New year, new TLMC! We're happy that the TLMC will be continuing into 2018 and are excited to see what you come up with. We also have a pair of changes to ensure this year is bigger and even better than last year.
First of all, we're upping the number of potential entries to six while keeping the two per category cap. Secondly, we're giving the judges the flexibility to reallocate maps to different categories where they would score better (within reason, so don't cheese the rule and submit extra macro maps under aggro).
Submission Phase
January 16 - February 6
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.
New: Judges may reassign a map to a more appropriate category.
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: 40-50 seconds. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
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
February 7 - February 13
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 16 that will be used in the next stages of the contest.
Tournament Phase
February 14 - February 20
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
February 21 - March 12
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
March 13 - March 15
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 money 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
We are also keeping on the additional prizing for finalists. Each finalists will again 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 six map submissions each with a limit on two maps per category. For example, you may submit two maps in two categories and one in the other two or two maps in three categories and none to the fourth.
Please PM your map file(s) to TL Map Contest with the following format before Wednesday, Feb 07 4:59am GMT (GMT+00:00). Please title your PMs with the name of the map and keep all submissions to one map per PM. We'll once again 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 The_Templar 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 The_Templar 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 The_Templar who will be happy to answer them. Best of luck in the competition.
On January 17 2018 07:17 youngjiddle wrote: For one of these contests can't we scrap the "new" category and put in a four play map category?
I think we need to push some map makers to make some great four player maps which have died out.
The problem with four player maps is that no one likes them--not the players, not the mapmakers and not the TLMC judges, not that there isn't a category pushing for them.
On January 17 2018 07:14 Ansibled wrote: I am hoping for more kpop themed maps for possible bttv intros.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do if TT ends up on ladder...
Good luck friends! Crazy to have 6 submissions though, I have 3 somewhat finished layouts that I haven't even touched with decor yet. We'll see if I can either fix some older maps or create some new ones.
Plus, only 2 maps per category max. That'll be fun, so if somebody does submit 6 maps they'll have to space their submissions out between at least 3 of the categories which is nice.
Once again, good luck to all Older & Newer map makers, wishing you all the best. =)
Rocks and collapsible structures use default HP values and cannot be modified.
I'd love for this to be changed, or for other rocks and collapsible structures to be tested and added at least for the New Map category. It feels like such a waste to not have more options for rocks to me. I could go on about the changes I suggested a while back and how I'd like a small map contest focused on rocks/structures/new structures, but that's for another time.
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. ...
Some day I'll convince somebody to make a Lava Map Contest. Sigh, some day... looks longingly up into the starry winter night's sky... Anyway. I was also half hoping to see 2 player and 3-4 player maps separated this year too, but oh well, I have my fingers crossed for a lot of things to happen. Big time of the year for SC2, always looking forward to the submissions of course! Wish I had time to submit something myself, GLHF to everyone who is!
On January 17 2018 07:17 youngjiddle wrote: For one of these contests can't we scrap the "new" category and put in a four play map category?
I think we need to push some map makers to make some great four player maps which have died out.
The problem with four player maps is that no one likes them--not the players, not the mapmakers and not the TLMC judges, not that there isn't a category pushing for them.
umm.. I like 4 player maps? Might just be because I'm Zerg though haha Frost 10/10
On January 17 2018 07:17 youngjiddle wrote: For one of these contests can't we scrap the "new" category and put in a four play map category?
I think we need to push some map makers to make some great four player maps which have died out.
The problem with four player maps is that no one likes them--not the players, not the mapmakers and not the TLMC judges, not that there isn't a category pushing for them.
umm.. I like 4 player maps? Might just be because I'm Zerg though haha Frost 10/10
Okay it's true that there's a vocal minority of the general Starcraft playing population that really like 4 player maps, but it is a quite a small minority. Looking a pro players though I can't think of anyone who likes 4 player maps. Looking at mapmakers I think there's a few Korean mapmakers who either like or are ambivalent to 4 player maps (Semmo I think liked them), but most mapmakers dislike them. As for TLMC judges based on the last few TLMCs they don't like four player maps much either.
As for Frost generally Zerg players generally like it when spawning cross, and dislike it otherwise (which is precisely one of the key issues with four player maps).
On January 17 2018 07:17 youngjiddle wrote: For one of these contests can't we scrap the "new" category and put in a four play map category?
I think we need to push some map makers to make some great four player maps which have died out.
The problem with four player maps is that no one likes them--not the players, not the mapmakers and not the TLMC judges, not that there isn't a category pushing for them.
umm.. I like 4 player maps? Might just be because I'm Zerg though haha Frost 10/10
yeah most people don't like dying to speedlings because they scouted in the wrong direction
On January 17 2018 07:17 youngjiddle wrote: For one of these contests can't we scrap the "new" category and put in a four play map category?
I think we need to push some map makers to make some great four player maps which have died out.
The problem with four player maps is that no one likes them--not the players, not the mapmakers and not the TLMC judges, not that there isn't a category pushing for them.
Fantastic! I love these tournaments, even if I am not competing. More maps, the better the game! I really hope Blizzard continues their support for the TLMC.
Travincal's 'new' feature are the large stone walls along the manmade highground in the middle of the map. These walls will completely block the vision of whats beyond it, similar to a LOS blocker. However, because they are not LOS blockers and rather thick walls, there is no way to see beyond the walls unless you have units on the other side. Air unit vision is also blocked. They are not air blockers, and will become slightly transparent if units are nearby in order to preserve visibility in engagements (ie cant hide burrowed units or widow mines behind them).
Categories are still poorly named this contest as it was last time. All my maps can be standard but certain elements will promote or lean towards gameplay of other categories.
