The wait is over! The possible WCS/ladder maps for next season can be found below. As a reminder, as with TLMC7, we used four categories to split up all the maps. (Macro, Rush, New, Experimental Resource). From the pool of submitted maps, we would choose 3 Macro Maps, 3 Rush Maps, 3 "New" Maps and 3 "Experimental Resource" Maps. In addition, we had three(3) "Judge's Choice" picks, which could come from any category. For this particular contest, we felt that the Macro category was by far the strongest, so this season we will have 6 Macro maps in the map pool.
This season, we also asked mappers to carefully describe their own maps, so you'll be able to hear from the horses' mouths why you should pick their respective maps.
Another thing to note is that there is currently a battle.net bug that prevents players from searching for these maps directly. As such, we will link to each map on each of the three main battle.net servers if you want to check them out.
Again, we will be working with all mappers in the coming two phases (BasetradeTV Tournament Phase and Iteration Phase) to improve the maps before the final voting stage where you, the Starcraft community, will get to pick who wins the cash prizes.
FINALISTS
Macro Maps
Predictably, Macro was by far the most popular and competitive category. A total of 41 maps were submitted primarily into the Macro category. Though creativity certainly doesn't hurt, this category mostly came down to clean and solid execution.
"It has various routes, but there are only a few routes in the big frame, so the game will flow in the early stage, but the MACRO game will be done over time."
Judge's Commentary:
Features an in-base natural.
Expansions can be taken in a natural flow.
Each players' clump of bases if relatively far from the other players', usually ensuring macro games.
Fairly standard macro map with plenty of choices of expansions after the natural. No matter where you take your 3rd, you will have an option of a different 4th as well. The game will constantly evolve depending which 3rd gets taken because then it opens up multiple different options for a 4th. Expanding both vertically and horizontally has their individual benefits. Early game the rocks play a huge role, choking the map off and restricting flow but come middle and end game once they are taken down it creates another (albeit choked) path for the attacker to get around the map.
The middle of the map is quite choked off, but out of each choke gives a good defender's advantage if needed.
Watchtowers see the entire middle forcing players to hug the outside paths if they want to stay clear of vision.
Asteroid Barricade is a large, macro-oriented 2-spawn map. Two plateaus with gold bases and highround ledges on both sides of a direct attack path structure the map into two halves.
The pocket third with long-distance backdoor and alternative third base are rather safe. Both bases are protected by rocked chokes and/or can be blocked by collapsable rock-towers.
Distinctive features:
Several possible expansion patterns. There is a linear vertical expansion pattern, but also a safe pocket third base that allows to expand towards the forward gold base as well as a zick-zack from pocket third back towards map's side.
Open vs. closed - a dense valley connects the two opponents directly, while several sets of ramps allow to cross and traverse between the open areas in the NE and SW, which act as hubs towards the linear expansions as well as an attacking path into the opponent's gold base.
The concept of staggered chokes on each path as a result of the traversing paths and rocks/rock-towers.
The aforementioned rocked chokes and rock-towers open and block additional direct paths into third/fourth.
The double watchtower is used to control the center from the ledges that define the valley and can be used defensively as well as offensively.
A small channel runs through the center of the map, guarded by Watch Towers from the cliffs above. Third bases are open to offensive strikes, but defendable through tight positions, some of which that can be opened up.
Standard rush distance, boundary size and mineral lines, with little deviation from the norm in macro maps.
Round in shape, double rocks blocking two offensive channels by the diagonal third base, a rock tower to help assist in the vertical base defense. Water for your units to splash around in the center.
Lots of smaller pathways that lead all around the map. Very similar to Abyssal Reef in that sense. Main, Natural and your choice of 3rd are all fairly easy to hold.
Expanding after your 4th becomes tricky because you either take the bottom corner bases which are a little further by ground but still offer great protection or you expand northward spreading yourself out much more.
Three Watchtowers throughout the map helps you take control of all the zig zags & army movements.
A warm and inviting macro map with an accelerated beginning economy of one mineral patch.
Fourth bases and beyond contain six mineral patches (aside from one, less defendable base). This is to accelerate early strategies and push the midgame forward, but not enable an easy late-game transition. Games will become scrappier even with further expansions being taken.
Standard rush distance, comfortable elevation variation. Many positional points, but enough space for flanking in specific matchups, such as Zerg versus Terran or Protoss versus Terran.
Rush Maps
The Rush category was one that we struggled with with a total of 32 total submissions. This was the only category that had more submissions in TLMC8 than TLMC7. Of these rush maps, we felt the following featured the most interesting rush concept:
"Features a very short attack route with a narrow, middle opening that is 2x2 in size. "
"The Hunger Game, which is the initial version of the Dasan Station, is a base that resembles the Dasan station in many areas, such as an aggressive base, a difficult gold base, and various attack routes, but is a relatively normal map."
Judge's Commentary: You can certainly tell this map was made by the creator of Dasan Station.
Maxwell Platform is a revision of the famous Brood War map, "Rush Hour" with exploring collapsing towers to block off entrances to the natural bases.
This map has 3 different spawn locations which can determine different ways how the game could be played. It is very rare in Starcraft II to have such an open natural with two entrances, and also have ways of closing them off.
Also with three spawns locations the games played could be varied since players could spawn closer if they spawn in the middle base or spawn top to bottom.
This map has a open natural with two entrances players have great potential for early game harassment since the natural has two entrances.
New Maps
24 maps were primarily submitted in this category and in general a combination of creative ideas and execution on those ideas dominated this category. Hopefully some of these maps will leave your scratching your head and really turn the game upside down.
'Paradise Lost' is an epic poem of the British poet, John Milton. This is the theme of the fall of man and the possibility of salvation.
Paradise Lost' is a map that further enhances the island expansion's usability. Through 'New Gettysburg', we noticed island expansions give another fun at Starcraft II. In this map, new elements are applied to use more active island expansions.
Sky Gate (Video) 'Sky Gate' is like Destructible Rock you know, but it blocks the air path. Air units as well as ground units can attack this gate. it is the same as Destructible Rock, with 2000hp and 3 armor.
Narrow Path (Video) 'Narrow Path' is created to help for players. If the first island resources were depleted, we could see that a lot of hands were going through the process of sending workers to the second island. To solve this problem, this map is applied 'Narrow Path' with a small amount of minerals and Sight Blockers. It is clogged with four minerals of resource 10, and it is necessary to secure the sight to gather the minerals.
There are three island expansions near each player's the main.
Air Blocker blocks the area around the islands, and is marked in blue.
At 6, 12 o'clock, there is 'Sky Gate' blocking the air route, which can be destroyed to open a new air route.
There is 'Narrow Path' between the islands. Through this path, workers can be sent to the new island.
The first island expansion can be easily defended by building a defensive tower(such as Missle Turret) on the side of the main base, but It requires a larger defensive radius for a large number of island expansions.
The reason for applying a small amount of minerals without applying Destructible Rock is as follows,
Sending troops to the island to destroy the rocks quickly causes loss of strength. (Especially, since the middle game)
The rocks can also be used from the attacker, which reduces the stability.
Unlike the rocks, minerals can be gathered by only workers in the island expansion.
A 2 player rotational map. Features a neutral force fields to produce new gameplays. Multiple assault routes are available. Designed like Asian mountains.
The primary feature would be a pocket island next to main. It acts similar to islands of New Gettysburg, but its limits are different. As it is placed at the edge of whole map, air-attacks can be blocked within main-natural(the one connected to main at first). Units on main-natural becomes air blockers for the island.
Imagine when enemy's air harass overcame all defenses and landed on your island. Terran can use Medivacs and Protoss can use Photon Overcharge. But if you are Zerg and don't have Spire tech, it would be extremely difficult to defend your isle. To prevent this, the island became a half-island and is blocked with neutral force fields. With this, Zerg can take island relatively faster and also defend it well. To prevent Terran's abnormally fast island expansion, there is also a Force Field at town-building site. Terran can still land command center here, but cannot do it on right place.
The map has a lot of narrow routes, like in Abyssal Reef. Four of these ramps have Force Fields, which are breakable by Zerg and Protoss(after early games), but nearly unbreakable to Terran. This makes the route choices of Zerg more diverse than Terrans. Highlands on the middle are included. The wide cliffs with no ramps were only usable by Terrans in TvZ as mobility of Terran surpasses Zerg a lot. I hope this Force Fielded-ramp becomes the opposite to those cliffs.
There is a unique choke in front of Third base(excluding the island). By covering three directions at the end of initial rush route, player can defend easily at early games. Zerg can use side roads to do same thing.
This medium-sized macro map features a grid of alternating high ground pods, inspired by the BW proleague map "Geometry", encouraging players to use them to establish defensive positions. Destructible rocks initially block several paths and make certain bases easier to take. But once the rocks are down, despite the map's constricting appearance, it becomes quite open - since the pods are so close together, it's easy to move between adjacent pods to flank from a side ramp, and numerous possible routes are available to traverse the map. The map offers 2 choices of 3rd base: a standard, fairly vulnerable base on the low ground, and a protected base located behind the natural wall, but with a reduced resource count of only 6 mineral nodes and 1 geyser.
Multiple alternating high ground pods allow for defensive positioning as well as flanking and outmaneuvering
Rocks slightly restrict initial pathing while allowing the full grid to be opened up later
Choice of a protected 3rd accessible from the nat with only 6 minerals and 1 gas, or a more vulnerable standard 3rd
The concept of a dense grid of high ground pods hasn't ever been seen on a ladder map (this was close to being the primary category but I wasn't sure if it was actually experimental enough). And while not a critical feature, the map has 2 instances of reduced resource bases set at 6 mineral nodes and 1 geyser: the protected 3rd is a safer but less rewarding choice than the alternate 3rd, and the high ground 4th/5th is very positionally important and already very close to 2 full bases, so the resources are lowered to compensate.
Experimental Resource Maps
This was the smallest category sitting at 14 maps submitted. The finalists that were picked utilized their extra-resource bases in thoughtful ways. In addition, the following were simply the most solid map designs in the category.
Top Right and Bottom Left quadrants are designed to make players choose between having a stronger Mineral income over gas, which also will expose players to the many attack paths at the north, or choosing the safer and less open Bottom, where bases have the standard amount of resources, but because of the strategical value of the southern avenue, it can very easily be used to make strong positional pushes.
Natural bases have 1000 hp 1 armor destructible debris, in order to allow for the potential of slightly stronger timing pushes, which might discourage players from being too passive early game.
Central Debris near the Xel'naga Tower each have 1000 HP and 1 armor, and they are in such a number as to give players granularity over other type of destructible debris such as huge diagonal rocks, and give players the ability to decide if they want to commit to simply destroying a couple of the lightly armored rocks, and maybe risk getting itself on a nasty chokepoint if the opponent discovers him, but get across faster, or destroy all the debris, and open the entire path. The choice is up to the player.
“Bandarlog Ruins” is from King Louis' "Monkey People" in Walt Disney's Jungle Book
It features specific mineral patches to allow for a different early game economy. The map provides 500/350 on main, 900/500 on natural and 1500/900 beyond that to really force players to expand away beyond third even faster than LotV kickstarted economy allows in comparison to the usual pattern of ideal cap of 3-4 bases. The symmetry is a dual-rotational concept to allow very balanced thirds as well as similar rush distances between vertical and horizontal spawn without the typical issues from pure rotational or axial symmetry 4-spawn maps.
The mains and natural expansion use 500/350 and 900/540 patches respectively, which is a reaction to LotV mineral economy and its boost to the early game and the rational 3-4 base cap.
The concept of a rush map on a 4-spawn map is interesting and difficult at the same time, because of the gamble for a timing attack or all-in versus the longer game. The mineral count was also adjusted to allow fewer "economical space" for attacks going wrong and consequently a slower start with the bigger bonus when rather gambling on quicker expansions.
The dual-rotational symmetry as well as the specific mineral patches with 500/350 on main, 900/500 on natural and 1500/900 beyond that
A long snowy map with many bases juggling back and forth. Bases placed farther away from the opponent have less mineral income, with 6/2 mineral lines, where more aggressive bases are standard 8/2 mineral lines. There is heavy elevation variance throughout a diagonal stripe pattern across the map. Avenues are choked, but open enough for moderately large armies to fight.
All "pocketed" bases have lower mineral incomes, as a tradeoff for their safety and lack of offensive positioning, compared to offensive and riskier bases with more standard and acceptable income rates.
The map is large enough for varying economic plays, but with the different facing angles of each mineral line, and their surrounding terrains, many different aggressive strategies as well as aggressive positioning and contains will be effective across all matchups.
A pocket third with lower income, attached by a ramp to the natural as well as the main for potential aggressive use, as well as quick(er) reinforcement.
What's Next?
Congratulations to all the mappers who made it to the finals. There were a lot of repeat names this season, with almost every finalist mapper having had a finalist map in a previous TLMC. In this field of finalists, you have:
Youngrustler, a relative "newcomer" who's submitted many maps in previous contests.
RQM, creator of Judgement, a GSL map
Jacky (TLMC7 1st), creator of New Gettysberg and winner of TLMC7
NegativeZero (TLMC6 1st, TLMC7 2nd), creator of Apotheosis and Terraform
Enekh (TLMC6 3rd), creator of Dasan Station, has two maps this season
SidiantheBard (2nd Place TLMC3), creator of Habitation Station and Abyssal Reef, has two maps this season
Samro225am, creator of many many TLMC finalists throughout the years, has two maps this season.
AVEX, creator of Invader, has 4/4 possible submissions in the top 15!
Next, between Feb 20rd-Feb 26th, BaseTradeTV will be hosting their BasetradeTV Map Test Tournament exclusively on these maps. Come watch top notch players play try to abuse these new maps to the best of their abilities. Afterwards, mappers will be given 1 week to balance and touch up their maps for the final judging process where you can vote for your favorite maps. The entire process is detailed here. So what do you think about the finalists? What are your favorite maps? Which maps got snubbed? Leave your thoughts and comments below!
I'm extremely disappointed with the judging this TLMC. It isn't unusual for some suspect maps to sneak into the finalists (Dasan Station, Frozen Zone, Biome), but this time the number of them seems rather high (Blood Boil, Paradise Lost, Bandarlog Ruins, Hunger Game, Maxwell Platform all have some obvious issues). Not only that, some of the maps are categorically awful.
Eremita has an 18 second (ramp to ramp) rush distance. That's shorter than Steppes of War. And unlike some better thought out maps with short rush distances like Dasan Station (I didn't think I'd ever say that), there isn't any sort of defensive compensation for the short rush distances. I can't even fathom the reasoning for allowing this map past the first round, let alone into the finals.
Geumgangsan's neutral force fields are horrible. First of all they don't appear on the minimap or through the fog of war. They absolutely should. And because this isn't hard to do at all, I'll assume the mapmaker was being careless and none of the judges actually opened up the map. Secondly they mess with pathing. Units don't know how to path around forcefields and will get stuck on them. You thought the air blockers on New Gettysburg were bad? This is a lot worse. Those forcefields in the middle of the map are in optimal positions to get units stuck. Third of all neutral forcefields aren't in the slightest balanced. Zergs can take the pocket base after building ravagers, Protoss after building colossi or archons. Terran has to build a thor. So Terran's chances in a macro game against Zerg or Protoss on this map aren't great to say the least. At least against Protoss you can try to rush out siege tanks and drop them inside the pocket base to siege the main from the inside. I really miss losing PvTs on Return of the King.
I really hope they take the time to review the whole process before TLMC9. The timeline was a joke. Three days or the 24 hours they turned into aren't enough time to evaluate the maps, and it really showed. Maybe review the judging process too. Even under the circumstances selecting Eremita and Geumgangsan is very hard to justify. The time given to the mapmakers wasn't enough either--many of the submissions to the Experimental Resource Map category were simply existing maps adapted for the category, and many of the submissions to the other categories felt rushed. The categories should be reviewed too (though that's more on Blizzard)--the fact that there isn't a category for middle-of-the-road maps that are neither "macro" nor "micro" enough is laughable. Hwangsan for example should be part of that category.
On the positive side of things, the BaseTradeTV tournament has looked good so far. I'm really looking forward to the second part of it. During the first part Keres Passage looked pretty good, and Windwaker, Ascension to Aiur, Hwangsan and Asteroid Barricade all looked reasonable.
Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
The macro maps section I don't have huge problems with, I would have chosen 1 or 2 differently but there's nothing egregious there.
I have an issue with the "New" category in that one of your finalists blatantly broke one of the contest rules and you ignored it. It's a cool map and I love its aesthetics but it absolutely breaks the rule which other people obeyed, so it seems unfair that he gets to go hogwild while we thought we couldn't.
Q: How crazy can my maps be? Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted.
Uh, hello? The map absolutely breaks the rule. Why else would you need videos and an essay to teach you the map lol.
Dracula by Timmay (although I sort of understand the exclusion given its similarity in concept to Sequencer. But I also think the two maps would play pretty differently) http://i.imgur.com/NhLGerC.jpg
Disappointment in some of the judging aside, some of the maps that made it are absolutely great, and there's no taking away from them, so I'm looking forward to seeing those make the ladder.
On February 20 2017 17:04 Fatam wrote: Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
The macro maps section I don't have huge problems with, I would have chosen 1 or 2 differently but there's nothing egregious there.
I have an issue with the "New" category in that one of your finalists blatantly broke one of the contest rules and you ignored it. It's a cool map and I love its aesthetics but it absolutely breaks the rule which other people obeyed, so it seems unfair that he gets to go hogwild while we thought we couldn't.
Q: How crazy can my maps be? Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted.
Uh, hello? The map absolutely breaks the rule. Why else would you need videos and an essay to teach you the map lol.
Dracula by Timmay (although I sort of understand the exclusion given its similarity in concept to Sequencer. But I also think the two maps would play pretty differently) http://i.imgur.com/NhLGerC.jpg
Disappointment in some of the judging aside, some of the maps that made it are absolutely great, and there's no taking away from them, so I'm looking forward to seeing those make the ladder.
Congrats to the finalists and looking forward to the next TLMC!
Obviously a lot of issues have already been brought up, specifically the timeline being fairly absurd. Admittedly there just wasn't a lot of time to properly test the maps. I just wanted to address my personal opinion on the maps you mentioned (obviously subjective).
Regarding Interloper, I don't think it's a bad map at all, however I think that the third is simply too open. I can't really see a way for Protoss to hold a well executed Ravager-Ling-Bane attack. That's the biggest turn off for me, and perhaps it could use some adjustments such as destructible rocks blocking the entrance at the 12/6 o clock.
Battle on the Boardwalk honestly seems like nothing but a ling bane fest to me. It's meant to be a rush map, sure, but this would be a disaster in ZvZ, and probably extremely difficult in both TvZ and PvZ as well. I do not think two entrances to the main is a viable option. Having the back entrance only 2 hexes wide is a good idea, but you can't defend two locations in PvZ that early on when photon overcharge is a huge part in mounting such a defense.
On the subject of Cloud City, I just don't really see how this is a rush map, especially with a 34 second N2N rush distance. I see it more as an aggressive macro map, and a huge thing that jumps out to me is how insanely wide open the middle of the map is, with no effective area for P/T to take an engagement against Zerg. With proper creep spread and vision (easily obtained with the watchtower), Zerg can take engagements of a lifetime extremely easily, on the only real attack path (going around the side vs Z opens you waaaaay up to taking huge damage from counterattacks).
