Two TLMCs in one year? We're back! TLMC returns this fall with its ninth iteration, promising to inject all new maps into our ladder system. Last season, maps such as Acolyte, Interloper, Odyssey, and Ascension to Aiur went directly from TLMC8 into ladder and WCS. Which maps will be the lucky finalists that will get a chance to hopefully shake up the StarCraft metagame?
As always, we have a few new twists to this TLMC, ones that will shake up the mapping metagame.
Submission Phase
August 18 - September 8
Rules/Restrictions:
Maps can be submitted to one category only. Maps cannot be submitted to multiple categories.
No custom textures or Force Fields.
Rocks and collapsible structures use default HP values and cannot be modified.
Individual mineral node and vespene geysers have default resource amounts and cannot be modified.
No custom data on maps.
Suggestions/Concerns:
For all categories, when deciding to utilize a gold base, make sure there are some sort of risk associated with them. Otherwise, gold minerals bases with low risk tend to usually favor Zerg over the other races.
When using air pathing blockers try to avoid setting up zones that trap air units within them.
For the new category, be careful when adjusting the number of resource nodes at bases because it could impact balance between races and/or matchups.
During the second phase of the competition, small changes are often times better than large radical changes that dramatically alter the map’s direction.
Categories
1. Standard
Guidelines: Medium sized map. Players tend to have more flexibility on these maps to open with a wider variety of strategies and/or builds.
Average rush distance: (Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less: 40-50 seconds.
Playable map dimensions guidelines (not full map dimensions): Map playable area should be approximately between 18,000 and 22,000. (Note that these numbers are guidelines and not hard rules.)
Guidelines: A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions.
Average Rush Distance: 45-55 seconds (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Playable map dimensions (not full map dimensions): Map playable area should be approximately 21,000 and up. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Guidelines: Map favors early aggression and offensive play.
Average rush distance:35 seconds or less. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Playable map dimensions (not full map dimensions): Map playable area should be approximately between 16,000 and 20,000. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Mappers who submit maps MUST submit each map in one of the four categories. This time, the judges will pick sixteen(16) finalist maps to move on to the next stage:
Three(3) Macro Maps
Three(3) Rush Maps
Three(3) Standard Maps
Three(3) New Maps
Four(4) "Judges Picks"
Judges Picks can come from any category and will consist of maps that the judges feel belong in the top 16. As we don't except all the categories to be uniform in quality, this helps to ensure that the most deserving maps, regardless of category submitted, make it to the next round.
TL Judging Phase
September 9 - September 15
Once the maps have been submitted they will be checked for quality and the remaining maps will be passed to representatives from the Team Liquid Strategy team and selected professional players/community figures for judging. If you are a professional player and would be interested in helping out, PM us. Together, the judges will trim down all submissions to a final 15 that will be used in the next stages of the contest.
Tournament Phase
September 16-September 22
Next we'll have a tournament stage where professional players will compete on these experimental maps for prize money. Once again, thanks to Blizzard for providing the funding for this event. Details will be disclosed at a later date.
Iteration Phase
September 23 - October 2
The iteration phase is one we introduced in TLMC7 and in general it's been a big hit for everyone. In this phase, mappers will be able to submit clean final versions of their maps for consideration by Blizzard and the community.
Public Voting Phase
October 3 - October 5
The public will then vote on the final versions of these maps. Note that public voting only determines the final placing of these maps, that is how much $ each mapper wins. It does not directly affect which maps Blizzard will chose to appear in the next season of ladder. However, this is your chance to make your voice heard about which maps YOU want to be on the ladder.
Prize Distribution
Provided by Blizzard
One change we've made to this iteration of TLMC is to reward all mapmakers who placed as a finalist. That is, ALL 16 finalists will receive $100 for each map they've submitted to the contest. In addition, there will also be more prizing awarded to mappers who have maps that finish in the top 5.
First - $500 Second - $250 Third - $125 Fourth - $75 Fifth - $50
After the winners are announced, Blizzard will take into consideration all sixteen maps for the next season of ladder and WCS. After a rigorous QA session, Blizzard will announce which maps will be available for you to play on at home closer to the start of the next ladder season.
How to Submit
Mappers will be limited to four map submissions each with a limit on two maps per category. For example, you may submit one map to each category or submit two macro maps and two rush maps.
Please PM your map file(s) to TL Map Contest with the following format before Saturday, Sep 09 4:59am GMT (GMT+00:00). Please title your PMs with the name of the map and keep all submissions to 1 map per PM. This time we'll also be be asking mappers to submit more detailed information about their maps to ensure neither the judges nor the community misses any key features.
Map Name
A picture of your map. Please submit your maps with a standard 90° top down overview' do not use any angled or tilted images. Please mark start locations and describe any starting location constraints.
The size (dimensions) of the map
The map category you wish to enter with this map.
A description of the map.
Why the map fits the category you selected.
List and describe any distinctive features of the map.
Point out any alternate resource or rock usage on the map. Describe why you chose to use non-standard numbers.
Main to Main distance: (in-game seconds using a worker from town hall to town hall)
Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: (in-game seconds using a worker)
Natural to Natural distance: (in-game seconds using a worker from town hall to town hall)
Any relevant analyzer images (optional)
A download link to your map
Entries not in this format may be excluded from consideration. Please do not send questions to the 'TL Map Contest' account; contact TLMC organizer monk instead.
Q: Do I need to send my map file, or will an image or a link to my map on Battle.net be enough?
We want the map file for this contest, so a link to Battle.net is not sufficient. There will be a huge number of maps to choose from, so we will need to open many of them up in order to check for details that we can't find otherwise. To send your maps, upload them to a file hosting service such as Mediafire or Dropbox and include the link in your entry.
Q: How do I attached a map file or image to a PM?
The TeamLiquid PM system does not support attachments. Instead, use an external image/file hoster such as Mediafire, Dropbox or Google drive for map files or Imgur for image files. Please sent those links along with your submission.
Q: I want to enter a team map/FFA map into the contest.
The Team Liquid Map Contest has traditionally allowed team play maps to be entered and evaluated separately from 1v1 maps, and some of these submissions did eventually reach the ladder map pool. Unfortunately, this season we will not be considering team play maps submitted to the contest. If you're really passionate about making high quality team play maps then we strongly encourage you to post your work in our Maps and Custom Games forum.
Q: Will the winning map automatically be included in WCS?
No. A list of the top maps will be submitted to Blizzard for consideration for use in WCS/ladder.
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. If your map passes that test and complies with the guidelines above then your map is acceptable! Of course, if you are concerned that your map may not be suitable for ladder then please PM monk and we will tell you whether or not it is appropriate.
Q: I’m interested in the contest, but I’m horrible at map making. What can I do to support the mappers?
Post in their map threads and give them support, encouragement and replays on their maps! Giving your favorite mapper support will be much appreciated by the mapper. Replays are especially valuable as it helps the mapper align their design goals with the map with the reality of how people play their map.
If you have any unanswered questions please do not hesitate to ask them below or PM monk who will be happy to answer them. Best of luck in the competition.
Here we go boys!!! Best of luck to all participants!!! I actually already have 3 maps finished so I'll just need to pound out that final map and then I'll go ahead and post my work here like I do every TLMC.
Unfortunately, Dragonshire won't be submitted since custom data is not allowed, and the map is using warcraft 3 data. I could change the trees out but that ruins the integrity of the map.
I think designing maps is fun but I don't really enjoy placing doodads and texturing. Basically, I want to make maps but only as a strategic exercise, not an artistic one.
On August 19 2017 08:38 alexanderzero wrote: I think designing maps is fun but I don't really enjoy placing doodads and texturing. Basically, I want to make maps but only as a strategic exercise, not an artistic one.
Most mapmakers are the complete opposite, or a combination of both. I actually prefer the strategic design, but once I get to the artwork I can be completely blank sometimes. Some of the beautification that some mappers come up with is astounding. Allow me to reference the age old map art thread:
On August 19 2017 08:38 alexanderzero wrote: I think designing maps is fun but I don't really enjoy placing doodads and texturing. Basically, I want to make maps but only as a strategic exercise, not an artistic one.
i'm similar, i like designing the layouts and coming up with the aesthetic theme/idea, but actually doing the decoration is kind of boring especially since i have no artistic knowledge or technique lol.
On August 19 2017 08:38 alexanderzero wrote: I think designing maps is fun but I don't really enjoy placing doodads and texturing. Basically, I want to make maps but only as a strategic exercise, not an artistic one.
This is a legitimate concern. Consider this - when a building is designed, there is an architect, who is responsible for all things aesthetic and is concerned with creating a building that's designed towards it's intended purpose. There is also an engineer, who is responsible for making sure that the building doesn't fall down or crack and warp over time. I think it makes sense that mapping could be subdivided into the layout itself and the aesthetic considerations. Certainly some mappers are better at one or the other.