Surprised this is so soon, I was kind of taking a hiatus and doing other things and you guys start another one of these. Maybe I can come up w/ something. A lot going on right now.
Agree neg that all 6 of his could be in the same category lol. Other than maybe the ice one which looks to be a bit smaller. I don't really care at all about sovereign, that map can go away. Arashi could use some work, only 1 expo pattern looks viable, among other things. Fracture/Travincal are ok, Pandora and Jade are probably the best 2 there.
On January 18 2018 18:39 Fatam wrote: Surprised this is so soon, I was kind of taking a hiatus and doing other things and you guys start another one of these. Maybe I can come up w/ something. A lot going on right now.
Agree neg that all 6 of his could be in the same category lol. Other than maybe the ice one which looks to be a bit smaller. I don't really care at all about sovereign, that map can go away. Arashi could use some work, only 1 expo pattern looks viable, among other things. Fracture/Travincal are ok, Pandora and Jade are probably the best 2 there.
My opinion of these maps is almost completely different from yours .
I think Sovereign is a completely serviceable map, Jade Thicket is merely okay due to the mid-high ground dominating the map so much making expansions hard to defend, Pandora has issues with some areas being very cramped, Fracture's layout is cute (though I'm not sure how such a small map pans out in LotV), Arashi's just not very good, and I really love how the middle of Travincal is layed out (though the new feature is pretty random. The map works without it.).
On January 18 2018 18:39 Fatam wrote: Surprised this is so soon, I was kind of taking a hiatus and doing other things and you guys start another one of these. Maybe I can come up w/ something. A lot going on right now.
Agree neg that all 6 of his could be in the same category lol. Other than maybe the ice one which looks to be a bit smaller. I don't really care at all about sovereign, that map can go away. Arashi could use some work, only 1 expo pattern looks viable, among other things. Fracture/Travincal are ok, Pandora and Jade are probably the best 2 there.
My opinion of these maps is almost completely different from yours .
I think Sovereign is a completely serviceable map, Jade Thicket is merely okay due to the mid-high ground dominating the map so much making expansions hard to defend, Pandora has issues with some areas being very cramped, Fracture's layout is cute (though I'm not sure how such a small map pans out in LotV), Arashi's just not very good, and I really love how the middle of Travincal is layed out (though the new feature is pretty random. The map works without it.).
Well, we agree on arashi at least. I think sovereign is one of those maps where there are literally no paths that affect anything, an army can go in any direction at any time. i.e. there is too much flow, too much freedom of movement. Even when considering that you want things to be a bit more open these days. Unless those green and blue things on the highground platforms are not los blockers but an actual wall, in which case I retract my statement a bit.
On January 18 2018 18:39 Fatam wrote: Surprised this is so soon, I was kind of taking a hiatus and doing other things and you guys start another one of these. Maybe I can come up w/ something. A lot going on right now.
Agree neg that all 6 of his could be in the same category lol. Other than maybe the ice one which looks to be a bit smaller. I don't really care at all about sovereign, that map can go away. Arashi could use some work, only 1 expo pattern looks viable, among other things. Fracture/Travincal are ok, Pandora and Jade are probably the best 2 there.
My opinion of these maps is almost completely different from yours .
I think Sovereign is a completely serviceable map, Jade Thicket is merely okay due to the mid-high ground dominating the map so much making expansions hard to defend, Pandora has issues with some areas being very cramped, Fracture's layout is cute (though I'm not sure how such a small map pans out in LotV), Arashi's just not very good, and I really love how the middle of Travincal is layed out (though the new feature is pretty random. The map works without it.).
Well, we agree on arashi at least. I think sovereign is one of those maps where there are literally no paths that affect anything, an army can go in any direction at any time. i.e. there is too much flow, too much freedom of movement. Even when considering that you want things to be a bit more open these days. Unless those green and blue things on the highground platforms are not los blockers but an actual wall, in which case I retract my statement a bit.
I see your point, and I did like the map better when the central pods were separated (or almost separated) from the rest of the middle, but I don't think that being too connected is a death knell for a map. And I don't think Sovereign is as bad as say Odyssey.
On January 20 2018 09:18 Yonnua wrote: Will the winning maps be in the WCS Leipzig map pool?
No. The map submission window wouldn't even be closed by then. Winners will be in some future ladder season's pool which is still months away. Leipzig pool is Abiogenesis, Eastwatch, Backwater, Acid Plant, Blackpink, Neon Violet Square, Catalyst.
On January 20 2018 09:18 Yonnua wrote: Will the winning maps be in the WCS Leipzig map pool?
No. The map submission window wouldn't even be closed by then. Winners will be in some future ladder season's pool which is still months away. Leipzig pool is Abiogenesis, Eastwatch, Backwater, Acid Plant, Blackpink, Neon Violet Square, Catalyst.
That makes sense. You'd want time to test the maps for a month or two before they were used in a tournament.
On January 18 2018 18:39 Fatam wrote: Surprised this is so soon, I was kind of taking a hiatus and doing other things and you guys start another one of these. Maybe I can come up w/ something. A lot going on right now.
Agree neg that all 6 of his could be in the same category lol. Other than maybe the ice one which looks to be a bit smaller. I don't really care at all about sovereign, that map can go away. Arashi could use some work, only 1 expo pattern looks viable, among other things. Fracture/Travincal are ok, Pandora and Jade are probably the best 2 there.
My opinion of these maps is almost completely different from yours .
I think Sovereign is a completely serviceable map, Jade Thicket is merely okay due to the mid-high ground dominating the map so much making expansions hard to defend, Pandora has issues with some areas being very cramped, Fracture's layout is cute (though I'm not sure how such a small map pans out in LotV), Arashi's just not very good, and I really love how the middle of Travincal is layed out (though the new feature is pretty random. The map works without it.).