Harmonize has several key issues as well, one of which once again is that I just don't see this as a rush map. 38 second N2N rush distance is extremely long for a rush map, so the only real way this passes as one is because of the ramp being very exposed due to its positioning. This means that the ramp position is key in why it could be considered such a map, and at the same time, I think that the ramp being where it is is nonviable. It's crucial vs Zerg all ins for protoss to be able to rewall behind their initial wall, and the ramp position simply makes that impossible because there isn't enough space. Honestly I think the ramp position should have been moved, and it should have been submitted as a macro map. It's fairly easy to get to four bases, and the fifth isn't any more difficult than on standard macro maps, so I have no idea why this is in the rush category, except for that main-natural ramp (seen in spoiler below).
Regarding your comment on, what I assume is, Bandarlog Ruins, I do not think this breaks that rule. The rule references rising lava as an example of something too crazy, because you absolutely need to know it's there coming in. Bandarlog has really weird resource distribution, but as soon as you're in the game, you click a mineral patch (which are visibly depleted), and see "hey that has not very many minerals on it" and play accordingly. Sure it's going to take some time to figure out what is and isn't optimal on it, but that's the case for every "new" map.
Of course all of this is subjective, and I think it's very good to have a healthy debate around map selection. Just throwing in my two cents.
On February 20 2017 17:04 Fatam wrote: Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
The macro maps section I don't have huge problems with, I would have chosen 1 or 2 differently but there's nothing egregious there.
I have an issue with the "New" category in that one of your finalists blatantly broke one of the contest rules and you ignored it. It's a cool map and I love its aesthetics but it absolutely breaks the rule which other people obeyed, so it seems unfair that he gets to go hogwild while we thought we couldn't.
Q: How crazy can my maps be? Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted.
Uh, hello? The map absolutely breaks the rule. Why else would you need videos and an essay to teach you the map lol.
Dracula by Timmay (although I sort of understand the exclusion given its similarity in concept to Sequencer. But I also think the two maps would play pretty differently) http://i.imgur.com/NhLGerC.jpg
Disappointment in some of the judging aside, some of the maps that made it are absolutely great, and there's no taking away from them, so I'm looking forward to seeing those make the ladder.
Congrats to the finalists and looking forward to the next TLMC!
Obviously a lot of issues have already been brought up, specifically the timeline being fairly absurd. Admittedly there just wasn't a lot of time to properly test the maps. I just wanted to address my personal opinion on the maps you mentioned (obviously subjective).
Regarding Interloper, I don't think it's a bad map at all, however I think that the third is simply too open. I can't really see a way for Protoss to hold a well executed Ravager-Ling-Bane attack. That's the biggest turn off for me, and perhaps it could use some adjustments such as destructible rocks blocking the entrance at the 12/6 o clock.
Battle on the Boardwalk honestly seems like nothing but a ling bane fest to me. It's meant to be a rush map, sure, but this would be a disaster in ZvZ, and probably extremely difficult in both TvZ and PvZ as well. I do not think two entrances to the main is a viable option. Having the back entrance only 2 hexes wide is a good idea, but you can't defend two locations in PvZ that early on when photon overcharge is a huge part in mounting such a defense.
On the subject of Cloud City, I just don't really see how this is a rush map, especially with a 34 second N2N rush distance. I see it more as an aggressive macro map, and a huge thing that jumps out to me is how insanely wide open the middle of the map is, with no effective area for P/T to take an engagement against Zerg. With proper creep spread and vision (easily obtained with the watchtower), Zerg can take engagements of a lifetime extremely easily, on the only real attack path (going around the side vs Z opens you waaaaay up to taking huge damage from counterattacks).
Harmonize has several key issues as well, one of which once again is that I just don't see this as a rush map. 38 second N2N rush distance is extremely long for a rush map, so the only real way this passes as one is because of the ramp being very exposed due to its positioning. This means that the ramp position is key in why it could be considered such a map, and at the same time, I think that the ramp being where it is is nonviable. It's crucial vs Zerg all ins for protoss to be able to rewall behind their initial wall, and the ramp position simply makes that impossible because there isn't enough space. Honestly I think the ramp position should have been moved, and it should have been submitted as a macro map. It's fairly easy to get to four bases, and the fifth isn't any more difficult than on standard macro maps, so I have no idea why this is in the rush category, except for that main-natural ramp (seen in spoiler below).
Regarding your comment on, what I assume is, Bandarlog Ruins, I do not think this breaks that rule. The rule references rising lava as an example of something too crazy, because you absolutely need to know it's there coming in. Bandarlog has really weird resource distribution, but as soon as you're in the game, you click a mineral patch (which are visibly depleted), and see "hey that has not very many minerals on it" and play accordingly. Sure it's going to take some time to figure out what is and isn't optimal on it, but that's the case for every "new" map.
Of course all of this is subjective, and I think it's very good to have a healthy debate around map selection. Just throwing in my two cents.
Thanks for having a debate, transparency is great. Plus I could talk about maps / SC2 all day so it's fun.
The new map I was talking about was the air/turtle map Paradise Lost. Although judging by your response that may have been the map you meant and you just got the names mixed up. For me, having the minerals (which aren't very easy to see, by the way, due to doodads) and the "air gate" on top of that layout is pretty noob/casual unfriendly, which I'm sure is why that rule is in there. But I don't think there's any more discussion to have there, since you either think it crosses the line or you don't.
@ Harmonize, that's my map so thanks for the feedback @ the ramp, I'll probably change that if I decide to ever make a new version and submit it in the future. @ it being not suitable for the rush category, we were told 35 seconds main ramp to main ramp or less, and Harmonize clocked in at 34, so should we have been told less? It seems a little unfair. Keep in mind the macro category still stated that maps should strongly encourage macro play, which I wasn't sure Harmonize really did that strongly, soo I submitted it to Rush because it met the requirements you guys listed. I think "hybrid" maps like this, aka maps that weren't really strongly Rush nor Macro, maps that equally allowed any kind of game, kind of got painted into a bad corner this TLMC. Not saying Harmonize would have finalized in Macro, but still, it's an ill feeling. I submitted another "in-between" map like this that clocked in at 30 sec rush distance into the Rush category and I wonder if it was discarded for the same reasons.
@ Cloud City, it certainly looks from the overview like the rush distance is fairly short. Maybe I misjudged the overview but I look at a ton of overviews and I'm pretty sure that main ramp to main ramp is less than 35. Maybe not by much, though. Either way, I think you're kind of looking at the ZvX situation wrongly here. Since the really open part of the middle there aren't any early bases, no one is forced to engage Zerg there, so your dream scenario of Z having all these awesome game-ending fights may never happen, if the P or T is playing correctly to the map. They can just stay on the less open highground to do all their defending and attacking.
@ Boardwalk, I 100% agree that ZvZ could be a potential shitfest, but I think every other MU could be fun. PvZ is not the issue you make it to be, IMO. It's pretty easy to hold a single 2x2 hole and your main ramp when the enemy has to send lings on a long, seperate walk to both locations. Like not even hard, honestly. In this case you simply pylon + adept at the 2x2 place, and since the 2x2 extends for quite some distance you put your initial 2x2 a little ways in, so that if they kill the first pylon you can place another behind it and still wall. Anyway, is ZvZ being hyper aggressive enough to death sentence the map? Maybe. I'd be interested to see what you thought of the map if Sidian simply added a neutral raised supply depot in the 2x2 hole.
@ interloper (actually I got the name wrong, it's Exosphere. Oops, too many maps to keep track of :O) I see your point. Maybe if he added a ramp down so that the third is a bit more defensible.
I wanna play all of these. My head is exploding from only looking at these and trying to make sense of them. I think many of these are super interesting and so naturally some of these will just not be viable for ladder, but I'm glad since this will come with quite the different flavour than what we're used to
On February 20 2017 18:27 Fatam wrote: For me, having the minerals (which aren't very easy to see, by the way, due to doodads) and the "air gate" on top of that layout is pretty noob/casual unfriendly
Seems like you're not the only one who thinks so, because when me and Ej_ played on the map, I got tutorials for the sky gate and stuff. When your map gives out tutorials nobody actually has the time to read during a game, maybe you made it a bit too complicated.
That said, the map is fun to play so I don't really mind that much that it made it so far. There are other maps I dislike much more.
On February 20 2017 17:04 Fatam wrote: Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
The macro maps section I don't have huge problems with, I would have chosen 1 or 2 differently but there's nothing egregious there.
I have an issue with the "New" category in that one of your finalists blatantly broke one of the contest rules and you ignored it. It's a cool map and I love its aesthetics but it absolutely breaks the rule which other people obeyed, so it seems unfair that he gets to go hogwild while we thought we couldn't.
Q: How crazy can my maps be? Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted.
Uh, hello? The map absolutely breaks the rule. Why else would you need videos and an essay to teach you the map lol.
Dracula by Timmay (although I sort of understand the exclusion given its similarity in concept to Sequencer. But I also think the two maps would play pretty differently) http://i.imgur.com/NhLGerC.jpg
Disappointment in some of the judging aside, some of the maps that made it are absolutely great, and there's no taking away from them, so I'm looking forward to seeing those make the ladder.
Congrats to the finalists and looking forward to the next TLMC!
Obviously a lot of issues have already been brought up, specifically the timeline being fairly absurd. Admittedly there just wasn't a lot of time to properly test the maps. I just wanted to address my personal opinion on the maps you mentioned (obviously subjective).
Regarding Interloper, I don't think it's a bad map at all, however I think that the third is simply too open. I can't really see a way for Protoss to hold a well executed Ravager-Ling-Bane attack. That's the biggest turn off for me, and perhaps it could use some adjustments such as destructible rocks blocking the entrance at the 12/6 o clock.
Battle on the Boardwalk honestly seems like nothing but a ling bane fest to me. It's meant to be a rush map, sure, but this would be a disaster in ZvZ, and probably extremely difficult in both TvZ and PvZ as well. I do not think two entrances to the main is a viable option. Having the back entrance only 2 hexes wide is a good idea, but you can't defend two locations in PvZ that early on when photon overcharge is a huge part in mounting such a defense.
On the subject of Cloud City, I just don't really see how this is a rush map, especially with a 34 second N2N rush distance. I see it more as an aggressive macro map, and a huge thing that jumps out to me is how insanely wide open the middle of the map is, with no effective area for P/T to take an engagement against Zerg. With proper creep spread and vision (easily obtained with the watchtower), Zerg can take engagements of a lifetime extremely easily, on the only real attack path (going around the side vs Z opens you waaaaay up to taking huge damage from counterattacks).
Harmonize has several key issues as well, one of which once again is that I just don't see this as a rush map. 38 second N2N rush distance is extremely long for a rush map, so the only real way this passes as one is because of the ramp being very exposed due to its positioning. This means that the ramp position is key in why it could be considered such a map, and at the same time, I think that the ramp being where it is is nonviable. It's crucial vs Zerg all ins for protoss to be able to rewall behind their initial wall, and the ramp position simply makes that impossible because there isn't enough space. Honestly I think the ramp position should have been moved, and it should have been submitted as a macro map. It's fairly easy to get to four bases, and the fifth isn't any more difficult than on standard macro maps, so I have no idea why this is in the rush category, except for that main-natural ramp (seen in spoiler below).
Regarding your comment on, what I assume is, Bandarlog Ruins, I do not think this breaks that rule. The rule references rising lava as an example of something too crazy, because you absolutely need to know it's there coming in. Bandarlog has really weird resource distribution, but as soon as you're in the game, you click a mineral patch (which are visibly depleted), and see "hey that has not very many minerals on it" and play accordingly. Sure it's going to take some time to figure out what is and isn't optimal on it, but that's the case for every "new" map.
Of course all of this is subjective, and I think it's very good to have a healthy debate around map selection. Just throwing in my two cents.
Thanks for having a debate, transparency is great. Plus I could talk about maps / SC2 all day so it's fun.
The new map I was talking about was the air/turtle map Paradise Lost. Although judging by your response that may have been the map you meant and you just got the names mixed up. For me, having the minerals (which aren't very easy to see, by the way, due to doodads) and the "air gate" on top of that layout is pretty noob/casual unfriendly, which I'm sure is why that rule is in there. But I don't think there's any more discussion to have there, since you either think it crosses the line or you don't.
@ Harmonize, that's my map so thanks for the feedback @ the ramp, I'll probably change that if I decide to ever make a new version and submit it in the future. @ it being not suitable for the rush category, we were told 35 seconds main ramp to main ramp or less, and Harmonize clocked in at 34, so should we have been told less? It seems a little unfair. Keep in mind the macro category still stated that maps should strongly encourage macro play, which I wasn't sure Harmonize really did that strongly, soo I submitted it to Rush because it met the requirements you guys listed. I think "hybrid" maps like this, aka maps that weren't really strongly Rush nor Macro, maps that equally allowed any kind of game, kind of got painted into a bad corner this TLMC. Not saying Harmonize would have finalized in Macro, but still, it's an ill feeling. I submitted another "in-between" map like this that clocked in at 30 sec rush distance into the Rush category and I wonder if it was discarded for the same reasons.
@ Cloud City, it certainly looks from the overview like the rush distance is pretty dang short. Maybe I misjudged the overview but I look at a ton of overviews and I'm pretty sure that main ramp to main ramp is less than 35.
@ Boardwalk, I 100% agree that ZvZ could be a potential shitfest, but I think every other MU could be fun. PvZ is not the issue you make it to be, IMO. It's pretty easy to hold a single 2x2 hole and your main ramp when the enemy has to send lings on a long, seperate walk to both locations. Like not even hard, honestly. In this case you simply pylon + adept at the 2x2 place, and since the 2x2 extends for quite some distance you put your initial 2x2 a little ways in, so that if they kill the first pylon you can place another behind it and still wall. Anyway, is ZvZ being hyper aggressive enough to death sentence the map? Maybe. I'd be interested to see what you thought of the map if Sidian simply added a neutral raised supply depot in the 2x2 hole.
@ interloper (actually I got the name wrong, it's Exosphere. Oops, too many maps to keep track of :O) I see your point. Maybe if he added a ramp down so that the third is a bit more defensible.
Honestly, I really dislike that maps have to be labelled "macro" or "rush." I would very much like to see a category in the middle, because this would fit there (along with a TON of other maps). 34 seconds R2R rush distance seems really weird to me as the definition for a rush map. I don't make the rules, but I'd think 30 should be the upper limit. Making the R2R rush distance limit lower and instituting a Macro/Rush category would be a really cool thing for them to consider for the next TLMC. I'll make sure to mention it to them.
No, I meant Bandarlog Ruins. But having the discussion about Paradise Lost, initially I wasn't super sold on it until the initial games from the first tournament played out. I completely agree that the line of sight blockers over the narrow path minerals should be removed at the very least. I'd also agree that the minerals should probably be removed, but that's more up for debate. The sky gate I think is a really cool feature since air blockers have been deemed acceptable.
Regarding Boardwalk, we have seen dual main entrances a couple of times. As the example that I've had the most experience with, let's take New Pompeii from Shoutcraft Clan Wars. This was a different beast, with both ramps being pretty wide, but every single game that I saw on it was a shitfest of ling bane all ins. Especially in LotV, with the game starting faster and Overlords being very ineffective ways of seeing a ling bane all in coming, I just really think this is a death sentence for a map.
My biggest problem with Exosphere is the lack of a third base for Zerg. Perhaps this could have been considered back in HotS, but with 3 larva per inject, I really don't think you can confine a Zerg to 2 bases. The 10/4 oclock bases are fare too difficult to defend against drops, and the rocks don't allow you to plant a third hatchers at the 7/1 expansions until far too late. From a Zerg perspective, that's the biggest issue for me. I also think that the rocks open up far too easy an attack angle on the natural base, that will be exceedingly difficult to hold for the other races.
I really appreciate you and Kantuva (on reddit) taking the time to have this kind of a debate. A fair bit of my experience with some mappers over the past year (most recently, Sunshine's not-so-veiled comment on the other thread saying that Avex and I are friends, Avex got 4 maps in, clearly rigged) has been insult ridden "arguments" rather than actual attempts to see each others' point of view. I think this kind of stuff is important and hopefully we can improve the format going forward.
On February 20 2017 17:04 Fatam wrote: Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
The macro maps section I don't have huge problems with, I would have chosen 1 or 2 differently but there's nothing egregious there.
I have an issue with the "New" category in that one of your finalists blatantly broke one of the contest rules and you ignored it. It's a cool map and I love its aesthetics but it absolutely breaks the rule which other people obeyed, so it seems unfair that he gets to go hogwild while we thought we couldn't.
Q: How crazy can my maps be? Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted.
Uh, hello? The map absolutely breaks the rule. Why else would you need videos and an essay to teach you the map lol.
Dracula by Timmay (although I sort of understand the exclusion given its similarity in concept to Sequencer. But I also think the two maps would play pretty differently) http://i.imgur.com/NhLGerC.jpg
Disappointment in some of the judging aside, some of the maps that made it are absolutely great, and there's no taking away from them, so I'm looking forward to seeing those make the ladder.
Congrats to the finalists and looking forward to the next TLMC!
Obviously a lot of issues have already been brought up, specifically the timeline being fairly absurd. Admittedly there just wasn't a lot of time to properly test the maps. I just wanted to address my personal opinion on the maps you mentioned (obviously subjective).
Regarding Interloper, I don't think it's a bad map at all, however I think that the third is simply too open. I can't really see a way for Protoss to hold a well executed Ravager-Ling-Bane attack. That's the biggest turn off for me, and perhaps it could use some adjustments such as destructible rocks blocking the entrance at the 12/6 o clock.
Battle on the Boardwalk honestly seems like nothing but a ling bane fest to me. It's meant to be a rush map, sure, but this would be a disaster in ZvZ, and probably extremely difficult in both TvZ and PvZ as well. I do not think two entrances to the main is a viable option. Having the back entrance only 2 hexes wide is a good idea, but you can't defend two locations in PvZ that early on when photon overcharge is a huge part in mounting such a defense.
On the subject of Cloud City, I just don't really see how this is a rush map, especially with a 34 second N2N rush distance. I see it more as an aggressive macro map, and a huge thing that jumps out to me is how insanely wide open the middle of the map is, with no effective area for P/T to take an engagement against Zerg. With proper creep spread and vision (easily obtained with the watchtower), Zerg can take engagements of a lifetime extremely easily, on the only real attack path (going around the side vs Z opens you waaaaay up to taking huge damage from counterattacks).
Harmonize has several key issues as well, one of which once again is that I just don't see this as a rush map. 38 second N2N rush distance is extremely long for a rush map, so the only real way this passes as one is because of the ramp being very exposed due to its positioning. This means that the ramp position is key in why it could be considered such a map, and at the same time, I think that the ramp being where it is is nonviable. It's crucial vs Zerg all ins for protoss to be able to rewall behind their initial wall, and the ramp position simply makes that impossible because there isn't enough space. Honestly I think the ramp position should have been moved, and it should have been submitted as a macro map. It's fairly easy to get to four bases, and the fifth isn't any more difficult than on standard macro maps, so I have no idea why this is in the rush category, except for that main-natural ramp (seen in spoiler below).