On August 19 2017 08:38 alexanderzero wrote: I think designing maps is fun but I don't really enjoy placing doodads and texturing. Basically, I want to make maps but only as a strategic exercise, not an artistic one.
This is a legitimate concern. Consider this - when a building is designed, there is an architect, who is responsible for all things aesthetic and is concerned with creating a building that's designed towards it's intended purpose. There is also an engineer, who is responsible for making sure that the building doesn't fall down or crack and warp over time. I think it makes sense that mapping could be subdivided into the layout itself and the aesthetic considerations. Certainly some mappers are better at one or the other.
There's nothing preventing one person from designing the layout and another doing the aesthetics. In fact that's how Acolyte was made, and it's how Blizzard makes maps.
And it's great to finally have a standard category.
Next we'll have a tournament stage where professional players will compete on these experimental maps for prize money. Once again, thanks to Blizzard for providing the funding for this event. Details will be disclosed at a later date.
On August 19 2017 14:11 BronzeKnee wrote: Darn I was hoping for a TL Open.
TOURNAMENT PHASE
SEPTEMBER 16-SEPTEMBER 22
Next we'll have a tournament stage where professional players will compete on these experimental maps for prize money. Once again, thanks to Blizzard for providing the funding for this event. Details will be disclosed at a later date.
Who if not Mizenhauer would have the kpop reference ^^
I was actually pretty surprised he didnt show up in the original map thread....
Also, I hope that Fatam submits Crimson Aftermath, one of my favourite maps from what Ive seen in the Maps Forums during the last months. Would really love to play that on ladder.
I suggest maybe tweaking Hwangsan's name to avoid confusion with the BW map (or avoiding some breaking of mapmaker's code if such a thing exists ) http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Hwangsanbul
I'm wondering since Hwangsan got finalist last season if it's eligible this season? Especially since nothing really has changed from this season compared to last. Thoughts?
iirc it was mentioned at some point before that previous finalists cannot be submitted again. But personally I have no problem with it being submitted.
IIRC Emerald Plaza was entered (and modified) after it was a finalist, and that was taken into account during judging but still allowed. There may have been a policy change since then, not sure.
I'd like to see some ladder maps that use the purifier, the void, or Nova Covert Ops estate tilesets. The last 2 have never appeared in a 1v1 ladder map. Also, the beach and Aiur tilesets are overused.
I'd like to see some ladder maps that use the purifier, the void, or Nova Covert Ops estate tilesets. The last 2 have never appeared in a 1v1 ladder map. Also, the beach and Aiur tilesets are overused.
I could try and make my final map for submissions to be one of those, but just some concerns I see with one of them is purifier one is VERY hard to texture correctly and pull off as a map that is why I avoid using the textures. Some other map makers can comment on the tile set and the other tile sets, but that is my personal opinion on purifier tile set.
I'm a first-time entrant and newbie map maker, but I threw my hat into the ring. Hopefully, I'll be inexperienced enough to accidentally create something unique.
On August 21 2017 02:12 paralleluniverse wrote: I'd like to see some ladder maps that use the purifier, the void, or Nova Covert Ops estate tilesets. The last 2 have never appeared in a 1v1 ladder map. Also, the beach and Aiur tilesets are overused.
Problem with the Purifier and Void tilesets by themselves are pretty monotone. Void naturally is very dark, and pros don't like dark tilesets. As it was already mentioned, Cybros/Purifier has alot of detail textures and very few good looking base textures. Since we can't recolor anymore, it's very unlikely we'll get a good looking one of those again. :/
Cybros however, does look good in combination with some other tilesets, like Mar Sara Ex2 and Shakuras Temple.
The Compound Mansion ones aren't too bad, just hard to nail perfectly as they are interior tilesets. Their default lighting is weird too.
I have a sewer map in the works, if that means anything.
On August 21 2017 02:12 paralleluniverse wrote: I'd like to see some ladder maps that use the purifier, the void, or Nova Covert Ops estate tilesets. The last 2 have never appeared in a 1v1 ladder map. Also, the beach and Aiur tilesets are overused.
Problem with the Purifier and Void tilesets by themselves are pretty monotone. Void naturally is very dark, and pros don't like dark tilesets. As it was already mentioned, Cybros/Purifier has alot of detail textures and very few good looking base textures. Since we can't recolor anymore, it's very unlikely we'll get a good looking one of those again. :/
Cybros however, does look good in combination with some other tilesets, like Mar Sara Ex2 and Shakuras Temple.
The Compound Mansion ones aren't too bad, just hard to nail perfectly as they are interior tilesets. Their default lighting is weird too.
I have a sewer map in the works, if that means anything.
On August 22 2017 03:47 Avexyli wrote: The Compound Mansion ones aren't too bad, just hard to nail perfectly as they are interior tilesets. Their default lighting is weird too. .
yeah the angle that the light comes in from is 180 from most lightings that have been used in maps thus far in SC2, hence the shadows of ramps/etc. are on the opposite side. It's super jarring. Def have to change the lighting if you start a map with compound mansion
Just got my final layout done (already had 2 maps completed beforehand and 1 that was like 75% finished).
Think I've now got a layout I really like, although I'll still need to do some tweaking, especially once I start to add some aesthetics. If all goes well I'll most likely be able to submit all four of my maps this weekend. As always, I'll post my 4 maps with a short description & some aesthetic shots as well.
Please guys, please post your maps here if you submit, it's fun to look at the competition and maybe you'll give some ideas to other people when they submit.
On August 24 2017 02:45 MoonStone1 wrote: Looking forward to it SidianTheBard. It's exciting to be in the same competition as the current ladder-pool mappers.
It's on! I'll look forward to seeing your submissions if you decide to publically post them. Also, if you ever have any questions or would like some feedback feel free to toss me a PM. =)
On August 25 2017 03:24 RCCar wrote: I would like to see a map like 몽환, where you take 4 old maps and stitch them together. Shit balance but looks interesting
I have a feeling an scii map with that concept would be even more imbalanced than Fantasy was. Fantasy used Xeno Sky, Nostalgia, Gaema Gowon and Ride of Valkyries, not sure what an SCII map would use.
I'm more interested in someone trying the concept of Demon's Forest in SCII. That seems like something that would be better in SCII than BW.
On August 25 2017 03:24 RCCar wrote: I would like to see a map like 몽환, where you take 4 old maps and stitch them together. Shit balance but looks interesting
i had this idea a few times before, but haven't really done it yet bc i still have ideas in my head that i feel are more interesting. I definitely think it's a good idea though, take the good parts of each famous map and you might be able to stitch something awesome together if you do it smartly.
On August 25 2017 04:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm more interested in someone trying the concept of Demon's Forest in SCII. That seems like something that would be better in SCII than BW.
I think the problem with Demon's Forest in SC2 is that air units are already too strong and a forest of los blockers all over would just make them even more strong/necessary.
On August 25 2017 03:24 RCCar wrote: I would like to see a map like 몽환, where you take 4 old maps and stitch them together. Shit balance but looks interesting
doing this is a lot easier in bw since all 4p maps are exactly the same size. on the other hand maps in sc2 can be any size, and the majority of the good ones are 2p instead of 4p, so it would take a lot more tweaking and fine tuning.
On August 25 2017 03:24 RCCar wrote: I would like to see a map like 몽환, where you take 4 old maps and stitch them together. Shit balance but looks interesting
i had this idea a few times before, but haven't really done it yet bc i still have ideas in my head that i feel are more interesting. I definitely think it's a good idea though, take the good parts of each famous map and you might be able to stitch something awesome together if you do it smartly.
On August 25 2017 04:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm more interested in someone trying the concept of Demon's Forest in SCII. That seems like something that would be better in SCII than BW.
I think the problem with Demon's Forest in SC2 is that air units are already too strong and a forest of los blockers all over would just make them even more strong/necessary.
Easily solved by scattering air blockers all over the place . Not only would it solve the problem, it would also make it feel as frustrating as the original.
On August 26 2017 00:30 Caerwyn wrote: I'm a noob mapmaker, and first time TLMC participant, but I thought there's no reason not to be here xD. My submission- Bone Stronghold:
Hope you like it and goodluck to everyone :D
You didn't link the image properly. Do this instead:
My submissions for TLMC9. Wishing best of luck to all participants. I am not submitting these maps yet as I'm still doing tweaks to them but I figured I would showcase my work to let others see and to hopefully spark some interesting ideas for other mappers. All feedback is welcomed! =)
______________________________
Battle on the Boardwalk Rush
Nothing like a pleasant stroll on the boardwalk to calm you down. Play hard, rush harder.