Well, we agree on arashi at least. I think sovereign is one of those maps where there are literally no paths that affect anything, an army can go in any direction at any time. i.e. there is too much flow, too much freedom of movement. Even when considering that you want things to be a bit more open these days. Unless those green and blue things on the highground platforms are not los blockers but an actual wall, in which case I retract my statement a bit.
I see your point, and I did like the map better when the central pods were separated (or almost separated) from the rest of the middle, but I don't think that being too connected is a death knell for a map. And I don't think Sovereign is as bad as say Odyssey.
The map has changed quite a bit since i merged the pods back together. I can see it working if I separate them during iteration. Might be better.
On January 20 2018 09:18 Yonnua wrote: Will the winning maps be in the WCS Leipzig map pool?
No. The map submission window wouldn't even be closed by then. Winners will be in some future ladder season's pool which is still months away. Leipzig pool is Abiogenesis, Eastwatch, Backwater, Acid Plant, Blackpink, Neon Violet Square, Catalyst.
That makes sense. You'd want time to test the maps for a month or two before they were used in a tournament.
This made me giggle way too hard, so thanks for that. xD
Blood Boil, Sequencer and Neon Violet Square are my personal nightmares. Why is there no new map with tha same idea of KSS? That map was very intertesting.
Because KSS and its ideas wouldn't work in LotV, give your thanks to Liberators.
The ideas of KSS would be the forward natural, with two entrances into it (one rocked off), with 'two' choices of third bases. There's also the outside paths along the sides. In LotV we never saw these paths used, we saw Tanks and Libs abuse the shit out of the forward natural and rocked off bases, Zerg was the only race to really use the rocked third because they were forced to break those rocks.
In LotV we still have to make maps that are the sizes of maps in HotS, but with more bases, less unique areas of engagement (especially in 2player maps) and with all the relative checks in mind, such as lib abuse. It's much easier to introduce standard maps with interesting features like NVS' squares than pushing the bounds. We tried pushing bounds, it failed.
I would like to see some really unique stuff, I know the pros will hate it but what about starting with more than one base, neutral minefields that open up a new path or shortcut when cleared, lava, some more neutral structures like xel naga towers what about a healing tower or a building that gives you a small amount of minerals over time if you control it like a tiberium spike/oil derrick in C&C.
Blizzard keeps that stuff for Co-Op. You will never see that on ladder, no matter how many people ask for it. It goes against the fairness of two players knowing the same information each time they load up ladder.
That is not really a good reason IMO, people aren't stupid people have to learn the map anyway and there can be plenty of terrain gimmicks or positioning that one player can know over the other already.
It's not like you have to hide the mechanic, the map description could say there is a minefield or lava, lava can have a timer, a neutral structure can have a map marker like the xel naga towers do. It's also not like the whole map pool has to be full of maps like this It could only be 1 map, people have map vetos but it would be nice to see some map innovation beyond path blockers and base layout.
On January 21 2018 16:07 Avexyli wrote: Blizzard keeps that stuff for Co-Op. You will never see that on ladder, no matter how many people ask for it. It goes against the fairness of two players knowing the same information each time they load up ladder.
On January 21 2018 20:27 Zaros wrote: That is not really a good reason IMO, people aren't stupid people have to learn the map anyway and there can be plenty of terrain gimmicks or positioning that one player can know over the other already.
It's not like you have to hide the mechanic, the map description could say there is a minefield or lava, lava can have a timer, a neutral structure can have a map marker like the xel naga towers do. It's also not like the whole map pool has to be full of maps like this It could only be 1 map, people have map vetos but it would be nice to see some map innovation beyond path blockers and base layout.
If they would put more information on the loading screens (and fix/overhaul them) and added a 3 second countdown after each player was loaded, connected, whatever, then it could allow for a lot more unique features on a couple of maps per ladder season imo.
It might not make rising lava maps doable for normal ladder, but I think it's very possible to do a lot more with the empty and sometimes broken "spaces" like loading screens, replay load times and rewind/overall playback and usability/accessibility of the replay system. The 1v1 ladder page can definitely be improved to give access to more information too (option to look at maps while searching for a game instead of stare at an old, cool but still old, model of a Hydralisk for example).
Also, if people want them they should TOTALLY keep asking for a more open category + Show Spoiler +
Do it. I know you want to. Just keep asking for a rising lava map contest and it might (tiny chance) totally (hmm...) absolutely happen (probably not unless a lot of people ask for it) soon (eventually maybe).
I think splitting the map community with multiple different competitions would be a mistake. It would be better for the TLMC to expand in the future and have more narrow categories. There can be one for melee maps that include features that are disallowed for the ladder map portion of the competition, another for best co-op map, etc.
Even if the TLMC does not expand to nonladder maps, it can still expand to other portions of the ladder, like 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. It would be great for TL or Blizzard (or both) to provide a platform for the community to express themselves. The rewards could be set at 0 or something like the community portrait and maps would still be submitted for some extraneous categories.
On January 23 2018 06:35 Antares777 wrote: I think splitting the map community with multiple different competitions would be a mistake. It would be better for the TLMC to expand in the future and have more narrow categories. There can be one for melee maps that include features that are disallowed for the ladder map portion of the competition, another for best co-op map, etc.
Even if the TLMC does not expand to nonladder maps, it can still expand to other portions of the ladder, like 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. It would be great for TL or Blizzard (or both) to provide a platform for the community to express themselves. The rewards could be set at 0 or something like the community portrait and maps would still be submitted for some extraneous categories.
I doubt that'll happen. 2v2/3v3/4v4 just don't have enough players or exposure to be worth the effort for Blizzard. Besides, what does a 4v4 map that has enough expansions for macro to be viable, and yet does not have excessive distances everywhere even look like?
