|
On February 21 2017 07:42 Zweck wrote:
Wow so we have a map that has an untakeable gas in the finalists. Gas problem is still in the TLMC released official Version.
So the map never got played bye the mapmaker, and neither by the judges.. still gets to finalists.. ez
Wow, so it's almost like some of us make tens if not hundreds of changes and variations and simply forget sometimes?
You wanna know how much was blocking the geyser? An eight of a square of pathing, in the shape of a triangle, and it's hugging a cliff, so it's very hard to see.
|
Disappointing tlmc to say the least!
hf
|
Just wanted to weigh in on the judging hate. The judges did a fine job with the resources they had. The core issue is the categories, category cap distribution and timeline for both submissions and judging.
They simply could not pick the "best maps" because of the category caps. They could not test them all because of the timelines.
Felt like someone should clear that up. I think the picks are decent given their criteria. If the caps/categories were different the finalist list would be completely different with the same set of judges.
|
Paradise lost!!! So cool!! Woooo!! Lol. But I had a few ideas for the mapmakers for TLMC9. I'd like to see some watch towers that more or less belong to each player. We have only ever really seen watch towers that players fight over in the middle of the map. But consider a map where each player had 1-2 watch towers in their side of the map. Maybe one literally at their third or one inbetween the fourth and fifth. I think it is noob friendly, and definitely helps players macro into the lategame.
Secondly, consider a map where zergs creep from their starting base extends to the ramp, or very close to it, allowing zergs to wall themselves in with a spawning pool or double evo and a backdoor natural. Like vaani research station. I think zergs would love a map where they could more or less skip the ling bane early game.
|
I thought labyrinth was pretty dang cool. Dat middle.
The next 2 are solid macro maps, maybe 3standard5them but they are good.
Earthquake is the only one that doesn't do anything for me.
|
I like your maps a lot, especially Penumbra. Aesthetically, it looks fantastic, but I also really like the layout. I've been curious to see a map with exactly the kind of natural this map has, where it is sort of a pocket but with "front-door rocks" that lead to the same path as the main ramp so that it's not really like a back-door entrance.
Labyrinth also looks interesting with the cool center and the gold minerals blocking the natural. Ouroboros looks nice and standard. Earthquake is my least favorite but I still don't think it's bad.
|
On February 22 2017 10:46 SlickJack wrote:
Paradise lost!!! So cool!! Woooo!! Lol. But I had a few ideas for the mapmakers for TLMC9. I'd like to see some watch towers that more or less belong to each player. We have only ever really seen watch towers that players fight over in the middle of the map. But consider a map where each player had 1-2 watch towers in their side of the map. Maybe one literally at their third or one inbetween the fourth and fifth. I think it is noob friendly, and definitely helps players macro into the lategame.
Secondly, consider a map where zergs creep from their starting base extends to the ramp, or very close to it, allowing zergs to wall themselves in with a spawning pool or double evo and a backdoor natural. Like vaani research station. I think zergs would love a map where they could more or less skip the ling bane early game.
I'll definitely be trying the Xel'Naga tower thing, I like that concept myself, even submitted one like it this time, but alas. Towers are something I have fun playing with, so you might like stuff coming up. The creep-to-ramp thing is interesting too, and something I'll try to keep in mind. I've always loved the idea of actually walling off as a Zerg, and sorta changing the metagame for them in that way, by making it more comfortable for them. In general I'm becoming a fan of giving players the creature comforts they want, and innovating in unobtrusive ways, so this is something I'll try to use going forward.
|
On February 22 2017 10:46 SlickJack wrote:
Paradise lost!!! So cool!! Woooo!! Lol. But I had a few ideas for the mapmakers for TLMC9. I'd like to see some watch towers that more or less belong to each player. We have only ever really seen watch towers that players fight over in the middle of the map. But consider a map where each player had 1-2 watch towers in their side of the map. Maybe one literally at their third or one inbetween the fourth and fifth. I think it is noob friendly, and definitely helps players macro into the lategame.
Secondly, consider a map where zergs creep from their starting base extends to the ramp, or very close to it, allowing zergs to wall themselves in with a spawning pool or double evo and a backdoor natural. Like vaani research station. I think zergs would love a map where they could more or less skip the ling bane early game.
Asteroid Barricade uses two watchtowers, on on each ledge and they can help in late game map split scenarios. One could argue that an aggressive player can control both, which can be a pro or a con, depending on who you ask.
Yet tbh the idea to have 'more defensive' watchtowers is a delicate thing, because when you loose such a watchtower (say: in between third, fourth, fifth) they could be easily abused from the aggressor, which is not so user friendly.
it is all about the balance here obviously and had to be thought as an integral part of the terrain design. and often watchtowers are just placed somewhere, where they do not hurt tot much.
watchtowers were a more dominant topic during WoL iirc. so i see your post as a motivation to consider the watchtower more often.
|
Played ZvT today on the released (TLMC8, published by monk) version of Hwangsan. As a Zerg, I spawned with my own 2 pylons in my natural that gave me supply.
|
On February 23 2017 02:49 Ej_ wrote:
Played ZvT today on the released (TLMC8, published by monk) version of Hwangsan. As a Zerg, I spawned with my own 2 pylons in my natural that gave me supply.
