|
On November 18 2010 13:07 BoomStevo wrote:
I wish more maps would be featured on the front page of Team Liquid but I haven't seen any. Though I don't always pay attention to the front page. I would love to see some of the people who have been doing a lot of good work to get some recognition.
On November 18 2010 14:38 Crais wrote:
Is the key part there. Would be kinda a neat feature. Some type of map contest that the winner gets their map in a round of the TL open or some such.
On November 18 2010 16:04 Gooey wrote:
I actually like the idea of having a monthly TL map making contest to coincide with the TLOpen. That would be a really cool feature to add to the tournament to give it a community feel. I really like seeing people play on different maps other than the blizzard maps, which is why I have been spending so much time watching the iCCup stream. It's nice to have a new injection of flavor into a tournament, and a map is a great way to do it.
The only problem would have to be finding someone to officially go through all of the submissions and view all of the layouts to find the one they felt suited the tournament best. This would be a cool way to get your name out there as a mapmaker in the early stages of SC2.
It is a nice idea to throw out there, all practicalities aside.
On November 18 2010 17:35 Samro225am wrote:
we need a map of the month competition! the community should promote a jury of three + the last month winner. this would get people into putting more thought into these maps and a few non iccup maps would get some attention. they are not that bad. iccup maps should alo be allowed.
also the number of submissions should be limited: you can only take part twice with every map and only one map per mapmaker. otherwise it would be to many maps.
if you bind the map of the month competiton to maps that are published in a specific month there will be even less maps. the jury should be able to judge the maps by the images (map analyzer) if they even hav a chance to win, sothat it takes less time to go through all entries.
On November 18 2010 22:36 Archivian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 17:35 Samro225am wrote:
we need a map of the month competition! the community should promote a jury of three + the last month winner. this would get people into putting more thought into these maps and a few non iccup maps would get some attention. they are not that bad. iccup maps should alo be allowed.
also the number of submissions should be limited: you can only take part twice with every map and only one map per mapmaker. otherwise it would be to many maps.
if you bind the map of the month competiton to maps that are published in a specific month there will be even less maps. the jury should be able to judge the maps by the images (map analyzer) if they even hav a chance to win, sothat it takes less time to go through all entries. thats actually a great idea
and that is how MotM and later TLMC were conceived. How both were finally realized is a story for another night kids.
thanks ironman for the nostalgia
|
+ Show Spoiler + With the categories I was looking forward to some maps akin to BW. Maybe some maps with wide open areas, some maps with mineral only expansions, and maybe even maps with low ground mains.
It's odd to see people complaining about some of the rush maps. Dasan Station for all the hate it received gave us many good games in tournament play.
Really wish that Exosphere had made the cut for the finals. http://i.imgur.com/6LrxnZo.jpg I love how wide open it is. It'd be cool if some tournament organizers picked up some of the other maps and tried them out a little bit.
|
On February 24 2017 05:09 Woobz wrote:
Very disappointed with the mappers..
well thanks, we sure did our best to dissapoint you.
With the categories I was looking forward to some maps akin to BW.
you got your wish though, one of the maps is a direct brood war port
|
well thanks, we sure did our best to dissapoint you.
Not everything is an attack on you, don't be so defensive.
edit:Some of the maps are really creative/awesome. They're just as crazy as mineral only expansions or low ground mains. Just meant I was disappointed not to see some low ground mains/mineral only expansions. The single gas bases are quite interesting too though.
|
Don't pick maps like hunger game in the future, you need to play only 1 game on this map to know it's horribly broken and Terran will be by far the best race there. There is more potential in the maps than this xD Paradise Lost might be cool but it's too good for Zerg it seems like. I mostly like Sequencer but 4th base is quite far away which I don't like. Keres Passage could make for some cool matches so maybe we should try it out more. Eremita? Just no.. Paradasia feels kind of nice for a standard map. Hwangsan has many mistakes from maps that we had in the past - a lot of space behind main, central watch towers that control the whole map if you have the middle, hard to take 3rd base etc.
|
Brood War and SC2 maps are vastly different for very important reasons. If you were expecting more brood-war like maps, you weren't going to get them and your expectations were heavily misplaced. There are still designs that mappers have to abide by due to years of balancing behind them, there's no reason for us to make maps where the 3rd base is super tucked away, a gold base, but really easy to defend so Zerg can defend it with lurkers, or something.