There's a critical lack of 4 player maps, which led Blizzard to decide to reuse Frost in the last season of 2017, only to change their mind at the last moment and instead use Catallena, and for the current GSL to use "Darkness Sanctuary" (WTF).
So the lack of good 4 player maps is a big problem. I hope there's at least one ladder-usable 4 player map that comes out of this TLMC, so this situation doesn't repeat itself.
4 player maps have also lack variety. They've all been macro maps. I'd like to see a standard or rush 4 player map.
4 player maps are awful for 1v1, there are too many spawn issues and base count always becomes exaggerated. A lot of players not just pros requested to not have 4p maps and imo it's working well, we're getting more and more variety in the 2p maps now. There's no need for alterzim or deadwing when you can have ascension to aiur etc.
Most 4p maps live purely off of nostalgia and it's easy to forget the frustrating parts about spawn imbalances. There also was a standard sized 4p map, Lerilak Crest. It was not well received
On January 25 2018 19:46 Liquid`Snute wrote: 4 player maps are awful for 1v1, there are too many spawn issues and base count always becomes exaggerated. A lot of players not just pros requested to not have 4p maps and imo it's working well, we're getting more and more variety in the 2p maps now. There's no need for alterzim or deadwing when you can have ascension to aiur etc.
Most 4p maps live purely off of nostalgia and it's easy to forget the frustrating parts about spawn imbalances. There also was a standard sized 4p map, Lerilak Crest. It was not well received
You have Darkness Sanctuary in GSL, so I don't think your mission to eradicate 4 player maps is going that well. If 4 player maps are killed forever, that's fine, but having bad 3-4 player maps is worse than having good ones.
GSL are free to do their own thing and it's not like I'm on a mission or anything, just genuinely don't see any substantial advantages to 4p over 2p, especially when the maps become as super-sized as Darkness Sanctuary. might as well have Acolyte >< 4p maps have caused a lot of degraded games, especially inferno pools, stuff like deadwing horizontal, same applies to frost and Whirlwind although a bit more subtly than inferno pools.++
A lot of mappers will agree with Snute as well. 4p maps are just generally not as interesting to make since spawn imbalances, the massive number of bases and generally being forced to cross spawn only, thus just making it a 2p map anyway which means you should have just made a 2p map in the first place.
In LoTV, players need more and more bases in smaller and smaller spaces. So, it generally means you're going to have about 5 bases per corner for each player, which means at least 20 bases on the entire map, which is a shit ton of bases to fit in when you're trying to keep it in at least a 72x72 (at most 80x80) square since you'll have to mirror/rotate it 3x. Yes, pretty much any map bigger than 160x160 sucks. Sorry, it's just too big for the most part.
With that said though, I am going to submit one 4p map this tournament under the new section. I'm sure tons of players will hate it if it ends up being picked up. I mean, all spawns would be enabled and there are plenty of air blockers as well. Both things many players dislike lol. But hey, I like to experiment sometimes, have 6 entries, so why not!
Come on mappers? Anyone submitting anything? I'd love to see the maps. I just finished. I'll probably post my 6 maps soon. 2 macro, 2 standard, 2 new. That's how I'll submit. I've done rush here or there (boardwalk baby!) but this time, I'm going all out against rush.
5 2p maps, 1 4p map. oohh yeah! I'll probably post pics and overviews soon enough. =)
I will still be doing some balance tweaks and changes to the maps but overall they should be ~95% complete. Good luck to all other contestants! May the best map win!
These are the final version of my submissions, Which means I do not plan to edit these maps. As its the best I can do currently. But for all in the contest, hope the best. And lets see who will make it to the end.
Only two submissions are allowed per category, so you'll either have to cut one (I'd suggest Artana since it shares some ideas with Snowfall and is imo the weaker of the two) or call Timber a macro map (which isn't too much of stretch).
On January 31 2018 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Only two submissions are allowed per category, so you'll either have to cut one (I'd suggest Artana since it shares some ideas with Snowfall and is imo the weaker of the two) or call Timber a macro map (which isn't too much of stretch).
We are allowed 3 per category. I know Artana and snowfall are similar in base layout but it’s still a different map.
On January 31 2018 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Only two submissions are allowed per category, so you'll either have to cut one (I'd suggest Artana since it shares some ideas with Snowfall and is imo the weaker of the two) or call Timber a macro map (which isn't too much of stretch).
We are allowed 3 per category. I know Artana and snowfall are similar in base layout but it’s still a different map.
The contest post clearly states a maximum of 2 per category.
First of all, we're upping the number of potential entries to six while keeping the two per category cap. Secondly, we're giving the judges the flexibility to reallocate maps to different categories where they would score better (within reason, so don't cheese the rule and submit extra macro maps under aggro).
Mappers will be limited to six map submissions each with a limit on two maps per category. For example, you may submit two maps in two categories and one in the other two or two maps in three categories and none to the fourth.
On January 31 2018 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Only two submissions are allowed per category, so you'll either have to cut one (I'd suggest Artana since it shares some ideas with Snowfall and is imo the weaker of the two) or call Timber a macro map (which isn't too much of stretch).
We are allowed 3 per category. I know Artana and snowfall are similar in base layout but it’s still a different map.
The contest post clearly states a maximum of 2 per category.
First of all, we're upping the number of potential entries to six while keeping the two per category cap. Secondly, we're giving the judges the flexibility to reallocate maps to different categories where they would score better (within reason, so don't cheese the rule and submit extra macro maps under aggro).
Mappers will be limited to six map submissions each with a limit on two maps per category. For example, you may submit two maps in two categories and one in the other two or two maps in three categories and none to the fourth.