Death awaits those who take the woods for granted. Flank well, control vision, outplay your opponent or become another lost soul wandering for eternity in Blackwood Timbers.
As far as I am concerned we have a winner and that is "2fort Tetr0n" so CREATIVE. On a serious note I like the other maps and always love seeing these "creative" maps this is why I enjoy mapping seeing how others show their creativity.
On August 26 2017 02:41 LykosAldefos wrote: This is my first time participating in a TLMC, and this is submission for the New Category, hope you guys like it! :
Abandoned Reactor
I don't understand why you decided to use non-standard mineral line in every base. The map layout is also very confusing. Especially with a dark lighting.
I don't understand why you decided to use non-standard mineral line in every base. The map layout is also very confusing. Especially with a dark lighting.
I don't really know what you mean by non-standard mineral line? 0.0 Why is it non-standard? XP
Well I used the Twilight Space Platform though... The maps preview image just comes out like usual Space Platforms..
I appreciate if a map has a lot of art in it, but for me, a player, the layout is the most important part of a map, so please mapmakers, don't prioritize the art over the actual layout and gameplay of the map.
A lot of lotv maps looked really fancy and artistic, but the gameplay was so terrible sometimes, that i had to veto it after a few games.
I wish we could get more basic standard maps like for example Coda.
On August 26 2017 02:41 LykosAldefos wrote: This is my first time participating in a TLMC, and this is submission for the New Category, hope you guys like it! :
Abandoned Reactor
I don't understand why you decided to use non-standard mineral line in every base. The map layout is also very confusing. Especially with a dark lighting.
On November 12 2012 04:21 Monochromatic wrote: This is something I was thinking of doing for a while, but I've put it off until today. I want to catalog every mineral placement as a resource for mapmakers to use. This is mainly for newer mapmakers, but it is still helpful if you are wondering how to make certain base layouts. (IE: Atlantis Spaceship's 3 gas base) If you feel I am missing any important ones or ones that you want to see, please tell me which ones I should add.
They are split into standard, which are normal bases used on multiple maps, and special, which are bases used on only one map.
On August 27 2017 00:12 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: I appreciate if a map has a lot of art in it, but for me, a player, the layout is the most important part of a map, so please mapmakers, don't prioritize the art over the actual layout and gameplay of the map.
Sorry ~_~, and understood, I'll try making my maps layouts more standard... Thanks for mentioning it! :<
On August 27 2017 00:12 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: I appreciate if a map has a lot of art in it, but for me, a player, the layout is the most important part of a map, so please mapmakers, don't prioritize the art over the actual layout and gameplay of the map.
Sorry ~_~, and understood, I'll try making my maps layouts more standard... Thanks for mentioning it! :<
Hey man, my post wasn't related to your maps :D i didn't even see your maps and i haven't played them.
I was just generally speaking, because thats just a feeling of me that maps get more and more gimmicky with each season and somehow maps like bloodboil and dasan station keep getting into mappools, which extremely annoys me as an active ladder player.
It feels like a lot of mapmakers focus more on making an art statement instead of a well designed, competetive map.
Fancy maps usually promote all in or cheese strategies and once the best BO got figured out, the map becomes very stale in gameplay.
More gimmicky maps just lead to less diversity and sometimes they are so bad, that most people just veto them right away.
Standard maps always have their own unique features too, even though they are considered to be "standard". Those little details like for example a slightly exposed 3rd or pocket expansions etc. Already affect the strategy choice a lot and create interesting strategic diversity without forcing players into specific playstyles.
The perfect mappool in my opinion is simply a mix of 2, 3 and 4 player standard maps. Which feature different factors like for example 3 lane layouts, straight lined rush distance to promote timings more, pocket expansions, no rocks, no gold bases, risky gold bases, different watchtower positions, different mirrors (for example frost mirror creates different gameplay depending on spawn position, maps like cactus valley can favor dropplay for one player over another because of rotational mirror etc.)...
There are countless details that affect how a map gets played, while it still is considered to be a standard map.
I'm sick of maps with stupid gimmicks just for the sake of it. If a gold base doesn't really increase the gameplay quality of the map, then just don't add one.
A map also doesn't need thousand rocks in order to have interesting gameplay etc....
As i said, less is usually more. Small details often encourage players enough to chose one strategy over another, while not being too restricting in terms of strategy freedom.
A good map should be balanced for every matchup and allow strategic freedom.
Coda for example is a very standard map and clearly encourages macro play because of the high ground natural, high ground and easy to wall 3rd etc. but in the end you can still play whatever you want basically.
That's what makes a map great imo
*Content slightly edited, sorry for bad english ;D
On August 27 2017 00:12 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: I appreciate if a map has a lot of art in it, but for me, a player, the layout is the most important part of a map, so please mapmakers, don't prioritize the art over the actual layout and gameplay of the map.
Sorry ~_~, and understood, I'll try making my maps layouts more standard... Thanks for mentioning it! :<
Hey man, my post wasn't related to your maps :D i didn't even see your maps and i haven't played them.
I was just generally speaking, because thats just a feeling of me that maps get more and more gimmicky with each season and somehow maps like bloodboil and dasan station keep getting into mappools, which extremely annoys me as an active ladder player.
Fancy maps usually promote all in or cheese strategies and once the best BO got figured out, the map becomes very stale in gameplay.
More gimmicky maps just lead to less diversity and sometimes they are so bad, that most people just veto them right away.
Standard maps alwaays have their own unique features, even though they are "standard". Those little details like for example an exposed 3rd or pocket expansions etc. Already affect the strategy choice a lot and create interesting strategic diversity without forcing players into specific playstyles.
The perfect mappool in my opinion is simply a mix of 2, 3 and 4 player standard maps. Which feature different factors like for example 3 lane layouts, straight lined rush distance to promote timings more, pocket expansions, no rocks, no gold bases, risky gold bases, different watchtower positions, different mirrors (for example frost mirror creates different gameplay depending on spawn position, maps like cactus valley can favor dropplay for one player over another because of rotational mirror etc.)...
There are countless details that affect how a map gets played, while it still is considered to be a standard map.
I'm sick of maps with stupid gimmicks just for the sake of it. If a gold base doesn't really increase the gameplay quality of the map, then just don't add one.
A map also doesn't need thousand rocks in order to have interesting gameplay etc....
As i said, less is usually more. Small details often create enough diversity for players to chose one strategy over another, while not being too restricting in terms of strategy.
A good map should be balanced for every matchup and allow as many strategies as possible. Then you will see strategic diversity.
Haha, well tbh, so far, I think the maps I've made are all pretty much non-standard and are pretty gimmicky, so it's really nice to receive feedback for those kinds of maps from a player. XD
On another note, the things you've mentioned with the map references are really something to think about.
On August 26 2017 02:41 LykosAldefos wrote: This is my first time participating in a TLMC, and this is submission for the New Category, hope you guys like it! :
Abandoned Reactor
I don't understand why you decided to use non-standard mineral line in every base. The map layout is also very confusing. Especially with a dark lighting.
I've changed all the regular mineral line in every base to the standard format! :D Again, thanks for mentioning it... ~_~
On August 27 2017 00:12 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: I appreciate if a map has a lot of art in it, but for me, a player, the layout is the most important part of a map, so please mapmakers, don't prioritize the art over the actual layout and gameplay of the map.
Sorry ~_~, and understood, I'll try making my maps layouts more standard... Thanks for mentioning it! :<
Hey man, my post wasn't related to your maps :D i didn't even see your maps and i haven't played them.
I was just generally speaking, because thats just a feeling of me that maps get more and more gimmicky with each season and somehow maps like bloodboil and dasan station keep getting into mappools, which extremely annoys me as an active ladder player.
It feels like a lot of mapmakers focus more on making an art statement instead of a well designed, competetive map.
Fancy maps usually promote all in or cheese strategies and once the best BO got figured out, the map becomes very stale in gameplay.
More gimmicky maps just lead to less diversity and sometimes they are so bad, that most people just veto them right away.
Standard maps always have their own unique features too, even though they are considered to be "standard". Those little details like for example a slightly exposed 3rd or pocket expansions etc. Already affect the strategy choice a lot and create interesting strategic diversity without forcing players into specific playstyles.
The perfect mappool in my opinion is simply a mix of 2, 3 and 4 player standard maps. Which feature different factors like for example 3 lane layouts, straight lined rush distance to promote timings more, pocket expansions, no rocks, no gold bases, risky gold bases, different watchtower positions, different mirrors (for example frost mirror creates different gameplay depending on spawn position, maps like cactus valley can favor dropplay for one player over another because of rotational mirror etc.)...