Regarding your comment on, what I assume is, Bandarlog Ruins, I do not think this breaks that rule. The rule references rising lava as an example of something too crazy, because you absolutely need to know it's there coming in. Bandarlog has really weird resource distribution, but as soon as you're in the game, you click a mineral patch (which are visibly depleted), and see "hey that has not very many minerals on it" and play accordingly. Sure it's going to take some time to figure out what is and isn't optimal on it, but that's the case for every "new" map.
Of course all of this is subjective, and I think it's very good to have a healthy debate around map selection. Just throwing in my two cents.
Thanks for having a debate, transparency is great. Plus I could talk about maps / SC2 all day so it's fun.
The new map I was talking about was the air/turtle map Paradise Lost. Although judging by your response that may have been the map you meant and you just got the names mixed up. For me, having the minerals (which aren't very easy to see, by the way, due to doodads) and the "air gate" on top of that layout is pretty noob/casual unfriendly, which I'm sure is why that rule is in there. But I don't think there's any more discussion to have there, since you either think it crosses the line or you don't.
@ Harmonize, that's my map so thanks for the feedback @ the ramp, I'll probably change that if I decide to ever make a new version and submit it in the future. @ it being not suitable for the rush category, we were told 35 seconds main ramp to main ramp or less, and Harmonize clocked in at 34, so should we have been told less? It seems a little unfair. Keep in mind the macro category still stated that maps should strongly encourage macro play, which I wasn't sure Harmonize really did that strongly, soo I submitted it to Rush because it met the requirements you guys listed. I think "hybrid" maps like this, aka maps that weren't really strongly Rush nor Macro, maps that equally allowed any kind of game, kind of got painted into a bad corner this TLMC. Not saying Harmonize would have finalized in Macro, but still, it's an ill feeling. I submitted another "in-between" map like this that clocked in at 30 sec rush distance into the Rush category and I wonder if it was discarded for the same reasons.
@ Cloud City, it certainly looks from the overview like the rush distance is pretty dang short. Maybe I misjudged the overview but I look at a ton of overviews and I'm pretty sure that main ramp to main ramp is less than 35.
@ Boardwalk, I 100% agree that ZvZ could be a potential shitfest, but I think every other MU could be fun. PvZ is not the issue you make it to be, IMO. It's pretty easy to hold a single 2x2 hole and your main ramp when the enemy has to send lings on a long, seperate walk to both locations. Like not even hard, honestly. In this case you simply pylon + adept at the 2x2 place, and since the 2x2 extends for quite some distance you put your initial 2x2 a little ways in, so that if they kill the first pylon you can place another behind it and still wall. Anyway, is ZvZ being hyper aggressive enough to death sentence the map? Maybe. I'd be interested to see what you thought of the map if Sidian simply added a neutral raised supply depot in the 2x2 hole.
@ interloper (actually I got the name wrong, it's Exosphere. Oops, too many maps to keep track of :O) I see your point. Maybe if he added a ramp down so that the third is a bit more defensible.
Honestly, I really dislike that maps have to be labelled "macro" or "rush." I would very much like to see a category in the middle, because this would fit there (along with a TON of other maps). 34 seconds R2R rush distance seems really weird to me as the definition for a rush map. I don't make the rules, but I'd think 30 should be the upper limit. Making the R2R rush distance limit lower and instituting a Macro/Rush category would be a really cool thing for them to consider for the next TLMC. I'll make sure to mention it to them.
No, I meant Bandarlog Ruins. But having the discussion about Paradise Lost, initially I wasn't super sold on it until the initial games from the first tournament played out. I completely agree that the line of sight blockers over the narrow path minerals should be removed at the very least. I'd also agree that the minerals should probably be removed, but that's more up for debate. The sky gate I think is a really cool feature since air blockers have been deemed acceptable.
Regarding Boardwalk, we have seen dual main entrances a couple of times. As the example that I've had the most experience with, let's take New Pompeii from Shoutcraft Clan Wars. This was a different beast, with both ramps being pretty wide, but every single game that I saw on it was a shitfest of ling bane all ins. Especially in LotV, with the game starting faster and Overlords being very ineffective ways of seeing a ling bane all in coming, I just really think this is a death sentence for a map.
My biggest problem with Exosphere is the lack of a third base for Zerg. Perhaps this could have been considered back in HotS, but with 3 larva per inject, I really don't think you can confine a Zerg to 2 bases. The 10/4 oclock bases are fare too difficult to defend against drops, and the rocks don't allow you to plant a third hatchers at the 7/1 expansions until far too late. From a Zerg perspective, that's the biggest issue for me. I also think that the rocks open up far too easy an attack angle on the natural base, that will be exceedingly difficult to hold for the other races.
I really appreciate you and Kantuva (on reddit) taking the time to have this kind of a debate. A fair bit of my experience with some mappers over the past year (most recently, Sunshine's not-so-veiled comment on the other thread saying that Avex and I are friends, Avex got 4 maps in, clearly rigged) has been insult ridden "arguments" rather than actual attempts to see each others' point of view. I think this kind of stuff is important and hopefully we can improve the format going forward.
Edit: added a point about Boardwalk
There we completely agree. I've been saying for a long time on discord, etc. that the categories for TLMC should simply be Standard and Nonstandard and leave it at that - and we'd have a much better time all around. No confusion and a much better finalist map pool result because you're not forced to take 3 experimental resource maps or whatever the weakest category is.
But monk/plexa said it's simply not possible due to the categories being Blizzard's thing. I thought that was a little shortsighted since a simple conversation with someone could probably change that, but hey, it is what it is.
On February 20 2017 17:04 Fatam wrote: Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
The macro maps section I don't have huge problems with, I would have chosen 1 or 2 differently but there's nothing egregious there.
I have an issue with the "New" category in that one of your finalists blatantly broke one of the contest rules and you ignored it. It's a cool map and I love its aesthetics but it absolutely breaks the rule which other people obeyed, so it seems unfair that he gets to go hogwild while we thought we couldn't.
Q: How crazy can my maps be? Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted.
Uh, hello? The map absolutely breaks the rule. Why else would you need videos and an essay to teach you the map lol.
Dracula by Timmay (although I sort of understand the exclusion given its similarity in concept to Sequencer. But I also think the two maps would play pretty differently) http://i.imgur.com/NhLGerC.jpg
Disappointment in some of the judging aside, some of the maps that made it are absolutely great, and there's no taking away from them, so I'm looking forward to seeing those make the ladder.
Congrats to the finalists and looking forward to the next TLMC!
Obviously a lot of issues have already been brought up, specifically the timeline being fairly absurd. Admittedly there just wasn't a lot of time to properly test the maps. I just wanted to address my personal opinion on the maps you mentioned (obviously subjective).
Regarding Interloper, I don't think it's a bad map at all, however I think that the third is simply too open. I can't really see a way for Protoss to hold a well executed Ravager-Ling-Bane attack. That's the biggest turn off for me, and perhaps it could use some adjustments such as destructible rocks blocking the entrance at the 12/6 o clock.
Battle on the Boardwalk honestly seems like nothing but a ling bane fest to me. It's meant to be a rush map, sure, but this would be a disaster in ZvZ, and probably extremely difficult in both TvZ and PvZ as well. I do not think two entrances to the main is a viable option. Having the back entrance only 2 hexes wide is a good idea, but you can't defend two locations in PvZ that early on when photon overcharge is a huge part in mounting such a defense.
On the subject of Cloud City, I just don't really see how this is a rush map, especially with a 34 second N2N rush distance. I see it more as an aggressive macro map, and a huge thing that jumps out to me is how insanely wide open the middle of the map is, with no effective area for P/T to take an engagement against Zerg. With proper creep spread and vision (easily obtained with the watchtower), Zerg can take engagements of a lifetime extremely easily, on the only real attack path (going around the side vs Z opens you waaaaay up to taking huge damage from counterattacks).
Harmonize has several key issues as well, one of which once again is that I just don't see this as a rush map. 38 second N2N rush distance is extremely long for a rush map, so the only real way this passes as one is because of the ramp being very exposed due to its positioning. This means that the ramp position is key in why it could be considered such a map, and at the same time, I think that the ramp being where it is is nonviable. It's crucial vs Zerg all ins for protoss to be able to rewall behind their initial wall, and the ramp position simply makes that impossible because there isn't enough space. Honestly I think the ramp position should have been moved, and it should have been submitted as a macro map. It's fairly easy to get to four bases, and the fifth isn't any more difficult than on standard macro maps, so I have no idea why this is in the rush category, except for that main-natural ramp (seen in spoiler below).
Regarding your comment on, what I assume is, Bandarlog Ruins, I do not think this breaks that rule. The rule references rising lava as an example of something too crazy, because you absolutely need to know it's there coming in. Bandarlog has really weird resource distribution, but as soon as you're in the game, you click a mineral patch (which are visibly depleted), and see "hey that has not very many minerals on it" and play accordingly. Sure it's going to take some time to figure out what is and isn't optimal on it, but that's the case for every "new" map.
Of course all of this is subjective, and I think it's very good to have a healthy debate around map selection. Just throwing in my two cents.
Thanks for having a debate, transparency is great. Plus I could talk about maps / SC2 all day so it's fun.
The new map I was talking about was the air/turtle map Paradise Lost. Although judging by your response that may have been the map you meant and you just got the names mixed up. For me, having the minerals (which aren't very easy to see, by the way, due to doodads) and the "air gate" on top of that layout is pretty noob/casual unfriendly, which I'm sure is why that rule is in there. But I don't think there's any more discussion to have there, since you either think it crosses the line or you don't.
@ Harmonize, that's my map so thanks for the feedback @ the ramp, I'll probably change that if I decide to ever make a new version and submit it in the future. @ it being not suitable for the rush category, we were told 35 seconds main ramp to main ramp or less, and Harmonize clocked in at 34, so should we have been told less? It seems a little unfair. Keep in mind the macro category still stated that maps should strongly encourage macro play, which I wasn't sure Harmonize really did that strongly, soo I submitted it to Rush because it met the requirements you guys listed. I think "hybrid" maps like this, aka maps that weren't really strongly Rush nor Macro, maps that equally allowed any kind of game, kind of got painted into a bad corner this TLMC. Not saying Harmonize would have finalized in Macro, but still, it's an ill feeling. I submitted another "in-between" map like this that clocked in at 30 sec rush distance into the Rush category and I wonder if it was discarded for the same reasons.
@ Cloud City, it certainly looks from the overview like the rush distance is pretty dang short. Maybe I misjudged the overview but I look at a ton of overviews and I'm pretty sure that main ramp to main ramp is less than 35.
@ Boardwalk, I 100% agree that ZvZ could be a potential shitfest, but I think every other MU could be fun. PvZ is not the issue you make it to be, IMO. It's pretty easy to hold a single 2x2 hole and your main ramp when the enemy has to send lings on a long, seperate walk to both locations. Like not even hard, honestly. In this case you simply pylon + adept at the 2x2 place, and since the 2x2 extends for quite some distance you put your initial 2x2 a little ways in, so that if they kill the first pylon you can place another behind it and still wall. Anyway, is ZvZ being hyper aggressive enough to death sentence the map? Maybe. I'd be interested to see what you thought of the map if Sidian simply added a neutral raised supply depot in the 2x2 hole.
@ interloper (actually I got the name wrong, it's Exosphere. Oops, too many maps to keep track of :O) I see your point. Maybe if he added a ramp down so that the third is a bit more defensible.
Honestly, I really dislike that maps have to be labelled "macro" or "rush." I would very much like to see a category in the middle, because this would fit there (along with a TON of other maps). 34 seconds R2R rush distance seems really weird to me as the definition for a rush map. I don't make the rules, but I'd think 30 should be the upper limit. Making the R2R rush distance limit lower and instituting a Macro/Rush category would be a really cool thing for them to consider for the next TLMC. I'll make sure to mention it to them.
No, I meant Bandarlog Ruins. But having the discussion about Paradise Lost, initially I wasn't super sold on it until the initial games from the first tournament played out. I completely agree that the line of sight blockers over the narrow path minerals should be removed at the very least. I'd also agree that the minerals should probably be removed, but that's more up for debate. The sky gate I think is a really cool feature since air blockers have been deemed acceptable.
Regarding Boardwalk, we have seen dual main entrances a couple of times. As the example that I've had the most experience with, let's take New Pompeii from Shoutcraft Clan Wars. This was a different beast, with both ramps being pretty wide, but every single game that I saw on it was a shitfest of ling bane all ins. Especially in LotV, with the game starting faster and Overlords being very ineffective ways of seeing a ling bane all in coming, I just really think this is a death sentence for a map.
My biggest problem with Exosphere is the lack of a third base for Zerg. Perhaps this could have been considered back in HotS, but with 3 larva per inject, I really don't think you can confine a Zerg to 2 bases. The 10/4 oclock bases are fare too difficult to defend against drops, and the rocks don't allow you to plant a third hatchers at the 7/1 expansions until far too late. From a Zerg perspective, that's the biggest issue for me. I also think that the rocks open up far too easy an attack angle on the natural base, that will be exceedingly difficult to hold for the other races.
I really appreciate you and Kantuva (on reddit) taking the time to have this kind of a debate. A fair bit of my experience with some mappers over the past year (most recently, Sunshine's not-so-veiled comment on the other thread saying that Avex and I are friends, Avex got 4 maps in, clearly rigged) has been insult ridden "arguments" rather than actual attempts to see each others' point of view. I think this kind of stuff is important and hopefully we can improve the format going forward.
Edit: added a point about Boardwalk
There we completely agree. I've been saying for a long time on discord, etc. that the categories for TLMC should simply be Standard and Nonstandard and leave it at that - and we'd have a much better time all around. No confusion and a much better finalist map pool result because you're not forced to take 3 experimental resource maps or whatever the weakest category is.
But monk/plexa said it's simply not possible due to the categories being Blizzard's thing. I thought that was a little shortsighted since a simple conversation with someone could probably change that, but hey, it is what it is.
Conversations have apparently been had, but I'm gonna shoot Blizz a message about it in the morning. I don't mind the categories, but I think it'd be great to have a middle ground one.
On February 20 2017 18:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: eremita also has 2 open entrances to the main and it made it in, just saying
Yeah, Eremita did not get a yes vote from me. The difference there is that the high ground advantage for the defender makes it something of a different beast to Boardwalk. I'm still not comfortable with it, but it's not quite the same.
On February 20 2017 17:04 Fatam wrote: Well said Ziggurat. Especially great points regarding the force field map.
I think there is another map or two you could include in the questionable category, but you more or less covered it.
I also think there were some serious snubs. If we only address the Rush Category, let me show you all the maps (that I've seen) that I think were more qualified than 2 out of the 3 Rush finalists, or maybe even 3/3:
Yes, I believe ALL of those Rush maps are better than 2, maybe 3 of the 3 Rush finalists. And there's some others I would include too but I wasn't sure if their authors submitted them as Rush, such as KTV Aurora and one of timmay's.
Totally agreed with this.
All of the maps in the New and Experimental category are terrible with the exception of Paradise Lost, which needs to lose the bizarre "mining in the narrow path" mechanic (WTF).
I like Acolyte (the bush at the 3rd needs to be removed), Ascension to Aiur, Hwangsan, but these are all quite standard, and Hunger Game.
Many of the better maps or more interesting maps got robbed such as Exosphere, Ophilia, Harmonize, Broken Earth, Aurora, Fridge, Dark Stone.
On February 20 2017 18:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: eremita also has 2 open entrances to the main and it made it in, just saying
Yeah, Eremita did not get a yes vote from me. The difference there is that the high ground advantage for the defender makes it something of a different beast to Boardwalk. I'm still not comfortable with it, but it's not quite the same.
glad to see some of the judges had some sense on that... personally i think eremita's backdoor is worse than boardwalk since the rush distance is shorter, and it's much easier to switch attack paths (on boardwalk you have to commit to attacking the backdoor all the way from your own main)
On February 20 2017 18:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: eremita also has 2 open entrances to the main and it made it in, just saying
Yeah, Eremita did not get a yes vote from me. The difference there is that the high ground advantage for the defender makes it something of a different beast to Boardwalk. I'm still not comfortable with it, but it's not quite the same.
glad to see some of the judges had some sense on that... personally i think eremita's backdoor is worse than boardwalk since the rush distance is shorter, and it's much easier to switch attack paths (on boardwalk you have to commit to attacking the backdoor all the way from your own main)
Eremita also has one of the shortest rush distances of all time through the front, it really doesn't do anyone any favors that it also has a backdoor into the main.
On February 20 2017 18:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: eremita also has 2 open entrances to the main and it made it in, just saying
Yeah, Eremita did not get a yes vote from me. The difference there is that the high ground advantage for the defender makes it something of a different beast to Boardwalk. I'm still not comfortable with it, but it's not quite the same.
glad to see some of the judges had some sense on that... personally i think eremita's backdoor is worse than boardwalk since the rush distance is shorter, and it's much easier to switch attack paths (on boardwalk you have to commit to attacking the backdoor all the way from your own main)
Eremita also has one of the shortest rush distances of all time through the front, it really doesn't do anyone any favors that it also has a backdoor into the main.
Yeah, agreed. I get that it's a rush map so it fits the theme, but for THAT short of a rush distance you have to have something defensive to compensate. Instead, it has another offensive thing.. lol
On February 20 2017 18:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: eremita also has 2 open entrances to the main and it made it in, just saying
Yeah, Eremita did not get a yes vote from me. The difference there is that the high ground advantage for the defender makes it something of a different beast to Boardwalk. I'm still not comfortable with it, but it's not quite the same.
glad to see some of the judges had some sense on that... personally i think eremita's backdoor is worse than boardwalk since the rush distance is shorter, and it's much easier to switch attack paths (on boardwalk you have to commit to attacking the backdoor all the way from your own main)
Definitely a valid point, however with the position of the debris/neutral depot on Eremita, it's also worth considering that there's substantially less surface area to attack the defending building, and it can actually be walled in by a single unit (I.E. a Zealot), unlike on Boardwalk (images below).
Edit: The Core/Gateway wall to the top in the image is also a full wall in
Also was the "Experimental Resource" category a bit on the weak side? Ej_ and I played on Blood Boil, and it really didn't feel particularly special. Did it just not have enough good competition in this category?
I don't think it's a bad map by any means but I was very surprised to see it in the finals.
On February 20 2017 19:11 Elentos wrote: Also was the "Experimental Resource" category a bit on the weak side? Ej_ and I played on Blood Boil, and it really didn't feel particularly special. Did it just not have enough good competition in this category?
I don't think it's a bad map by any means but I was very surprised to see it in the finals.
Yes, it was. For reference, it only had 14 submissions, compared to 41, 32 and 24 in Macro, Rush and New respectively.
On February 20 2017 19:11 Elentos wrote: Also was the "Experimental Resource" category a bit on the weak side? Ej_ and I played on Blood Boil, and it really didn't feel particularly special. Did it just not have enough good competition in this category?
I don't think it's a bad map by any means but I was very surprised to see it in the finals.
yes, only 14 submissions according to the OP. the problem was the short timespan, this category was announced out of the blue with ~10 days until the deadline. modifying resource values has never been allowed so nobody had existing maps to submit in this category, and we haven't even thought about how this could affect maps so a lot of people just stuck to what they know.
