We’re starting off the new year with a bang with the 12th edition of the Team Liquid Map Contest! You’ll not see any huge changes compared to TLMC 11 but we have refined the format a little bit from the last time, so please read the entire post carefully.
We heard many good things about the challenges we introduced in TLMC 11. This time around, both challenges revolve around the new features provided by Blizzard: Rich Vespene Geysers, Reduced Mineral Field, and Inhibitor Zone Generator. All three add even more flexibility and options when creating your maps and we want you to put that on display. Word of caution, though: make sure you read the notes that accompany them. We don’t want you to go crazy with these new features and an overuse can result in us scoring the map lower.
Three new features
Rich Vespene Geysers Just like Rich Mineral Fields,Rich Vespene Geysers give you more gas per trip.
2250 total gas value.
8 gas return per trip.
Rich and standard Vespene Geysers have default resource amounts and cannot be modified.
Rich Vespene Geysers can be used in all categories: Standard, Macro, Challenge #1, and Challenge #2.
Reduced Mineral Field These nodes allow you to customize the amount of minerals that can be mined from the node.
Individual mineral node values can be adjusted from 1 – 450. Note: Minerals with 0 value will not appear when the match starts.
These units will appear as “Mineral Field (450)” in the editor.
Reduced Mineral Fields can be used in Challenge #1 only.
Inhibitor Zone Generator The Inhibitor Zone Generator is a neutral indestructible building that slows all units in its area of effect and can be placed pretty much anywhere on the map, including ramps. This offers you a unique ability in designing your map. You can keep some distances short in terms of distance but long in terms of travel time, which can have a big impact on how the map is played.
Inhibitor Zone Generators can be placed on the ground and on ramps to generate a slowing field.
There are three units with different radius values: 4, 5, or 6 (from the center of the unit).
Slows movement speed of all ground and air units within the generated field by 35%. Affected units will display a visual debuff effect. Inhibitor Zone does not affect unit attack speeds.
Inhibitor Zone Generators can be used in Challenge #2 only.
Submission Phase
January 10th - February 3rd
Notes from Blizzard:
In the previous contest when we introduced the Renegade Missile Turret map feature, we received many maps that utilized this structure in large numbers. We want to let map makers know that maps or submissions aren’t required to utilize a high number of map features. Maps should be judged based on how well map features are used and how much they add to the map rather than how many are used.
Overlord high ground scout positions over naturals have become more popular in recent maps. We want to remind everyone that while these spots are still acceptable, they are not required, and we’d like to see a greater variety in how they’re placed.
Rules/Restrictions:
Maps can be submitted to one category only. Maps cannot be submitted to multiple categories.
No custom textures or Force Fields.
No custom data on maps.
Judges may reassign a map to a more appropriate category.
When using air pathing blockers, avoid setting up zones that trap air units within them.
Renegade Missile Turrets will be temporarily put on hold and will not be utilized for this contest.
Suggestions/Concerns:
When deciding to utilize a gold base, make sure there is some sort of risk associated with them. Otherwise, gold minerals bases with low risk tend to usually favor Zerg over the other races.
Be careful when adjusting the number of resource nodes, and their values, at potential bases as it could impact balance between races and/or matchups.
During the iteration phase of the competition, small changes are often times better than large radical changes that dramatically alter the map’s direction.
The average rush distance and playable map dimensions are guidelines and not strict restrictions. For example, large maps that play out aggressively or small maps that promote long games will still be considered.
Pre-Judging Feedback
We introduced this in our last competition and the feedback was good, so we’ll bring back the opportunity to get feedback from judges with the intent to allow for potential issues to be fixed prior to judging. All maps that are submitted on or before the 21st of January will be reviewed by members of the judging panel and feedback provided within a week. Please keep in mind that maps with positive feedback or have had issues fixed as a result of this review process are not guaranteed to be selected for the Top 16 as this contest is very competitive.
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: 40-45 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 16,000 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: 40-55 seconds. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Playable map dimensions (not full map dimensions): Map playable area should be approximately 20,000 and up. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Guidelines: Design a map using mineral nodes to alter or affect pathing. Mining these nodes should provide access to new areas or routes.
“Reduced Mineral Fields” may be used to fulfill this challenge, but using this map feature is not a requirement.