There are countless details that affect how a map gets played, while it still is considered to be a standard map.
I'm sick of maps with stupid gimmicks just for the sake of it. If a gold base doesn't really increase the gameplay quality of the map, then just don't add one.
A map also doesn't need thousand rocks in order to have interesting gameplay etc....
As i said, less is usually more. Small details often encourage players enough to chose one strategy over another, while not being too restricting in terms of strategy freedom.
A good map should be balanced for every matchup and allow strategic freedom.
Coda for example is a very standard map and clearly encourages macro play because of the high ground natural, high ground and easy to wall 3rd etc. but in the end you can still play whatever you want basically.
That's what makes a map great imo
*Content slightly edited, sorry for bad english ;D
Thanks for your insight! :D It has helped me to gain some understanding on making a standard map. I say some, because I don't think I'm quite there yet... XP
Well this is a first attempt to a standard map and my second submission. XD
I will submit following three maps soon, if I they don't have any major issues. I'm creating threads under custom maps for each of them for feedback. (Currently being delay by restrictions...) All maps have been published on EU and AM servers. I also have an idea for fourth map, but I haven't started making it yet.
Fennec's Depot may be a rush map also.
Macro: Pooki Station Size: 152x156 Rush Distance: 43s
On August 29 2017 00:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm a bit puzzled that Port Aleksander is standard and Defender's Resort is macro rather than the other way around in truth.
Based on the guidelines Port is closer to standard and Defender's is Macro. I havnt submitted yet since I am still making sure I have looked for any bugs and last minute polish so maybe I'll switch them.
On August 29 2017 00:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm a bit puzzled that Port Aleksander is standard and Defender's Resort is macro rather than the other way around in truth.
Based on the guidelines Port is closer to standard and Defender's is Macro. I havnt submitted yet since I am still making sure I have looked for any bugs and last minute polish so maybe I'll switch them.
I'd have sworn that Port had the longer rush distance. What are the dimensions and rush distances?
On August 29 2017 00:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm a bit puzzled that Port Aleksander is standard and Defender's Resort is macro rather than the other way around in truth.
Based on the guidelines Port is closer to standard and Defender's is Macro. I havnt submitted yet since I am still making sure I have looked for any bugs and last minute polish so maybe I'll switch them.
I'd have sworn that Port had the longer rush distance. What are the dimensions and rush distances?
Going back and looking both Port and Defender's Resort have pretty long rush distances main to main both about 50 to 55 seconds, and the bounds for Port is 158x140. While Defender's Resort bounds are 144x152 along with having more bases on the map is why my initial thoughts were Port be in standard.
On August 29 2017 00:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm a bit puzzled that Port Aleksander is standard and Defender's Resort is macro rather than the other way around in truth.
Based on the guidelines Port is closer to standard and Defender's is Macro. I havnt submitted yet since I am still making sure I have looked for any bugs and last minute polish so maybe I'll switch them.
I'd have sworn that Port had the longer rush distance. What are the dimensions and rush distances?
Going back and looking both Port and Defender's Resort have pretty long rush distances main to main both about 50 to 55 seconds, and the bounds for Port is 158x140. While Defender's Resort bounds are 144x152 along with having more bases on the map is why my initial thoughts were Port be in standard.
Hmm yeah that makes sense. They're probably both Macro maps, but you can only submit two to each category so calling Port standard isn't too far off.
Maps so far look awesome. @youngrustler / @avex port Alexsander is by far my favorite so far.. was checking out the terrain job. Here is a pathing bug to fix tho
On August 29 2017 13:42 themusic246 wrote: Maps so far look awesome. @youngrustler / @avex port Alexsander is by far my favorite so far.. was checking out the terrain job. Here is a pathing bug to fix tho
Keep posting :D
This is exactly why I havnt uploaded yet I seem to have trouble making sure those ramps are functioning right, but thanks for the kind words this problem will hopefully be fixed before the deadline!
if possible you should try to resubmit this into the "standard" category, the bases seem a little too hard to take for a pure macro map - especially with the large backdoor to the nat.
Dimensions:148x148 Rush distances: 42 seconds for Top Right/Bottom Left spawns 39 seconds for Top Left/Bottom Right spawns
I'll probably submit it in the standard category. Despite it being pretty big and having lots of bases the rush distances and how it plays out makes it more standard than macro.
On August 31 2017 15:06 themusic246 wrote: On Asphodel can massive units fit between the minerals and xel'naga towers?
Yup. All the units fit. It's two squares wide on each side. (side note: thors and siege tanks are the units that can't go through small gaps. Even ultras can squeeze through holes that tanks can't).
if possible you should try to resubmit this into the "standard" category, the bases seem a little too hard to take for a pure macro map - especially with the large backdoor to the nat.
Perhaps, I was torn between the two, I put it in macro based on the size constraints. Is there someone in the know that could give some direction?
I think Asphodel is an incredibly creative map in its execution - basically, it looks like two maps in one since the base layouts are different depending on the spawns you get(which are, thankfully, just cross spawns). That alone makes the map really appealing to me, though it depends to see how it looks in action to see if it works out well.
On August 31 2017 23:57 Corwinus wrote: I think Asphodel is an incredibly creative map in its execution - basically, it looks like two maps in one since the base layouts are different depending on the spawns you get(which are, thankfully, just cross spawns). That alone makes the map really appealing to me, though it depends to see how it looks in action to see if it works out well.
There was a map called Waystation which did it in the past, and in general what I believe is the consensus amongst zerg/terran pros is that the map's spawn situation was garbage. It was clearly overpowered for T in close and for Z in cross - this would most likely still hold true today. That's why I'm generally against maps like Asphodel, because it's better to have for example an Abyssal Reef and an AsphodelOnlyOneSpawnScenario side by side in a 7map pool, rather than a map that can play out differently depending on spawn situation paired with a 4player map or something.
All the positives from the "variety factor" can be created by having a 2p map pool that doesn't suck. A 2 in 1-map seems like a good idea on paper, but I'd say there are no downsides to just having two maps instead. Having 'game outcomes change' because of a certain spawn being active or not is generally not healthy for competition and is one of the reasons why I never liked having Waystation and 4 player maps in the map pool.
That being said, this map offends way less than Whirlwind, Frost, Cactus Valley, Honorgrounds, and Waystation could ever do because the 2 spawns are kinda similar in rush distance. That aside, I'd take two maps based off of each spawn situation maybe with different aesthetics over a 2in1-map any day.
edit: i just wanna end on a positive note and say that i like the map! just think that 2in1 should be avoided for competition, similar to 4p/3p maps with spawn/symmetry problems
On August 31 2017 23:57 Corwinus wrote: I think Asphodel is an incredibly creative map in its execution - basically, it looks like two maps in one since the base layouts are different depending on the spawns you get(which are, thankfully, just cross spawns). That alone makes the map really appealing to me, though it depends to see how it looks in action to see if it works out well.
There was a map called Waystation which did it in the past, and in general what I believe is the consensus amongst zerg/terran pros is that the map's spawn situation was garbage. It was clearly overpowered for T in close and for Z in cross - this would most likely still hold true today. That's why I'm generally against maps like Asphodel, because it's better to have for example an Abyssal Reef and an AsphodelOnlyOneSpawnScenario side by side in a 7map pool, rather than a map that can play out differently depending on spawn situation paired with a 4player map or something.
All the positives from the "variety factor" can be created by having a 2p map pool that doesn't suck. A 2 in 1-map seems like a good idea on paper, but I'd say there are no downsides to just having two maps instead. Having 'game outcomes change' because of a certain spawn being active or not is generally not healthy for competition and is one of the reasons why I never liked having Waystation and 4 player maps in the map pool.
That being said, this map offends way less than Whirlwind, Frost, Cactus Valley, Honorgrounds, and Waystation could ever do because the 2 spawns are kinda similar in rush distance. That aside, I'd take two maps based off of each spawn situation maybe with different aesthetics over a 2in1-map any day.
edit: i just wanna end on a positive note and say that i like the map! just think that 2in1 should be avoided for competition, similar to 4p/3p maps with spawn/symmetry problems
Yeah, thank you for explaining this! I was thinking that that could be an issue, but I'm a relatively newer player so I haven't played Waystation or maps like that. My second thought was, which I probably should have posted initially, that if it didn't work out, why not just make two 2-player maps with those cross spawn layouts but obviously different outlying bases.
On August 31 2017 23:57 Corwinus wrote: I think Asphodel is an incredibly creative map in its execution - basically, it looks like two maps in one since the base layouts are different depending on the spawns you get(which are, thankfully, just cross spawns). That alone makes the map really appealing to me, though it depends to see how it looks in action to see if it works out well.
