|
Is it possible to get some specific guidelines on what Blizzard, and subsequently the judges, are looking for in the standardization of features? This way, I could be more clear on exactly what judges are looking for when it comes to the essentials. Here are some questions I would like to know:
-Will 6 bases per player (12 total) be considered too few for the current meta and thus be disqualified automatically? If so, will the judges consider maps with 7 bases per player, or is 8 preferred?
-Should natural bases be on high ground, and main bases on level 2 above them? In other words, will flat chokes at main or natural be disqualified? This came up last go around, and I was unclear about the majority opinion.
-Should we experiment with no overlord scouting pods at the nautral, or just placement variation (by the 3rd, outside Nat, etc.)?
-Should natural minerals be explicitly 3 hexes from walls in all locations to prevent pylon/cannon rush placements, or is this becoming less of an issue in judges eyes?
-Are judges/Blizzard open to 4p maps, or do they believe that 4p map submissions will be at a significant disadvantage?
Thank you for your time!
|
On May 21 2019 03:29 monitor wrote:
-Will 6 bases per player (12 total) be considered too few for the current meta and thus be disqualified automatically? If so, will the judges consider maps with 7 bases per player, or is 8 preferred?
No map will ever be immediately disqualified for having "only" 6 bases, the amount of bases is dependent on the desired gameplay the mapmaker intends, judges judge based on how that gameplay aligns with the category the mapmaker submitted the map to.
In the same manner a standard map with 6 bases will score badly in the macro category because it goes against what the category seeks to find, a macro map with 8 or more bases will probably not fair well if it is submitted to the standard category.
On May 21 2019 03:29 monitor wrote:
-Should natural bases be on high ground, and main bases on level 2 above them? In other words, will flat chokes at main or natural be disqualified? This came up last go around, and I was unclear about the majority opinion.
There's no hard set in stone structure for this question sadly, it very much depends on metagame development and intended gameplay outcomes, a natural with a choke at the entrance will be naturally a more defensible feature than otherwise, use this as a way to tailor the maps to their corresponding categories.
IE, maps with defensible naturals might be preferred in the macro category, or if you map is too aggressive it could use a highground natural to try and balance out the undesired aggressiveness slant
On May 21 2019 03:29 monitor wrote:
-Should we experiment with no overlord scouting pods at the natural, or just placement variation (by the 3rd, outside Nat, etc.)?
Yes, mapmakers are encouraged to explore more in this area, but should be very careful, as having maps where there are no overlord spots can easily lead to rather serious problems where Zerg can't react in time vs aggression, such as certain timings or in ZvZ.
On May 21 2019 03:29 monitor wrote:
-Should natural minerals be explicitly 3 hexes from walls in all locations to prevent pylon/cannon rush placements, or is this becoming less of an issue in judges eyes?
Ideally, yes, 3 tiles/hexes is the standard in order to avoid cannon rushes. Sometimes it might be necessary for mapmakers to provide more than 3 times, sometimes less. But always be careful to not over do it, as that can also lead to problems such as overly encouraging drop play, or curiously encouraging more cannon rushes as there would be an overly big blind spot behind the mineral lines.
On May 21 2019 03:29 monitor wrote:
-Are judges/Blizzard open to 4p maps, or do they believe that 4p map submissions will be at a significant disadvantage?
Sadly this has been the trend for a while now, 4p maps albeit interesting and a section of the playerbase derive great joy from them, they generally have more drawbacks than benefits, because the TLMC is helped judge by Pro-Players whom have to play said maps and face head first the problems of RNG spawns and the consequences that has on build orders and strategy, then it means that overall the TLMC judging panel isn't exactly friendly to the drawbacks posed by 4p maps.
Now that doesn't mean that 4p maps are instantly disqualified, it just means that mapmakers would need to create more interesting 4p maps in order to overcome said drawbacks.
On May 21 2019 03:29 monitor wrote:
Thank you for your time!
No worries monitor OwO
|
So I'm not a judge, but these questions I have some answers to. Kantu did a great job answering some but the mapmaker side who likely been studying what works and doesnt can also work in answer.
-Will 6 bases per player (12 total) be considered too few for the current meta and thus be disqualified automatically? If so, will the judges consider maps with 7 bases per player, or is 8 preferred?
No, very much not. 6 bases is the least you can have and depend on the layout and what the mapmaker wants for the gameplay. It general depends on what you can think.
-Can I fit this forward base here near the nat and thirds (like whats done on New Repug/kings cove) to add another expansion for terrans and protosses?
-Is this too many bases for the size, what is desired for gameplay in my eyes regarding the current meta?
But you still need to keep in mind trying to not invoke players just expanding into eachother, as that creates expansions nobody will take. Just something to keep in mind.
-Should natural bases be on high ground, and main bases on level 2 above them? In other words, will flat chokes at main or natural be disqualified? This came up last go around, and I was unclear about the majority opinion.
Ideally you want the natural to be 1 lvl below the main, but you can have a natural on the same highground as the main sharing the standard main choke. As a pocket base that isnt a lvl down. This is acceptable but not exactly explored due to how tricky designing maps can be done. But a flat choke into the main is a more of no go situation.
You can do it if you know exactly what to do. In making a artificial highground advantage. But its better having the main and nat being different lvls. But as far as it is clear, this is not a hard rule.
-Should we experiment with no overlord scouting pods at the nautral, or just placement variation (by the 3rd, outside Nat, etc.)?
They want you to experiment with this general idea as overlord pods are not required. But the reason why mapmakers in the current age of mapmaking use them is to provide vision of the natural to help zerg see aggression/tech in the nat.