Map makers may utilize several mineral nodes to create mineral lines to fulfill this challenge. Alternatively, single mineral nodes may be used.
For example, Redshift and Dasan Station use mineral lines to block pathing while the StarCraft I map, Destination, uses individual mineral nodes.
Map makers may elect to replace individual main and natural mineral nodes with “Reduced Mineral Fields.” However, they should be done so in the spirit of the challenge and not for the purposes of greatly altering early-game economy.
Guidelines: Design a map making use of the “Inhibitor Zone Generator” structure. Pre-place these invulnerable structures on maps as Player 0 and the structure will be neutral to all players. Even before getting revealed, these structures will display a mini-map icon at the start of matches to indicate their locations.
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) Standard Maps
Three(3) Challenge #1 Maps
Three(3) Challenge #2 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 expect 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.
All maps submitted on or before the 21st of January will be reviewed by members of the judging panel and feedback will be provided to mappers by the 28th of January. In the event that you submit a map multiple times because of revision, the judging panel will use the most recently submitted map file for judging.
TL Judging Phase
February 4th - February 9th
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
Some time after the 7th of February a tournament stage will be held where professional players will compete on these experimental maps for prize money. We are still ironing out the details for this tournament but will announce everything ASAP.
Iteration Phase
The iteration phase is one we introduced in TLMC7 and it has been a positive force in the eyes of the mappers, players, and Blizzard. After the TLMC tournament has concluded, you’ll be able to submit clean final versions of your maps for consideration by Blizzard and the community.
Public Voting Phase
Finally, 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 choose 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.
TLMC Winners Announcement
Shortly after the conclusion of the voting phase, we will present the final standings. After this, 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.
Prize Distribution
Provided by Blizzard
We are also keeping on the additional prizing for finalists. Each finalist 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
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 Monday, Feb 04 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 asking mappers to submit more detailed information about their maps to ensure neither the judges nor the community misses any key features. Once your map has been received you will receive a PM back confirming that we have received it. If you have not received a reply within 24 hours, please contact us directly. We may also PM you back requesting missing information. Your entry has not officially been confirmed until any issues with the submission have been resolved.
If you want to submit a revisioned map for the contest, before the end of submissions (Jan 31) please send us a reply in the original PM chain on TLnet. This to ensure there are no mixups in the submission process.
(NEW)The map file has to contain:
A short gameplay description. There is a field for it with a limit of 300 chars. Suggestion for what to include in this field can be seen in last years finalists announcement (next to the picture of the map).
The PM has to contain:
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: Will any of the maps outside of the top 16 be included in WCS?
While there is a very small chance for this to happen, it’s not to be seen as commonplace.
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.
It's about time. And this looks really nice, I'm very excited this contest due to what we now have. I'm instantly going to work on both challenges, since I have many standard/macroish maps done before hand. Hope to see great submissions this contest! gl to all as well.
I love the TLMCs but i gotta say i've never been a fan of adding gimmicks to ladder/tournament maps. With gimmick i mean stuff like those neutral turrets, air blocker like on stasis or even just gold bases/geysers.
To me those kind of features never really improved a map in terms of gameplay quality. The reasoning behind those features is always to make the game feel more fresh or to see new strategies etc. but from my personal experience this always backfired.
Maps with gimmicks always turn out to strongly favor X over Y and so it becomes more stale than diverse. It achieves the opposite of what it wants to achieve.
I wish to see more maps like for example Newkirk Precinct Tournament Edition, etc.
Maps that really focus on the competetive aspect of StarCraft 2, trying to be as balanced as possible and creating enjoyable gameplay for all races.
I think the players should play the map and not the other way around, the map shouldn't dictate too much what the players do.
Ìn the past, the favorite maps of the community always were "standard" maps, because those maps granted the players the biggest possible freedom in terms of strategic choices.
Standard maps are already diverse enough to give players motivation to try new strategies. If we compare Deadwing with iron fortress, which are both considered standard 4 player maps, we can clearly see that both of those maps give players completely different strategic options and motivations, while still being standard.
That's why i'm not a fan of gimmicks, they dictate the gameplay too much and/or restrict players in some ways, rather than simply offering new motivation to the players just by how the bases are laid out etc.