There was a map called Waystation which did it in the past, and in general what I believe is the consensus amongst zerg/terran pros is that the map's spawn situation was garbage. It was clearly overpowered for T in close and for Z in cross - this would most likely still hold true today. That's why I'm generally against maps like Asphodel, because it's better to have for example an Abyssal Reef and an AsphodelOnlyOneSpawnScenario side by side in a 7map pool, rather than a map that can play out differently depending on spawn situation paired with a 4player map or something.
All the positives from the "variety factor" can be created by having a 2p map pool that doesn't suck. A 2 in 1-map seems like a good idea on paper, but I'd say there are no downsides to just having two maps instead. Having 'game outcomes change' because of a certain spawn being active or not is generally not healthy for competition and is one of the reasons why I never liked having Waystation and 4 player maps in the map pool.
That being said, this map offends way less than Whirlwind, Frost, Cactus Valley, Honorgrounds, and Waystation could ever do because the 2 spawns are kinda similar in rush distance. That aside, I'd take two maps based off of each spawn situation maybe with different aesthetics over a 2in1-map any day.
edit: i just wanna end on a positive note and say that i like the map! just think that 2in1 should be avoided for competition, similar to 4p/3p maps with spawn/symmetry problems
I don't disagree... 2 in 1 maps come with a few pros and some cons and by and large the cons crushingly outweigh the pros. It's possible to get maps with multiple spawns right though--I personally really liked Foxtrot Labs. In the case of Asphodel it kinda grew organically into a 2 in 1 map when I realized the middle I wanted did a good job of pulling double duty in either direction. Not sure if it was the right decision, but I do think that 2 in 1 maps have at least a little something to offer that 2 spawns maps don't. Better utilization of the map corners. Providing variety in the real world where some of the maps in the pool suck and three maps are played much more heavily than the others. Of course the majority of the time that little something is lost due to each facet of the map being weaker overall to accommodate the multiple spawn situation, but I think the vision is sound at least.
On August 31 2017 23:57 Corwinus wrote: I think Asphodel is an incredibly creative map in its execution - basically, it looks like two maps in one since the base layouts are different depending on the spawns you get(which are, thankfully, just cross spawns). That alone makes the map really appealing to me, though it depends to see how it looks in action to see if it works out well.
There was a map called Waystation which did it in the past, and in general what I believe is the consensus amongst zerg/terran pros is that the map's spawn situation was garbage. It was clearly overpowered for T in close and for Z in cross - this would most likely still hold true today. That's why I'm generally against maps like Asphodel, because it's better to have for example an Abyssal Reef and an AsphodelOnlyOneSpawnScenario side by side in a 7map pool, rather than a map that can play out differently depending on spawn situation paired with a 4player map or something.
All the positives from the "variety factor" can be created by having a 2p map pool that doesn't suck. A 2 in 1-map seems like a good idea on paper, but I'd say there are no downsides to just having two maps instead. Having 'game outcomes change' because of a certain spawn being active or not is generally not healthy for competition and is one of the reasons why I never liked having Waystation and 4 player maps in the map pool.
That being said, this map offends way less than Whirlwind, Frost, Cactus Valley, Honorgrounds, and Waystation could ever do because the 2 spawns are kinda similar in rush distance. That aside, I'd take two maps based off of each spawn situation maybe with different aesthetics over a 2in1-map any day.
edit: i just wanna end on a positive note and say that i like the map! just think that 2in1 should be avoided for competition, similar to 4p/3p maps with spawn/symmetry problems
On September 01 2017 06:43 Avexyli wrote: 2 in 1 has been done quite a few times in other unique ways, unfortunately most of them aren't seen or played.
2 in 1, like 4p maps however, are kind of an excuse to not have to create unique corners for a map.
Agreed and agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of 4p or 2n1 maps because of all of this (and I've been bitching about 4p in particular for years). But if blizzard still wants them for some reason, then it's good someone is making them rather than blizzard injecting their own abominations into the pool
The irony.. just finished a 2n1 map as well for the "Other" category. Idea here is to create two *drastically* unique forced cross-spawn setups in one map. One spawn is rush the other is more standard/macro with a pocket natural.
It's called Specula City if you want to check it out in custom. Still need to work on it a bit... but here's a pic of the spawn setups:
As a casual player, the 2-in-1 maps are fun. If the difference between the maps are big, the fun factor is big. The downside is that a big difference is horrendous for competitive play. Since the ladder is used by both casuals and the competitive players, those kinds of maps shouldn't be there. That is my opinion.
The cons of 2-in-1's mentioned so far are in the context of random spawns and not forced symmetrical cross-spawns, correct? I completely agree with random spawning and obvious balance issues, but forced cross-spawns it's literally 2 balanced maps in one - both players are playing symmetrically the entire game regardless of spawn positions in this case ( see previous post :3 )
On September 01 2017 16:35 themusic246 wrote: The cons of 2-in-1's mentioned so far are in the context of random spawns and not forced symmetrical cross-spawns, correct? I completely agree with random spawning and obvious balance issues, but forced cross-spawns it's literally 2 balanced maps in one - both players are playing symmetrically the entire game regardless of spawn positions in this case ( see previous post :3 )
Well, a big issue is having BOTH spawns be balanced for all matchups. That's a really tall task. At least if you split the ideas into two normal maps, then if one setup is balanced and good then yayy you have a good map. In the 2n1 scenario, even if one setup proves good, if the other is bad then you have to throw it out or try to hotfix for a solution. So you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(Of course, I'm not saying don't make the map you want to make If someone can make an amazing 4p or 2n1 then have at it. Good to keep an open mind with things even if you initially suspect it won't work.)
On September 01 2017 16:35 themusic246 wrote: The cons of 2-in-1's mentioned so far are in the context of random spawns and not forced symmetrical cross-spawns, correct? I completely agree with random spawning and obvious balance issues, but forced cross-spawns it's literally 2 balanced maps in one - both players are playing symmetrically the entire game regardless of spawn positions in this case ( see previous post :3 )
Well, a big issue is having BOTH spawns be balanced for all matchups. That's a really tall task. At least if you split the ideas into two normal maps, then if one setup is balanced and good then yayy you have a good map. In the 2n1 scenario, even if one setup proves good, if the other is bad then you have to throw it out or try to hotfix for a solution. So you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(Of course, I'm not saying don't make the map you want to make If someone can make an amazing 4p or 2n1 then have at it. Good to keep an open mind with things even if you initially suspect it won't work.)
i think a balanced 2 in 1 could easily be achieved if you just make a super standard map that happens to have 2 sets of spawns (although in that case, the spawns will probably play similarly enough that having 2 of them isn't really necessary...)
the real problem with waystation is that it just has 2 bad layouts, not that the 2 in 1 concept in general is bad.
I don't see how 2 in 1 can theoretically NOT be a bad concept compared to having 2p maps, aside from artificially expanding the map pool beyond 7 maps ><
On September 01 2017 19:00 Liquid`Snute wrote: I don't see how 2 in 1 can theoretically NOT be a bad concept compared to having 2p maps, aside from artificially expanding the map pool beyond 7 maps ><
There isn't anything inherently bad about two maps in one if you succeed in making two good maps that fit together. Additionally it'll probably give a slightly different sort of map than normal two player maps, a case of restriction forcing creativity or something along those lines.
Of course in practice the restriction of having multiple layouts work is so heavy that people can't manage to make each half as good as a two player map, but that isn't anything that is inherent to 2 in 1 maps.
On September 01 2017 19:00 Liquid`Snute wrote: I don't see how 2 in 1 can theoretically NOT be a bad concept compared to having 2p maps, aside from artificially expanding the map pool beyond 7 maps ><
And submitted finally today. Feel free to look back at my previous post a few pages back to see my submissions. I changed up a few things but otherwise should be good to go.
On August 31 2017 23:57 Corwinus wrote: I think Asphodel is an incredibly creative map in its execution - basically, it looks like two maps in one since the base layouts are different depending on the spawns you get(which are, thankfully, just cross spawns). That alone makes the map really appealing to me, though it depends to see how it looks in action to see if it works out well.
it was done several times in the past, also in the history of TLMC i am sure. the issue of such a design is to make the main/nat/third-setup so standard but also interesting enough it also works as late bases. the other problem is the logic behind the 2-in-1 is to make the two sides play different and in map pools that coin flip is not something players like.
Pretty cool concept. Probably bad for Z bc of the rocks + not being able to get as much surface area on P/T armies but I think it'd be fun to see games on it (maybe I'm wrong)
On September 04 2017 13:44 Fatam wrote: Pretty cool concept. Probably bad for Z bc of the rocks + not being able to get as much surface area on P/T armies but I think it'd be fun to see games on it (maybe I'm wrong)
I thought so too, so I tried to make the map more open to compensate, but I'm not sure if I struck the right balance.