Designs in SCBW and SC2 are just so drastically different that you realistically can't see a massive shift in map designs without unit or game designs changing with it.
EDIT: @Nerchio
There's not really that much space behind Hwangsans main...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EHb6BIh.jpg)
And I don't know if I agree with the third being that hard to take. I think I might pull the vertical third closer so Zerg have a more viable option, as in ZvT the diagonal third poses too much of a problem with drop play. Snute and I bounced on the Watch Towers quite a bit, and if they are posing too strong, I can remove them.
|
Designs in SCBW and SC2 are just so drastically different that you realistically can't see a massive shift in map designs without unit or game designs changing with it.
How can you say that when we have never even seen games on maps with mineral only bases, etc? Bifrost produced some very interesting games, so did Arkanoid, so did Bel'shir beach.
Maps being the most balanced don't always produce the most interesting games either.. You can have your normal maps, but putting dasan in the pool was a good move. Maybe put in a map with a mineral only third, try some new things. That's all I'm saying.
|
Mineral Only fields in BW were a balance response, because giving Terran an easy 3rd gas base would make them horrifically strong. Because SC2 was hand-held by Blizz and their designs, we can't just throw mineral only bases all willy-nilly. We have to be much more strategic with their placements, and often we can't touch the first three bases too much with these mineral changes because players will complain that their builds straight up no longer work or exist.
|
often we can't touch the first three bases too much with these mineral changes because players will complain that their builds straight up no longer work or exist.
That's not a bad thing.
edit:
Mineral Only fields in BW were a balance response, because giving Terran an easy 3rd gas base would make them horrifically strong.
The map that is considered the most balanced of all time has a fairly easy gas to defend as its third (Fighting Spirit). Brood War didn't have a bias towards either one like Starcraft II does.
Maps like Blue Storm, Circuit Breaker, etc had a mineral only third, but then you had maps like Fighting Spirit and Jade that definitely had a gas on their third.
|
You can't change up the 3 base aspect because some races rely too much on the 3rd base to properly play the game. In TvZ terran could actually play on 4 gas only and Zerg needs 6+ or something similar.
|
On February 24 2017 05:56 Nerchio wrote:
You can't change up the 3 base aspect because some races rely too much on the 3rd base to properly play the game. In TvZ terran could actually play on 4 gas only and Zerg needs 6+ or something similar.
Then maybe people would have to play improperly on those maps. I'm not saying that every single map should be like this. I'm saying maybe one map in an entire map pool. Dasan Station was a good step.
|
On February 24 2017 05:54 Woobz wrote:Show nested quote +often we can't touch the first three bases too much with these mineral changes because players will complain that their builds straight up no longer work or exist. That's not a bad thing.
You are right, but that doesn't stop pro-players from vetoing said maps on the judging phase
|
On February 24 2017 06:00 Woobz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 05:56 Nerchio wrote:
You can't change up the 3 base aspect because some races rely too much on the 3rd base to properly play the game. In TvZ terran could actually play on 4 gas only and Zerg needs 6+ or something similar. Then maybe people would have to play improperly on those maps. I'm not saying that every single map should be like this. I'm saying maybe one map in an entire map pool. Dasan Station was a good step.
mate, anything u've said makes 0 sense. dasan station was a terrible map that made people who actually played wanna quit. you definitely only watch the game or u wouldn't be saying this. There was one good match (scarlett vs stats), as opposed to 1000's of shit games.
Sorry, but you cant just do whatever the hell you want because in theory 'oh they should just play different stuff/be creative!' in reality just means a certain race just loses most of their games.
|
On February 24 2017 06:00 Woobz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 05:56 Nerchio wrote:
You can't change up the 3 base aspect because some races rely too much on the 3rd base to properly play the game. In TvZ terran could actually play on 4 gas only and Zerg needs 6+ or something similar. Then maybe people would have to play improperly on those maps. I'm not saying that every single map should be like this. I'm saying maybe one map in an entire map pool. Dasan Station was a good step.
XDXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDXXXX
just experiment bro, do that 2 base ultralisk rush, think outside of the box ok?
|
You are right, but that doesn't stop pro-players from vetoing said maps on the judging phase
People said the exact same thing about Dasan Station, but we still got it on the ladder and got quite a lot of pro matches on it.
I really appreciate Enekh and NegativeZero because they try new things. I'll definitely be supporting them in the finals.
mate, anything u've said makes 0 sense. dasan station was a terrible map that made people who actually played wanna quit. you definitely only watch the game or u wouldn't be saying this. There was one good match (scarlett vs stats), as opposed to 1000's of shit games.