On January 11 2019 06:51 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: I love the TLMCs but i gotta say i've never been a fan of adding gimmicks to ladder/tournament maps. With gimmick i mean stuff like those neutral turrets, air blocker like on stasis or even just gold bases/geysers.
To me those kind of features never really improved a map in terms of gameplay quality. The reasoning behind those features is always to make the game feel more fresh or to see new strategies etc. but from my personal experience this always backfired.
Maps with gimmicks always turn out to strongly favor X over Y and so it becomes more stale than diverse. It achieves the opposite of what it wants to achieve.
I wish to see more maps like for example Newkirk Precinct Tournament Edition, etc.
Maps that really focus on the competetive aspect of StarCraft 2, trying to be as balanced as possible and creating enjoyable gameplay for all races.
I think the players should play the map and not the other way around, the map shouldn't dictate too much what the players do.
Ìn the past, the favorite maps of the community always were "standard" maps, because those maps granted the players the biggest possible freedom in terms of strategic choices.
Standard maps are already diverse enough to give players motivation to try new strategies. If we compare Deadwing with iron fortress, which are both considered standard 4 player maps, we can clearly see that both of those maps give players completely different strategic options and motivations, while still being standard.
That's why i'm not a fan of gimmicks, they dictate the gameplay too much and/or restrict players in some ways, rather than simply offering new motivation to the players just by how the bases are laid out etc.
You're right that "gimmicky" maps are more stale than standard maps but considering the vast majority of maps we have are standard maps I think it's a good thing to have some maps that have basically their own meta players have to adapt to.
Let's see it this way: if we have 5 standard and 2 weird maps in the mappool the overall variety is higher than when we have 7 standard maps even if the weird maps are more stale on their own. The only problem is of course is that there's always the risk that a map turns out to be horribly imbalanced.
I wish to see more maps like for example Newkirk Precinct Tournament Edition, etc.
What do you even mean by this? Do you want that style of symmetry? Do you just want 3 bases and then no interesting highground dynamics? Do you want close by air (which was tried last TLMC and failed, imo)? Like what are you asking for
I wish to see more maps like for example Newkirk Precinct Tournament Edition, etc.
What do you even mean by this? Do you want that style of symmetry? Do you just want 3 bases and then no interesting highground dynamics? Do you want close by air (which was tried last TLMC and failed, imo)? Like what are you asking for
I wish to see more maps like for example Newkirk Precinct Tournament Edition, etc.
What do you even mean by this? Do you want that style of symmetry? Do you just want 3 bases and then no interesting highground dynamics? Do you want close by air (which was tried last TLMC and failed, imo)? Like what are you asking for
I'm asking for normal maps.
There are always multiple standard map in each ladder map pool. Few maps with "gimmicks" are added in each ladder map pool for the players that want to spice up their playing experience. Vetos are here to avoid playing on such maps if you wish so.
I wish to see more maps like for example Newkirk Precinct Tournament Edition, etc.
What do you even mean by this? Do you want that style of symmetry? Do you just want 3 bases and then no interesting highground dynamics? Do you want close by air (which was tried last TLMC and failed, imo)? Like what are you asking for
I'm asking for normal maps.
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: 35-40 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 16,000 and 22,000. (Note that these numbers are guidelines and not hard rules.) Examples: (Wiki)Catalyst’s playable area is 136x144=19,584. (Wiki)Overgrowth’s playable area is 120x144=17,280. (Wiki)Coda’s playable area is 138x144=19,872.
I'm ok with the change to mineral patches and gaz geyser, reaaaaaalllly not sure about the indestructible time warp, seems either super gimmicky/map breaking or totally useless. It's up to you guy's to change my mind!
What's the effect of the Inhibitor Zone on mining workers? Does it reduce their rate of mining (and consequently increase the potential saturation of a base)?
If so, could this create new configurations for bases: e.g. a rich mineral base with an inhibitor, where you can gain minerals at a faster rate, but only with an increased number of workers dedicated to a more precarious base?
On January 11 2019 09:02 Nakajin wrote: I'm ok with the change to mineral patches and gaz geyser, reaaaaaalllly not sure about the indestructible time warp, seems either super gimmicky/map breaking or totally useless. It's up to you guy's to change my mind!
