After months of design, playtesting, and iteration the results are in. You have decided our TLMC11 winners!
All sixteen finalists will receive at least $100 per finalist map by default for placing in the top 16. All finalists will also receive a custom community commander portrait if they do not yet have one. In addition, the authors of the top five maps will receive the following prizes, all provided by Blizzard.
First - $500 Second - $250 Third - $125 Fourth - $75 Fifth - $50
Winners
FIFTH PLACE
CYBER FOREST | Pklixian
"Games I saw during the TLMC tourney were very balanced and what I wanted. A cheese here and there but generally standard aggressive games. Meaning I did not at all need to change how fluid aggression is on the map. Decoration, though, was missing something. So I hand-made metallic trees designed to look face (55-56 doodads used for the largest tree). And with the theme of force fields throughout a forest making a 'Cyber' Forest. I decided to use them as leaves for these trees while keeping the force fields while also changing the lowest ground to have a lot of trees and some of the largest trees. With this I hope the map will stick well with its name. And so I can keep the fair amount of people who told me they liked the decoration happy."
Pklixian is a relatively new mapmaker, TLMC11 being his second time participating, and his first time reaching the finals, having improved tremendously since TLMC10. Pklixian will receive $150 for his 5th place finish.
FOURTH PLACE
KING'S COVE | SidianTheBard
"Bases are close by each other and far away from the opponent. Unless you can do a two base push and deny a third base, this map will most likely always get to later stages in the game. The outer edges are a little more open while the middle, especially when the rocks are taken down, offers many smaller pathways so pushing across this big map cause armies to constantly be in the open."
SidianTheBard is a highly prolific mapmaker who has been entering maps since the very first TLMC and is well known for maps such as Habitation Station, Korhal Carnage Knockout, Moonlight Madness, and Ascension to Aiur. He will take home $175 for his fourth place finish.
THIRD PLACE
KAIROS JUNCTION | Solstice245
“Medium sized map with a number of expansion options, varying in their defensive/offensive potential. Controlling the outer high-ground areas will be advantageous for a defender’s ability to hold far expansions whichever way they expand.”
Solstice245 made third place with his finalist map the season directly after getting two maps into the TLMC10 finalists. For doing so, he will take home an additional $125, for a total of $225.
SECOND PLACE
YEAR ZERO | AVEX
“Despite its long rush distance, it can be quite difficult to move out and take your third base early on with any ease. Though reasonably defensible, there are only so many bases for each player, each more difficult to hold than the last. This map is meant to have spread out bases. For example, it might be wise for Zergs to have their natural queens place a tumor first rather than an inject, as it will make their third base defense easier.”
Avex needs no introduction. His list of well-known and played maps include Fracture, Blackpink, Backwater, and Odyssey. His second place finish with Year Zero will earn him $350.
FIRST PLACE
AUTOMATON | RQM
“Automaton is a large map with defensive expansion patterns. Counter-clockwise expansion pattern gives nice flow to defending units. Gold bases are close to the main but are also vulnerable to attacks from front ramp. Rocks are placed to prevent too early takings from back. The usual expansion pattern would follow counterclockwise direction, but a player can take the highland third or gold to take different strategies.”
RQM is best known for placing in the finals with experimental maps such as Neon Violet Square and Geumgangsan, as well as a 2016 GSL map in Judgement. In addition to winning in the individual category, RQM also won the Team Map edition of TLMC in the 2v2 category and placed second in the 3v3 category with Emerald City and Rose Motel, respectively.
See you next season!
That wraps up TLMC11. Thank you to everyone who submitted a map, voted in the poll, watched the TLMC tournament, or otherwise showed an interest in the contest.
Now that the contest has concluded, it's in Blizzard's hands to pick the maps for the next ladder season. We look forward to hearing which of the sixteen finalists will make it!