Oh I read it wrong. The 3 per category is what the finalists will be composed of. I suppose I could change timber to macro, though it’s borderline standard.
Idk why I couldn't put that in the other post. Got a couple more in the pipes just wanted to get these up and stop thinking about them. Available to play on NA.
I have four maps completed, they are two macro and two standard maps. I will be posting their overviews close to the deadline, since I want to submit the maps all at once. I have a rush map in the works with a kind of new concept, and so far looks like will be my last map. Good luck to everyone submitting!
Whelp, just submit my maps over via PM. I did a few changes but overall the layouts are mostly the same. You can see my submissions just a page back, again slight changes on some. Either way, good luck to all! =)
Brain Scan looks fun, looks like a blink stalker map :3 Dreamcatcher looks pretty cool actually, had to look at it for a bit.. suuuper aggressive map. yum.
Again, good luck to everyone who is submitting, as always looking forward to feedback on the maps themselves! I am working another map for rush, however thought I would submit these before it's too late and I forget. I am still working on the concept itself and making sure it could be acceptable for the tournament.
Playable Size: 156x140 Standard Main to Main distance: 61 seconds Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: 58 seconds Natural to Natural distance: 44 seconds
Welp considering how I started this about 3 days ago, I'm pretty happy with the results. Probably won't get through to finals but still think this map has some pretty cool aspects. Will probably remake a few parts of it, rework middle and make it an Ice map or something :p
The size: playable area is 198 x 132 Macro Main to Main distance: 1:20 Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance : 1:10 Natural to Natural distance : 1:10
Had very very little time so I had to tweak a couple old ones and go with what I had. I think a couple of 'em might have a chance, but who knows. I was a little disappointed bc I have a couple really good layouts that I just don't have time to decorate, that are probably better than most of these. But hey they'll be there for next time.
On February 05 2018 11:15 Avexyli wrote: edit: derp its rush, nevermind about layout who cares. Still concerned about the upclose look, librange might be problematic too?
lots of space behind mineral line. and here is a closer look-
also, i have two more maps to show!
Catgroove (standard) - it looks better in game i promise. outer tree ring looks dumb, but they show air blockers.
FYI: I've been collecting all the maps in one place for ease of viewing (though I'm not sure if anyone finds it useful, but hey) at http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26883886, so please tell me if there are any maps missing, any info missing, or anything wrong.
On February 07 2018 12:07 ZigguratOfUr wrote: FYI: I've been collecting all the maps in one place for ease of viewing (though I'm not sure if anyone finds it useful, but hey) at http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26883886, so please tell me if there are any maps missing, any info missing, or anything wrong.
On February 08 2018 17:36 -NegativeZero- wrote: plus, not everyone who submitted has posted their maps publicly, i know at least 2 really good mapmakers who haven't...
Sure, but based on past experience we'd expect 10-13 of the maps on that list being finalists.
Avex submitted 6 maps so at least 6/16 of the winners are his. I'm pretty sure he helped decorate a few others, so depending how many of those decorated maps got submitted he could range anywhere from 6/16 to 16/16. =)
ok, i'll start it off with my picks, there's 19 maps here but it was taking too long for me to decide on the last 3 to eliminate. other than that, i followed the official judging procedure of at least 3 maps in each category. maybe a little biased since i noticed i was kinda trying to include a variety of mapmakers, plus i only selected from the public list and i intentionally left my own maps out.
Macro Jade Thicket Ala'dor Angel Tower Treachery Solar Flare 16-bit
Standard Snowfall Ordnance Quarantine Cerulean Falls Bloom Port Aleksander Lost and Found
I think it's too difficult to guess at the finalists due to the new judge's pick category. There are also an abundance of good maps, and we don't have knowledge of all the submissions, but that's nothing new. I'll throw some shoutouts for what I think are some of the best maps though (in no particular order):
Standard Snowfall Cerulean Falls Blueshift Angel Tower
Macro 16bit Ala'dor Treachery Solar Flare Parasite
Rush Subsequence Arashi Red Dragon
New Pharaoh Brain Scan Electric Sheep
I am most excited for the new map category, and am very excited about some of the ideas we've seen so far.
I think in the future, both mapmakers and the judges could work on distinguishing macro maps and standard maps, since a large portion of the submissions for these categories are interchangeable. Map sizes are very similar and lack identifiable features, whereas the rush maps and new maps have noticeable unique features that differentiate them immediately from the other categories.
I hope that the judge's picks will be used intelligently to smooth over issues and ensure that good maps aren't penalized for being in a certain category.
On February 10 2018 11:47 Avexyli wrote: you guys all liking jade thicket when i think its actually the worst of my 6. xd
I'm not gunna do a top 16 but I'm gunna post the maps I think have a standing chance for finals:
16-bit (macro) Omniscience (standard) Electric Sheep (new) System Shock (new, but i dont think its new enough, could be just an ok rush map) Mayak Facility (macro) Treachery (macro) Port Aleksander (standard / macro) Bloom (Standard) Dreamcatcher (Rush) Kherrisan Rift ( Macro, but might be a little too big) Ordnance Quarantine (Standard) Blackwood Timbers (Standard) Frozen Abyss (third is problematic though imo) Penumbra (Macro I assume) Ala'dor (Macro) Digital Frontier (Standard) Sovereign (Macro) Pandora (Standard) Fracture (Standard)
I don't think the ones I did not list are strong enough.
Some of those you didn't list will most likely have to make it considering you only named one 'rush' map and two 'new' maps. But yeah, 'rush' especially is a troublesome category as usual. I'm not sure any of the 'rush' maps are especially good.
Jade Thicket's rush distance is slightly too long, and the thirds are too far away. I guess I could fix that in iteration, but I really think the overgrowth updated aesthetics will carry it farther than needed.