Nice feature ;D
|
@Avex
Im absolutely not criticising that u made a really small mistake there, no problem at all, everybody does these.
But what drives me crazy is, that you never actually playtested the map. what about your other maps did you test them at least!? Ofc Blood boil was the only one not being playtested before, right? How unlucky.
And the jury too lol, they never played it!! A map, that belongs to the best of a hundred needs a lot if playtesting finetuning and adjusting and stuff, if your not the autist 9000, that calculates every possible move in his head. And you have all 4 in the finalists...I mean how high is the chance on a legit way, to get all 4 maps into the 15 finalists, without being playtested and adjusted; feelsriggedman
Yeah i know a mapper with skills and knowledge (like you are ofc) can make a reasonable map that works fine without testing surely. I dont say its a bad map at all. But were talking about the finalists of f*ing TLMC (and quite some money after all..) Im not at all mad at you my friend, but at the judges, since they chose maps, they didnt even play a single game on. The untakeable gas just shows how carefully the maps are picked. Probably no map was playtested at all!?!?! Wouldnt surprise me.. I mean ofc there are a lot of really good maps in the finalists for sure (like windwaker e.g.), still the qualitiy outside of the finalists is just as high. you could have just blindly picked the maps and got the same quality as the finalists in my opinion.
I have an Idea for TLMC 9:
Mapmakers just submit a *.txt file with some crazy ideas about a map, not even a map file, so the judges can decide in maybe half an hour about the finalists by the text. (In the judging phase a player called "Snute" must be ignored, no matter of how much he writes about maps, he knows nothing of sc2 ofc..!!1)
After the judging ""phase"", the finalists can create their maps (no playtesting needed).
Then the maps get played first time in a streamed tournament abusing pros as crasthestdummies, so winning mappers have a shit ton of help and time to adjust, so maps actually turn out better then non finalists in the end. I mean why expecting maps to be playtested in the first place...
avilolevelrage
Im exaggerating ofc, but this is how it feels kinda...
|
On February 23 2017 03:13 Zweck wrote:
@Avex
Im absolutely not criticising that u made a really small mistake there, no problem at all, everybody does these.
But what drives me crazy is, that you never actually playtested the map. what about your other maps did you test them at least!? Ofc Blood boil was the only one not being playtested before, right? How unlucky.
And the jury too lol, they never played it!! A map, that belongs to the best of a hundred needs a lot if playtesting finetuning and adjusting and stuff, if your not the autist 9000, that calculates every possible move in his head. And you have all 4 in the finalists...I mean how high is the chance on a legit way, to get all 4 maps into the 15 finalists, without being playtested and adjusted; feelsriggedman
Yeah i know a mapper with skills and knowledge (like you are ofc) can make a reasonable map that works fine without testing surely. I dont say its a bad map at all. But were talking about the finalists of f*ing TLMC (and quite some money after all..) Im not at all mad at you my friend, but at the judges, since they chose maps, they didnt even play a single game on. The untakeable gas just shows how carefully the maps are picked. Probably no map was playtested at all!?!?! Wouldnt surprise me.. I mean ofc there are a lot of really good maps in the finalists for sure (like windwaker e.g.), still the qualitiy outside of the finalists is just as high. you could have just blindly picked the maps and got the same quality as the finalists in my opinion.
I have an Idea for TLMC 9:
Mapmakers just submit a *.txt file with some crazy ideas about a map, not even a map file, so the judges can decide in maybe half an hour about the finalists by the text. (In the judging phase a player called "Snute" must be ignored, no matter of how much he writes about maps, he knows nothing of sc2 ofc..!!1)
After the judging ""phase"", the finalists can create their maps (no playtesting needed).
Then the maps get played first time in a streamed tournament abusing pros as crasthestdummies, so winning mappers have a shit ton of help and time to adjust, so maps actually turn out better then non finalists in the end. I mean why expecting maps to be playtested in the first place...
avilolevelrage
Im exaggerating a ofc, but this is how it feels kinda...
Yeah I agree the judges should have playtested each of the 100+ submissions, and made sure to play long macro games on each of them so that all of the pathing etc. could be tested. Probably one of each matchup so they could be completely informed about balance. Shouldn't be too much to ask within the 24 hours they had to judge them. Totally reasonable.
|
lol no one expects you to playtest every single map in 24h but maybe the best 20-30 should be tested right?! And ofc not in 24h!!! In a week for e.g.! Its just the schedule that was so horrible. And if theres not enough time to test the maps a week long (god knows why), why not make a 24h public vote or sth on the best 20 and then play at least those or sth...
at least play the finalists lol, is that asked to much for?! to see if theyre as good as the overview and the text promised, or if maybe one or two need to be switched omg
but still, most maps are really good and deserved, dont get me wrong here
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On February 23 2017 02:56 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2017 02:49 Ej_ wrote:
Played ZvT today on the released (TLMC8, published by monk) version of Hwangsan. As a Zerg, I spawned with my own 2 pylons in my natural that gave me supply. Nice feature ;D
I as his opponent didn't get any free support pylons, rigged 
|
Except Eremita and the forcefield map I think the picks are decent.