On September 04 2017 14:40 SidianTheBard wrote: @Yopico, now that is really cool. really really cool.
My only problem with the map. Is why you random have longer holes instead of 1x1 holes everywhere. Sometimes you have 2x1 holes. Like, wtfmate! =P
Gotta help all the poor trypophobes out there
More seriously I can't have a tight grid of holes everywhere since that blocks siege tanks and thors, so using different sized holes gives me more latitude with how I want to space things, and makes gaps looks more natural. Maybe only 1x1 holes would still be better though. idk
Way too many holes. Not necessary imo... this map would be pretty good if 90%+ of the holes were removed. The 1-2-3-4-5-6 layout is actually kinda refreshing, it's like a nice crossover of galactic process and echo. Big fan. But the middle is just overkill and ruins everything imo. Too many LoS blockers is kinda not fun in SC2, at least for Zerg. Abyssal reef for example has 6 los blockers (2 middle, 4 edges) and even that sometimes seems like it's pushing it. For a smaller map like this, 8 in the center is just super overkill. I'd reduce the amount of LoS blocking on this map down to 10% or less. Something like max two lines in the center, the edge smokescreen is ok. Interloper = Super overkill. Abyssal Reef = OK.
-Really- miss having decent medium size maps in the map pool, so that's why i was excited about the size and the non-midfield of this map. Good work, but .. yeah. It's just not playable from my personal perspective/opinion right now. Not even close. T.T
Right now there are only 2 maps for medium size map fans to play on and that's catallena and interloper ... and ... one is a 3p map with rotsym issues and no airspace symmetry control .. the other suffers from excessive use of destructible rocks and los blockers... >___<
On September 04 2017 16:05 Liquid`Snute wrote: Way too many holes. Not necessary imo... this map would be pretty good if 90%+ of the holes were removed. The 1-2-3-4-5-6 layout is actually kinda refreshing, it's like a nice crossover of galactic process and echo. Big fan. But the middle is just overkill and ruins everything imo. Too many LoS blockers is kinda not fun in SC2, at least for Zerg. Abyssal reef for example has 6 los blockers (2 middle, 4 edges) and even that sometimes seems like it's pushing it. For a smaller map like this, 8 in the center is just super overkill. I'd reduce the amount of LoS blocking on this map down to 10% or less. Something like max two lines in the center, the edge smokescreen is ok. Interloper = Super overkill. Abyssal Reef = OK.
-Really- miss having decent medium size maps in the map pool, so that's why i was excited about the size and the non-midfield of this map. Good work, but .. yeah. It's just not playable from my personal perspective/opinion right now. Not even close. T.T
Right now there are only 2 maps for medium size map fans to play on and that's catallena and interloper ... and ... one is a 3p map with rotsym issues and no airspace symmetry control .. the other suffers from excessive use of destructible rocks and los blockers... >___<
Unlike Interloper and Abyssal Reef which have all sort of cliff-ing that block line of sight, this map's middle is essentially completely open (plus the holes) which means it can afford to have more LOS blockers. It is pretty excessive right now though--I'll probably cut down to 4 spokes.
As for the holes they're taking the role usually taken by the terrain features that normally populate a maps center essentially, so idk about cutting down on 90% of them. Seems way too good for zerg to have a almost completely open middle. At this stage nixing the holes would require a redesign of the middle (and also abandoning the motivating concept of the map). Maybe I'll make a fully standard version of this map for a later TLMC.
In general I think you'll be pretty happy about the outcome of this contest though (if Blizzard cooperates). Both the introduction of the highly requested 'standard' category, and the recent shift in mapmaker attitudes towards more mid-sized maps should help the dearth in good mid-sized maps.
On September 04 2017 16:05 Liquid`Snute wrote: Way too many holes. Not necessary imo... this map would be pretty good if 90%+ of the holes were removed. The 1-2-3-4-5-6 layout is actually kinda refreshing, it's like a nice crossover of galactic process and echo. Big fan. But the middle is just overkill and ruins everything imo. Too many LoS blockers is kinda not fun in SC2, at least for Zerg. Abyssal reef for example has 6 los blockers (2 middle, 4 edges) and even that sometimes seems like it's pushing it. For a smaller map like this, 8 in the center is just super overkill. I'd reduce the amount of LoS blocking on this map down to 10% or less. Something like max two lines in the center, the edge smokescreen is ok. Interloper = Super overkill. Abyssal Reef = OK.
-Really- miss having decent medium size maps in the map pool, so that's why i was excited about the size and the non-midfield of this map. Good work, but .. yeah. It's just not playable from my personal perspective/opinion right now. Not even close. T.T
Right now there are only 2 maps for medium size map fans to play on and that's catallena and interloper ... and ... one is a 3p map with rotsym issues and no airspace symmetry control .. the other suffers from excessive use of destructible rocks and los blockers... >___<
Unlike Interloper and Abyssal Reef which have all sort of cliff-ing that block line of sight, this map's middle is essentially completely open (plus the holes) which means it can afford to have more LOS blockers. It is pretty excessive right now though--I'll probably cut down to 4 spokes.
As for the holes they're taking the role usually taken by the terrain features that normally populate a maps center essentially, so idk about cutting down on 90% of them. Seems way too good for zerg to have a almost completely open middle. At this stage nixing the holes would require a redesign of the middle (and also abandoning the motivating concept of the map). Maybe I'll make a fully standard version of this map for a later TLMC.
In general I think you'll be pretty happy about the outcome of this contest though (if Blizzard cooperates). Both the introduction of the highly requested 'standard' category, and the recent shift in mapmaker attitudes towards more mid-sized maps should help the dearth in good mid-sized maps.
Nice post, agree with everything here. People don't think about los blockers correctly IMO. If one player has vision over them and the other doesn't at that moment, then they're just like a very wide ramp. Not that bad tbh, and pretty trivial in today's game to get vision over them anyway, except in the early game.
On September 06 2017 00:35 Ej_ wrote: Please stop making maps with in-base naturals.
Please dont stop making maps with in-base naturals. Its to always have one of those in the mappool, and people who dont like it can still ban it out. Were getting so many new rush-maps with each contest that I (and everyone else that doesnt want to rush every game) are banning anyways, it just feels fair to get some super-safe macro maps. BTW, was there anyone except 6-pooling zergs that didnt ban Defender's Landing last map pool?
On September 06 2017 00:35 Ej_ wrote: Please stop making maps with in-base naturals.
Please dont stop making maps with in-base naturals. Its to always have one of those in the mappool, and people who dont like it can still ban it out. Were getting so many new rush-maps with each contest that I (and everyone else that doesnt want to rush every game) are banning anyways, it just feels fair to get some super-safe macro maps. BTW, was there anyone except 6-pooling zergs that didnt ban Defender's Landing last map pool?
There are a lot of ways to make good safe macro maps without resorting to in-base naturals. In fact some would say that the only way to make good safe macro maps is not to resort to in-base naturals.
i really appreciate that snute is so active in this thread and kinda represents the pro gamer/SC2 hardcore playerbase and provides important feedback and input.
I feel like a lot of mapmakers are a bit out of touch of what a competetive SC2 map actually needs.
A lot of mapmakers are really talented artistic people, but you also have to keep in mind that your map should provide good, well balanced gameplay for all three races.
On September 06 2017 04:11 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: i really appreciate that snute is so active in this thread and kinda represents the pro gamer/SC2 hardcore playerbase and provides important feedback and input.
I feel like a lot of mapmakers are a bit out of touch of what a competetive SC2 map actually needs.
A lot of mapmakers are really talented artistic people, but you also have to keep in mind that your map should provide good, well balanced gameplay for all three races.
That's the number 1 priority. Good gameplay.
That's great feedback and definitely not patronizing. I'm sure considering gameplay is a completely novel idea to all the mapmakers out there. Why don't you make your own map? I'm sure it can't turn out worse than your opinions about mech.
My submissions for TLMC9. Wishing best of luck to all participants. I am not submitting these maps yet as I'm still doing tweaks to them but I figured I would showcase my work to let others see and to hopefully spark some interesting ideas for other mappers. All feedback is welcomed! =)
______________________________
Battle on the Boardwalk Rush
Nothing like a pleasant stroll on the boardwalk to calm you down. Play hard, rush harder.
Death awaits those who take the woods for granted. Flank well, control vision, outplay your opponent or become another lost soul wandering for eternity in Blackwood Timbers.
Even scrap station has a similar layout if you rotate it 135 degrees. Reflective maps tend to have similar layouts. It's kind of necessary to avoid having players expanding towards each other.