I don't think the ones I did not list are strong enough.
seems like these are mostly just the maps that are super standard, open and/or have a ridiculous amount of connected paths
Yep.
One thing that isn't talked about much concerning these kinds of maps is engagement position matters a lot less. i.e. if you have 2 armies fight each other, the result will likely be the same wherever it's fought (we're talking anywhere outside the main/nat where simcity isn't an affecting factor, of course).
And getting out of position isn't punished as hard because there is always a quick path back to wherever you need to be.
So the outmaneuvering your opponent part of the strategy is less meaningful. Of course it still exists to some degree, but it is diminished.
I tend to favor maps with a wide array of widths of paths/chokes, sometimes a very defensible base or two, where choosing where to engage/position matters a ton more, and it's less about build-order wars and finger-speed brute-force Starcraft. (i.e. the cleverer player is rewarded more, not the one who happens to have a bit more muscle memory) Also allows for comebacks more often, which is great for the game and something BW had a lot more of.
I don't think the ones I did not list are strong enough.
seems like these are mostly just the maps that are super standard, open and/or have a ridiculous amount of connected paths
Yep.
One thing that isn't talked about much concerning these kinds of maps is engagement position matters a lot less. i.e. if you have 2 armies fight each other, the result will likely be the same wherever it's fought (we're talking anywhere outside the main/nat where simcity isn't an affecting factor, of course).
And getting out of position isn't punished as hard because there is always a quick path back to wherever you need to be.
So the outmaneuvering your opponent part of the strategy is less meaningful. Of course it still exists to some degree, but it is diminished.
I tend to favor maps with a wide array of widths of paths/chokes, sometimes a very defensible base or two, where choosing where to engage/position matters a ton more, and it's less about build-order wars and finger-speed brute-force Starcraft. (i.e. the cleverer player is rewarded more, not the one who happens to have a bit more muscle memory) Also allows for comebacks more often, which is great for the game and something BW had a lot more of.
^This is a good mindset, or at least goal to have in mind. Those maps listed are still all really good maps though, fo sho.
On February 12 2018 21:59 -NegativeZero- wrote: tlmc hype seems strangely low this time
I don't want to be rude I know map making is hard work and takes up a lot of time but I'm disappointed with the lack of "new" maps and those that there are seem to be the same "new" concepts that we have seen before in islands and minerals blocking off areas.
On February 12 2018 21:59 -NegativeZero- wrote: tlmc hype seems strangely low this time
I don't want to be rude I know map making is hard work and takes up a lot of time but I'm disappointed with the lack of "new" maps and those that there are seem to be the same "new" concepts that we have seen before in islands and minerals blocking off areas.
The reason I don't have a lot of hype for this is purely personal. I don't have the time to look at the maps, It's just a time of the year when I am very busy. I have enough time to read the comments, but I haven't got the time to form an opinion of my own.
On February 12 2018 21:59 -NegativeZero- wrote: tlmc hype seems strangely low this time
I don't want to be rude I know map making is hard work and takes up a lot of time but I'm disappointed with the lack of "new" maps and those that there are seem to be the same "new" concepts that we have seen before in islands and minerals blocking off areas.
There's alot of limitations that prevent many new things from occuring. We can't do neutral eggs, we can't use forcefields, we can't have custom data, so why really bother when I could spend less time making a solid standard map? Sovereign was a new map at first, with neutral eggs.
On February 12 2018 21:59 -NegativeZero- wrote: tlmc hype seems strangely low this time
I don't want to be rude I know map making is hard work and takes up a lot of time but I'm disappointed with the lack of "new" maps and those that there are seem to be the same "new" concepts that we have seen before in islands and minerals blocking off areas.
As AVEX stated above “new” is really hard to do when there is such a limit of what you can do to the map. The running joke is that AVEX just submitted 6 standard maps, but put them in different categories, and honestly that’s all we get shouted at to do from the community/pro players. When a new map is submitted you can just hear the rage from people who don’t want new maps, and only standard maps.
On February 12 2018 21:59 -NegativeZero- wrote: tlmc hype seems strangely low this time
I don't want to be rude I know map making is hard work and takes up a lot of time but I'm disappointed with the lack of "new" maps and those that there are seem to be the same "new" concepts that we have seen before in islands and minerals blocking off areas.
As AVEX stated above “new” is really hard to do when there is such a limit of what you can do to the map. The running joke is that AVEX just submitted 6 standard maps, but put them in different categories, and honestly that’s all we get shouted at to do from the community/pro players. When a new map is submitted you can just hear the rage from people who don’t want new maps, and only standard maps.
Fair enough maybe there needs to be a new only contest or something if the incentives aren't there.
On February 12 2018 21:59 -NegativeZero- wrote: tlmc hype seems strangely low this time
I don't want to be rude I know map making is hard work and takes up a lot of time but I'm disappointed with the lack of "new" maps and those that there are seem to be the same "new" concepts that we have seen before in islands and minerals blocking off areas.
As AVEX stated above “new” is really hard to do when there is such a limit of what you can do to the map. The running joke is that AVEX just submitted 6 standard maps, but put them in different categories, and honestly that’s all we get shouted at to do from the community/pro players. When a new map is submitted you can just hear the rage from people who don’t want new maps, and only standard maps.
Fair enough maybe there needs to be a new only contest or something if the incentives aren't there.
Who would sponsor it? The TLMC essentially exists to provide Blizzard with for tournament and ladder play. There is no place for non-standard maps if they're deemed unsuitable for ladder.
I'll chip in say that the concerns about the new category have been heard. There is a desire to make changes to the category in future - if you have suggestions for that we're all ears.
