If you don't belive us, humble ladder players who are forced to adjust to these horrible maps every single season and think we are plebs who can't evaluate you masterpeices, take a look at the korean scene. Most played map of all time is overgrowth. Everybody loves it. Because, as comedy stated, its the most balanced and fair map. Koreans never accepted trash like dash and terminal, ulrena, dasan etc.
But as i said i gave up on trying to reason you guys cause you only seem to bother about fitting into blizzard standards of mapmaking so your map can be picked for next ladder season. Okey. That's your choice. But that came a little bit to far. In addition to introducing horrible standards in form of "rush map", "new map" w/e popularised by you and blizzard, we ended up having "abyssal reef" in the mappool. It's not about layout, i can't judge it, because i can't see it.
2 things.
1.- The maps that get to ladder are cherry picked by the SC2 DevTeam, TL and Community Mapmakers have no say what so ever on that process.
2.- The SC2 DevTeam is who imposes the TLMC rules, and who asks for particular types of maps.
If you have any issue with what I wrote above, feel free to reach to them, instead of going after the people that make the content you enjoy in ladder.
Oh yeah, a last point.
3.- Most Mapmakers have retired because of the aforementioned points. Now only a skeleton crew of guys are the ones that keep making maps "good enough" for WCS / Ladder and even then, these guys are tired and retiring.
Ok guys, i know i sounded pretty rude, and i apologize if it makes any difference, i surely didn't mean to throw in all mapmakers. TLMC produced a lot of great maps. The truth is i was pissed about Comedy being warned for his post while he argued with Sunshine's "Daybreak, overgrowth, cactus valley and belshir being the same map, dasan being a good map w/o random elements, that we all needed to start experimenting with mappool much earlier and if you can't do better than korhal killzone you have to just shut up" stuff.
On February 11 2017 06:26 insitelol wrote: Ok guys, i know i sounded pretty rude, and i apologize if it makes any difference, i surely didn't mean to throw in all mapmakers. TLMC produced a lot of great maps. The truth is i was pissed about Comedy being warned for his post while he argued with Sunshine's "Daybreak, overgrowth, cactus valley and belshir being the same map, dasan being a good map w/o random elements, that we all needed to start experimenting with mappool much earlier and if you can't do better than korhal killzone you have to just shut up" stuff.
Apologizing for sounding rude doesn't mean anything if you then proceed to misquote me immediately afterward. Point out where I say what you're quoting verbatim, or drop the quotes and realize that's not what I said. Feel free to address what I actually said, and I will gladly have that discussion.
It would also help to realize that whether or not what you're saying is correct, the way you present your argument matters a lot, and when you present it like a moron, like Comedy did, you get actioned for it.
Also worth mentioning how entitled one sounds when they talk as though we are somehow obligated to make maps for you. I don't just make maps because the players will enjoy them, I make them also because I enjoy making them, it's a two-way street. And when I make a map, I do so because the result is something new and different to play on, because otherwise what's the point? Don't ask me to happily bend over backwards to make exactly whatever you happen to want. You're just one person. I want you to like whatever I make, but I'm not gonna sweat it or make myself miserable over it, if you hate my maps, well, that's tough. Blizzard picks what they want to use. Vent at them.
This attitude that Overgrowth is the only map you'll ever need is mostly why the map community is so sparse to begin with. You get what you ask for.
On February 11 2017 09:04 NewSunshine wrote: Also worth mentioning how entitled one sounds when they talk as though we are somehow obligated to make maps for you. I don't just make maps because the players will enjoy them, I make them also because I enjoy making them, it's a two-way street. And when I make a map, I do so because the result is something new and different to play on, because otherwise what's the point? Don't ask me to happily bend over backwards to make exactly whatever you happen to want. You're just one person. I want you to like whatever I make, but I'm not gonna sweat it or make myself miserable over it, if you hate my maps, well, that's tough. Blizzard picks what they want to use. Vent at them.
This attitude that Overgrowth is the only map you'll ever need is mostly why the map community is so sparse to begin with. You get what you ask for.
the map you made was pretty good other than the fact 3 rax reaper was way too powerfull on it, which, you probably couldn't have foreseen when you made the map.