I think if people use it to signify trudging through the snow / swamp / mud, it could be a great visual.
On January 11 2019 09:02 Nakajin wrote: I'm ok with the change to mineral patches and gaz geyser, reaaaaaalllly not sure about the indestructible time warp, seems either super gimmicky/map breaking or totally useless. It's up to you guy's to change my mind!
I think if people use it to signify trudging through the snow / swamp / mud, it could be a great visual.
Air units are affected too which is better gameplay, but doesn't really match your visual .
On January 11 2019 09:02 Nakajin wrote: I'm ok with the change to mineral patches and gaz geyser, reaaaaaalllly not sure about the indestructible time warp, seems either super gimmicky/map breaking or totally useless. It's up to you guy's to change my mind!
I think if people use it to signify trudging through the snow / swamp / mud, it could be a great visual.
Air units are affected too which is better gameplay, but doesn't really match your visual .
You're right that "gimmicky" maps are more stale than standard maps but considering the vast majority of maps we have are standard maps I think it's a good thing to have some maps that have basically their own meta players have to adapt to.
Let's see it this way: if we have 5 standard and 2 weird maps in the mappool the overall variety is higher than when we have 7 standard maps even if the weird maps are more stale on their own. The only problem is of course is that there's always the risk that a map turns out to be horribly imbalanced.
Isn't that pretty much what we have had the past few seasons? But what ends up happening is that the pro players end up vetoing the same weird maps over & over, so as a result we see the same few maps over & over again? This "added variety" that you speak of ends up having the opposite effect where we in practice have less variety due to players vetoing those weird maps. The key imo is not to have weird maps, but to have good maps with unique features. I've been of the opinion that some of these more unique maps we've seen in the pool simply aren't that good. I'm generalizing of course but I think map makers need to respect the plot. That these maps need to be balanced because this game & even our pro players livelihoods depend on them.
Given the past submissions I have no doubt our map making community will be up to the challenge. Its that selection process by Blizzard after the fact that i hold my breath for. Looking forward to seeing what everyone comes up with
I'm in favor of trying out new "weird"/"gimmicky" things for 1v1 maps as well as all kinds of custom maps, co-op, etc. etc. However, I dislike the new "toys" that have been presented specifially for these challenges so far, especially the Inhibitor Zone Generator. To me, inhibiting all unit movement outright in this way is a very unfun mechanic and something that, in my experience playing/running Dungeons & Dragons adventures, players will try to avoid at all costs or, if players are forced to go through it, become frustrated very quickly unless there is another mechanic/gimmick in the same area or close by, a puzzle to solve, treasure in the center of the aura, etc. that makes the encounter more interesting and fun.
Not only is it something I see as being unfun in practice, I also find it very unoriginal. New to SC2 =/= new to me and definitely doesn't automatically make it interesting, and so far (without seeing any maps that might implement it well, granted) that's all the inhibitor has going for it in my eyes.
Instead of the Inhibitor Zone Generator, I would much rather see new (fixed) air and line of sight/ranged attack blockers, new rocks/walls/interactive doors (structures that make new Tetris-block or custom-shaped rocks or indestructible walls, Jacky_'s Sky Gate as seen on Paradise Lost), new types of terrain (thick grass, deep snow, molten ground, rising or directionally flowing water, LAVA+ Show Spoiler +
I'm not biased at all I promise
), etc. Or something that gives an aura or can be activated to buff nearby units for a certain amount of time that, instead of inhibiting movement, increases movement or perhaps allows them to enter "inhibited" areas and ignore that effect.
Even something simple like adding a button for each player that they can click to activate their controlled generators would turn the (imo) unfun gimmick into something that could be extremely interactive, strategic, and fun. Something that players won't want to avoid at all costs or (rightfully) blame for a loss or universally veto after one or two games.
On January 11 2019 09:02 Nakajin wrote: I'm ok with the change to mineral patches and gaz geyser, reaaaaaalllly not sure about the indestructible time warp, seems either super gimmicky/map breaking or totally useless. It's up to you guy's to change my mind!
I think if people use it to signify trudging through the snow / swamp / mud, it could be a great visual.