1st - Automaton by RQM 2nd - Year Zero by AVEX 3rd - Kairos Junction by Solstice245 4th - King's Cove by SidianTheBard 5th - Cyber Forest by Pklixian 6th - Port Aleksander by Youngrustler 7th - Stasis by NewSunshine 8th - Extraction by themusic246 9th - Lotus by themusic246 10th - Sudden Awakening by JaleVeliki 11th - Crystal Caverns by Meavis 12th - Reminiscence by Youngrustler 13th - New Repugnancy by Sanglune 14th - Antigonus by Xancake 15th - Crystalline Addiction by Xancake 16th - Ritual Moopy Temple by IeZaeL
dont take year zero pls and add port aleksander. Maybe i should have put my vote for this map in front of another vote i did then maybe it would be on the 5th. Port Aleksander is just the way nicer and more interessting map with his paths. The last base added the 7th on Year zero i think is 2 close and produces boring games. The map overall is boring to me and there are way more interessting maps. So dont get it why this is second and it had btw before only 6 bases. So to vote for this i cant understand. Else im fine with the mappool overall.
AND TO SAY THIS HERE AGAIN TO LET 150 GUYS DECIDE THE MAPPOOL OR THE WINNERS IS JUST POOR. BLIZZARD NEEDS FINALLY TO IMPLEMENT THE MAP CONTEST INTO THE GAME.
To me its not comprehensible that 150 guys decide for the whole community, im sorry, in future it maybe will be even less and i have to say i cant accept this and speak here for the whole community.
I asked people ingame if they know about it, like noone did. I posted it in teamliquid chat etc just to get some players out of their hole to vote for the maps and support the community. If blizzard wont do anything soon this contest will be a joke at some point, its already and was in the past. So if you want to keep it here fine go for it but if in the end 100 people vote for 300k people then i have to say RIP BLIZZARD.
These results baffle me for another contest in a row. Here are some stats about how many times the maps were vetoed in the map contest tournament, to help explain why these results confuse me so heavily.
A quick pre-note, the way the vetoes work in the tournament are a certain amount and set of maps are given for each series and vetoes then take place. Each "set of maps" will generally include maps which have been played the least throughout the tournament, to encourage each map to be played as much as possible. So if a map is picked to be played frequently when it is in the set of maps, it will be put into less sets of maps etc. Obviously this means the stats aren't thoroughly meaningful / accurate, but I still think there are some interesting numbers here.
Also other factors come into play, match-up etc. But I personally feel the amount the maps get vetoed makes a fairly decent comparison to how enjoyable the maps were to watch.
In the top 5 we have 2 of the turret maps (unsurprising), Antigonus (which was quickly realized to be an unfavorable map), our TLMC winner (Automaton at third) and Kairos Junction which was our third place finisher. Automaton was the most vetoed Macro map and Kairos Junction the most vetoed standard map.
TLMC fourth place, King's Cove finished just in the top half of the most vetoed maps, being vetoed 58% of the time. TLMC 2nd & 5th were some of the most non-vetoed maps (Year Zero & Cyber Forest, tied with being vetoed 40% of the time).
The least vetoed maps, Crystal Cavern & Reminiscence finished 11th and 12th respectively in the TLMC.
Fun to have a different view on this.
--
Personally for me the results are disappointing, I think there were quite clearly a set of very strong maps that did not make it close to the top and certain very weak maps which did. GGs to all though, looking forward to next season.
On August 18 2018 11:25 Wardi wrote: These results baffle me for another contest in a row. Here are some stats about how many times the maps were vetoed in the map contest tournament, to help explain why these results confuse me so heavily.
A quick pre-note, the way the vetoes work in the tournament are a certain amount and set of maps are given for each series and vetoes then take place. Each "set of maps" will generally include maps which have been played the least throughout the tournament, to encourage each map to be played as much as possible. So if a map is picked to be played frequently when it is in the set of maps, it will be put into less sets of maps etc. Obviously this means the stats aren't thoroughly meaningful / accurate, but I still think there are some interesting numbers here.
Also other factors come into play, match-up etc. But I personally feel the amount the maps get vetoed makes a fairly decent comparison to how enjoyable the maps were to watch.