So relax, noone is criticizing you, or other map makers. The criticism is for blizzard, who has a history of poor decisions when it comes to map selection and also not giving map makers freedom to make what they want. Just as it was them that came up with these catogeries. I'm very glad the macro map requirement was changed.
In the end, everyone wants the same thing. A fun time while playing/watching starcraft with the emphasis on playing... If maps don't actively get in the way of enjoying the game and are suitable to a wide variety of playstyles then everything is great. Generic macro maps which you seem to have a strong dislike for just happen to do this very well. That's why people bring them up.
On February 10 2017 21:21 Liquid`Snute wrote: As someone who really enjoys maps like overgrowth, coda, daybreak,etc. i gotta chime in here about the discussion on page 3-4 about those maps. Please forgive me for this massive wall of text, it might be worth it tho.
All those maps have standard-ish 1-2-3-4 layouts and sizes, but their midfields are vastly different. And those differences make a huge difference to gameplay, and i think it's unfortunate that maps get a bad rep just for having a straight 1-2-3-4 and relatively similar rush distances and general size when they actually aren't the same at all:
Coda's midfield has single centered watch tower surrounded by heightened grounds. Long destructible rocks, locked-down double side tunnels - completely different from OG's midfield: OG has different ramps, nasty forest with watchtower x2 and gold bases. And those two maps are again different from Daybreak's 3-lane stale-mate/splitmap problem with the tension that brings. There's even a lot of differences in how your 1-2-3 layout/ramps etc looks alone, on those maps.
Interesting details? Take the cool smokescreens on daybreak, often forgotten: some cute map design. The attacker can set up a huge concave around the center 4th behidn it. Or the little destructible rock tower on Coda - remember that one? It did make a difference to some games. Overgrowth's watch tower forest presents some tough choices when it comes to army movement. I could list more differences, cool features, etc. about all of these seemingly standard maps but there's too many things to write about, just between these 3.
There's a lot of real variety that does affect strategy and tactics. Terrain does matter, attacking on Frozen Temple is different from attacking on Daybreak. Straight up maps with interesting details and differences like these are great, for beginners and pros. Different ways to shape your game and move armies, without the need to learn a new map-specific meta or build order just to stay on top of the game or ... to be fair ... not get messed up by a spine crawler backdoor rush at minute five. Add some varied terrain aesthetics, and you get a great varied experience you won't grow tired of, even with seemingly "standard" maps, even without the weird one-off experimental map:
Bridgehead for example reduced my enjoyment in the ZvZ matchup for months with its Mass roach Tunneling Claws ZvZ meta. One could just enter the main base through the back and one would require what seemed like 5+ overseers just to guard lanes into one's base in order to position defenses properly. Attackers' advantage became so big and overseers so expensive, that in a large portion of the games, players started blindly giving zero cares about anything: The leading strat? Baserace amoved burrow roach blobs into each others' mains, wait to see who comes out on top with 3 roaches more. It was not uncommon to see this strategy used in other games - but here, it was repeated way too often, and that became extremely dull. I'd rather play 10 games on daybreak/coda/echo/overgrowth/frozen temple than having to repeat a map-specific Bridgehead meta, or Dasan meta, or Ulrena meta 10 times - in fact, the strategies on those maps become predictable and repetitive, once you learn them. It's a deceptive and fake kind of strategic variety. I even liked Ulrena and did well on that map. But I can see why people would rather replace it and I'd be totally ok with that.
I think it's a challenge and occasionally rewarding to learn new rules for maps that are as extreme as Dasan and Ulrena. But it can also be frustrating and feel like a chore. As a whole the experience is negative compared to learning just another new map, at least for me personally. Learning a new, standard-y map is a lot of fun, because you can take advantage of details and have that be a bonus rather than being destroyed by something at 5 minutes (take backdoor spines) or being forced into repetitive strategies (see above example).
---
Regarding inbase expansions it's good to see that requirement removed. I didn't run a survey, but I'm pretty sure if you ask most pros and other players, probably 80%+ would vote in favor of straight 1-2-3's or 1-2-triangle3rd/straight3rd rather than inbase naturals. (my personal assumption.) Layout wise (nvm the visibility issues), Abyssal Reef is a great example of a solid macro map that DOESN'T require an inbase natural. It's much better to have options for 3rds and 4ths imo.