About to go to bed, but just one thing I wanted to add since I was thinking about it - Yes some of the maps I linked, you detailed your problems with, and I agreed with some of your points - yet the rush maps that made finalist have arguably much larger, gamebreaking issues and you guys let them in.
For instance, can Z really take a third without having to build a bit of an army first on Hunger Game? Whereas T or P getting a nat is no prob, so Z is automatically behind in any game in which they don't 2 base all-in.
Maxwell Platform I think huge asymmetry probably trumps any other issue. If someone gets middle spawn instead of cross spawns then the middle spawn definitely has an advantage, no question about it.
I think everyone has said their piece on Eremita so no need there.
On February 20 2017 19:21 Fatam wrote: About to go to bed, but just one thing I wanted to add since I was thinking about it - Yes some of the maps I linked, you detailed your problems with, and I agreed with some of your points - yet the rush maps that made finalist have arguably much larger, gamebreaking issues and you guys let them in.
For instance, can Z really take a third without having to build a bit of an army first on Hunger Game? Whereas T or P getting a nat is no prob, so Z is automatically behind in any game in which they don't 2 base all-in.
Maxwell Platform I think huge asymmetry probably trumps any other issue. If someone gets middle spawn instead of cross spawns then the middle spawn definitely has an advantage, no question about it.
I think everyone has said their piece on Eremita so no need there.
Regarding Maxwell, I thought it was an interesting map that should be seen play out. My biggest qualm initially was that the natural ramps were too wide, but we had that fixed. There could well be issues with it, but given the time constraints, we weren't able to properly test it.
Hunger Game I think is difficult for Zerg to take a 3rd on, but not to the extent of Exosphere. I would categorize Hunger Game as a map that is unfavorable for Zerg, but not unreasonably so (such as Frozen Temple). I actually think the location of the third makes some forms of harass that are difficult to deal with easier to handle, such as Liberators needing to siege up inside the main and being easily dealt with by Queens. Drops will be hard, but with the safe natural, if we're looking at, for example, a standard 2-1-1, you aren't going to have Drones there anyway, and with how open the area is around the third, it's easy to take good engagements with Zerglings. With Exosphere, you can't even plant a hatchery down vs Terran until your speed kicks in because the lings will take so long to run around to deal with a reaper just sitting there.
@pengwin: kind of irrelevant but i'm wondering why you think the 3rds on exosphere, which can be connected to the nat with 2 creep tumors, are so difficult for z compared to other standard maps with a similar linear 3 base layout such as overgrowth.
On February 20 2017 20:13 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: kind of irrelevant but i'm wondering why you think the 3rds on exosphere, which can be connected to the nat with 2 creep tumors, are so difficult for z compared to other standard maps with a similar linear 3 base layout such as overgrowth.
My issue with the base layout of Exosphere is that the 10/4 o'clock bases aren't viable 3rd bases for Zerg when they're so easily assaulted by a 3 base push from the other races since they're super close to the opponent's 3rd. I'd be uncomfortable even taking at as 4th base, it'd be my natural 5th base.
On February 20 2017 20:13 -NegativeZero- wrote: @pengwin: kind of irrelevant but i'm wondering why you think the 3rds on exosphere, which can be connected to the nat with 2 creep tumors, are so difficult for z compared to other standard maps with a similar linear 3 base layout such as overgrowth.
My issue with the base layout of Exosphere is that the 10/4 o'clock bases aren't viable 3rd bases for Zerg when they're so easily assaulted by a 3 base push from the other races since they're super close to the opponent's 3rd. I'd be uncomfortable even taking at as 4th base, it'd be my natural 5th base.
good point, i guess that's the downside of having multiple 3rd options on a small map
I don't see how Maxwell can possibly be balanced. The middle position is quite different from the other ones. If you make it to the macro game, the middle guy almost gets 2/3 of the map?
The macro maps seem fairly balanced and interesting. If they make it to ladder most of the experimental / rush maps will be automatic vetoes for me though. There are blatant issues here that other people have already described.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
I disagree with the caveat that horizontal spawns should be disabled. I think in that scenario, enough bases are accessible to play it out. I also think that the idea is cool, and maybe with some number tweaking on the minerals, it can be a really cool experiment to see how it plays out.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
The map was entered in the 'experimental'-category. It totally changes what is thinkable as an early game.
As the author of the map i want to quickly sketch out my ideas behind this: 4spawn maps are either huge with basically free bases or have too short rush distances. When this TLMC opened up the possibility to tweak the resources I came up with the following concept:
- 4 spawn map with acceptable distances, but good possibilities for rushing when in vertical or horizontal spawn - low eco main, mid eco nat, regular eco thirds and then golds to favor quick expansion - players will have fewer resources to reach a mid game - gamble-situation when player decide for the timing-attack, because more bases mean a much bigger economical edge, when the aggressive player mines out very fast - economy LotV does not favor players who expand further than 3-4bases (at a time). I wanted to create a map the stretches the players out more, basically they want to expand fast and possibly overextend - scouting time window is smaller in LotV than ever before, this is an issue on 4 spawn maps and the low eco main is a reaction to this
I do not say that the low eco situation creates macro games even on short rush distance spawns, but I am happy to see the judges are willing to see this play out. It is an experimental map and I think there are quite some people who are interested to see what such a radical intervention in LotV-economy will do to the early game and how player deal with it.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
I disagree with the caveat that horizontal spawns should be disabled. I think in that scenario, enough bases are accessible to play it out. I also think that the idea is cool, and maybe with some number tweaking on the minerals, it can be a really cool experiment to see how it plays out.
I am open for any input on how the minerals should be set. since this is an experiment really I went with rather large steps also to make the concept clear and visible.
edit: although it is a large map it is not overly huge in vertical spawn positions especially. It is rather a question of scouting.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
The map was entered in the 'experimental'-category. It totally changes what is thinkable as an early game.
As the author of the map i want to quickly sketch out my ideas behind this: 4spawn maps are either huge with basically free bases or have too short rush distances. When this TLMC opened up the possibility to tweak the resources I came up with the following concept:
- 4 spawn map with acceptable distances, but good possibilities for rushing when in vertical or horizontal spawn - low eco main, mid eco nat, regular eco thirds and then golds to favor quick expansion - players will have fewer resources to reach a mid game - gamble-situation when player decide for the timing-attack, because more bases mean a much bigger economical edge, when the aggressive player mines out very fast - economy LotV does not favor players who expand further than 3-4bases (at a time). I wanted to create a map the stretches the players out more, basically they want to expand fast and possibly overextend - scouting time window is smaller in LotV than ever before, this is an issue on 4 spawn maps and the low eco main is a reaction to this
I do not say that the low eco situation creates macro games even on short rush distance spawns, but I am happy to see the judges are willing to see this play out. It is an experimental map and I think there are quite some people who are interested to see what such a radical intervention in LotV-economy will do to the early game and how player deal with it.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
I disagree with the caveat that horizontal spawns should be disabled. I think in that scenario, enough bases are accessible to play it out. I also think that the idea is cool, and maybe with some number tweaking on the minerals, it can be a really cool experiment to see how it plays out.
I am open for any input on how the minerals should be set. since this is an experiment really I went with rather large steps also to make the concept clear and visible.
edit: although it is a large map it is not overly huge in vertical spawn positions especially. It is rather a question of scouting.
Might be beneficial to maynard 8 workers to the nat when it finishes, contrary to literally every other map, then?
If your main has a small amount of available minerals, it seems to me you'd want to stretch those out so you don't end up with redundant workers. Should slow down the mining out speed, which he was originally complaining about.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
The map was entered in the 'experimental'-category. It totally changes what is thinkable as an early game.
As the author of the map i want to quickly sketch out my ideas behind this: 4spawn maps are either huge with basically free bases or have too short rush distances. When this TLMC opened up the possibility to tweak the resources I came up with the following concept:
- 4 spawn map with acceptable distances, but good possibilities for rushing when in vertical or horizontal spawn - low eco main, mid eco nat, regular eco thirds and then golds to favor quick expansion - players will have fewer resources to reach a mid game - gamble-situation when player decide for the timing-attack, because more bases mean a much bigger economical edge, when the aggressive player mines out very fast - economy LotV does not favor players who expand further than 3-4bases (at a time). I wanted to create a map the stretches the players out more, basically they want to expand fast and possibly overextend - scouting time window is smaller in LotV than ever before, this is an issue on 4 spawn maps and the low eco main is a reaction to this
I do not say that the low eco situation creates macro games even on short rush distance spawns, but I am happy to see the judges are willing to see this play out. It is an experimental map and I think there are quite some people who are interested to see what such a radical intervention in LotV-economy will do to the early game and how player deal with it.
On February 20 2017 21:50 StraKo wrote: i just wanted a classic macro map like akilon waste or coda :/
Edit: i wonder if someone even played "BANDARLOG RUINS". You're main is literally mined out after a few minutes. The map is unplayable.
It's a huge macro map, but you simply don't have the ressources to play anything related to "macro".
I disagree with the caveat that horizontal spawns should be disabled. I think in that scenario, enough bases are accessible to play it out. I also think that the idea is cool, and maybe with some number tweaking on the minerals, it can be a really cool experiment to see how it plays out.
I am open for any input on how the minerals should be set. since this is an experiment really I went with rather large steps also to make the concept clear and visible.
edit: although it is a large map it is not overly huge in vertical spawn positions especially. It is rather a question of scouting.
First off, love the map. One of my favorite concepts. Regarding the mineral numbers, I think we'll have to see how the TLMC games on it go to judge whether it's good or whether it needs a slight increase. My biggest note is that I think horizontal spawn should be removed, purely because in maps with a *somewhat* similar layout of bases, horizontal tends to be very difficult to play since you'll be a little pressed to expand towards your opponent past the fourth base, and obviously more expansions is the entire point of this map.
On February 20 2017 22:22 MarinePrince wrote: A lot of them look like a lot of fun. Too bad Blizzard won't actually use any of these...
I'm guessing you're new here, or you're just saying the maps are so bad blizzard wouldn't use them. Blizzard oversees the TLMC. They sponsor it. They pick maps from the contest and see if any are worthy of ladder. There's been a good chunk of TLMC finalists over the years that have made ladder.
Congratulations to the finalists, and thank you map makers for putting life on hold to work hard on the creations submitted in the past few weeks, it was fun looking through them in detail on their threads (for the ones that had them)+ Show Spoiler +
come on Timmay lol
I do stand with many of the opinions here on snubbed maps, I think they were snubbed because of the time limits given, even pengwin says that the maps chosen need to be played on in the tournament to see how they work.
I want to ask, how was the timeline of this entire event actually given to the TL team?
Did you get 1 week to design/organize the event, 1 week to get maps in?
Are any of the judges map makers themselves?
I feel like this information mightve been handy to teamliquid staff before Christmas even, so why the short and seemingly careless time line on actually going through the maps? Or are we all wrong?
phew, I had never before received such little community... "communitiness" (acknowledgement) about any of my creations in the past. I was about to go seppuku in a corner. Thank you for mentioning Ophilia, paralleluniverse.
Congratulations to all the finalists! I'm happy that two of my four maps ended up getting into the top 15 but I'm also a little sad because I was really hoping Battle on the Boardwalk would have made it since that was the map I was most happy about. Either way, here are some of my initial thoughts regarding the maps!
Macro Acolyte:
Solid 3 base setup. I think the inbase natural is a little weird with mineral placement and amount of space behind some of the minerals/gas. Can a siege tank hit the gas from the forward 4th? Can you blink across? If that's the case you'll probably want to always grab your forward 4th to help defend your inbase but then it's super easy to ping pong between the inbase & forward 4th when harassing. Expanding horizontally is the "safe" way imo as it does keep you farther back from your opponent although expect tons of attacks to focus your inbase natural to constantly force you to funnel through chokes & ramps & simcity to defend.
Ascension to Aiur:
My map, no comment. Enjoy friends!
Asteroid Barricade:
I remember talking to Negative about this map a little bit as he was working it up and the only thing I was really concerned with about this map was the amount of chokes. It's a big 2 player macro map but into every single base is basically a 2x wide ramp. There really isn't a whole ton of open space next to any of the base expansions for the most part which scares me. Stopping that 2 base tank marine push with access to the ramps & chokes and being able to lift from your forward 3rd to your main is scary scary scary. Also end game, zerg will have to focus on counter attacks 24/7 I believe since unless you're in a very few specific open spots it's going to be hard to engage.
Hwangsan:
Get rid of backdoor, win hearts of all! It's a good, solid macro map. Choice of 3rds makes it interesting, either 3rd leads to a good 4th. I know this map got a ton of testing before and I think it shows as there really aren't any glaring problems I see.
Paradisia:
My map, no comment. Enjoy friends!
Windwalker:
I think the map plays out pretty awesome if and only if you expand horizontally. I told Avex about this already as well so he knows my feelings on this. I feel unless you are going for a type of 3 base only mentallity you should always expand horizontally. Expanding vertically doesn't make sense since then grabbing a 4th is going to be soooo much more difficult. You either take the 4th that's at 3/9 positions with the super exposed minerals/gas or your take the one that hugs your main but now that spreads your army out super thin. I still thinking getting rid of highground section with the rocks/ramp would be better. You could then rework the vertical base, still have plenty of options but possible make it a little more viable to expand either way.
Think you expand horizontally you get the 3rd that hugs your main, the 4th right up a ramp, a 5th that is protected by your 4th, then a 6th that's tucked away in the corner. It just flows a ton better imo.
Rush
Eremita:
Super super super super short rush distance. Even building 3 rax reaper in your main base is basically still proxying since reapers are going to take about 5 seconds to get from your base to his (<3!). I also don't get the point of having the backdoor base only six minerals? It's already hard enough to expand on this map and now you're going to give a disadvantage to the person who expands by limiting his minerals? It's basically saying 1-base or die 24/7 on this map. Unless both players 1 base long enough they both mine out then any non-terran player gets screwed because they had to spend 400 minerals on a new base.
Expanding forward for a natural is a death threat because you now have multiple attack paths (plus the backdoor still) but if you lose control of the watchtower it really sucks for you as pushes utilizing that path will be tough.
Hunger Game:
I think you're going to see protoss proxy all day every day on this map. Especially since you could proxy stargate anywhere in the backdoor and unless there is an overlord/reaper constantly patrolling that entire backdoor path you're shit outta luck since getting a non cliffwalk/flying unit back there is impossible. Protoss in general will be so abusive on this map between proxying, placing pylons behind mineral walls / on top of cliffs to warp in on the backdoor. Think about terran doing any type of drop. Hey, good luck defending your 3rd and your backdoor as I doomdrop all my marines/tanks on your forward 3rd then lift off and take out your backdoor. And yes, you're basically forced to take the backdoor natural as your natural in 100% of the games which means once you take a 3rd (if you even can) it will get abused hard.
Maxwell Platform:
Even though there are two entrances into the natural, I think with having the rocks it "should" be alright. Although, it does make me think zerg might early pool everygame against protoss just because I don't think they would be able to handle much early pressure because they wouldn't be able to take a set of rocks down fast enough and walling off both sides early isn't possible. I think this map would just play out better if you took out the middle spawn and just had it a two player map with the corner spawns. Also, the 2 & 8 bunch of bases is ridiculous. It's basically 3 bases behind two 2x ramps. Once you get one, you get them all! :D
New Maps
Paradise Lost:
What is the point of ever getting an island base when you can grab 5 ground bases that are all extremely close to you and all 5 of those bases are in 1 choke. It's 5 ground base on almost a single choke? It's limited as hell in movement. Even all the ground bases are choked so hard because there are d-rocks at every single base. I suppose if you want skytoss to do even better than they are or terran to choke up the single ramp and parade push better than they are, then sure, this map does that.
I don't get why you make a ton of easy to defend ground bases, then try to incorperate air blockers & 3 island bases". Do one or the other. Make it hard to expand unless you do islands. I drew up a design in your thread that I think would have made the map a ton better.
Geumsangsan:
I feel like this map doesn't do anything...new? And please don't tell me it's "new" because of forcefields. Change forcefields to destructible rocks and it's the same exact thing, only better because at least rocks don't care if you're terran, protoss or zerg. Your main minerals are super vulnerable. Your 3rd (assuming you can't take the inbase natural) is super wide open or super harassable and spreads you out far. To me this map seems like it was probably submit as a Macro/New and the only reason it got chosen was because there was already 6 better macro maps so let's throw it in "new" because it has forcefields. I do like the look of it with the orange/fall setting but between the forcefields, the exposed main minerals & the unsafe viable (non-inbase) 3rds makes me not really a fan.
Sequencer:
I think there are way too many rocks on this map. It's already super choked enough with all the ramps that I don't see the point in have almost any of the rocks besides the one that covers your 1/2 base and that is only because it then limits the chokes to your natural to 1. Terran are going to reign supreme on this map with tank/bio/widow mine. Can set up tanks almost anyplace to shell possible bases or to at least force you up ramps to defend. I think you're basically better off ignoring your 1/2 base and just expanding horizontally since it's all full bases and keeps you the farthest from your enemy. I worry about end game on this map as well since getting surrounds will be next to impossible and movement around the map will feel sluggish until you kill all the rocks (again, do they serve a purpose other than being annoying?) Can reapers get up next to the ramp by your 1/2 base? I don't have time to load the map up but that could be a major problem if they are since your entire main base is "reaper-able" and hiding extra proxy rax would be super easy on this map.
Experimental
Keres Passage:
Some of the flow and movement around the map feels strange as you either go through the super choked off middle or have to swing all the way around bottom. I feel like mid game could be tough because you could see a lot of basetrade scenarios if one person is attack northern and the other goes southern. I think that's just the style of symmetry is hard to do though. Also, are the main/natural/full 3rd different in minerals/gas at all? Otherwise the only "resource experiment" is after 3 base economy? I mean, the majority of games don't go past 3 base economy so we'll almost never see any of the resource experimentation. I guess maybe someone could take a hidden gold possibly? Either way, with the limited movement/flow around the top & bottom sides and having almost no point taking any of the "1/2 or gold" bases until after 3 base I don't really care for this map that much.
Bandarlog Ruins:
I think you either see massive early cheese or you just see terran lifting to the 3rd to get that full base and just take the gold as their natural. Or lift to the 3rd that's vertical of them and then you only have to defend the ramp! (Plus a scouting unit would most likely scout every single base before realizing your not in either of the mains lol) I mean, you're basically spending a 1/4 of your main minerals to build a CC (exagerrating sure). Mineral fields are also super close to the edges of the map (either bounds or cliffs) which I dislike since it makes it harder to defend libs/drops/harass and makes it so you don't have many places to surround said drops or to place static d behind your minerals if needed.
It is experimental though and I think it fits this category the best so even though I'm not a fan of it and if something like it did get ladder it'd just get veto'ed 100% of the time, I still think it's the best choice for this category.
Blood Boil:
First off, what is that, a map overview for ants?
Doesn't this just map just heavily benefit the aggressive player since expanding forward you get full bases? Aka, Terran every game? I also just think the pathways around your main/nat/3rd/4th are just super super awkward and super choked off. You have the backdoor rock tower but if any toss/terran get back there you're screwed since it's a super choked off pathway and having the high ground advantage does nothing in sc2. Again, I don't have time to get in game and explore. It's just super hard to read this map from the overview alone, maybe from it being so tiny!