I haven't had time to have an in depth look at all of them, but wanted to say that there are some visuelly gorgeous maps in here. Looking forward to testing some once the finalists are announced!
Contact me if you find anything missing or mistakes. Additionally several of the maps shown here are probably not exactly the same as the submitted maps.
On September 06 2017 00:35 Ej_ wrote: Please stop making maps with in-base naturals.
Please dont stop making maps with in-base naturals. Its to always have one of those in the mappool, and people who dont like it can still ban it out. Were getting so many new rush-maps with each contest that I (and everyone else that doesnt want to rush every game) are banning anyways, it just feels fair to get some super-safe macro maps. BTW, was there anyone except 6-pooling zergs that didnt ban Defender's Landing last map pool?
There are a lot of ways to make good safe macro maps without resorting to in-base naturals. In fact some would say that the only way to make good safe macro maps is not to resort to in-base naturals.
What do you suggest instead? Long rush distance ... very safe and given third, without making it inbase?
On September 06 2017 00:35 Ej_ wrote: Please stop making maps with in-base naturals.
Please dont stop making maps with in-base naturals. Its to always have one of those in the mappool, and people who dont like it can still ban it out. Were getting so many new rush-maps with each contest that I (and everyone else that doesnt want to rush every game) are banning anyways, it just feels fair to get some super-safe macro maps. BTW, was there anyone except 6-pooling zergs that didnt ban Defender's Landing last map pool?
There are a lot of ways to make good safe macro maps without resorting to in-base naturals. In fact some would say that the only way to make good safe macro maps is not to resort to in-base naturals.
What do you suggest instead? Long rush distance ... very safe and given third, without making it inbase?
Yeah there's oodles of maps out there with very safe thirds that don't have an in-base natural. Look at Akilon Wastes for example--no in-base natural yet third and fourths so safe that it always turned into a turtlefest.
Size: 148*148 Category: Standard Author: Samro225am (Map Design by Samro225am, Map Art by DropBoy) Thanks: DropBoy for decorating the map not only fast, but with lots of attention for detail (please don't be sad for i changed a few smaller things for visibility and readability) and everybody else in the friendly Mappers'Circle who commented during the process.
Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
On September 07 2017 21:22 Meltage wrote: These are my submissions not yet submitted.
Two are WIPs. I think I only have time to finish either the space or desert one. Which is most interesting?
I personally really like Abandon All Hope more (even just the name is really cool), but having played 1 game on it... the version live on EU needs a lot of fixing.
Novice map maker here, submitted my two first maps ever. Not expecting to win anything in this contest but at least I'll give it a shot
First map: Overgrown Remnants, standard 148x140: Designed to be an Aiur temple area that's being reclaimed by the jungle
Second map: Nerazim Laboratory, rush 124x132: Highly inspired by Dusk Towers LE as I love those Shakuras energy lines and dark tilesets
I looked a lot of ladder maps for inspiration. I'm an artist at heart and only Gold in game, so the maps may not be very high level in terms of strategy. Would love to get some input on these maps
Edit: Both maps are playable on EU under the same names.
On September 08 2017 21:48 The_Rusemaster wrote: Novice map maker here, submitted my two first maps ever. Not expecting to win anything in this contest but at least I'll give it a shot
First map: Overgrown Remnants, standard 148x140: + Show Spoiler +
Designed to be an Aiur temple area that's being reclaimed by the jungle
Highly inspired by Dusk Towers LE as I love those Shakuras energy lines and dark tilesets
I looked a lot of ladder maps for inspiration. I'm an artist at heart and only Gold in game, so the maps may not be very high level in terms of strategy. Would love to get some input on these maps
Edit: Both maps are playable on EU under the same names.
not bad for your first maps... both seem completely playable and usable for a standard game, which is more than you can say for most people's first lol.
On September 08 2017 19:58 Elentos wrote: Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
On September 08 2017 19:58 Elentos wrote: Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
On September 08 2017 19:58 Elentos wrote: Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
On September 08 2017 19:58 Elentos wrote: Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
On September 08 2017 19:58 Elentos wrote: Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
Well, this is the version in-game Can you spot the difference?
Isn't that the old version? Maybe the new one hasn't been posted to EU.
Well if that's the updated version then it seems to me more like a macro/standard map than a new one.
Yeah some of the assigned categories feel doubtful. Timmay's Growl (Rush) and Hobgoblin (Macro) both seem like standard maps to me. Ancient Confines is still fine I think--it's in between "New" and "Macro" so you have to choose one.
My rush map distances were nearly identical to Interloper, which I consider to be the ideal rush map. If you go with shorter distances, maps are almost guaranteed to be terrible.
On September 09 2017 06:23 Timmay wrote: My rush map distances were nearly identical to Interloper, which I consider to be the ideal rush map. If you go with shorter distances, maps are almost guaranteed to be terrible.
Rush distances might be the same, but I think the easy thirds on Growl make it much less rushy than Interloper.
The number of maps posted in this thread is higher than it was during the two previous TLMCs I think. It probably means the overall number of submissions is also higher.
On September 09 2017 09:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The number of maps posted in this thread is higher than it was during the two previous TLMCs I think. It probably means the overall number of submissions is also higher.
Maybe, but I would guess that fewer really new mapmakers are entering maps in this one.
On September 08 2017 19:58 Elentos wrote: Could you provide a more accurate screenshot of Ancient Confines please? I didn't see what's supposed to be 'New' on the one you put in this thread, but in-game it was quite clear.
Well, this is the version in-game Can you spot the difference?
Ah my bad, I didn't upload the newer versions of my contest maps yet to the FTM tag. Meant to last night but it was super late and I didn't know if I would have any time to do map stuff today so had to finish the submissions
Bnet Link: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/290984 PS: Those who asked why its named "korhal" on a toss map, it's Independance day up in here: + Show Spoiler +
Was going to do a giant destruction beam destroying the city but you cant really see it underneath
Looking back, for TLMC7 ~50 out of the 130 submissions were known (including 11 out of 15 eventual finalists), for TLMC8 62 out of 111 were known (including 12 out of 15 eventual finalists), and so far for TLMC9 95 submissions are known.
On September 09 2017 13:20 themusic246 wrote: Damn, a lot of really nice maps this round. Pretty awesome to see the quality go up every contest. Here are my final submissions:
Bnet Link: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/290984 PS: Those who asked why its named "korhal" on a toss map, it's Independance day up in here: + Show Spoiler +
Was going to do a giant destruction beam destroying the city but you cant really see it underneath
On September 09 2017 06:23 Timmay wrote: My rush map distances were nearly identical to Interloper, which I consider to be the ideal rush map. If you go with shorter distances, maps are almost guaranteed to be terrible.
On September 09 2017 15:58 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Looking back, for TLMC7 ~50 out of the 130 submissions were known (including 11 out of 15 eventual finalists), for TLMC8 62 out of 111 were known (including 12 out of 15 eventual finalists), and so far for TLMC9 89 submissions are known.
Any predictions about the finalists?
Favorite maps (personal opinions in no particular order and excluding the maps i submitted ofc):
- Pandora (avex mmmm, on a side note.. also very good map) - Carnivore (super standard and super legit) - Port Aleksander (3rd/4th is meh and lots of ramps/chokes, but terrain is incredible and map is versatile and awesome) - Booma (all around good setup, interesting pathing) - Dimensional Anomaly (wtf is happening? yum.) - Ophilia RE (crazy rock setup for the main/3rd, idk how this plays) - Lucid Dream (personal fan of backdoor nats) - Artana (those third lowgrounds are scary, in a good way i think) - Blackwood Timbers (3rd ramp seems very close, map looks awesome tho good setup) - Aruarian (Nat rocks woo, the expo direction seems pretty awesome. I think the right base's minerals are closer to the cliff though ) -Yopico (idk what yopico means or how well this map would do competitively, but hell yea. Maybe a 2nd version with holes used sparingly? :3 ) - Supply Block (multi-row LOS blockers *i think?* and cool setup, looks legit idk how it plays tho)
@ZigguratOfUr thanks for updating that post summarizing all the maps. We all love you.
On September 09 2017 15:58 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Looking back, for TLMC7 ~50 out of the 130 submissions were known (including 11 out of 15 eventual finalists), for TLMC8 62 out of 111 were known (including 12 out of 15 eventual finalists), and so far for TLMC9 89 submissions are known.
Any predictions about the finalists?
From the maps I've played with Ej_ and mizenhauer, the ones I enjoyed the most in terms of gameplay were Port Aleksander, Gardens by the Bay and Pandora. Also the bottom right/top left spawn on Asphodel is really good but the bottom left/top right one is actual hell on Earth. On a less personal level, I think Hwangsan will do well again unless the judging is influenced by the fact it was in the last TLMC finals.