Just a side-track about 4p maps. Maps like alterzim and deadwing are pretty extreme imo. 4 player maps get a huge (mostly negative) weirdness factor just by being 4p and having spawn imbalances. 4p maps mostly play out as bloated 2p maps with a totally unnecessary base count and excessive amounts of airspace. I think WW and Cactus are pretty good maps, I especially enjoy the destructible inner circle rocks on cactus. But spawning positions bother me more often than not and I think it takes away from a lot of great midfields, midfields that could've just as well been there on large 2p maps. Out of the new maps this season I think Abyssal Reef's map layout is really cool. It's a map that very easily could've ended up as 4p but didn't. A big part of what I like about it is that it has a very straight up 1-2-3 and so many choices beyond that. But it does not suffer the spawn issues, nor coinflip scouting issues that 4 player maps have. And it does not have the excess bases of 4 player maps. Every base seems meaningful with very real choices.
I think it's better to encourage some new standard-esque maps such as Abyssal Reef too so we can discover the next amazing maps that pros and beginners can enjoy without having to (re-)learn multiple map-specific build orders (ulrena, dasan station, bridgehead) and still enjoy exotic features such as rock towers, smoke, attack layouts, bridges, etc. in the midfield. I do think this is better, than repeated use of maps like Ohana and Bel'shir Vestige, as good as they were.
Okay so you don't want maps to become too generic, but honestly it takes a lot to NOT make a map pool varied enough. If anything, maps are still going way too far individually. A lot of maps throughout the last years have simply had too much crazy stuff going on at once, often overshadowing great details. Think about it for a bit - take some maps, think about how much is actually going on with them. If I say King Sejong Station, you think.. backdoor rocks in natural? And then aha, forward natural. Hard to take 4th maybe? Kinda icky edges. Okay fair. Now if I say Korhal Carnage Knockout, oh my goodness. 3 player map, rock towers at your main and 3rd, AND to the outside, circle layout, rocks between the bases, GOLD in the middle, and those watch towers and the river between the outer and inner circle ... there sure was a lot of stuff going on there, no wonder it seems so daunting? Experimental features have NOT had mainstream success when there's too many things being pushed at once. Moderation does create better maps imo. King Sejong saved itself just before the line that Korhal Sky Island, Korhal Carnage Knockout, and Dasan Station crossed (again, imo).
I liked one feature of Dasan Station, its cool reverse dual side lane from the back of its mains. But then you add a mineralblock gold base in the middle and now you've overshadowed an experimental feature with another one, and another one, there's just too much in the package and you can't necessarily appreciate it as well as a player, perhaps after 50 games worth of practice and theorycrafting across all match-ups but ... one can only play so many games right? (personal opinion, some players might manage just fine and find the package exciting/amazing). Dasan Station had some great games such as Scarlett vs Stats but I also think a larger Dasan without gold base in the middle would've showcased its side dual lane concept well, too.
It's easy to get confused when people talk about SC2 mapping being stuck in being either too standard or not experimental enough or anything, when honestly the experiments have been plentiful and imo too much. Look closely at the midfields and the expansion patterns of 'standard maps', imagine the match-ups play out and you will realize how much variety is already there and how much is actually being pushed. Look closely at Inferno Pools, and ... well, yes. The map pool has definitely been a bit too experimental at times.
I read a lot of topics here and there and have played everything that's been chosen for ladder, some outside of it too. And I always end up with this bad feeling that some of the probably most balanced, standard maps get overly screwed for <reasons>. I can imagine something like New Boralis by Caevrane would probably be shut down for being 'too much like Overgrowth' or 'too similar to Daybreak' to co-exist with either of those maps in an imaginary ladder map pool. I could totally put Daybreak and New Boralis in the same map pool and feel good about it. The differences are there and they are sufficient and significant. maps that are like New Boralis are a pleasure to load up starcraft and play on. Like Match Point in BW.