I like the idea of using the effect alongside weather changes on the map (affecting all units or only non-massive air units) much better, or, again, applying the effect to units moving across certain types of terrain (snow, mud, what-have-you). That's flavorful and cool and more interesting than not being to move somewhere just because the level designer placed an uninteractable inhibitor pylon nearby.
*Important edit: I always look forward to these map contests, even when I have no time to look at most of the maps or play on them, let alone make and submit any myself, this one's not an exception. I love seeing new maps. I just feel very strongly about these inhibitors and kind of (very much) oppose them being here for the challenge. **And GLHF to the map makers!
On January 11 2019 10:19 Yonnua wrote: What's the effect of the Inhibitor Zone on mining workers? Does it reduce their rate of mining (and consequently increase the potential saturation of a base)?
If so, could this create new configurations for bases: e.g. a rich mineral base with an inhibitor, where you can gain minerals at a faster rate, but only with an increased number of workers dedicated to a more precarious base?
My thoughts exactly.
I checked the data in the Editor, and the behavior only has one modification: Movement:Movement Speed Multiplier = 0.65 . So, the buff will only impact the amount of time it takes to return cargo, not the action of mining itself. It would have an impact but not sure the exact reduction. It also does not affect Frenzied units (Ultralisks).
On January 11 2019 10:19 Yonnua wrote: What's the effect of the Inhibitor Zone on mining workers? Does it reduce their rate of mining (and consequently increase the potential saturation of a base)?
If so, could this create new configurations for bases: e.g. a rich mineral base with an inhibitor, where you can gain minerals at a faster rate, but only with an increased number of workers dedicated to a more precarious base?
My thoughts exactly.
I checked the data in the Editor, and the behavior only has one modification: Movement:Movement Speed Multiplier = 0.65 . So, the buff will only impact the amount of time it takes to return cargo, not the action of mining itself. It would have an impact but not sure the exact reduction. It also does not affect Frenzied units (Ultralisks).
But what ive you had a mineral base that could be mined from two sides, one easier to defend but in the Zone, and the opposite side harder to defend but zero Zone.
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
On January 11 2019 11:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The thing I find most interesting is that rich vespene geysers provide 8 gas per trip (unless I'm crazy, it was only 6 before the visual update).
I'm super curious about the rich vespene geysers in general. I actually think they're neat and am curious to see if anything comes from them.
I do like them having some weird and unusual stuff, because we can always try it and if it doesn't work out then we don't need to use it again. See "Sparkle" in the ASL.
I think workers spend around %40 of their time walking so it's like a %14 reduction in income per worker when they're slowed. You'd need more workers to saturate. It could have interesting effects on income per additional worker if, say, half the mineral line of a base is slowed.
8 Gas per trip is a bit difference compared to the 5 -> 7 difference in rich mineral fields. I guess the idea is that the overall gas income of a base can stay the same if you just use 1 rich geyser instead of 2 regular. It wouldn't do much other than free up 3 workers, though.
On January 11 2019 11:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The thing I find most interesting is that rich vespene geysers provide 8 gas per trip (unless I'm crazy, it was only 6 before the visual update).
I'm super curious about the rich vespene geysers in general. I actually think they're neat and am curious to see if anything comes from them.
I do like them having some weird and unusual stuff, because we can always try it and if it doesn't work out then we don't need to use it again. See "Sparkle" in the ASL.
They have been used before (the six gas per trip variety), like on Atlantis Spaceship or GSL Daybreak. But that was quite a while ago, as Blizzard stopped allowing them due to the fact that they used to look just like regular geysers.
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance.
Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out.
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance.
Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out.
The lower mineral count obviously exists just to make mineral barriers that can be opened in a reasonable time, it doesn't seem targeted to actual bases.
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance.
Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out.
The lower mineral count obviously exists just to make mineral barriers that can be opened in a reasonable time, it doesn't seem targeted to actual bases.
That's great then. I enjoy map opening strategies. They can make for creative play.
Really excited with new features! Actually when I think ways to improve SC2 I always come up with: making terrain more determinant (Ex: mud and snow make units slow, roads and highways make units go fast) and ofc nerfing air to compensate.
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability.