On February 13 2018 03:45 Plexa wrote: I'll chip in say that the concerns about the new category have been heard. There is a desire to make changes to the category in future - if you have suggestions for that we're all ears.
Are changes for the 'Rush' category being considered? Because 'Rush' maps have been even less successful than the 'New' category (which at least has had its share of popular maps).
On February 13 2018 03:45 Plexa wrote: I'll chip in say that the concerns about the new category have been heard. There is a desire to make changes to the category in future - if you have suggestions for that we're all ears.
So custom data needs to be allowed. You're only playing with like 1% of the possibilities with it not being allowed.
But there needs to be limitations to this. The "new" thing needs to be very easy to understand/as intuitive as possible. (If it's deemed too hard to understand by the judges then it doesn't make the cut)
There's other things you could add but this is the groundwork for how it needs to work.
On February 13 2018 03:45 Plexa wrote: I'll chip in say that the concerns about the new category have been heard. There is a desire to make changes to the category in future - if you have suggestions for that we're all ears.
So custom data needs to be allowed. You're only playing with like 1% of the possibilities with it not being allowed.
But there needs to be limitations to this. The "new" thing needs to be very easy to understand/as intuitive as possible. (If it's deemed too hard to understand by the judges then it doesn't make the cut)
There's other things you could add but this is the groundwork for how it needs to work.
Yeah. Take for example the idea of neutral forcefields as they were implemented on Geumgangsan. The problems with it were that the forcefields were not visible through the FOW, not visible on the minimap and were 'units' not 'buildings' which messed with pathing thus trapping units.
If you fixed the visibility problems, and the pathing problems (which takes custom data) it's pretty intuitive (now whether it makes a balanced map is another issue, but that's besides the point).
Rich vespene geysers or a second type of watchtower with shorter range are also things that wouldn't be too unintuitive if and only if they had a clear and distinctively different look from the regular ones.
Allowing us to make custom eggs that are neutral and show up through FOW. Creating forcefields with proper footprint, show up in FOW. Rich Geysers (at least give them a unique model, which means custom data & model/texture) Neutral blinding clouds. Constant hostile storms. Slow zones (ie units that walk in water are slowed) Different kinds of watchtowers (such as sensor tower watchtowers, blinding cloud towers) Hostile special turrets, etc.
There's lots of cool things we can do, but we really can't.
Eggs are a bit tricky I think, since if you want to preserve behaviour like workers being able to drill through them they have to be units at which point they mess with pathing.
Correct me if i'm wrong... but allowing custom data would expose the possibility of bugs if future patches with modified "parent objects" from the source dependency conflicted with the customized objects. If true, blizz would need to go through and create a bunch of new stuff (like in the list avex mentioned) pre-packaged in the dependency to allow us stuff to play with, but not customize the data itself. Or just things like passing in parameters like "watchtower vision distance" that we can modify in the actual terrain editor (separate from data).
Without custom data, more Object Property parameter options in the terrain editor, or new pre-packaged fun stuff to play with, then yea just combine "Rush" and "New" categories into one category called "Unconventional" that includes "new" ideas, rush maps, and the less-common symmetry layouts to help balance the category distribution
On February 13 2018 08:20 Meavis wrote: or at least mineral walls, half bases, neutral geysers
I'd like to second this suggestion. This is something that would not force Blizzard to redesign or fix part of the game and could be incorporated into the next TLMC's "new" category.
What do you mean by neutral geysers? Do you mean using them to change pathing like this?
I do not think that rush maps and new maps should be one category. I think that would overall end up decreasing the diversity of the submissions.
I'm starting to think that maybe every once in a while, there should be a 4 player map category for maps with 4 spawns, seeing how unpopular they have become recently.
On February 13 2018 08:04 themusic246 wrote: Correct me if i'm wrong... but allowing custom data would expose the possibility of bugs if future patches with modified "parent objects" from the source dependency conflicted with the customized objects. If true, blizz would need to go through and create a bunch of new stuff (like in the list avex mentioned) pre-packaged in the dependency to allow us stuff to play with, but not customize the data itself. Or just things like passing in parameters like "watchtower vision distance" that we can modify in the actual terrain editor (separate from data).
Without custom data, more Object Property parameter options in the terrain editor, or new pre-packaged fun stuff to play with, then yea just combine "Rush" and "New" categories into one category called "Unconventional" that includes "new" ideas, rush maps, and the less-common symmetry layouts to help balance the category distribution
</myThoughts>
It's true to a certain extent, but if you do it right and either create all your custom data from scratch or duplicate all the parent objects it's mostly avoidable. Most mapmakers wouldn't do that though and it's not always possible to get all of the parent data. It is a big QA hazard though and would create a lot of work for Blizzard.
I think the trick with "new" maps is really to create something that is new, without requiring players to learn new build orders or radically pigeonhole their play style. Players don't want to learn a new set of builds or have to prepare for a bunch of totally unusual stuff that might be extraneous outside of this one map. There's a lot of really interesting things you can do even without gimmicks and custom data but most of those things require a big time investment to learn how to play it.
I feel like this is a good time to restart the discussion about what future map contests could entail that would be good for the TL community, the map making community, and more entertaining for spectators and other players (casual or competitive), but I don't want to just copy-paste and repeat other things I've thrown out. There's a thread iirc by Avex from last spring (March?) with bits of the previous discussions that seem worth looking over and talking about again.
Right now, with how the siege units are in SC2 and LotV mixed with everything else, it really feels like more "wild" concepts for future-standard map design should be something to seriously consider pushing a little harder if those siege units and certain strategies aren't going anywhere or nobody finds a way to design for or against those units' abilities in a new way any time soon. I'm also starting to wonder more and more if the reason some players feel that units/the economy/etc. need to be changed greatly every few months to a year is because the game design doesn't allow for interesting maps that can keep the game feeling fresh and "balanced". I also think player mindset, what we think we should expect of players, or both, could change a little and maybe, again, they/we need to be given a little test nudge in one direction or the other, but that's probably a topic for another place and time.