The above are just my opinions and I'm not trying to bias against experimental maps for the sake of it, but I've played probably more than 40000 games and a lot of them have been some pretty bullshit games such as vertical spawns inferno pools against a terran opening up with reapers and just damn it, worst spawns, reaper in my base, can't expand without it being either towards terran or a stupid siege-able gold in the middle ... already in trouble ... you know? There's a lot of real starcrabs experiences behind my agenda for fair maps, and I do love experimental features, just in moderation. It's just not healthy for competition when you have maps like Waystation that are either amazing for ZvT (cross) or awful (close) (Note: ZvT absolutely worked like this in hots, while it was possible to win in close it was not favorable on average). The official ladder and tournament map pools have if anything been experimenting far beyond what would seem reasonable imo. And this misconception that maps are too similar or that ladder pool requires more and more variety and experiments has really been hurting the ladder/wcs pools as a whole throughout the years. It is also time that map lighting and visibility gets taken far more seriously than it is today. Dark maps, problematic lighting, etc.
I'm just one guy and can't change the map pool, my level of influence is the same as any progamer. But when I read stuff like Coda and Overgrowth are the same I just can't help myself to not write a proper nice wall of text and I hope my thoughts resonate with someone. And that maybe the ladder pool can be more focused on having balanced and fair maps with cool, NEW variations over successful themes, on varying sizes, maybe with some new spice in there. one can have inventions while still keeping solid fundamental qualities intact.
September 11 We’ve clearly seen how stale the game becomes both in terms of playing and watching when we’ve had map pools that everyone agrees is ‘good.’ The matches are all very standard and similar in terms of playstyle, and we want to clearly avoid this from ever happening again.
With that said, because we are constantly exploring new things that can potentially be cool for the game, obviously there is a higher chance of making a mistake. Maps such as Daedalus Point are examples of something that we tried that didn’t work out. However, we believe the positives that we gain from pushing map diversity outweigh the negatives. If necessary, it’s easy to remove a map that doesn’t work out mid-season, and we’ve seen from experience this doesn’t happen on a regular basis.
October 29 We know that there are many of you out there including top tier pros who prefer the same, standard maps every time. As we’ve discussed many times over and over again, it’s much more exciting in terms of playing and watching to have map diversity which leads to strategic diversity as well.
December 11 The general idea here is the same as it always has been: we want to push map diversity so that the game is more interesting to play and watch due to not every single map having the exact same build orders, attack timings, and strategies per matchup.
February 4 Obviously, map diversity is something we must push for the game, because we’ve seen in the past that when all 7 maps in the pool were basically the same, we were only seeing 1 timing/strategy/build order per matchup and the game became stale really quickly.
March 8 We’ve also seen this same sort of thing when all the maps in the map pool were of the same type: you play the exact same strategy capitalizing on the exact same timings on every map, so every game felt too similar.
The quotes from Blizzard would make sense in a BL infestor or HOTS era but it doesn't line up with LOTV today. I watched a LOT of games on LOTV Overgrowth from the map pool before this one. And players do not play the same strategies at all, I've seen a crazy variety of games on overgrowth and daybreak. Bio, mech, hydra lurker, broodlord, timing attacks, turtle games, proxy spines, you name it. There are far more viable unit compositions and players have stylistic preferences that will show if you don't force players into stupid stuff (bridgehead). Just vary the map sizes, have some different chokes and ramps, different base counts, layouts etc., and games will naturally be varied and have varied unit compositions. It really sounds like underestimating starcraft as a game, there's a lot more variety to it now and these concerns from before are imo unwarranted and should be a 1%-afterthought at most, not a primary concern. I think there are a lot of amazing and very varied maps out there, and that the categories in this TLMC are rather limiting.
Overall, TLMC and its support from Blizzard is a positive for the scene and I do hope that the end result of this - the most important - will be a high quality ladder map pool packed full of 7 quality varied and balanced maps that will be loved by the player base. Looking forward to it and ... hoping for the best...!
This post just sums it up what I was feeling for the last years, but wasn't able to paraphrase. The midfield of those "standard" maps just changes the micro of certain unit compositions for example broodlords so fundamentally that it literally never gets boring and with shifting metas even these get changes.