Especially Hwangsan and Windwaker are great, hopefully they make ladder.
Also Sequence, Hunger game and blood boil look really interesting.
|
On February 23 2017 03:34 Zweck wrote:
lol no one expects you to playtest every single map in 24h but maybe the best 20-30 should be tested right?! And ofc not in 24h!!! In a week for e.g.! Its just the schedule that was so horrible. And if theres not enough time to test the maps a week long (god knows why), why not make a 24h public vote or sth on the best 20 and then play at least those or sth...
at least play the finalists lol, is that asked to much for?! to see if theyre as good as the overview and the text promised, or if maybe one or two need to be switched omg
You know that in the schedule there is a period where the map makers are supposed to polish the maps and adress all bugs/issues?
At this point the maps don't need to be perfectly polished.
|
On February 23 2017 03:20 PengWin_SC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2017 03:13 Zweck wrote:
@Avex
Im absolutely not criticising that u made a really small mistake there, no problem at all, everybody does these.
But what drives me crazy is, that you never actually playtested the map. what about your other maps did you test them at least!? Ofc Blood boil was the only one not being playtested before, right? How unlucky.
And the jury too lol, they never played it!! A map, that belongs to the best of a hundred needs a lot if playtesting finetuning and adjusting and stuff, if your not the autist 9000, that calculates every possible move in his head. And you have all 4 in the finalists...I mean how high is the chance on a legit way, to get all 4 maps into the 15 finalists, without being playtested and adjusted; feelsriggedman
Yeah i know a mapper with skills and knowledge (like you are ofc) can make a reasonable map that works fine without testing surely. I dont say its a bad map at all. But were talking about the finalists of f*ing TLMC (and quite some money after all..) Im not at all mad at you my friend, but at the judges, since they chose maps, they didnt even play a single game on. The untakeable gas just shows how carefully the maps are picked. Probably no map was playtested at all!?!?! Wouldnt surprise me.. I mean ofc there are a lot of really good maps in the finalists for sure (like windwaker e.g.), still the qualitiy outside of the finalists is just as high. you could have just blindly picked the maps and got the same quality as the finalists in my opinion.
I have an Idea for TLMC 9:
Mapmakers just submit a *.txt file with some crazy ideas about a map, not even a map file, so the judges can decide in maybe half an hour about the finalists by the text. (In the judging phase a player called "Snute" must be ignored, no matter of how much he writes about maps, he knows nothing of sc2 ofc..!!1)
After the judging ""phase"", the finalists can create their maps (no playtesting needed).
Then the maps get played first time in a streamed tournament abusing pros as crasthestdummies, so winning mappers have a shit ton of help and time to adjust, so maps actually turn out better then non finalists in the end. I mean why expecting maps to be playtested in the first place...
avilolevelrage
Im exaggerating a ofc, but this is how it feels kinda... Yeah I agree the judges should have playtested each of the 100+ submissions, and made sure to play long macro games on each of them so that all of the pathing etc. could be tested. Probably one of each matchup so they could be completely informed about balance. Shouldn't be too much to ask within the 24 hours they had to judge them. Totally reasonable.
What I really wonder is what brilliant mind thought 6days for making maps and 24hours for testing them was completely okay and reasonable.
|
On February 23 2017 03:34 Zweck wrote:
lol no one expects you to playtest every single map in 24h but maybe the best 20-30 should be tested right?! And ofc not in 24h!!! In a week for e.g.! Its just the schedule that was so horrible. And if theres not enough time to test the maps a week long (god knows why), why not make a 24h public vote or sth on the best 20 and then play at least those or sth...
at least play the finalists lol, is that asked to much for?! to see if theyre as good as the overview and the text promised, or if maybe one or two need to be switched omg
but still, most maps are really good and deserved, dont get me wrong here
The timeframe is to blame for pretty much all of the problems with this TLMC. I just found your initial post extremely frustrating lashing out at the judges. We did the best we could with the time given to us. For TLMC 7, I personally playtested every map that I thought was potentially decent, because we had a pretty long period of time to do it. In 24 hours, there's no way to test every map. Basically any map testing time was taken up by going into maps and testing wall offs and stuff, nowhere near enough time to actually play games on them.
|
I guess all my time spent on making my 3 maps was for nothing... And i see that some people always win this mapcontest anyways... I dont want to sound rude or anything or insult other map makers but... Im just really sad that i lost without even getting a review of what I could have done to maybe achieve the win in the top15.. Really sad feeling when all work is for nothing.
|
if you think thats bad try getting your works ignored for 4 years ongoingly
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/p2pvywp.jpg?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/niSGx5c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IpmQggg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MYzuViD.jpg)