In the top 5 we have 2 of the turret maps (unsurprising), Antigonus (which was quickly realized to be an unfavorable map), our TLMC winner (Automaton at third) and Kairos Junction which was our third place finisher. Automaton was the most vetoed Macro map and Kairos Junction the most vetoed standard map.
TLMC fourth place, King's Cove finished just in the top half of the most vetoed maps, being vetoed 58% of the time. TLMC 2nd & 5th were some of the most non-vetoed maps (Year Zero & Cyber Forest, tied with being vetoed 40% of the time).
The least vetoed maps, Crystal Cavern & Reminiscence finished 11th and 12th respectively in the TLMC.
Fun to have a different view on this.
--
Personally for me the results are disappointing, I think there were quite clearly a set of very strong maps that did not make it close to the top and certain very weak maps which did. GGs to all though, looking forward to next season.
I don't know why you'd expect:
a) player vetoes to correlate with voter preferences b) player vetoes to correlate with which maps are good
(also c) voter preferences to align with which maps are good, but that's besides the point)
Players will veto maps after seeing the maps for the first time, which means they'll choose maps that look as straight-forward as possible to understand and play. Crystal Cavern and Reminiscence are super straight-forward maps which is why they didn't get vetoed much. They are also not particularly good maps, and did not place particularly well.
Don't get me wrong - the stats have too many flaws to mean anything significant, I agree, but there are definitely some trends.
I didn't really mean to say that based on the vetoes/picks, I'm surprised at the results. I was surprised at the results based on my own expectations, the veto stats were just something I threw together because I thought they were a bit of fun.
On August 18 2018 11:50 Wardi wrote: Don't get me wrong - the stats have too many flaws to mean anything significant, I agree, but there are definitely some trends.
I didn't really mean to say that based on the vetoes/picks, I'm surprised at the results. I was surprised at the results based on my own expectations, the veto stats were just something I threw together because I thought they were a bit of fun.
I'm also surprised by the results, though my expectations were quite a bit more terrible than the winners (though they are mostly not the maps I voted for either), so I'm still reasonably pleased.
I think the top 5 are pretty fair. I'm personally not a massive fan of Kings Cove and Crystal as maps, but I find them reasonable.
I'm honestly a little surprised Automaton got so many vetoes? I'm not exactly sure why, as to see what's wrong with it? I think it's relatively unique in a Macro map, and that's why I was okay with it taking infront of Year Zero, whereas Year Zero is super safe standard execution, Automaton is a bit more "new" in its idea.
Maybe it doesn't deserve 1st place but idk, what does, then? I don't think Year Zero is some godlike map, I just tried to make something safe with a really fuckin cool aesthetic. Most of us went in thinking this contest was pretty "meh" with its top 16 seeing as about half of the contest was the same map (see chall 1 and 2) rotated and slightly changed.
I don't see disappointment in the top 5 but maybe moreso an underwhelming contest for the first of its kind (re: the challenges, their influence and what they brought). I think the overall quality of the contest was pretty high even if the uniqueness wasn't as high.
To be honest, I think any of these map creators can easily create maps (and have created maps) that would for sure work well on ladder for competitive play. Even some of these newer mapper's are pulling out grade A material on their first few attempts.
I'm surprised King's Cove did as well as it did. Whether people love the aesthetics (Beach theme / Ohana) or because it's a super macro map which is harder to cheese on, who really knows. Either way I'm happy because as a sc2 mapper that has been around since sc2 beta, I'm again in the top 5 of TLMC with hopefully another chance to get my map on ladder, which makes me smile knowing I can still create maps to compete with the best of them. (At least according to judges & public vote).
I know this TLMC I have been a lot less vocal then normally am (go read past TLMC threads and you'll see my rage lol) but I'm still here, still creating maps, still trying to help the sc2 community. =)
Once more, congrats to RQM and great work to all mappers who not only got in the top spots but received votes to get some extra $$$. Well done! =)
For the next TLMC tho ... could we have a longer voting phase? I personally haven't had the time to look at the maps when the final phase was announced. Even had planned to play some games with friends over the weekend, but as I learned yesterday, the voting had already ended Friday morning.