Just this holes in the ground at the 3/4 on (was it??) Frost gave me ages to figure out how to efficiently fight and circle around them.
And I generally hate maps with backrocks to the natural. Loosing to this 5 Minutes Spine rushes or 5 seconds not looking and a bad tank siege happens and its gg should not be our goal how to win a game. It should take more than that.
On February 11 2017 18:14 Comedy wrote: So relax, noone is criticizing you, or other map makers. The criticism is for blizzard, who has a history of poor decisions when it comes to map selection and also not giving map makers freedom to make what they want. Just as it was them that came up with these catogeries. I'm very glad the macro map requirement was changed.
In the end, everyone wants the same thing. A fun time while playing/watching starcraft with the emphasis on playing... If maps don't actively get in the way of enjoying the game and are suitable to a wide variety of playstyles then everything is great. Generic macro maps which you seem to have a strong dislike for just happen to do this very well. That's why people bring them up.
You say blizzard should allow the freedom to make whatever kind of map, but even when we do make "what we want," people revert to blizzard standards. It's too different, it makes [composition] too powerful or too weak. There is a fine line between what we want and what players want. This isn't about blizzard at all really.
On February 11 2017 18:14 Comedy wrote: So relax, noone is criticizing you, or other map makers. The criticism is for blizzard, who has a history of poor decisions when it comes to map selection and also not giving map makers freedom to make what they want. Just as it was them that came up with these catogeries. I'm very glad the macro map requirement was changed.
In the end, everyone wants the same thing. A fun time while playing/watching starcraft with the emphasis on playing... If maps don't actively get in the way of enjoying the game and are suitable to a wide variety of playstyles then everything is great. Generic macro maps which you seem to have a strong dislike for just happen to do this very well. That's why people bring them up.
You say blizzard should allow the freedom to make whatever kind of map, but even when we do make "what we want," people revert to blizzard standards. It's too different, it makes [composition] too powerful or too weak. There is a fine line between what we want and what players want. This isn't about blizzard at all really.
There's also fine line between what players want and what players want once they've played on the maps.
On February 11 2017 18:14 Comedy wrote: So relax, noone is criticizing you, or other map makers. The criticism is for blizzard, who has a history of poor decisions when it comes to map selection and also not giving map makers freedom to make what they want. Just as it was them that came up with these catogeries. I'm very glad the macro map requirement was changed.
In the end, everyone wants the same thing. A fun time while playing/watching starcraft with the emphasis on playing... If maps don't actively get in the way of enjoying the game and are suitable to a wide variety of playstyles then everything is great. Generic macro maps which you seem to have a strong dislike for just happen to do this very well. That's why people bring them up.
You say blizzard should allow the freedom to make whatever kind of map, but even when we do make "what we want," people revert to blizzard standards. It's too different, it makes [composition] too powerful or too weak. There is a fine line between what we want and what players want. This isn't about blizzard at all really.
During the times were blizzard had very little interference with map pools (The WoL 2012/early hots era), all the groundwork was done and we slowly evolved to a somewhat good idea of what makes a map nice to play on.
After blizzard actively started getting involved in the map pool, and pushing thru their own maps, in 2014, there are countless examples of maps being changed a lot from what the map maker initially intended after mapmaker submitted his map. The lack of freedom is very obvious in the thread ur posting in, because all maps must fit a certain catogery with very clear cut 'rules'. Every map pool needs a rush map, a macro map, a weird map, a new map, etc. etc.
These are all rules setup by blizzard, not by mapmakers. Mapmakers must confirm themselves to what blizzard wants.
This is not related to gameplay, which, obviously, a map is bound by certain gameplay rules to be balanced for all races etc - this is not dictated by blizzard directly, this is just how the game/meta is. The blizzard standard you refer to are lost temple, steppes of war, jungle basin, and more recently, secret spring, inferno pools, ulrena.
Most maps they make are really sub-par compared to what the map makers come up with. Only sometimes mapmakers go a little overboard on fancyness and certain races have a hard time because of technical constraints of their race. Think about blink, reapers, huge unwallable ramps, massively wide open areas around 3rd bases favoring zerg, that sort of thing.