Also your natural placement is going to be very awkward movement with an army once you get that cc/hatch/nexus down because it'll block any type of concave you want to get from the backdoor. Honestly, the whole backdoor part of the map just boggles my mind and makes me dislike it. I feel the part with the rock tower, that pathway, you could just get rid of and then basically you're on 2 and 1/2 base under one choke, which...isn't bad at all, especially since there could still be plenty of harass.
---
So, with all that said. Rush is definitely the weakest category by far. Like, all 3 of the rush maps, I don't like at all. Although it's probably me being a little more biased since I submit Boardwalk into new/rush and I feel it's a lot better than the other Rush maps! Macro is definitely the strongest category, but that should be obvious since it's the most..err.."Standard" of maps.
After I get out of work tonight maybe I'll list my favorite maps out of these 15 chosen. How I would rank these 15 against each other. We'll see! :D
---
Huge shout out to blizzard for hosting this event but most importantly, Team Liquid for all the hard work you guys do. No matter what, people will disagree with maps and you guys put a shit ton of time and effort into this mapping community and I don't believe you get the respect you deserve. Thank you! Looking forward to TLMC9! =)
I really enjoyed watching games on the map with forcefields ) awesome new idea on the maps and also the very cool map with islands is paradise lost, and really reminding of bw cool map on which i would love to ladder is sequencer
On February 20 2017 22:58 Broodie wrote: phew, I had never before received such little community... "communitiness" (acknowledgement) about any of my creations in the past. I was about to go seppuku in a corner. Thank you for mentioning Ophilia, paralleluniverse.
No problems. Ophilia is the most aesthetically appealing map in the contest. It's also got a really unique design with its expansion placement and the high ground protecting the natural. Should have definitely made it.
The map files for Asteroid Barricade and Bandarlog Ruins have problems like bad ramps and bad pathing. These issues were known earlier and changed over the weekend – and well in time before the results were published. Somehow the old files were still used and upload with the TLMC tag.
Since I redid all ramps, fixed clipping issues, etc. and provided corrected files in time I want to ask everyone who wants to play these maps: please use my private uploads, not the ones that are tagged with TLMC. Information about the changes can be found in the according map threads.
edit: TLMC8 Bandarlog Ruins and TLMC8 Asteroid Barricade were updated after old files were used for the upload before. Apologies to all players from everyone involved and hf playing the maps.
For me personally, this tlmc has been a very demotivating experience so far. Why did everything have to be so rushed this time? Last tlmc there was a post about the upcoming contest and clarifying categories, rules beforehand. Now 10 days of submitting with changing rules half way? Three days of judging, that even get shorten to ~24h? It feels to me that you are judging books by their covers or decide oskar nominees by the quality of their trailers. By what Pengwin posted here and by some of saturday's games showing blatant issues, this impression doesn't seem too far off. I do appreciate you doing this contest, but it is a huge step backwards from tlmc 7.
The macro maps look pretty solid and "Paradise Lost" + "Sequencer" are great as well (pretty standard though for being "new maps"). Would be a huge surprise if any of the top 5 won't be one of those 8 maps.
On February 20 2017 18:40 PengWin_SC wrote: I really appreciate you and Kantuva (on reddit) taking the time to have this kind of a debate. A fair bit of my experience with some mappers over the past year (most recently, Sunshine's not-so-veiled comment on the other thread saying that Avex and I are friends, Avex got 4 maps in, clearly rigged) has been insult ridden "arguments" rather than actual attempts to see each others' point of view. I think this kind of stuff is important and hopefully we can improve the format going forward.
Edit: added a point about Boardwalk
I want to apologize for that, I'm recognizing that I get emotional about the results of the TLMC, and as a result I want to find fault with whatever I can, but posts like that aren't doing me or anyone any favors. I agree about trying to move forward with more productive discussion. And I really appreciate the posts you've been making in this thread, having that kind of illumination on the judging process - though incomplete - is great. And though I have maps I personally would rather see as finalists, I can accept these results, and will simply try to do better next time. Sorry if I soured your impression of me or the community in any way.
Eremita might actually be the worst map ever made. 12 pool drone rush every game Zerg is in.
Walling off your natural on Hunger Game seems to be next to impossible.
The 3 o'clock position on Maxwell Platform seems massively favored. It basically gets 4 bases that are further away from the opponent than the opponent's natural is from the 3 o'clock spawn.
Once again, putting "Rush" as a category has produced terrible maps. Of course, one of these will make it in to the map pool because Blizzard only cares about excitement and game-ending damage and not actual skill.
Congratulations to finalists and to all who submitted the maps. You guys are awesome.
I'm no expert on maps so I'm not gonna comment on the maps. However, I do feel the timing is a bit rush this time around. I wish we have started the competition sooner so mapmakers could have a bit more time to think over and get more feedbacks from community. I feel like the competition was just started yesterday or something and now we chose the finalists already. From a daily TL reader standpoint, I barely get to see all the maps, let alone anything else.
On February 21 2017 02:45 Solar424 wrote: Eremita might actually be the worst map ever made. 12 pool drone rush every game Zerg is in.
Walling off your natural on Hunger Game seems to be next to impossible.
The 3 o'clock position on Maxwell Platform seems massively favored. It basically gets 4 bases that are further away from the opponent than the opponent's natural is from the 3 o'clock spawn.
Once again, putting "Rush" as a category has produced terrible maps. Of course, one of these will make it in to the map pool because Blizzard only cares about excitement and game-ending damage and not actual skill.
I think the rush category was bound to give terrible maps. I know some people actually enjoyed Ulrena but I really don't think this is a map category SC2 genuinely needs right now. And even if that's the case, aggressive maps are ok, rush maps where something built in your base is basically a standard map proxy are simply retarded.
I would love to see a standard, beach looking map like Paradise Lost with all of it's colors and themes minus everything how Paradise Lost is designed.
On February 20 2017 16:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Geumgangsan's neutral force fields are horrible. First of all they don't appear on the minimap or through the fog of war. They absolutely should. And because this isn't hard to do at all, I'll assume the mapmaker was being careless and none of the judges actually opened up the map. Secondly they mess with pathing. Units don't know how to path around forcefields and will get stuck on them. You thought the air blockers on New Gettysburg were bad? This is a lot worse. Those forcefields in the middle of the map are in optimal positions to get units stuck. Third of all neutral forcefields aren't in the slightest balanced. Zergs can take the pocket base after building ravagers, Protoss after building colossi or archons. Terran has to build a thor. So Terran's chances in a macro game against Zerg or Protoss on this map aren't great to say the least. At least against Protoss you can try to rush out siege tanks and drop them inside the pocket base to siege the main from the inside. I really miss losing PvTs on Return of the King.
In all honesty, if the force fields were programmed to disappear after the first 5 minutes for the ones that are blocking the in-base expansions, and then the rest of the force fields were programmed to disappear after 10, 12, 15 minutes, then I think it could be a really fun map with an interesting "new" concept.
Definitely down with the consensus of STANDARD and NONSTANDARD as the categories. Anything more than that is too restrictive on design.
Every good map has always had multiple viable strategies or types of play. Forcing players to make maps where rushing or macroing are unviable is horrible for players and makers.
Just because a map favors hyper-aggressive styles doesn't make it a "whacky fun crazy" map. It makes it a stupid boring map where you are obligated to rush/cheese/allin because anything else will lose.
On the same end, maps that are huge with tons of bases aren't particularly interesting either. Maps like Whirlwind or Alterzim are boring because everyone just goes town center first every single game. Although those types of maps are more acceptable than small maps purely because stronger safer economy means more freedom in army composition, sometimes.
On February 21 2017 03:18 youngjiddle wrote: I would love to see a standard, beach looking map like Paradise Lost with all of it's colors and themes minus everything how Paradise Lost is designed.
You can expect one in the next TLMC a few months from now. I already posted a map thread on it.
On February 21 2017 03:17 InfCereal wrote: You guys are aware the back entrance on emerita is tiny, right?
There's a neutral supply depot. Rush distance is small, but I assume you all know how to wall?
don't think that solves issues like reapers or Z getting rushed. And I'm unsure it matters that you walled if the enemy can reinforce so quickly. Maybe I'm being narrow minded but I don't see how this map can work.
On February 21 2017 03:17 InfCereal wrote: You guys are aware the back entrance on emerita is tiny, right?
There's a neutral supply depot. Rush distance is small, but I assume you all know how to wall?
Tbh the neutral depot kinda helps the attacker in some cases. If you get attacked from behind you'd rather have that be an actual depot you can repair or pylon you can overcharge.
On February 21 2017 03:17 InfCereal wrote: You guys are away the back entrance on emerita is tiny, right?
There's a neutral supply depot. Rush distance is small, but I assume you all know how to wall?
don't think that solves issues like reapers or Z getting rushed. And I'm unsure it matters that you walled if the enemy can reinforce so quickly. Maybe I'm being narrow minded but I don't see how this map can work.
Forgot about reapers.
Who would have thought units that ignore terrain limit map design?
I feel like the maps were picked more based on gimmicks than actually quail and game play. First TLMC I was apart of and it was a very disappointing experience.
There's a neutral supply depot. Rush distance is small, but I assume you all know how to wall?
I think the main concern is that the main-to-main rush distance is literally less than that of Steppes of War, and then add the fact that you have to worry about a backdoor entrance to your main, regardless of how tight it is.
On February 21 2017 02:45 Solar424 wrote: Eremita might actually be the worst map ever made. 12 pool drone rush every game Zerg is in.
Walling off your natural on Hunger Game seems to be next to impossible.
The 3 o'clock position on Maxwell Platform seems massively favored. It basically gets 4 bases that are further away from the opponent than the opponent's natural is from the 3 o'clock spawn.
Once again, putting "Rush" as a category has produced terrible maps. Of course, one of these will make it in to the map pool because Blizzard only cares about excitement and game-ending damage and not actual skill.
I think the rush category was bound to give terrible maps. I know some people actually enjoyed Ulrena but I really don't think this is a map category SC2 genuinely needs right now. And even if that's the case, aggressive maps are ok, rush maps where something built in your base is basically a standard map proxy are simply retarded.
I think that's on the judges. Shiva and Korhal Killzone from TLMC7 were massively better than any of the rush finalists this time.
I really liked blood boil so I went to play some games on it to get a feel. I think it will be an amazing map in the future! Seminal map, imho.
Sadly, I did notice that because of the cliffs, 2 of the gasses on the map are not available (at least on the version I played by searching NA Multiplayer maps for Blood Boil)
Again I think it's an amazing map I and I hope we get to see more of it.
Some of these maps have me scratching my head. Like neutral forcefields? sub 20-second rush distances? 6m2g bases? backdoors into the main? I hope you guys know what you're doing here. These kinds of features wildly upset the metagame, and I'm not sure how thoroughly thought out some of this stuff was. Maybe I've just been out of it for too long?
Also, I'm disappointed in the submissions for the experimental resource category. Most of the few submissions are sort of regular maps but with weird bases thrown in for kicks. There were a lot of lessons learned in 6m1hyg, but no maps along those lines were submitted. Not surprising given the timeframe, I know I would've submitted a map if I had time to put one together, but alas. There were a couple that would've been interesting to see play out, like Harvester and Grizzly Pines, where the map design was tailored around the resource counts. But I think it really shows what has happened to this category since Blizzard effectively killed it as an idea long time ago. We're starting from scratch here, 5 years into SC2, and with only a week and a half to figure it out.
One other thing, experimental resource category and not a single mineral-only base anywhere to be found?
On February 21 2017 05:47 TheFish7 wrote: Some of these maps have me scratching my head. Like neutral forcefields? sub 20-second rush distances? 6m2g bases? backdoors into the main? I hope you guys know what you're doing here. These kinds of features wildly upset the metagame, and I'm not sure how thoroughly thought out some of this stuff was. Maybe I've just been out of it for too long?
Also, I'm disappointed in the submissions for the experimental resource category. Most of the few submissions are sort of regular maps but with weird bases thrown in for kicks. There were a lot of lessons learned in 6m1hyg, but no maps along those lines were submitted. Not surprising given the timeframe, I know I would've submitted a map if I had time to put one together, but alas. There were a couple that would've been interesting to see play out, like Harvester and Grizzly Pines, where the map design was tailored around the resource counts. But I think it really shows what has happened to this category since Blizzard effectively killed it as an idea long time ago. We're starting from scratch here, 5 years into SC2, and with only a week and a half to figure it out.
One other thing, experimental resource category and not a single mineral-only base anywhere to be found?
If the last few months have taught me anything, it's that map makers and blizzard both hate meta games.
On February 21 2017 05:47 TheFish7 wrote: Some of these maps have me scratching my head. Like neutral forcefields? sub 20-second rush distances? 6m2g bases? backdoors into the main? I hope you guys know what you're doing here. These kinds of features wildly upset the metagame, and I'm not sure how thoroughly thought out some of this stuff was. Maybe I've just been out of it for too long?
Also, I'm disappointed in the submissions for the experimental resource category. Most of the few submissions are sort of regular maps but with weird bases thrown in for kicks. There were a lot of lessons learned in 6m1hyg, but no maps along those lines were submitted. Not surprising given the timeframe, I know I would've submitted a map if I had time to put one together, but alas. There were a couple that would've been interesting to see play out, like Harvester and Grizzly Pines, where the map design was tailored around the resource counts. But I think it really shows what has happened to this category since Blizzard effectively killed it as an idea long time ago. We're starting from scratch here, 5 years into SC2, and with only a week and a half to figure it out.
One other thing, experimental resource category and not a single mineral-only base anywhere to be found?
If the last few months have taught me anything, it's that map makers and blizzard both hate meta games.
We don't hate the meta game, it's just what the game demands and we fulfill that quota. When a contest allows for something wild and experimental, we are just trying different things, we don't do it because we hate the current state.
I had commented on the macro maps in general and i do not really feel like discussing the pros and cons for each, but I wanted to comment on all the other maps except my own:
Rush maps Eremita Pure rush map that allows nothing else. The design of the sides is actually made in an interesting way, but game will never get there - the map is just way too short.
Hunger Game Third base is easily cut off, the side bases are terribly difficult to scout, but then again so far off to defend. you basically have to split between the two (three) lanes. Gold-mineral block could make more sense as a half-mined out base to open the opponent's side path.
Maxwell Plattform In my opinion a 3 player map should be made with more focus on positional balance. It is ridicoulous that people complain about imbalance on maps like whirlwind and would seriously discuss such a map. So the 3 'clock spot is just imba. So i want to say that the map would be ok as a 2p map, but thn again with that very open natural combined with the rush distance it makes me wonder if we ever see a real midgame here. so the imbalance does not matter much, i guess?
New Maps
Paradise Lost Great visual design, cool feature, but a super boring map centre. I think there are just too many bases probably. The game is played often right now and gets a lot of exposure on streams, so I'd bet that this one wins it all.
Geumsangsan Without forcefields, but rocks and rock towers in some positions instead it would be a much better map. The first four bases are very similar to acolyte and this map here loooks actually more interesting gameplay wise and much better visually. Without the gimmick fields this map would be one of the strongest overall imo.
Sequencer Fantastic visual style. Looks good from a design standpoint with a clear structure, but it misses an area per side that stands out more and binds it all together - also to help with orientation. Gameplaywise i just wonder if the map is a wee bit too big and has too many options. Very hard to control and asks quite a lot from players.
Experimental
Keres Passage I think the map is a very good design visually/thematically in almost every area, but the center is boring in late game, where you have the axial symmetry diagonal as the only frontier without much space to move armies and get a different angle to attack. it is just an issue with diagonal axial symmetry and the little space you have there.
Blood Boil Good map mechanics in my opinion with lower eco bases further back. I think this really defines a feature that more maps could explore. Also it is one of the stronger maps overall.
My personal conclusion: I would like to see more of Blood Boil, Geumsangsan, Sequencer with the adjustments mentioned. And obviously more of my own maps.
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
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
Curious to get any feedback on my Battle on the Boardwalk submission. I spent probably the most time on that map out of all my submissions and I thought it was a fairly strong contender. At first I thought maybe because the rush distance was too short but after seeing other maps in the pool that can't be the case.
The whole ling/bling thing I kinda of get, although rallying through the backdoor seriously takes like 90 seconds main to main so I don't see that being as much of an issue. The front boardwalk I see possibly being a little difficult for a protoss to take an early game, but honestly since it's a "rush" map they shouldn't really be gateway > nexus > core first anyway. Then I see the other rush maps, 18 second rush distance with a backdoor in the main (same problem as boardwalk?) and a two entrance natural 3 spawn map with massive positional imbalance really does make me question!
I guess I can't be too upset since I have two other maps in, but just curious more or less especially since I mainly only got really good feedback from everybody in the discord and everybody in the TLMC submissions thread.
On February 21 2017 09:09 SidianTheBard wrote: Curious to get any feedback on my Battle on the Boardwalk submission. I spent probably the most time on that map out of all my submissions and I thought it was a fairly strong contender. At first I thought maybe because the rush distance was too short but after seeing other maps in the pool that can't be the case.
I only played 1 game on it against Ej, but I really liked the map (both aesthetically and from the gameplay) and I was genuinely upset when I saw it wasn't among the finalists. This is actually one of the only Rush Map submissions I saw that I really wanted to play on.
And lord knows I'll play a thousand games on Boardwalk before I touch Eremita again.
On February 20 2017 18:40 PengWin_SC wrote: I really appreciate you and Kantuva (on reddit) taking the time to have this kind of a debate. A fair bit of my experience with some mappers over the past year (most recently, Sunshine's not-so-veiled comment on the other thread saying that Avex and I are friends, Avex got 4 maps in, clearly rigged) has been insult ridden "arguments" rather than actual attempts to see each others' point of view. I think this kind of stuff is important and hopefully we can improve the format going forward.
Edit: added a point about Boardwalk
I want to apologize for that, I'm recognizing that I get emotional about the results of the TLMC, and as a result I want to find fault with whatever I can, but posts like that aren't doing me or anyone any favors. I agree about trying to move forward with more productive discussion. And I really appreciate the posts you've been making in this thread, having that kind of illumination on the judging process - though incomplete - is great. And though I have maps I personally would rather see as finalists, I can accept these results, and will simply try to do better next time. Sorry if I soured your impression of me or the community in any way.
I appreciate the apology. I understand the frustration of a lot of people with this TLMC, and trust me when I say I share the sentiment when it comes to the timeframe. In the last TLMC, I had time to play games on every one of the reasonable maps before making a judgment, but this time there just wasn't time to play on almost any of them (I played a couple games and offered fix ideas like making the natural ramps a little more narrow on Maxwell Platform, etc.). It's a real shame that issues like the gases on Blood Boil made it through, but there just wasn't enough time to properly test.
All of this discussion on maps that did make it in vs maps that didn't is also really good. It's good to have a lot of viewpoints on them going forward. As was mentioned, the forcefields on Geumsangsan were supposed to disappear after X minutes, making it more viable, but I also agreed on the fact that forcefields should show on the minimap and pointed that out a couple days ago. I hope that can be fixed.