The number one reason I am personally not super hyped about this TLMC, fiddling with my own maps, playing a bunch of the submissions, all that, is because I just don't have the time lately (and internet struggles, it's killing me). Other people do seem a little "meh" over this one though, could be a lot of reasons for that; it could be our attitudes about it turning everybody else off from getting hyped about it, could be balance, could be the weather, idk. That's a lot to think about, so I'll stop before I ramble on or edit this post any more and my internet shuts down on me again or my phone crashes.
*Maybe what needs to happen to allow for all this other stuff is to... design in a way that aims to make it so for 6-12 months, on most maps for that time period, there are a couple of builds or strategies or simple openings from each race that work well and are "balanced", and later in that I-kinda-just-threw-out-two-numbers time period the maps went from being 4/5s "standard" to being 2/3 "standard" with the rest being slightly more new/interesting. Then start back from the beginning when bigger patches come out on ladder... That'd take very different [everything] of course, but... Anywho. Random thoughts and pipe dreams is what I have a lot of lately. And rambling, always rambling. xD
I think the reason people seem to care less about this TLMC is simply because the past two map pools have been mostly decent. People cared more before since so many ladder maps were trainwrecks. Also a lot of events have been happening.
On February 13 2018 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I think the reason people seem to care less about this TLMC is simply because the past two map pools have been mostly decent. People cared more before since so many ladder maps were trainwrecks. Also a lot of events have been happening.
A lot of StarCraft events and the "Winter Sports Games" or somethin' I keep hearing about, maybe that has a lot to do with it...
On February 13 2018 03:45 Plexa wrote: I'll chip in say that the concerns about the new category have been heard. There is a desire to make changes to the category in future - if you have suggestions for that we're all ears.
I think it's not 100% clear what "new" is. I think if you ask yourself the question "have we seen a map like this before?" and the answer is "definitely not", then you can make the argument for new, even if nothing ultra gimmicky or crazy is being done.
On February 13 2018 07:08 Avexyli wrote: Allowing us to make custom eggs that are neutral and show up through FOW. Creating forcefields with proper footprint, show up in FOW. Rich Geysers (at least give them a unique model, which means custom data & model/texture) Neutral blinding clouds. Constant hostile storms. Slow zones (ie units that walk in water are slowed) Different kinds of watchtowers (such as sensor tower watchtowers, blinding cloud towers) Hostile special turrets, etc.
There's lots of cool things we can do, but we really can't.
+1 is not even enough. Please consider these or at least some of these features in the future TL/Blizz.
EPT
Newkirk Precinct’s playable area is 172x124=21,328. 
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wsDDCGc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8jP2DWX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/z0uUE5W.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/g3JfduQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3yfvBK2.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MZkknYwl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/w0gMpBgl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kMb4dAgl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JtP6w7hl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/49muI21l.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Y4bdwbSl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/f5f9e476a180ce3e8d19a955c37b28fc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FWGNeVI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pcvd3r0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xVjk4BI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VjRnTLX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hW6m3tR.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wUXYpAk.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/M3jHgP8.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MRN9IfW.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bVEzPeY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/twmOO7S.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EzrkfEU.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/A4xzJgO.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ExUw95s.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/T95RU4a.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/phPHqIH.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/it00e4n.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/92e7JTo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/o0waude.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IHxJWPN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uZ9eZPN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BEaYWf0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7ws0nG0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2s08agZ.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zIoExM6.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B6mkXII.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pDuaKmV.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RNnPoku.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/my4zbmZ.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/n9SbPQu.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dhcJ7WI.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jfzztCt.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/v9lVk0E.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6NwJaYq.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yDrEVuj.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fE1e1Tr.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QgKgyQu.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9Gym85e.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AbyYpax.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UEg6Tdv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZwmTIXs.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AYBqhMt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mccEz4E.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iWTKs5h.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/x2WPn8i.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iwIRicC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pgC1LUp.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RnsA4OC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RiKZSMl.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FA5xE5E.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vwNYwqx.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JqI26Uo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/D6t2CZq.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eibraT8.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mpxYLJv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mzSld2U.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5SdL2oN.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kQ4cC80.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/d1tkX32.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B6p3BWh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PvAmBT2.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/v1egs7I.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qrcw8s4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vOEGAld.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Sn5Lrkv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yMkonRM.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Wbu54gL.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zX0qH6O.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/40ePg1E.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/l08W2Lx.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5yNwgI5.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y77PVlO.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B9dm8Yt.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B0kGCfl.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.citrusdigital.com/files/16-bit-overview.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.citrusdigital.com/files/sentinel-overview.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MZkknYwl.png<br>)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/w0gMpBgl.png<br>)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kMb4dAgl.png<br>)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JtP6w7hl.png<br>)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/49muI21l.png<br>)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Y4bdwbSl.png<br>)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8otcYyx.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YaCI74P.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2JAOsj1.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fW9KBHk.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oHcfC3V.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OC8wTIm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/k7yVoqH.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PvYKcuN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1tskjhB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2fNIwSU.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WOH6g1g.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/48XoIoj.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/X9r8vgT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vPj0L38.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/N3w5sOm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RP463GE.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8gTFIFm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1tR4fl7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/k7wbEK3.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mqxuBSG.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RiKZSMll.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E2Y7O1H.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ciNubqh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TZM5zu8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NHnjqCE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cLJZD1W.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BiYKLAS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0exRguv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9mTIE1t.png)