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability.
yes but why
Zones - Units are slowed in a way that you can't retreat without forces clumping. What it does is simply create areas of the map you want to avoid at all costs.
High Ground - Units aren't hindered but instead given an advantage. It allows you to defend key locations around the map including your offensive positions. So instead of creating places you never want to go to, it creates places on the map that provide opportunity for you to take these points instead and hold them.
I'd like to see a map where the path between natural and 3rd has a slow zone but the 3rd has rich geysers, basically forcing you to commit a bit more to defending it to reap the rewards.
On January 12 2019 02:27 Doko wrote: I'd like to see a map where the path between natural and 3rd has a slow zone but the 3rd has rich geysers, basically forcing you to commit a bit more to defending it to reap the rewards.
Sounds like a massive pain in the butt for Zerg and probably the other races wouldn't appreciate it either.
The inhibitor could be placed for drop play or for two sides mineral base (where you can put your base on either side) but i'm not really sure...
I guess it could be a fun thing. But i don't really see options for new features on map that don't break gameplay. But i like it because it reminds me of clan wars that TB did a while ago.
On January 12 2019 03:08 opisska wrote: How many people do actually submit "challenge" maps? I would guess it's much less than the standard one, because they can't have them in stock?
There usually are twice as many standard/macro maps submitted than the challenge maps.
I'd like to see a map with mineral-only third bases (or single, regular geyser), but the fourth bases have rich vespene geyser(s). Currently, Zerg gets access to 8 gas unbelievably quick. a 6 gas protoss is terrifying. Terran doesn't use the 3rd base gasses too terribly fast. It'd change the midgame dynamic a lot. The reward of 3 base gas income (4 base gas income for zerg) in previous iterations of Starcraft was very great, but now 3 base+ is not only standard, its required and expected. I wonder if it would be an indirect way to help Terrans midgame while still keeping the late game of the other races going well. Increased risk but huge reward once you secure your 4th base.
On January 12 2019 12:23 LHK wrote: I'd like to see a map with mineral-only third bases (or single, regular geyser), but the fourth bases have rich vespene geyser(s). Currently, Zerg gets access to 8 gas unbelievably quick. a 6 gas protoss is terrifying. Terran doesn't use the 3rd base gasses too terribly fast. It'd change the midgame dynamic a lot. The reward of 3 base gas income (4 base gas income for zerg) in previous iterations of Starcraft was very great, but now 3 base+ is not only standard, its required and expected. I wonder if it would be an indirect way to help Terrans midgame while still keeping the late game of the other races going well. Increased risk but huge reward once you secure your 4th base.
Zerg doesnt really need to take more than 4gas before their 4th base finishes
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance.
Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out.
The lower mineral count obviously exists just to make mineral barriers that can be opened in a reasonable time, it doesn't seem targeted to actual bases.
You could also pair them with the rich geysers to make bases specifically for the extra gas income, but using them as path blockers will probably be more common
Zerg doesnt really need to take more than 4gas before their 4th base finishes
Right, which is why I said "has access to" instead of "is mining from". There are 6 gas builds that do exist on 3 base currently with the return of Muta play, to be fair.
Crystallizer looks like the exact kind of map that I would instantly veto just over the colours. When you add creep to any map with contrasty white/black edges, it becomes completely unplayable for me.
On January 18 2019 07:49 opisska wrote: Crystallizer looks like the exact kind of map that I would instantly veto just over the colours. When you add creep to any map with contrasty white/black edges, it becomes completely unplayable for me.
On January 18 2019 07:49 opisska wrote: Crystallizer looks like the exact kind of map that I would instantly veto just over the colours. When you add creep to any map with contrasty white/black edges, it becomes completely unplayable for me.
It honestly doesn't feel that bad ingame to me.
I will have to check it out ingame, but in general I always had problems with similar color schemes. It's not even that I don't like the look, it just makes me physically uncomfortable.
I haven't had as much time as I wish I could but I created three completely brand new maps and "re-hashed" three older maps. As I created some of these maps I tend to make base setups very similar to Abyssal Reef so afterwards I did what I could to change things up a little bit lol.