I still remain optimistic about the new map pool, because there are a fair few really great maps in here, and nothing can be worse than this current map pool (except Abyssal Reef. Whoever made that, you're great!)
On February 20 2017 18:40 PengWin_SC wrote: I really appreciate you and Kantuva (on reddit) taking the time to have this kind of a debate. A fair bit of my experience with some mappers over the past year (most recently, Sunshine's not-so-veiled comment on the other thread saying that Avex and I are friends, Avex got 4 maps in, clearly rigged) has been insult ridden "arguments" rather than actual attempts to see each others' point of view. I think this kind of stuff is important and hopefully we can improve the format going forward.
Edit: added a point about Boardwalk
I want to apologize for that, I'm recognizing that I get emotional about the results of the TLMC, and as a result I want to find fault with whatever I can, but posts like that aren't doing me or anyone any favors. I agree about trying to move forward with more productive discussion. And I really appreciate the posts you've been making in this thread, having that kind of illumination on the judging process - though incomplete - is great. And though I have maps I personally would rather see as finalists, I can accept these results, and will simply try to do better next time. Sorry if I soured your impression of me or the community in any way.
I appreciate the apology. I understand the frustration of a lot of people with this TLMC, and trust me when I say I share the sentiment when it comes to the timeframe. In the last TLMC, I had time to play games on every one of the reasonable maps before making a judgment, but this time there just wasn't time to play on almost any of them (I played a couple games and offered fix ideas like making the natural ramps a little more narrow on Maxwell Platform, etc.). It's a real shame that issues like the gases on Blood Boil made it through, but there just wasn't enough time to properly test.
All of this discussion on maps that did make it in vs maps that didn't is also really good. It's good to have a lot of viewpoints on them going forward. As was mentioned, the forcefields on Geumsangsan were supposed to disappear after X minutes, making it more viable, but I also agreed on the fact that forcefields should show on the minimap and pointed that out a couple days ago. I hope that can be fixed.
I still remain optimistic about the new map pool, because there are a fair few really great maps in here, and nothing can be worse than this current map pool (except Abyssal Reef. Whoever made that, you're great!)
Making the forcefields appear on the minimap and through the FOW is easily done. The map's other problems are not so easily fixed.
There's a neutral supply depot. Rush distance is small, but I assume you all know how to wall?
to put this into perspective, imagine if steppes of war was still in the map pool but the main also had an open backdoor. this map is actually smaller than that.
On February 21 2017 09:09 SidianTheBard wrote: Curious to get any feedback on my Battle on the Boardwalk submission. I spent probably the most time on that map out of all my submissions and I thought it was a fairly strong contender. At first I thought maybe because the rush distance was too short but after seeing other maps in the pool that can't be the case.
The whole ling/bling thing I kinda of get, although rallying through the backdoor seriously takes like 90 seconds main to main so I don't see that being as much of an issue. The front boardwalk I see possibly being a little difficult for a protoss to take an early game, but honestly since it's a "rush" map they shouldn't really be gateway > nexus > core first anyway. Then I see the other rush maps, 18 second rush distance with a backdoor in the main (same problem as boardwalk?) and a two entrance natural 3 spawn map with massive positional imbalance really does make me question!
I guess I can't be too upset since I have two other maps in, but just curious more or less especially since I mainly only got really good feedback from everybody in the discord and everybody in the TLMC submissions thread.
Personally I really like Battle on the Boardwalk and would love to play on it. I think if 1 Tumour + Evo chamber is enough to block the back path, it can at least be dealt with.
On February 21 2017 09:09 SidianTheBard wrote: Curious to get any feedback on my Battle on the Boardwalk submission. I spent probably the most time on that map out of all my submissions and I thought it was a fairly strong contender. At first I thought maybe because the rush distance was too short but after seeing other maps in the pool that can't be the case.
The whole ling/bling thing I kinda of get, although rallying through the backdoor seriously takes like 90 seconds main to main so I don't see that being as much of an issue. The front boardwalk I see possibly being a little difficult for a protoss to take an early game, but honestly since it's a "rush" map they shouldn't really be gateway > nexus > core first anyway. Then I see the other rush maps, 18 second rush distance with a backdoor in the main (same problem as boardwalk?) and a two entrance natural 3 spawn map with massive positional imbalance really does make me question!
I guess I can't be too upset since I have two other maps in, but just curious more or less especially since I mainly only got really good feedback from everybody in the discord and everybody in the TLMC submissions thread.
dude this map looks dope! I can't believe it wasn't selected, such a fine work of art.
Acolyte: The bush at the third base should be removed. It doesn't do anything but clip the CC/Nexus/Hatch model.
Asteroid Barricade: The 2 collapsible rocks on the high ground at the north and south can be attacked by melee units in certain positions
Hwangsan: There is too much grass doodads at the grassy north and south base. When warping in buildings, the grass doodads disintegrating causes a big FPS spike.
Paradise Lost: The "Narrow Passage" mechanic is bizarre and pointless. It also doesn't work without a flying unit nearby (the worker refuses to mine and goes back because the worker is out of vision due to the smoke). There is no reason to even have such a blockage: if a player can access any one of these 3 back bases (e.g. by drops), they already have the means to access all.
Keres Passage: This map gives me motion sickness. Please significantly slow down the background motion, and improve the texture quality of the background (currently it looks like a big messy brown sheet).
On February 21 2017 19:23 paralleluniverse wrote: Acolyte: The bush at the third base should be removed. It doesn't do anything but clip the CC/Nexus/Hatch model.
Asteroid Barricade: The ramp down from the top natural is unpathable. The 2 collapsible rocks on the high ground at the north and south can be attacked by melee units in certain positions
Hwangsan: There is too much grass doodads at the grassy north and south base. When warping in buildings, the grass doodads disintegrating causes a big FPS spike.
Paradise Lost: The "Narrow Passage" mechanic is bizarre and pointless. It also doesn't work without a flying unit nearby (the worker refuses to mine and goes back because the worker is out of vision due to the smoke). There is no reason to even have such a blockage: if a player can access any one of these 3 back bases (e.g. by drops), they already have the means to access all.
Keres Passage: This map gives me motion sickness. Please significantly slow down the background motion, and improve the texture quality of the background (currently it looks like a big messy brown sheet).
thank you for giving feedback on the issues on Asteroid Barricade.
Pathing issue on main/natural ramp: I was able to 'reproduce the problem' ingame (or what i think you saw), but when checking the file in the editor i could not find any pathing information to be different than usual. the plant here was created as foliage in the editor and doe snot have a footprint, hence should not interact with the pathing of units. but apparently it does. since i cannot find anything in the editor what could actually cause such a problem i will just rebuild the section and re-generate the foliage and will check if that will solve it.
edit: i took away any foliage in that area and the worker unit would walk down the ramp exactly the same. probably it was coincidence how the deco and the pathing seemed to correlate. So maybe you were talking about another thing?
so far i could not find any pathing problems on the current map file. It would be very kind if you could send a more precise desription or a screenshot of the problem. cheers!
The rock towers both work exactly the same, so this is not an issue per se. but you are right it would seem logical, if only air units would be able to attack by the looks of it.
On February 21 2017 19:23 paralleluniverse wrote: Acolyte: The bush at the third base should be removed. It doesn't do anything but clip the CC/Nexus/Hatch model.
Asteroid Barricade: The ramp down from the top natural is unpathable. The 2 collapsible rocks on the high ground at the north and south can be attacked by melee units in certain positions
Hwangsan: There is too much grass doodads at the grassy north and south base. When warping in buildings, the grass doodads disintegrating causes a big FPS spike.
Paradise Lost: The "Narrow Passage" mechanic is bizarre and pointless. It also doesn't work without a flying unit nearby (the worker refuses to mine and goes back because the worker is out of vision due to the smoke). There is no reason to even have such a blockage: if a player can access any one of these 3 back bases (e.g. by drops), they already have the means to access all.
Keres Passage: This map gives me motion sickness. Please significantly slow down the background motion, and improve the texture quality of the background (currently it looks like a big messy brown sheet).
thank you for giving feedback on the issues on Asteroid Barricade.
Pathing issue on main/natural ramp: I was able to 'reproduce the problem' ingame (or what i think you saw), but when checking the file in the editor i could not find any pathing information to be different than usual. the plant here was created as foliage in the editor and doe snot have a footprint, hence should not interact with the pathing of units. but apparently it does. since i cannot find anything in the editor what could actually cause such a problem i will just rebuild the section and re-generate the foliage and will check if that will solve it.
edit: i took away any foliage in that area and the worker unit would walk down the ramp exactly the same. probably it was coincidence how the deco and the pathing seemed to correlate. So maybe you were talking about another thing?
so far i could not find any pathing problems on the current map file. It would be very kind if you could send a more precise desription or a screenshot of the problem. cheers!
The rock towers both work exactly the same, so this is not an issue per se. but you are right it would seem logical, if only air units would be able to attack by the looks of it.
Sorry, ignore the comment about the unpathable ramp. It was an issue when I tried the map on the first day of the BTTV tournament and it was mentioned on stream too, but the issue appears to be fixed on the latest version of the map.
Just gonna post this and remove a couple of things that might give away this posters identity, but he's completely correct with this statement and he's someone who is entitled to an opinion on map making.
"The map contest was a joke.. It was completely rushed, and therefore many submissions were rushed and not tested at all. Judges were given 3 days to just the maps which later turned into less than 24 hours. Basetrade TV leaked half of the finalists before the results were actually posted.
It is appalling that judges would choose a worker all-in map like Eremita over something more efficient. My map, <deleted> was an aggressive rush/macro map that was "too standard" over the "interesting" ones you see as a finalist. We've been reduced to all-ins and that is exactly what we've been trying to get away from.
Fun fact - Eremita was created in a single afternoon and had no testing before submission, and lo and behold it's a finalist.
This TLMC was a big step backwards compared to TLMC7.
Hope TLMC 9 is better."
Teamliquid you either need to up your judging standards, increase the time that the contestants are allowed, or both, because this is overwhelmingly the worst TLMC yet, compare these to the earlier TLMC's and they just look amateur.
@starcraft2lotv2016 i agree that is a good map. A lot of the Meavis maps linked above are also very nice and well thought out. I think a few extremely polished and balanced concepts got cut just because of the category caps and distribution. It seems like the more safe/conservative/traditional ones got got devalued (which i guess is fair considering the crazy categories).
Hopefully they resubmit them next contest and there are more categories (or at least heavier distribution) targeted at "traditional and balanced" since those consistently provide the best gameplay sc2 was built for. Fresh concepts are important for sure, but that can be done without perma-forcefield walls with race balance issues, 15 second rush distances and awkwardly-pathed air blockers imo.
There are some good maps that made the cut tho, so thats good at least :3
Fun fact - Eremita was created in a single afternoon and had no testing before submission, and lo and behold it's a finalist.
Not going to bother with anything else in your post but once you get good at map making it's fairly easy to make a rather quick and decent looking map in a day. Ascension to Aiur I made from completely scratch to what you see in this tournament in about 4 or 5 hours. And hell, probably 2 of those hours I was quite drunk when creating it. It's about as standard of a map as you can get. Which is weird for me since usually I never do 100% standard for the most part (read my signature for my other famous maps)
Battle on the Boardwalk I did in about ~6 hours or so. Abyssal Reef took longer just because the aesthetics on that map were ridiculous but still from nothing to where you see now I'd say maybe 12 hours at most? Habitation Station, my "first" super popular map took the longest because that was like 4 years ago and I wasn't as proficient in the editor then as I am now. Any recent map, getting the layout & to make it look good can be done so quickly now a day if you know what you're doing.
Fun fact - Eremita was created in a single afternoon and had no testing before submission, and lo and behold it's a finalist.
Not going to bother with anything else in your post but once you get good at map making it's fairly easy to make a rather quick and decent looking map in a day. Ascension to Aiur I made from completely scratch to what you see in this tournament in about 4 or 5 hours. And hell, probably 2 of those hours I was quite drunk when creating it. It's about as standard of a map as you can get. Which is weird for me since usually I never do 100% standard for the most part (read my signature for my other famous maps)
Battle on the Boardwalk I did in about ~6 hours or so. Abyssal Reef took longer just because the aesthetics on that map were ridiculous but still from nothing to where you see now I'd say maybe 12 hours at most? Habitation Station, my "first" super popular map took the longest because that was like 4 years ago and I wasn't as proficient in the editor then as I am now. Any recent map, getting the layout & to make it look good can be done so quickly now a day if you know what you're doing.
How quickly a map is made versus making one for the purpose of clean and efficient balance are two different things. I can understand maps not being tested, but to create a map in such a time frame that there's little to no thought process behind it - purely to just add to the submission count - is what's irritating. It was literally a "well I got room for one more submission I'll just throw some quick stuff together just so I'm maxed out."
The fact your map was made and made finalist while you were drunk is even more ridiculous but that's just my personal opinion. Of course, the judges don't know that so it's really a mapper-to-mapper inquiry really. I don't blame the judges per se, it's just mind boggling how niche mapmaking can be to a point where you can half ass a project, literally, and still succeed.
The logic becomes irrelevant when you're a finalist because now you just want to make it more playable, and I get that. I've been there. But it is true to a degree.
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.
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 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.
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...
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
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.
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.
Wow meavis.... Really didnt need that comment.. Tbh really got my eyes teared up for few seconds.. I really hope things wont stay like this for too long.
If you guys are looking for feedback on a map, the best way to get feedback is to create a map thread for it and post it in the Custom Maps forum. If you have an unfinished map that you want some feedback for, you can post it in the WIP thread there.
This is outrageous. How could the judges POSSIBLY test out all the submitted maps in like how long took it? 2 days? Less? I dont know, but something smells bad here. I submitted 4 maps, maybe they were imbalanced, maybe not, i tested them with lots of players the whole past half year ago, so i did DEFINITELY better in that one then some other map makers that won (insert your names here, i wont blame anyone) in this aspect. Also, what did the judges decide? Im sure there was a lot of good maps, and i would love to see them all, a lot of work and time is spent in them. But we did not even get ANY tips how to improove them or why they got rejected, private messages dont get answered etc...... Ah yes and by the way, isnt this kinda contests made to bring in new people and their ideas to map making? Well, good job by giving same dude like 4 prices, we all feel very good now about that ( and if you like creativity, why 4 or 5 maps out of the winners are beach-themed? This diversity is amazing "sarcasm off"). I won't participate next year, this whole thing is just a dissapointment and wasted time. Im sure the judges didn't even look at all maps. Tell me about rigged stuff.
On February 23 2017 03:42 Charoisaur wrote: 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.
Yeah no need to playtest and polish your maps before submitting, can be done later
On February 23 2017 04:52 LordOfLings wrote: This is outrageous. How could the judges POSSIBLY test out all the submitted maps in like how long took it? 2 days? Less?
Re-reading this thread is probably the reason Blizzard doesn't care to talk with many community mappers and that a good majority of the judges don't feel like talking to us here. Mapping community is toxic as hell.
Re-reading this thread is probably the reason Blizzard doesn't care to talk with many community mappers and that a good majority of the judges don't feel like talking to us here. Mapping community is toxic as hell.
I was not toxic all the time, but if i read things like "i got ignored for 5 years" or if i see one guy getting 4/4 maps into finals, something seems not right. Ok, i admitt it, im very salty, but.... :/
Made a comment about a dude winning 4 places at once and like no new mapper achieved anything only previous mappers are victorious again in the twitch and i got trashed by bunch of trolls and spammers that said 'u cry cuz he put more time and will into it'... If that was true i wouldnt been *crying* in the first place. And i know my maps are better than lots of official maps of blizzard. Steppes of War and Scrap Station... Even tho they are old so i might slack off a bit but thats just pure trash maps if i can say that. Steppes of War with retarded unnatural paths and Scrap Station where u can do Planetary Fortress rush is just disgusting in terms of gameplay and for eyes.
And now im seeing a map called Hunger Games and Hwangsan which looks like a bad copy of Abyssal Reef and 1 paint is used to cover nearly 70% of the map...
Sequencer... For anyone who actually has any brains in his head will see and understand that abusing ramps on a map is retarded for gameplay. Its basically just ramp-land-ramp. Since when was this balanced?
Blood Boil is okay map but when u look at it its so disgusting... Its like he didnt even try to paint it... Everything is snow and only snow...Well I guess he put too much time into it unlike me to do so.
Paradisia is same a copy of Abyssal Reef altho this time its same creator of both maps. If you can see its main/natural 3rd 4th 5th etc looks completely the same except some new paths are open and closed by rocks and middle of the map is changed.
Everything else i hold respect upon it and i can proudly say that they deserve win but this above is just a circus...
With all that I just stated above is 85% true or even more... So from this I can say that this retarded sc2 community does not want new original work. They dont even really care much about balance either i guess.. @SidianTheBard i hold huge respect towards u and i already told u im big fan of ur maps in PM altho might have been different account since im a malicious smurf abuser, but could u please tell me ur opinion of what ive stated above is correct? And i think u would agree upon my statement that paradisia is copy of ur AR which is in my opinion a masterpiece so you tried to just hit 1 more success with same style and it worked.
On February 23 2017 05:41 SidianTheBard wrote: Re-reading this thread is probably the reason Blizzard doesn't care to talk with many community mappers and that a good majority of the judges don't feel like talking to us here. Mapping community is toxic as hell.
I don't know if toxic is the right word. We are definitely expressive and opinionated, and history has shown that we're entitled to that. I do think we need to humble ourselves though.
Personally, I was somewhat disappointed with these results, more so after seeing more of the maps that didn't make the cut. The only map that I really liked was Sequencer, [but somehow ramps are imba?] although I wish there were a few less rocks used. Asteroid Barricade was also good, but I'm not so fond of the center. Most of the other macro maps were alright, but nothing special.
Looking at some of the rush/experimental maps, I unfortunately might have actually been able to be a finalist if I submitted anything..
Congrats to the winners though, I'd still test any of these maps given the chance.
On February 23 2017 07:06 LordOfLings wrote: I must say Zipp0w got some arguments there....
He doesn't tho, most of it is whine, the rest of it is because he lacks the knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes and the rest of it is because he is unexperienced regarding how to make high quality maps.
The TLMC staff did amazing work for the timeframes they had to work with, those speaking against it simply lack the information about the background of it. No, the staff didn't judge the maps "on less than 24 hrs", they have been judging the entire week as submissions have been sent. And for what is worth, most often than not it is very easy to see issues on maps from overviews alone, no, I don't need to spend 2 hours playing all Mu's on a map to see if it has issues, the overview most often than not is enough to clean up most of the low quality submissions, while the rest pass into the play testing and heavier discussion phase.
Now, if somebody dislikes a map that's an entirely different thing than thinking it might not play ok, disliking is based on a person's tastes, aesthetics fall on that, if you don't like the aesthetics of a map, which is a fair criticism, doesn't mean that said map is "bad", same with the layout, you don't like Y maps having too many ramps? Well, that doesn't mean that Y map will play bad.
zippoW, Zweck and gang, if you are not going to be constructive about your criticisms, then better not say anything, everyone here is doing what they can with the tools given, and nobody needs extra shit from salty people, and that goes for everything, be it TLMC, how you guys might see the DevTeam, or life in general.
On February 23 2017 08:09 Uvantak wrote: ..., the rest of it is because he lacks the knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes.