This attitude that Overgrowth is the only map you'll ever need is mostly why the map community is so sparse to begin with. You get what you ask for.
Nobody thinks Overgrowth is the only map you need. I don't know if you've read Snute's post but there are significant differences between Overgrowth, Daybreak, Coda etc. They play out completely different. If you enjoy making weird maps with crazy features that's perfectly fine but don't act like every macro map is the same.
@Comedy: Blizzard maps aren't always worse than Community maps. Vaani research station, Akilon waste, Dusk Towers are really great blizzard maps whereas Apotheosis, Dasan Station, Dash and Terminal, Bridgehead were awful community maps (no offense here, they just weren't as good for competitive play). The problem is just that blizzard picks a few to many weird, gimmicky maps in the mappool. 1-2 gimmicky maps are fine but Ulrena-prion terraces-central protocol or bridgehead-moonlight madness-dash and terminal were way overkill in a single mappool
This attitude that Overgrowth is the only map you'll ever need is mostly why the map community is so sparse to begin with. You get what you ask for.
Nobody thinks Overgrowth is the only map you need. I don't know if you've read Snute's post but there are significant differences between Overgrowth, Daybreak, Coda etc. They play out completely different. If you enjoy making weird maps with crazy features that's perfectly fine but don't act like every macro map is the same.
@Comedy: Blizzard maps aren't always worse than Community maps. Vaani research station, Akilon waste, Dusk Towers are really great blizzard maps whereas Apotheosis, Dasan Station, Dash and Terminal, Bridgehead were awful community maps (no offense here, they just weren't as good for competitive play). The problem is just that blizzard picks a few to many weird, gimmicky maps in the mappool. 1-2 gimmicky maps are fine but Ulrena-prion terraces-central protocol or bridgehead-moonlight madness-dash and terminal were way overkill in a single mappool
I wouldn't call Vaani, Akilon, and Dusk Towers "great" maps. Adequate at best. Vaani in HotS was basically the most death-ball oriented map in the pool, Akilon contributed to a bunch of the worst swarmhost games and Dusk Towers was a rather mediocre and turtly map that only stood out due to the rest of the map pool being even worse.
Let's get things rolling! Here are my submissions for TLMC8. I will be doing some final tweaks on these maps for the next couple of days but figure let's start showcasing some of the entries. Plus, maybe it'll give some motivation / spark an interest for anybody else.
On February 12 2017 13:47 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Do those watchtowers on Desolate Domain cover the entire middle? I'm not sure how I feel about that.
They do. But also main to main is only 30 seconds ingame so it can be very aggressive. Could it go endgame and be super turtle? Sure. But I figured that'd be a good way to counter-act the short rush distance. Force the choke through the middle with lots of vision so hopefully you can see the attack coming.
Nice! I nothing Ascension to Aiur (although it's better than a lot of macro maps we've had, so hey, still pretty solid map) but the other 3 are cool.
The aesthetic update to Paradisia seems good, not 100% sure about that brown sand choice but overall the map still looks good. I'm kind of realizing now that the map is a lot like a mirrored Abyssal Reef, even though it has a good # of differences.
It should be interesting to see, with the rush map category, if some MUs can even be balanced regardless of which rush map it is. Besides zerg's issues with short rush distances there's also TvP to consider; can Terran just tank push all day err' day to victory? Find out all this and more in the BTTV tourney on Feb 20!
EPT
Waystation that are either amazing for ZvT (cross) or awful (close) (Note: ZvT absolutely worked like this in hots, while it was possible to win in close it was not favorable on average). The official ladder and tournament map pools have if anything been experimenting far beyond what would seem reasonable imo. And this misconception that maps are too similar or that ladder pool requires more and more variety and experiments has really been hurting the ladder/wcs pools as a whole throughout the years. It is also time that map lighting and visibility gets taken far more seriously than it is today. Dark maps, problematic lighting, etc.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w72EGkr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kmZafAa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bzccb55.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/paD9rOq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5oTk0JA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Amj1toA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oBbmCzP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zdbp4mR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T1Li7i3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZGRM2S7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bp94uzM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/95rmKiI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gs0lrw2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BukAtLi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oECxndw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zcspLb2.jpg)