______________________________
Challenge #1
______________________________
2f0rt Tetr0n
No matter what, eventually, 2f0rt will win!!! lol!!. (I wish I could have all the stuff, RMTs, Healing Shrines, Slow fields and mineral walls, that would truly make it amazing...) Instead I replaced healing shrines with watchtowers and replaced all rocks with mineral walls, booya! You also need to bring 2 workers (5 minerals each) to punch through the mineral wall on the closest bridge if you want to rush so hopefully that delays cheeses only a tiny bit!
All spawns open, mineral walls at edges of the map force all players through the middle until they are opened up. (Also you can technically have 5 bases on 1 choke unless mineral walls get opened up.)
Super risky high resource base towards the middle, hard to hold from harass but can be worthwhile. (Debating if I need to put a small destructible rock so you can't take the base asap...)
Looking at all these challenge #1 I'm kinda surprised Blizzard didn't try to standardize the value of the reduced mineral fields. Given that pre-update they found rich vespene geysers too hard for players to spot at a glance, and these different reduced mineral fields values are way harder to keep track of given how they vary from map to map...
This is an unofficial compilation of all TLMC12 submissions which have been listed in this thread or otherwise publicly declared. It is non-exhaustive as people may choose not to make their submissions known publicly. Please message me if there are any errors/omissions with the list.
Alright, entries are technically closed (although we are being lenient about entries if you barely missed the deadline somehow). Still sending out the last few confirmation PMs.
On February 04 2019 12:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Looking at all these challenge #1 I'm kinda surprised Blizzard didn't try to standardize the value of the reduced mineral fields. Given that pre-update they found rich vespene geysers too hard for players to spot at a glance, and these different reduced mineral fields values are way harder to keep track of given how they vary from map to map...
Exactly one map with that feature (at most) will make the ladder so I doubt they consider it an issue.
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
Daybreak was fine with 12 bases honestly. More than 14 on 2-player maps often feels really silly depending on terrain and layout imo. And map size too. Lost and Found only had 14 bases but I'd believe you if you told me it was 20 because it takes forever to split, let alone mine out the map.
On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
Daybreak was fine with 12 bases honestly. More than 14 on 2-player maps often feels really silly depending on terrain and layout imo. And map size too. Lost and Found only had 14 bases but I'd believe you if you told me it was 20 because it takes forever to mine out the map.
Daybreak was only 'okay' with 12 bases because of how its middle is made, which also happens to make for some pretty bad games in LotV. Fourteen bases is generally preferable to 16 admittedly.
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
I mean, they're harder to defend, but is that necessarily bad for the game? Could you have less bases, further spread apart if there were more minerals per patch?
Or do you guys think this is just the optimal type of map for sc2?
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Could you have less bases, further spread apart if there were more minerals per patch? Or do you guys think this is just the optimal type of map for sc2?
Aside from it being against the general standards of the contest, here are a few reasons why you generally don't see this:
1. If you modify the minerals for the mains/nats of every ladder map it would change the meta drastically from map to map. Having a universal strict standard is arguably more intuitive/balanced. 2. It could impact certain races differently and create imbalance quickly. 3. Modifying node values introduces unnecessary complexity having to learn mineral node values on all maps (literally clicking on each node and reading the max values) 4. Would inherently create turtley maps (if values are increased a lot) which tend to have a negative stigma and are overall less "eventful" and fun 5. Having a Big Game Hunters LotV is not in popular demand for competitive ladder at the moment (it was my favorite BW map though xD)
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ...
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ...
I implore you to open the editor and spend quite a bit of time learning how to make maps and you'll find the reasons why most maps "look the same" as some people put it. People arguing about what maps can and should be from their armchair get a little tiring for us after so many years.
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ...
I implore you to open the editor and spend quite a bit of time learning how to make maps and you'll find the reasons why most maps "look the same" as some people put it. People arguing about what maps can and should be from their armchair get a little tiring for us after so many years.
On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote: So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ...
I implore you to open the editor and spend quite a bit of time learning how to make maps and you'll find the reasons why most maps "look the same" as some people put it. People arguing about what maps can and should be from their armchair get a little tiring for us after so many years.
WCS
Catalyst’s playable area is 136x144=19,584. 