Idk how you can say I'm only watching the game and then bring up pro level matches. I enjoyed watching every game on Dasan though if that's what you mean. I do play on NA, I know I'm not a pro and don't claim to be. Ladder players can always veto maps they don't like though.
I don't understand how Dasan made ladder players want to quit when they could just click a box and never play it... I'm confused, can you explain?
'oh they should just play different stuff/be creative!' in reality just means a certain race just loses most of their games.
There have been radical balance changes in both SC2 and BW that were attributed to people playing differently and not as a result of balance patches or map pools. Maybe a race would lose for a while, but I'd give pros faith that they'd figure out how to win on this hypothetical map.
XDXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDXXXX
just experiment bro, do that 2 base ultralisk rush, think outside of the box ok?
Thanks for the well thought out response.
|
On February 24 2017 05:45 Nerchio wrote:
Don't pick maps like hunger game in the future, you need to play only 1 game on this map to know it's horribly broken and Terran will be by far the best race there. There is more potential in the maps than this xD Paradise Lost might be cool but it's too good for Zerg it seems like. I mostly like Sequencer but 4th base is quite far away which I don't like. Keres Passage could make for some cool matches so maybe we should try it out more. Eremita? Just no.. Paradasia feels kind of nice for a standard map. Hwangsan has many mistakes from maps that we had in the past - a lot of space behind main, central watch towers that control the whole map if you have the middle, hard to take 3rd base etc.
why was hunger game picked by so many players again and again though? look, i am not too fond of the map and can easily identify how it is super problematic, i just wondern why there were so many games registered on it? it was played 6 times during the tournament, only to go fourth in plays behind Maxwell Plattform (positionally imbalanced, bad natural) and Paradise Lost (air blockers buggy) with both 8 plays and Sequencer with 10 maps. also it was voted for being one of the top ten maps (out of 15).
i realize it was not you personally picking this map again and again, i just wonder how two obviously at least difficult so to say maps were picked by players so often.
|
On February 24 2017 06:44 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 05:45 Nerchio wrote:
Don't pick maps like hunger game in the future, you need to play only 1 game on this map to know it's horribly broken and Terran will be by far the best race there. There is more potential in the maps than this xD Paradise Lost might be cool but it's too good for Zerg it seems like. I mostly like Sequencer but 4th base is quite far away which I don't like. Keres Passage could make for some cool matches so maybe we should try it out more. Eremita? Just no.. Paradasia feels kind of nice for a standard map. Hwangsan has many mistakes from maps that we had in the past - a lot of space behind main, central watch towers that control the whole map if you have the middle, hard to take 3rd base etc. why was hunger game picked by so many players again and again though? look, i am not too fond of the map and can easily identify how it is super problematic, i just wondern why there were so many games registered on it? it was played 6 times during the tournament, only to go fourth in plays behind Maxwell Plattform (positionally imbalanced, bad natural) and Paradise Lost (air blockers buggy) with both 8 plays and Sequencer with 10 maps. also it was voted for being one of the top ten maps (out of 15). i realize it was not you personally picking this map again and again, i just wonder how two obviously at least difficult so to say maps were picked by players so often.
Well I imagine it's because in TvX, Terran would like to play on that map every time because it's broken and in PvZ it's protoss favoured again so they will pick that as well.
|
This is why players picking maps is probably not good for this particular tournament. Any other tourney, sure, it needs to be that way, but we have this problem every TLMC now.
|
Well what is sure is that a lot of issues needs to be debated and addressed, and for demonstrating it, this TLMC is already a success 
|
On February 24 2017 10:43 Fatam wrote:
This is why players picking maps is probably not good for this particular tournament. Any other tourney, sure, it needs to be that way, but we have this problem every TLMC now.
I think this is a solid point. Map testing tournaments should, as a standard, prevent players from choosing the maps they do or don't play on(or at least substantially limit this). In Proleague, when it was still a thing, they told you what map you'd be playing on, and it was on you to prepare for it. They got a lot of great map testing done in this way, finding failures and successes alike in all the strange maps they tried over the years. Tournaments for TLMC should follow a like model. But then, they should also get more time for thorough judging, as well, especially if you're going to railroad players to test them. It still confuses me how the timeframe was so tight, if Blizzard knew they'd be doing it a year in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