You cant blame him for that at least. How about tell people what happens "behind the scenes" then next time maybe... But pls dont name me with zippow, what he says was just stupid
And "while the rest pass into the play testing" how come then, that blood boil got a finalist, it obviously never got played. im not trying to shit anyone honestly. just try to understand our point of view, some decisions just seem strange if you "dont know "what happens behind the scenes". I really liked mapmaking.. I never wanted to insult anyone or attack anyone, (and i think i didnt?). i love tlmc and i like (most) of the maps. I think the biggest problem was the suddenly so short judging time, that was a lot shorter than scheduled and the fact that suddenly BTTV already showed the results without any official statement on TL and such...
On February 23 2017 08:09 Uvantak wrote: ..., the rest of it is because he lacks the knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes.
You cant blame him for that at least. How about tell people what happens "behind the scenes" then next time maybe... But pls dont name me with zippow, what he says was just stupid
And "while the rest pass into the play testing" how come then, that blood boil got a finalist, it obviously never got played. im not trying to shit anyone honestly. just try to understand our point of view, some decisions just seem strange if you "dont know "what happens behind the scenes". I really liked mapmaking.. I never wanted to insult anyone or attack anyone, (and i think i didnt?). i love tlmc and i like (most) of the maps. I think the biggest problem was the suddenly so short judging time, that was a lot shorter than scheduled and the fact that suddenly BTTV already showed the results without any official statement on TL and such...
the short, rushed schedule was absolutely a problem which should be avoided in future tlmcs, and the cause of most other issues... but don't criticize the mappers and judges for this, for the most part we did the best we could with what we were given. mappers will always make mistakes, and judges will always make some questionable picks, but this is more a matter of opinion.
On February 23 2017 08:09 Uvantak wrote: ..., the rest of it is because he lacks the knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes.
You cant blame him for that at least. How about tell people what happens "behind the scenes" then next time maybe... But pls dont name me with zippow, what he says was just stupid
And "while the rest pass into the play testing" how come then, that blood boil got a finalist, it obviously never got played. im not trying to shit anyone honestly. just try to understand our point of view, some decisions just seem strange if you "dont know "what happens behind the scenes". I really liked mapmaking.. I never wanted to insult anyone or attack anyone, (and i think i didnt?). i love tlmc and i like (most) of the maps. I think the biggest problem was the suddenly so short judging time, that was a lot shorter than scheduled and the fact that suddenly BTTV already showed the results without any official statement on TL and such...
That's an excellent point, and it something I have spoken with the judges about, yet, the judges are very reticent to make such things available to the public because most maps are usually discarded without them having been played, and this is because even when there is the good argument that X map might look like it produces bad gameplay, while actually produces good one after extensive testing! is a good solid mindset, judges are voluntary positions, and maps are complex beasts, which most often than not require hundreds of games for them to be understood by the judges who do not know what the creator does, what's more, as I mentioned, judges are under strong time pressure most often than not. Which under such circumstances lead to making choices which might have been different had they not being under the time constrains, and this applies to every single TLMC, not just this one, where time constrains where specially strong.
Going deeper into this, having guys like ZippoW freaking out that his or others maps didn't made finalists when X did, to me is a disgusting yet relatable thing, we are humans, and as such are wired by feelings, but creating a fuss over a extreme situation such as this TLMC, which found itself under extreme time constrains, is not something positive on the slightest. On my eyes, Zippow should be commending that the Judge Team managed, under such extreme circumstances to create a map pool which overall delivers a good enough basis for Blizz to pick the WCS map pool over. Yes, it is not what I would call an ideal TLMC, or close to that, but under this timeframe, I would indeed call that this TLMC did a fair damn good job at it.
So that's why Judges are reticent to deliver said info, because they know that even when they did a fair job, they also realize that said job is not perfect, and what's worse, is that at this point there is nothing that can be done to correct it, for the finalists have been announced already. What we can do, and are doing, is looking forward to find ways to further improve over past TLMC's and get things on a better position that they have been in the past. On this fashion, I hope to see you all gather and discuss ways to improve things when the time comes, we all know more than a couple things that can be improved, so yeah, when those threads or discussions start, I hope to see you all there.
I understand the notion that the TLMC might be "rigged" because certain mappers like AVEX have all maps as finalists, or a guy like Kantu would be a finalist in almost all contests, or seeing the same names every single time. I thought something was rigged years ago when only maps by winpark and LSPrime were being used by blizzard and the foreign scene (us) were completely shunned. If you are a newer mapmaker in the shadows, let me tell you something.
It is not rigged. Yeah the judging process could use some improvements but it's not their fault given the lousy time frame, and it's not the mapper's faults either. Nobody is passing money under the table here.. 3-4 years ago, when map teams like TPW, Galaxy, Dreamforge, and ESV existed, there were an additional 20ish GOOD mapmakers - who are no longer with us anymore. 30 good mapmakers broadens the margin for a finalist spot, whereas today I only see about 10 original mappers who have been here from the beginning who are much better than they were in WoL days. With around 10 high end competitors, that margin is much more narrow and so the chances of being a finalist are greater, hence you see names more commonly.
Ohana was a shot in the dark for me because I was facing around 30 or so mappers who were far more competent than I was. Now, if I can defeat the likes of kantu, sidian, AVEX, and negativezero, I probably have a good shot at finalist because those are the only guys I have to worry about anymore and not guys like prodiG, superouman, meltage, mereel, monitor, lefix, ragoo, G_wen, and dozens of others. It's basic math guys.
If you're a new mapmaker please understand this isn't a ploy to keep you from getting exposure. Quite frankly the guys who are well known around here have simply been doing mapping for a longer stretch of time. It just takes a lot of time and effort. You made a couple decent maps yourself and think you deserve a chance because you put time into it --- we as a community have made HUNDREDS of maps for absolutely nothing at all other than a pat on the back by other mappers. And all of these maps are trashed and forgotten.
You guys marching in here with your decent maps saying you should be given an equal chance remind me of myself. Let me refer you to my very first teamliquid post with my very first set of "decent maps" from 2009:
...coincidentally, the ideas of a TLMC and MOTM was actually mentioned in this thread of mine if you read the responses. You can thank me later.
A few years ago, AVEX wasn't even around, sidian was just an average mapper who fought for exposure like the rest of us at the time. Guys like Jacky or Kantu have made more maps than most of us will make in a lifetime. For a while, Timetwister was on the rise. A few years ago, the "stars" were Jacky, superouman, monitor, LSPrime, and myself. It's different these days, and in a year or so it may change again. A few years ago, getting a map on ladder was impossible. The map community is always evolving and improving. Try and understand this. Let this be a reality check for you. I had mine long ago, and every other mapper here has had one too. If you want to provide content for this game and improve your mapping skills, then your first lesson is to stop attacking veteran mapmakers, and STOP making the judges look like devils who are out to get you.
New mappers, I encourage you to join the mapping discord channel. You will grow and we will help you grow. You are probably unaware that the finalist maps were not unknown to us beforehand. Some of us actually helped balance them even though we were competing against them. Making maps solo is fine if you wish to do that but we are a community (actually good friends now) that eventually will need to replenish its numbers, so if you're a relatively new mapper and want to join the discord chat, PM me.
ppl keep saying that the judges did such a good job with the timeframe they had to work with...
Well, why on earth did all of the judging have to be done in 24 hours? Shouldn't we plan things a little bit better so everything doesn't have to be rushed, judges can actually get to know maps a little better, and huge mistakes can be avoided?
It's the maps that are going to be on the ladder some day ffs, it's so important..
Last TLMC might have produced a few bad maps, but at least it felt like a community effort where people would ask for oppinions and discuss about maps. There was a legit time window where mappers could work on their stuff. There was a public voting phase and a legit time window for judges to vote and decide them. There was some time to fix the maps and some deep map analysis of the winner maps even before the tournament phase.
Compared to that, this was honestly a shitshow. Could not be any more rushed. Blizz went with bad ideas right from the start to define maps and then changed them a few days in. There was no time to do anything of the good stuff that I enjoyed in the previous contest. I'm really disappointed.
On February 23 2017 23:36 Comedy wrote: ppl keep saying that the judges did such a good job with the timeframe they had to work with...
Well, why on earth did all of the judging have to be done in 24 hours? Shouldn't we plan things a little bit better so everything doesn't have to be rushed, judges can actually get to know maps a little better, and huge mistakes can be avoided?
It's the maps that are going to be on the ladder some day ffs, it's so important..
Blizzard are the ones you should be asking, they're always the ones that plan the TLMC, from the categories to the timeframe for all the phases. How they knew it was going to happen a year in advance and only gave us 2 weeks to submit, and 1 day for judging, is beyond me too.
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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 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 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?
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 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.
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.
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.
Yep, 100% agree. Players are much more likely to find ways to exploit the map and they will just play better in general if they know the maps they'll be playing on going in.
Also I started watching the VODs (Thanks BTTV for compiling them into a nice, neat playlist) and soo much of the time is spent with vetoes. It's not a huge thing but I'm sure the tourney would go smoother if they didn't have to go through that process.
I've just finished watching the VODs from the tournaments. Here are my thoughts about all the maps.
Acolyte
I found this map to be very mediocre. In general I'm not fond of maps that allow people to turtle on three bases behind a tiny choke, but this one was executed worse than most. The pocket base is both vulnerable to drops and has a gas that can be shot across the gap by a tank, which makes any match-up involving terran rather miserable since the terran can easily turtle while the other races can't against terran. The game between Snute and uThermal was a pretty good example of the problems with this map I think. As to the middle of the map there are those golds that can't ever be held unless you've already won the game, but the layout is otherwise fine I guess.
This map was a 5.0/10 for me; if the pocket base is moved a bit back to allow different races to turtle equally I'd score it half a point higher.
Ascension to Aiur
This is a large macro map with an interesting choice of thirds and fourths. Yup, that's all I have to say about this one.
7.0/10
Asteroid Barricade
There were fewer games played on this map than any of the other ones, only three (two if you don't count NoRegreT showing us why you shouldn't take double golds on this map), so my impressions about this map remain rather vague. Overall it's pretty standard and I quite like it. The golds seem well placed to be interesting to take yet not too strong, and there is reasoning behind the placement of all the rocks. The expansion layout is good. It's really too bad that we didn't see more games on it.
I'm giving this map a 7.0/10 but it's followed by a question mark. I wouldn't be surprised if the map was better than that. I don't foresee it being very popular in the map contest or with Blizzard though, so I don't think we'll ever know.
Hwangsan
This map stands out to me, because of how much smaller it is than all the other 'macro' maps. Due to the flawed categories of the map contest the standard maps are all submitted to the macro category and as such tend to be on the larger side of standard. This has been a problem in both this map contest and the previous one, and the lack of middle-sized maps has been a persistent problem in LotV map pools, and one of the reasons why map pools with old maps have been met with more success than ones with new ones. But I digress. This map is quite the opposite, and it's quite refreshing to see that.
Despite that the map has a few problems. The third is quite vulnerable with pushes being able to split the natural from the third quite easily. This was problematic on Galactic Process and pushes should be much stronger on Hwangsan. I think the map would benefit a lot if the base directly above/below the natural was a viable choice of a third base. If that isn't possible, maybe the ramp leading in between the natural and third should be moved further towards the natural to weaken those pushes. But I definitely favour the former solution since it also helps expanding on this map which is rather difficult. The watchtowers are also obnoxious in that they cover too much important ground. That kinda worked on Overgrowth, but in general I don't think it's a good thing.
I think this map is a 6.5/10, but I might still vote for it just to get a smaller map on ladder.
Paradisia
The fact that Sidian got Abyssal Reef on ladder works against Paradisia, since if you compare both maps they are quite similar but Abyssal Reef is clearly better (in both layout and looks). The first four bases on Abyssal Reef just look more harmoniously placed than on Paradisia with that awkward low ground base that can't easily be secured unless you break the rocks and secure the forward centre base. However those four bases do work well with Paradisia's middle which I feel is its strongest feature. The bottom of the map is a bit lackluster, but the middle and top are quite intriguing. Despite a few weaknesses, this map succeeds at being both standard and exciting.
7.25/10
Windwaker
Windwaker is quite a nice map though the whole alternate resource thing going on feels off. The extra mineral patch in the main doesn't serve any clear purpose and players are already discouraged from expanding to the bases with the 6 mineral patches, so I don't see any point in discouraging them further. The choice of third bases is nice with interesting trade-offs and the middle though simple serves its purpose. The four quadrants of the map feel slightly disconnected perhaps.
7.0/10
Eremita
I was shocked when Snute ended up playing a macro game on this map. That says more about Snute as a player than about this map though and even Snute couldn't manage it in the other match-ups. The problems of this map are obvious to everyone.
Shorter than steppes of war rush distance + no significant defensive edge in the middle + backdoor to the main + low resource natural add up to a 2.0/10. I don't have any suggestions on how to fix this map. Maybe pray to Dustin Browder and throw down a bunch of rocks in the middle to extend the rush distance by 10 seconds.
Hunger Game
This map has a bunch of problems mostly revolving around taking a third base especially against terran. Drops are insanely abusive, siege tanks behind the likely third are very strong, and pushes can easily split the third from the natural. I think Snute had the right idea when he took the low ground base but even that one is wide open. Taking the fifth is probably an exercise in futility no matter the match-up.
3.5/10
Maxwell Platform
This map seeks to emulate Rush Hour clearly, but SCII is a lot less tolerant of asymmetry than BW. And even BW Rush Hour had some balance issues. The natural in Maxwell Platform is an absolute nightmare to hold no matter the match-up. The ramps are far away from the town hall, and the collapsible rock towers aren't even clearly a defensive tool. Destroying them and sieging the gas geyser and first few minerals from across the gap seems pretty good as terran. If the game unaccountably gets past the two base stage (maybe the players agreed no rush 20) you can get to see how imbalanced the spawns are. The person spawning at 3 o'clock gets to take a bunch of easy bases away from their opponent whereas the other player has to expand in between the two mains. Or if it ends up being 10:30 vs 7:30 you could get a split map situation I guess since the map's middle is tiny.
1.0/10 Probably the worse TLMC finalist ever.
Paradise Lost
This is the map that is the favourite for winning the map contest. The public likes it, the casters like it, most of the mapmaking community likes it. It's nevertheless an awful map.
Why are people voting for it? Because the island and more specifically the destructible air blockers are such a cool gimmick. That's all everyone talks about when it comes to this map. The fact that the destructible air blockers have a completely negligible impact on the map isn't considered. We saw 13 games played on Paradise Lost and the existence of the Sky Gate influenced none of them. It was destroyed once I guess, not that it mattered in the slightest. I'm not going to even bother mentioning the "Narrow Path" gimmick with the completely gratuitous sight blocked mineral patches on the island.
Now let's look at what actually matters on this map, since even the mapmaker eschewed doing that in his map description in favour of raving about the unimpactful arcade features he put in. Air blockers are still not supported by the game engine, and still cause godawful pathing. New Gettysburg was fun despite the presence of air blockers not because of them. The middle of this map is tiny and any game that actually gets past three bases will end up with split map incredibly turtly play probably with a lot of Skytoss. Stats already showed us some against Time, and Lillekanin and Kas gave us some turtly mech. The islands only contribute to that. The main/nat/third layout is rather unimpressive.
This map is a 4.0/10 and I hope Blizzard has the sense of not putting it on ladder even after it wins the map contest. To improve it the middle needs to be opened up by redesigning the area between the gold and the behind the rocks base, and the whole Narrow Path thing needs to be shelved and used on a map that actually needs it.
Geumgangsan
I've already spoken at length on both Reddit and Teamliquid about why this map sucks. About how the forcefields are brutally imbalanced, mess with pathing very badly, should appear through the FOW and on the minimap etc.
2.0/10 At least this map is easy to fix. Just remove the forcefields and replace them with rocks and the map instantly becomes considerably better.
Sequencer
Before the tournament started this was the map that was the biggest question mark to me. The games on this map turned out to be excellent. I'd highly recommend watching them. The 6-mineral 1-gas third was a bit odd, but it turned to make the choice of third bases much more interesting and this map's odd layout ended up giving lots of interesting counterattacks and maneuvering. This map is both novel and plays very well. The rocks fulfill their role of helping out terran and protoss against zerg in the midgame very well. The only thing that worries about this map is that some match-ups particularly PvZ might not be balanced as the game goes late.
Fantastic map. 8.5/10
Keres Passage
This map also impressed me a lot (though its inclusion in the resource category is a bit odd. Sure the rocks are weaker than usual, there's a few golds, and a low resource base, but none of that really impacts the early/mid game. I guess they were really struggling to find maps for it). The lack of a middle makes me worry that the map might be a bit too splitty, but the games didn't reflect that. It made for a map that played out quite differently from normal maps, yet seemed balanced. The tiny passage in the middle might be a bit overkill though. It could be made a bit larger. Overall I really like this map.
8.0/10
Bandarlog Ruins
The ultra-low resource thing might be novel, but I don't see it ever being balanced. Terran can lift-off their main and as such have much more latitude than other races at dealing with this map, and Protoss in particular is pretty screwed. Even if the resource count for the main was increased (which I feel is an absolute necessity) the map's layout itself has a bunch of problems. The amount of airspace this map has is absolutely ridiculous, and the sprawling main make for very abusive drops. Expanding to a fifth which is very important on this map seems brutal in horizontal spawns. The lack of resources early on leads to very volatile gameplay.
4.0/10 Credit for effort. The only map that took the resource concept and ran with it.
Blood Boil
This map like Caldeum before it suffers from having too many ideas crammed into a single map. There's a backdoor that leads to a six mineral base, and multiple openings to a natural which can be sieged from the back, and a base with no back to it, and the whole map is really long. It's all too much, and doesn't make for a coherent map. All of these ideas have problems that can be compensated for, but all together... A lot of the bases feel placed without much thought as to how viable they are and what role they should have on the map.
4.5/10
Overall I'd rank them in the following order though maps 3-7 are all pretty close.
1. Sequencer 2. Keres Passage
3. Paradisia 4. Ascension to Aiur 5. Asteroid Barricade 6. Windwaker 7. Hwangsan
On February 27 2017 10:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I've just finished watching the VODs from the tournaments. Here are my thoughts about all the maps.
Acolyte
I found this map to be very mediocre. In general I'm not fond of maps that allow people to turtle on three bases behind a tiny choke, but this one was executed worse than most. The pocket base is both vulnerable to drops and has a gas that can be shot across the gap by a tank, which makes any match-up involving terran rather miserable since the terran can easily turtle while the other races can't against terran. The game between Snute and uThermal was a pretty good example of the problems with this map I think. As to the middle of the map there are those golds that can't ever be held unless you've already won the game, but the layout is otherwise fine I guess.
This map was a 5.0/10 for me; if the pocket base is moved a bit back to allow different races to turtle equally I'd score it half a point higher.
Ascension to Aiur
This is a large macro map with an interesting choice of thirds and fourths. Yup, that's all I have to say about this one.
7.0/10
Asteroid Barricade
There were fewer games played on this map than any of the other ones, only three (two if you don't count NoRegreT showing us why you shouldn't take double golds on this map), so my impressions about this map remain rather vague. Overall it's pretty standard and I quite like it. The golds seem well placed to be interesting to take yet not too strong, and there is reasoning behind the placement of all the rocks. The expansion layout is good. It's really too bad that we didn't see more games on it.