.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/18FfOQC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hlWMeyq.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/456465652853506059/501416346177896450/Crystallizer_60.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wIu96xJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uWi8QVX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FIu8AQ9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/456465652853506059/504302384974135298/final_boss_60_light.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/456465652853506059/504302374949748766/final_boss_90_light.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/456465652853506059/535062697662873600/Golden_Wall_60.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5BFrq5m.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/456465652853506059/535456847159623680/Neo-Tokyo_Turbo_Cruise_84_60.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dyh9S40.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MoRby7M.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/F6IhdW9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/m8BbjOM.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Uijnkcn.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BcMVvF6.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rcmp0Dz.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3UqD0wD.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8HhyTO7.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KKBpoMd.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/blqyKU4.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KXIBJNZ.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8LqIbfJ.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hf92E4t.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QyeUoYZ.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rDFmsRj.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1T2KZyL.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4TT4Orj.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/x2bDP7l.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Niggnbh.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cZQl3lM.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LvACGzP.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rsLFZRs.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/woxpqmZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6DOVpb0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ijaCgaj.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lNS3ChO.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y4ACzo0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0DQOrwA.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/K2B6xzT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/O735Ag4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VsmR3ud.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fQR1vny.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FcEBREs.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AroSZkv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OMZVgS6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PHYZh1p.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eJP3N1U.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iGeVUh3.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8FjoxrI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EWpjby1.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wvxwneF.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xCJAqhh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/og2BOcn.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MTzgwWj.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dm83aKZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4oQGPXB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Yi3ljhL.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qoiCxl6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/e9xueed.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kBPdtg7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aeNqkba.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Q3HW9lf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tl9ZQF6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/myQNO5l.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oMM6nrI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FgXoRCl.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/p6Ztnnh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rVmnx66.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/C2WXmD1.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5EWmUEJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lIMybGH.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/b1Fp48Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/53b8KaS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fW8dE1S.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/G5Go2rz.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/P31kkLK.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y95GiqF.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/53qGDa6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WfD5fHX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/OEqgMiE.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/GHyRJxP.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/JlqHTzh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/hrTuWPC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/J4lVOmQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/qURrqVI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/x7glm18.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/l7FCYzZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/S4yERTu.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EBWc8l7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ca7W6o3.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1unEY9h.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ke6i3v0.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/90rKbKa.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9WAN3Sx.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3Zjb0E9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dvF8MKX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QJH3azQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/j735PO4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/d2SbGwc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/H2aTpre.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sGGKe7H.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tTK9TJS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QYSKQcF.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tbBd3vp.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5TF6ObA.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/94c3jTJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fxQOYA2.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iMKsfgw.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/lDS8SIB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/Kemg3LD.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y4rKuWt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9HSNzfl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KuvNwwA.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CNFfM8Q.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pybWWPB.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VsmR3udm.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rgAPNuR.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Jcbxsfc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y4vI44X.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Vk6Rhuo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jY84Z90.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Y7zn8tV.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RmiW3Gm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LtVkMkt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/17LwcSB.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YN5Er3t.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nyaKJat.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mn0UK3n.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JIPnUSC.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zGCnw0p.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RIPtHMX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jv5RVTB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LDAPL3w.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bmjvmUs.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AmtMjI6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B8JIikt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/D8C1DQF.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/516021818251804672/540306345459712014/Monument.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/516021818251804672/541415980430131200/PrimusQ9.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/516021818251804672/541345311956664351/ReceptorTerminal.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/516021818251804672/540309706040672287/SeethingGulf.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/516021818251804672/540351288983027712/TLMC_Baldurild.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/205465184096092160/541407431524220953/Blacktop.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/99BBOnN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8XzD1XS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZjTg0dT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LFR0keW.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Uszm2Qy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/UMHgHEY.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/JFny2yn.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/SYG0cZs.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/dH86a7X.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CBHrVfa.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Z81wyR6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SaA5l5N.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aO3ViaT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rs2z3ON.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://citrusdigital.com/files/bandwidth-new.png)
![[image loading]](http://citrusdigital.com/files/triton-new.png)
![[image loading]](http://citrusdigital.com/files/heatwave-new.png)
![[image loading]](http://citrusdigital.com/files/sands.png)
![[image loading]](http://citrusdigital.com/files/stellara-seabed-v2.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/I0MSIS1.png)