Making up your mind about 16 maps, especially if you weren't able to watch the map test tournament, over 3-4 days seems like a tough task for those who don't spend 5 hours + a day on SC2 and the various contents around it. Even more so when those 3-4 days aren't even part of the weekend.
I hope the next one will allow for a bit more testing. The TLMC Tab ingame was a great addition to the client to give players more opportunities to test, but if you just have a few days to use it - and it's only working on NA - then it almost feels like a wasted effort
On August 18 2018 23:13 Borsti wrote: Congratz to the winner's
For the next TLMC tho ... could we have a longer voting phase? I personally haven't had the time to look at the maps when the final phase was announced. Even had planned to play some games with friends over the weekend, but as I learned yesterday, the voting had already ended Friday morning.
Making up your mind about 16 maps, especially if you weren't able to watch the map test tournament, over 3-4 days seems like a tough task for those who don't spend 5 hours + a day on SC2 and the various contents around it. Even more so when those 3-4 days aren't even part of the weekend.
I hope the next one will allow for a bit more testing. The TLMC Tab ingame was a great addition to the client to give players more opportunities to test, but if you just have a few days to use it - and it's only working on NA - then it almost feels like a wasted effort
Tbf the changes between the announcements of the finalists and the start of the voting phase have always been minimal so we theoretically had a lot of time to make up our minds - but I'm in the same boat as you. When the finalists were announced I thought I still have a lot of time to check out the maps, then suddenly the voting phase started and I had a few days to decide in the middle of a busy work week. At least the voting phase should go over a weekend.
still think its more problematic that you only get to see a tiny portion of entries, getting a limited selection on what you can vote on is detrimental to the contest.
On August 19 2018 00:43 Meavis wrote: still think its more problematic that you only get to see a tiny portion of entries, getting a limited selection on what you can vote on is detrimental to the contest.
You have to cut it down somehow, though. The map contest tournament can only use so many maps and voters can only reasonably be asked to evaluate a certain number. With more options the votes would become more and more sparsely distributed to the point of not being meaningful.
Disappointing voting results for me - only two of the maps I voted for ended up in the top 5. Kairos Junction was guaranteed to place somewhere high but I certainly didn’t expect Automaton to do that well. Really hoped to see Lotus in the top 5 - I hope that it at least gets selected by Blizzard.
Edit: forgot to congratulate Pklixian and Solstice245, it’s always nice to see newer faces in the winners!
This is actually interesting. 4 maps I voted for are in the top 5 with Year Zero being a map I ommited as I don't like maps with that kind of symmetry (vertical or horizontal). In that regard I am not surprised with the results. The 5th map I voted for and gave it 5pts mainly for being the most standard and safe was Reminiscence which ended being only 12th in the contest. That for me is kinda weird but whatever. However seeing as many people are surprised with the results, especially the experts like mapmakers and Wardi who is running the map tournament, I wonder if I and other people who voted for winners did not see some obvious issues with the maps. I admit I haven't seen the Wardi tournament and only analyzed maps by the screenshots but still I am surprised that people are surprised Oh and congrats to winners and thank you all involved in the process!
On August 19 2018 15:00 RQM wrote: Two years have passed since I made my first map. Then this year gives me the most memorable day of my mapping life. Thanks for the votes and words. :D
Thanks again for Jacky and Enekh, Automaton would not have been better without them.
Congrats! Hope to play more of your maps in the future.
are the only two on TL i could find, but I found these to be pretty weak. There was a temple 4 player I didn't find very interesting, and I know he had other submissions going into the recent TLMCs that weren't amazing.
I'm not really looking to be convinced that my 2 favorite mapmakers were shit or something. Yeah, they both slowed down and stopped, but so have a ton of other people. Merely pointing out that when either of them made something, it always excited me, and made me want to make something new too, and that the scene was only better for having the two of them.
EPT
Haha <3. Congratulations to all! Well done RQM, nice work!
.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/P1zCVsM.png)