I'm giving this map a 7.0/10 but it's followed by a question mark. I wouldn't be surprised if the map was better than that. I don't foresee it being very popular in the map contest or with Blizzard though, so I don't think we'll ever know.
Hwangsan
This map stands out to me, because of how much smaller it is than all the other 'macro' maps. Due to the flawed categories of the map contest the standard maps are all submitted to the macro category and as such tend to be on the larger side of standard. This has been a problem in both this map contest and the previous one, and the lack of middle-sized maps has been a persistent problem in LotV map pools, and one of the reasons why map pools with old maps have been met with more success than ones with new ones. But I digress. This map is quite the opposite, and it's quite refreshing to see that.
Despite that the map has a few problems. The third is quite vulnerable with pushes being able to split the natural from the third quite easily. This was problematic on Galactic Process and pushes should be much stronger on Hwangsan. I think the map would benefit a lot if the base directly above/below the natural was a viable choice of a third base. If that isn't possible, maybe the ramp leading in between the natural and third should be moved further towards the natural to weaken those pushes. But I definitely favour the former solution since it also helps expanding on this map which is rather difficult. The watchtowers are also obnoxious in that they cover too much important ground. That kinda worked on Overgrowth, but in general I don't think it's a good thing.
I think this map is a 6.5/10, but I might still vote for it just to get a smaller map on ladder.
Paradisia
The fact that Sidian got Abyssal Reef on ladder works against Paradisia, since if you compare both maps they are quite similar but Abyssal Reef is clearly better (in both layout and looks). The first four bases on Abyssal Reef just look more harmoniously placed than on Paradisia with that awkward low ground base that can't easily be secured unless you break the rocks and secure the forward centre base. However those four bases do work well with Paradisia's middle which I feel is its strongest feature. The bottom of the map is a bit lackluster, but the middle and top are quite intriguing. Despite a few weaknesses, this map succeeds at being both standard and exciting.
7.25/10
Windwaker
Windwaker is quite a nice map though the whole alternate resource thing going on feels off. The extra mineral patch in the main doesn't serve any clear purpose and players are already discouraged from expanding to the bases with the 6 mineral patches, so I don't see any point in discouraging them further. The choice of third bases is nice with interesting trade-offs and the middle though simple serves its purpose. The four quadrants of the map feel slightly disconnected perhaps.
7.0/10
Eremita
I was shocked when Snute ended up playing a macro game on this map. That says more about Snute as a player than about this map though and even Snute couldn't manage it in the other match-ups. The problems of this map are obvious to everyone.
Shorter than steppes of war rush distance + no significant defensive edge in the middle + backdoor to the main + low resource natural add up to a 2.0/10. I don't have any suggestions on how to fix this map. Maybe pray to Dustin Browder and throw down a bunch of rocks in the middle to extend the rush distance by 10 seconds.
Hunger Game
This map has a bunch of problems mostly revolving around taking a third base especially against terran. Drops are insanely abusive, siege tanks behind the likely third are very strong, and pushes can easily split the third from the natural. I think Snute had the right idea when he took the low ground base but even that one is wide open. Taking the fifth is probably an exercise in futility no matter the match-up.
3.5/10
Maxwell Platform
This map seeks to emulate Rush Hour clearly, but SCII is a lot less tolerant of asymmetry than BW. And even BW Rush Hour had some balance issues. The natural in Maxwell Platform is an absolute nightmare to hold no matter the match-up. The ramps are far away from the town hall, and the collapsible rock towers aren't even clearly a defensive tool. Destroying them and sieging the gas geyser and first few minerals from across the gap seems pretty good as terran. If the game unaccountably gets past the two base stage (maybe the players agreed no rush 20) you can get to see how imbalanced the spawns are. The person spawning at 3 o'clock gets to take a bunch of easy bases away from their opponent whereas the other player has to expand in between the two mains. Or if it ends up being 10:30 vs 7:30 you could get a split map situation I guess since the map's middle is tiny.
1.0/10 Probably the worse TLMC finalist ever.
Paradise Lost
This is the map that is the favourite for winning the map contest. The public likes it, the casters like it, most of the mapmaking community likes it. It's nevertheless an awful map.
Why are people voting for it? Because the island and more specifically the destructible air blockers are such a cool gimmick. That's all everyone talks about when it comes to this map. The fact that the destructible air blockers have a completely negligible impact on the map isn't considered. We saw 13 games played on Paradise Lost and the existence of the Sky Gate influenced none of them. It was destroyed once I guess, not that it mattered in the slightest. I'm not going to even bother mentioning the "Narrow Path" gimmick with the completely gratuitous sight blocked mineral patches on the island.
Now let's look at what actually matters on this map, since even the mapmaker eschewed doing that in his map description in favour of raving about the unimpactful arcade features he put in. Air blockers are still not supported by the game engine, and still cause godawful pathing. New Gettysburg was fun despite the presence of air blockers not because of them. The middle of this map is tiny and any game that actually gets past three bases will end up with split map incredibly turtly play probably with a lot of Skytoss. Stats already showed us some against Time, and Lillekanin and Kas gave us some turtly mech. The islands only contribute to that. The main/nat/third layout is rather unimpressive.
This map is a 4.0/10 and I hope Blizzard has the sense of not putting it on ladder even after it wins the map contest. To improve it the middle needs to be opened up by redesigning the area between the gold and the behind the rocks base, and the whole Narrow Path thing needs to be shelved and used on a map that actually needs it.
Geumgangsan
I've already spoken at length on both Reddit and Teamliquid about why this map sucks. About how the forcefields are brutally imbalanced, mess with pathing very badly, should appear through the FOW and on the minimap etc.
2.0/10 At least this map is easy to fix. Just remove the forcefields and replace them with rocks and the map instantly becomes considerably better.
Sequencer
Before the tournament started this was the map that was the biggest question mark to me. The games on this map turned out to be excellent. I'd highly recommend watching them. The 6-mineral 1-gas third was a bit odd, but it turned to make the choice of third bases much more interesting and this map's odd layout ended up giving lots of interesting counterattacks and maneuvering. This map is both novel and plays very well. The rocks fulfill their role of helping out terran and protoss against zerg in the midgame very well. The only thing that worries about this map is that some match-ups particularly PvZ might not be balanced as the game goes late.
Fantastic map. 8.5/10
Keres Passage
This map also impressed me a lot (though its inclusion in the resource category is a bit odd. Sure the rocks are weaker than usual, there's a few golds, and a low resource base, but none of that really impacts the early/mid game. I guess they were really struggling to find maps for it). The lack of a middle makes me worry that the map might be a bit too splitty, but the games didn't reflect that. It made for a map that played out quite differently from normal maps, yet seemed balanced. The tiny passage in the middle might be a bit overkill though. It could be made a bit larger. Overall I really like this map.
8.0/10
Bandarlog Ruins
The ultra-low resource thing might be novel, but I don't see it ever being balanced. Terran can lift-off their main and as such have much more latitude than other races at dealing with this map, and Protoss in particular is pretty screwed. Even if the resource count for the main was increased (which I feel is an absolute necessity) the map's layout itself has a bunch of problems. The amount of airspace this map has is absolutely ridiculous, and the sprawling main make for very abusive drops. Expanding to a fifth which is very important on this map seems brutal in horizontal spawns. The lack of resources early on leads to very volatile gameplay.
4.0/10 Credit for effort. The only map that took the resource concept and ran with it.
Blood Boil
This map like Caldeum before it suffers from having too many ideas crammed into a single map. There's a backdoor that leads to a six mineral base, and multiple openings to a natural which can be sieged from the back, and a base with no back to it, and the whole map is really long. It's all too much, and doesn't make for a coherent map. All of these ideas have problems that can be compensated for, but all together... A lot of the bases feel placed without much thought as to how viable they are and what role they should have on the map.
4.5/10
Overall I'd rank them in the following order though maps 3-7 are all pretty close.
1. Sequencer 2. Keres Passage
3. Paradisia 4. Ascension to Aiur 5. Asteroid Barricade 6. Windwaker 7. Hwangsan
Wow nice post. I agree hard with pretty much everything. I think I would only order it slightly different. I haven't given it the extensive thought you have but I think I'd go something like:
1. Sequencer 2. Asteroid Barricade 3. Keres Passage
4. Paradisia 5. Windwaker 6. Hwangsan 7. Ascension to Aiur
8-15 same.
I think the only thing I disagree with you is that I think Paradisia is actually better than Abyssal. Where you think the rocks above the 4th are awkward because they require you to kill them to fully defend the 4th, I think that is a really interesting and good feature, especially because the 4th is very close, so if that wasn't the case I'd say the 4th is too easy.
The natural in Maxwell Platform is an absolute nightmare to hold no matter the match-up. The ramps are far away from the town hall, and the collapsible rock towers aren't even clearly a defensive tool. Destroying them and sieging the gas geyser and first few minerals from across the gap seems pretty good as terran.
I have been working on making the natural better and I made sure before submitting that siege tanks could not siege from the outside gap, and they are not able to fire on them. In the updated version of the map I have been working towards making it not possible to siege the geysers either. On the note of natural being a nightmare to hold, I agree I am open to ideas of improving it and would love to hear whatever improves I could make on it.
Probably the worse TLMC finalist ever.
I was just as surprised that my map made it into the finals, but I can see people are open to bashing mappers who are honestly trying to improve. Yes, I am new on the map making scene and its sad to see someone bashing just because some judges liked my map.
If you want to help me improve it shot me ideas and I will try it out I am open to make changes that could help improve the map, and from the games I saw the major hurtle is making the natural more secure so it will go past the first two bases. The game between Snute and Optimus was going good in my opinion, and as noted it was the top and bottom spawns. The middle spawn didn't get shown since most games ended with the natural not even being secure. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the map than PM me or reply to this.
The natural in Maxwell Platform is an absolute nightmare to hold no matter the match-up. The ramps are far away from the town hall, and the collapsible rock towers aren't even clearly a defensive tool. Destroying them and sieging the gas geyser and first few minerals from across the gap seems pretty good as terran.
I have been working on making the natural better and I made sure before submitting that siege tanks could not siege from the outside gap, and they are not able to fire on them. In the updated version of the map I have been working towards making it not possible to siege the geysers either. On the note of natural being a nightmare to hold, I agree I am open to ideas of improving it and would love to hear whatever improves I could make on it.
I was just as surprised that my map made it into the finals, but I can see people are open to bashing mappers who are honestly trying to improve. Yes, I am new on the map making scene and its sad to see someone bashing just because some judges liked my map.
If you want to help me improve it shot me ideas and I will try it out I am open to make changes that could help improve the map, and from the games I saw the major hurtle is making the natural more secure so it will go past the first two bases. The game between Snute and Optimus was going good in my opinion, and as noted it was the top and bottom spawns. The middle spawn didn't get shown since most games ended with the natural not even being secure. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the map than PM me or reply to this.
I don't bash mappers, I bash maps. I maintain that Maxwell Platform is probably the worse TLMC finalist map, but I don't have anything against you as a mapmaker. There isn't a mapmaker out there that only make good maps. In TLMC7 Jacky_ submitted both the best map (New Gettysburg), a good one (Frostbite) and a horrendous one (The Ancient Wall).
I don't bash mappers, I bash maps. I maintain that Maxwell Platform is probably the worse TLMC finalist map, but I don't have anything against you as a mapmaker. There isn't a mapmaker out there that only make good maps. In TLMC7 Jacky_ submitted both the best map (New Gettysburg), a good one (Frostbite) and a horrendous one (The Ancient Wall).
That is fine you are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind bashing the map is bashing the work they put into it. I like brood war map so I tried to see if it could work in sc2 why not? It is not a new concept that people try to recreate a map they found to be cool, last season we had a "remake" of Cloud Kingdom a WOL map and everyone seemed ok with it, but thats probably because its a sc2 map and its standard. Like I stated before I was just as surprised as many people when they told me the map was a finalist because I knew it would be a bit of a stretch for sc2 since it's not "standard" at all. Anyways I am trying to improve the map I would love to hear any sort of changes you think could help improve the map, and if it is beyond repair than I guess I need to know.
You'll get thicker skin as you continue in your mapmaking quest
Best to embrace the fact that sometimes you'll make a good map, and sometimes you'll make something that doesn't quite work. I know I have a lot of failures, and I think most who have delved into mapmaking can say the same. Still, you made something that the judges found interesting, so good on you. Look forward to seeing more of your maps.
You'll get thicker skin as you continue in your mapmaking quest
Best to embrace the fact that sometimes you'll make a good map, and sometimes you'll make something that doesn't quite work. I know I have a lot of failures, and I think most who have delved into mapmaking can say the same. Still, you made something that the judges found interesting, so good on you. Look forward to seeing more of your maps.
Thanks I have just been observing what people have been saying and today I had enough of the comments. I am looking to improve and seeing comments like "worst finalist ever" really is demotivating to read.
You'll get thicker skin as you continue in your mapmaking quest
Best to embrace the fact that sometimes you'll make a good map, and sometimes you'll make something that doesn't quite work. I know I have a lot of failures, and I think most who have delved into mapmaking can say the same. Still, you made something that the judges found interesting, so good on you. Look forward to seeing more of your maps.
Thanks I have just been observing what people have been saying and today I had enough of the comments. I am looking to improve and seeing comments like "worst finalist ever" really is demotivating to read.
You'll get thicker skin as you continue in your mapmaking quest
Best to embrace the fact that sometimes you'll make a good map, and sometimes you'll make something that doesn't quite work. I know I have a lot of failures, and I think most who have delved into mapmaking can say the same. Still, you made something that the judges found interesting, so good on you. Look forward to seeing more of your maps.
Thanks I have just been observing what people have been saying and today I had enough of the comments. I am looking to improve and seeing comments like "worst finalist ever" really is demotivating to read.
I don't bash mappers, I bash maps. I maintain that Maxwell Platform is probably the worse TLMC finalist map, but I don't have anything against you as a mapmaker. There isn't a mapmaker out there that only make good maps. In TLMC7 Jacky_ submitted both the best map (New Gettysburg), a good one (Frostbite) and a horrendous one (The Ancient Wall).
That is fine you are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind bashing the map is bashing the work they put into it. I like brood war map so I tried to see if it could work in sc2 why not? It is not a new concept that people try to recreate a map they found to be cool, last season we had a "remake" of Cloud Kingdom a WOL map and everyone seemed ok with it, but thats probably because its a sc2 map and its standard. Like I stated before I was just as surprised as many people when they told me the map was a finalist because I knew it would be a bit of a stretch for sc2 since it's not "standard" at all. Anyways I am trying to improve the map I would love to hear any sort of changes you think could help improve the map, and if it is beyond repair than I guess I need to know.
Just remember, if the writers of sharknado developed thick skin to write sharknado 2, you can definitely do the same for mapmaking. I get upset over mapping criticisms from time to time, as some here can easily attest to, but at some point you have to draw a line about how far you're going to take it.
I've filtered through enough crap overtime that I know what's good/decent feedback, what's worthy of "ignore", and what's worth defending. It just takes time. Use the discord channel for venting instead of TL (not saying you are but just for reference).
But just as an example, some people will say "map too big, resize whole thing" while others will say "it's fine, just resize these two bases."
Believe me I held back on some of the stuff being said because it comes true, but like I said I am willing to try and fix the map whatever way possible. Last night I and a few others had a good discussion on discord so I apericate it, and I believe I think I have found a way to improve the map.
So sad that barely a few hundred people are interested in being a part of this process (on the 10k solid we see in tournaments stats/viewers).. feels like this is the most important thing (establishing a good map pool .. a better one, a pool that would cover all the potential this rts has, one that would open up gameplay etc.. a pool beyond the ones that are done solely by blizzard's employees that are sub par) .. and no support from those thousands of people who do rant about how bad this or that map is bad/awesome! day in day out = #lazy generation (people who do nothing and curse at people who do try)
If there was a real participation in this.. then perhaps it would make sense to tell blizzard that they are not listening".. lol to what should they be listening? LOL (7 years of this piss poor attitude from all parties = sh it map pool // yes a bad attitude from mapmakers/viewers/players/tournament organizers/pro players/forum admins/workers)
f ck i'm too old, so.. hf .. since fun is all this is about, ..fun for a selected few people who actually get the opportunity to decide and have clearly shown that only networking matters (like in other things in life i admit #sad) ...
having rifkin decide half the maps is as bad as only tl "judges".. but i guess i would vex an eel if i did say so?! oups i did say so, lol.
actually i did say so 50 times already, blizzard said it at Wol retail and i was apparently the only one to hear it: "tournaments will introduce new maps!" cut to (6 years later and a failed game, a failed platform (i say failed from blizzard's point of view)) now, .. and bttv decides what maps should be featured in this process (not choose the maps blizz will put into the ladder.. blizz will always change the ones they choose, it is all rather moot but whatever) ...
i'd add an emote but this is so sad that i'll refrain.
ohhh almost forgot! featuring 1v1 s in tournaments with 19th century observing camera moves is so lazy and counter productive that it makes me understand blizz's disinterest in sc2... sad
On February 28 2017 00:07 Ej_ wrote: Sequencer is by far the best. The rest doesn't even compare to it.
A majority seems to like Sequencer. I on the other hand find the map too large. I'd cut off one row of highgrounds, cuz I did not enjoy the games I watched tbh.
I kind of thought that too, when I first saw the map, and to some degree when I watched some games. But I think maybe the map becomes too cutthroat if you do that. Idk. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere
- Vertical third base has been shifted closer to the natural, the natural has been rotated 45 degrees counter-clockwise. - Xel'Naga Watchtowers were moved Diagonally, North West and South East, to now cover the far reaches of the map, as well as a slight sliver of the high middleground. - Made the map slightly more yellow, for namesake. - Sand made less blinding.
Blood Boil
- "Pocket" base philosophy changed from less economy, to less gas but more minerals. - Natural Choke made slightly smaller, and backdoor ramp into natural is now a size 1 ramp. - Pocket "Natural" rocks moved from the main to the ramp towards the natural. - Base met by three down-ramps changed into an 8 gold 2 geyser base. - Xel'Naga Tower position adjusted slightly. - Exposed Fourth Base mineral line rotated 45 degrees. It is still exposed, but not as much as it was previously.
Eremita
- Debris added to front ramp, has 350 hp and 5 armor. - Natural choke made smaller. - Rock Towers added in the middle. - Long rocks under LOS blockers by natural removed. - Coolant Tower added to down-ramp by natural.
Windwaker
- 9th mineral patch in main removed. - Some ramps removed amongst the middle. - 4th base philosophy changed. Vertical 4th has a high mineral income, but little longevity, as well as only one geyser. The opposite 4th, has 10 minerals and 2 gas geysers, for longevity. - Lowground late-game bases have 5 mineral patches, but 3 geysers as a risky base option after the longevity base was taken. - Xel'Naga Rocks added to help defend the vertical base after taking the gold option.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2el9Uzp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bWkEBWq.jpg)
Macro is definitely the strongest category, but that should be obvious since it's the most..err.."Standard" of maps.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e4LKbAB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/teyEOXC.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2ItHPhS.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EHb6BIh.jpg)