As an aside, this TLMC has a lot of maps that are visually stunning, props to everyone involved for making beautiful looking maps.
Elentos// I'm glad you enjoyed Gardens by the Bay! But actually it changed a lot before submitting.. like a completely different map. I'm uploading all maps public now.
Elentos// I'm glad you enjoyed Gardens by the Bay! But actually it changed a lot before submitting.. like a completely different map. I'm uploading all maps public now.
The last version of Gardens by the Bay was really good. We'll have to check the new ones out.
Not to repeat what elentos said too much, but my favorites were Pandora, Port, Gardens and Ametrin (although I wish the minerals in the main were normal). And I agree about Asphodel as well. Remove the b left/ t right spawns and you have a really great map.
Wow. I thought Bottom Left/Top Right was the weaker of the two spawns, but to think that it would be that bad. After all the Main/Nat/Vertical Third are pretty standard. I guess the thirds and fourths might be too open. Do you have replays?
My predictions for finalists, not including any of my own because of course we all like our own maps. Also I haven't actually played on these maps, so it's just going on my fairly good (but definitely fallible) judgment of overviews.
avex - pandora enekh - night sea insidious - greywater meavis - 1 and 3 negativezero - catalyst nesta-kun - acid plant newsunshine - sky garden rqm - gardens by the bay, neon violet square sidian - blackwood timbers timmay - arbiters of the apocalypse templar - vaunted lab youngrustler - defender's resort zweck - flourish ziggurat - yopico
Would be great maps with some small edits: avex - blackpink. broodie - ophelia. iroha - lucid dream. ironman - artana. samro - verdure island. sidian - battle on the boardwalk. timmay - hobgoblin. youngrustler - aruarian, norad.
A couple of the finalists i chose i also have question marks about but i'm leaning towards them working. For instance I don't know that there is a great 3rd for protoss on a couple of them (such as timmay's map and young's defender's resort) but it was close. And ziggurat's holy map is definitely going to be different but I think it could work.
Issues with thirds and improper use of gold bases were two of the most common errors I saw.
There were a couple ultra standard maps i left out (like port aleksander) because even tho they are super solid i felt they didnt bring anything new to the table so including them in a map pool over something that does basically the same thing already (that people are familiar with) seems a little pointless.
TiberiusA - Honestly, I feel like all of these maps belong best in the New category, except maybe Ophilia RE, even though it has a "half base" for a natural.
Thanks, I actually take that as a compliment!
Every time I load up the map editor, I go in with the mind set of shaking things up a little. I used to do it way too much for anybody's good, but for some reason lately I feel as if I've been able to find a solid middle ground between shaking things up (New) and standard. + Show Spoiler +
Correct me if I'm wrong
As a disclaimer though, everybody should avoid looking at Arduo-City when it comes to my mapping standard, I submitted that map as a joke. I might remake the concept in realistic fashion later on, but I only had three true submissions, in which two of the strongest are Ophilia RE and The Beneath, I'm already anxiously waiting to see how they pair up to the usual TLMC titans.
But yeah TiberiusA, if I could tag another label on any of these, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be "New."
TiberiusA - Honestly, I feel like all of these maps belong best in the New category, except maybe Ophilia RE, even though it has a "half base" for a natural.
Thanks, I actually take that as a compliment!
Every time I load of the map editor, I go in with the mind set of shaking things up a little. I used to do it way too much for anybody's good, but for some reason lately I feel as if I've been able to find a solid middle ground between shaking things up (New) and standard. + Show Spoiler +
Correct me if I'm wrong
As a disclaimer though, everybody should avoid looking at Arduo-City when it comes to my mapping standard, I submitted that map as a joke. I might remake the concept in realistic fashion later on, but I only had three true submissions, in which two of the strongest are Ophilia RE and The Beneath, I'm already anxiously waiting to see how they pair up to the usual TLMC titans.
But yeah TiberiusA, if I could tag another label on any of these, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be "New."
Thanks for the comment lol
I'm glad, lol. It definitely wasn't meant as a criticism, just an observation. The maps are very unique. Actually, though, I think The Beneath has a couple similarities with Blood Boil, like the 10m/1g backdoor natural with rocks, and the 8m gold base closer to the middle. Arduo-City also confused and amused me. Nicely done!
- Aruarian (Nat rocks woo, the expo direction seems pretty awesome. I think the right base's minerals are closer to the cliff though )
Went into the map and for some reason I saw that in the map, pretty strange but I have fixed it so if in the future that will be fixed. Good eye and thanks for the catch!
- Aruarian (Nat rocks woo, the expo direction seems pretty awesome. I think the right base's minerals are closer to the cliff though )
Went into the map and for some reason I saw that in the map, pretty strange but I have fixed it so if in the future that will be fixed. Good eye and thanks for the catch!
Nice, yea it's a pretty cool map, played a couple games on it and its pretty cool (fun games + non-conventional layout)
EPT
Newkirk Precinct’s playable area is 172x124=21,328. 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LuooHE7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oB44orP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VoMemiQl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ix1P7Qnl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QgGAUmKl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s4nr0w0l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1teR9u8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2AMciEC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eqfTuMq.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/a/mZyIy)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g0eymkr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DP4yjNQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QxE7ju6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Swi46Ab.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UwM2F4U.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pL6vSXN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vaFNVT9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3HQUZZ8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fnUHXEN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yxk5IAG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jYYCBI7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S4KQfzi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MA8fCxq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1DTC5yo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/F5f5key.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oQNUiNI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1lr55yU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RbfmtTq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nGqBldR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yN9QWxp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jy4iNMP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fDkKige.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D8a1k.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5mzY9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3MY3F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AxSzC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nrjZP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5iOfN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bqgQF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Myny6bX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ftKrZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TBsj7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EJY4G1B.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f2lWoMU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RzVoaFB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VXzwT1i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wBumEgt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MUaSrC3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n0hEdn5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5VNCImi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HYSQdde.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/wcl5nEE.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/pKiOS1v.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GLEFxdY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rxprhWO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5x5TJqx.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G0zbLD8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gYuqniJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YqJZ495.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eHY1Fwi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BlMPQ6K.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w9P7HMC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7brl4nn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/boDSYcn.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b9xxWi9.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/d514/yke18nalx99kf3zzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/bcc5/q5dlqr9s9jjjibjzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1StASNe.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Asz6ubj.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/qYxc4oB.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/DglbrtN.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CnVTw1s.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nISG8E9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PliNgWc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1TJXPLJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qQWLGnB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3NRouuo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4dG18fc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rjoOhUT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NT6LXam.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/8bA3Jei.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pk65xv0.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/xhr0l13.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/G49OAR3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/commons/images/6/6b/Newkirk_Precinct_TE_%28Void%29.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pjdJxkT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qvQyKID.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4TLBKz7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1vtnght.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cml58Mi.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wy8XBya.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7DDlieL.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ElS3oRW.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/R6TDlPV.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Nqku7oD.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/e2EHQXI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3kb8jHo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wMGZFgo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PG2mcbI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7TgshQ2.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8LA7NYN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/38n3Ynf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MiRbLab.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3gB5A4v.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lGuY3So.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1wuS5Q9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oHuZgH5.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aIFBqnz.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dMWhPQM.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TBxAKlJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zgaq9jJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bNvABS0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JrIeMqb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lHqJ2cF.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/R5zACA2.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IElyhs7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Vgd9gAM.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/h8akj7V.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JHPb2Tj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8mhVbQW.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZQAmwVc.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BJUZO5j.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PlMLyxq.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YAmG6vJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/awQpbZB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gZcm0y9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OzKAOko.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uTl5qRe.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/v3oTJSE.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kPeYBxo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pShV4ZO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3apXdwY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ru3clIa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ckLiYSD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sF6bkdN.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/90IlOxV.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tHpOLCK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pftKUfw.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Np3PW9l.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zoEnO4N.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/keBI5zY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/orxYIHQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/I36zQeN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WRlM3V0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/g24pETS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/rQ7RrlV.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kC4xybu.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0ejvvWr.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/l2Ffc6e.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yW9GHPJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BXvQ5kW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jtqpzJj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lsHbOko.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f0WwhVJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/esM7Mqr.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/0728/rrdc3ckprzk8rbazg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6404/s8dqpuv57kceqmhzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rmfZj6D.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QYloSUQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pzVqwYe.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Q9uTPlf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IepAR4S.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YAmG6vJ.jpg<br>)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wNH09S3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f0O1YZs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3eUaiFb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nonOEmi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yyx3EOw.png)