Otherwise, zerg would be at a disadvantage, if they cannot hide their overlords close to the nat to see gas(es)/movement. But you can make one using unpathable area and los to make a area thats like a ovi pillar.
Its best to experiment, but its also best to just cut down on the number of ovi pillars throughout the map. To key important areas.
-Should natural minerals be explicitly 3 hexes from walls in all locations to prevent pylon/cannon rush placements, or is this becoming less of an issue in judges eyes?
Uh, 3-4 is recommended. And this isn't in just the judges eyes, if you can move behind the mineral line that gives enough space for a large cannon rush area its rather bad. You can avoid this by putting doodads behind the mineral line.
As of lately there has been a minor goal to remove the power cannon rushes have. As it is, as it stands. Something so dependent and powerful of maps that invoke it. And people complain a lot, so its easier to try and remove them in the foreseeable future.
-Are judges/Blizzard open to 4p maps, or do they believe that 4p map submissions will be at a significant disadvantage?
Blizzard is fully open to 4p maps, as seen whenever they decide to take a gsl 4p map and put it on the ladder.
But players that play at the pro level (which is a fair number of the judges) Do not like rng spawning and the chance for a large unavoidable imbalance. They are unique bunches of maps, but in a stance. 2p has became a standard as it provides enough information so that you can play the map. And not the game of finding out which type of map it is.
From what Kantu said, his words are better than mine.
But 4p arent instantly disqualified, but you have a higher chance of success avoiding 4p.
As you would need to find a way to counter the countless drawbacks 4p maps have. But you only create more in that attempt.
Thank you for your time!
Thank YOU for bringing these questions, and what Kantu said. As its been sometime since I actually spoke about these factors of mapmaking that is often voided due to possible problems they have.
Also hope to see good maps from you! As ever.
|
United States27377 Posts
On May 21 2019 01:33 Superouman wrote:
We might not like it but 2fort is peak map making.
unironically speaking, the sheer popularity of maps such as 2fort and FASTESTMAPEVER sort of speak to their 'value'
|
Northern Ireland10706 Posts
|
Northern Ireland10706 Posts
Best of luck mapmakers, looking forward to seeing what comes out.
I’d way prefer to have more ladder maps that are different in circulation, and give players a single extra veto for every 2 additional maps.
More variety, players can’t veto every weird map, and tournaments can still restrict to 7 maps if any of them turn out to be crazy broken, given bo7s tends to be the maximum series length.
|
I'm tired of dark maps, Year Zero LE in particular. Hope we'll see some cheerful maps.
|
I'm tired of dark maps, Year Zero LE in particular. Hope we'll see some cheerful maps.
Honestly, bright maps grow boring over time. Which explains the amount of dark and gloomy maps.
Its so easy to make bright maps like kings cove that it grows boring.
But I understand you want to see maps that don't dim down the light.
Hoping to see better maps is a great idea, and all you gotta wait for is the finalist!
or what sees the ladder, so you can complain about it.
|
On May 21 2019 21:03 Pklixian wrote:Show nested quote +I'm tired of dark maps, Year Zero LE in particular. Hope we'll see some cheerful maps. Honestly, bright maps grow boring over time. Which explains the amount of dark and gloomy maps. Its so easy to make bright maps like kings cove that it grows boring. But I understand you want to see maps that don't dim down the light. Hoping to see better maps is a great idea, and all you gotta wait for is the finalist! or what sees the ladder, so you can complain about it.
As much as I get irritated at the history of beach maps being chosen despite less than desirable layouts, I will admit that I personally take no pleasure in playing darker maps that are depressing/closterphobic.
|
On May 21 2019 21:03 Pklixian wrote:Show nested quote +I'm tired of dark maps, Year Zero LE in particular. Hope we'll see some cheerful maps. Honestly, bright maps grow boring over time. Which explains the amount of dark and gloomy maps. Its so easy to make bright maps like kings cove that it grows boring. But I understand you want to see maps that don't dim down the light. Hoping to see better maps is a great idea, and all you gotta wait for is the finalist! or what sees the ladder, so you can complain about it.
i don't understand how being able to see things can be boring. when i'm playing a beautiful open world game with great graphics i never think "im bored of all the stuff im looking at, id better turn the brightness way down". i also have no idea why you think it's easier to make well lit maps. i would think it's far far easier to just throw a bunch of industrial blacks and greys together with a few red and blue glowy bits, which is the definition of boring at this point
|
Yes, more map "features" please. We clearly didn't had enough of them. This is so innovative and fresh. Lots of "features" from previous TLMCs had an immensely positive impact on the gameplay. They opened up new possibilities and exciting strategies, even changed the meta (also in a positive way). They were so good, that Pros even started to veto standard maps in tournaments (even forfeited matches on purpose if it was supposed to be played on standard maps). And i couldnt agree more. Who needs those boring clones of overgrowth while we can play on maps with innovative slowing fields and mineral patches with less minerals in them (or bases w/o vespen geysers). Now that's what i call innovation. Noone can deny how much these innovations contributed to the evolvement of SC2. Well done, blizzard! And very innovative.
p.s. and those who think otherwise are just people who deny progress itself.
|
Northern Ireland10706 Posts
On May 22 2019 21:49 insitelol wrote:
Yes, more map "features" please. We clearly didn't had enough of them. This is so innovative and fresh. Lots of "features" from previous TLMCs had an immensely positive impact on the gameplay. They opened up new possibilities and exciting strategies, even changed the meta (also in a positive way). They were so good, that Pros even started to veto standard maps in tournaments (even forfeited matches on purpose if it was supposed to be played on standard maps). And i couldnt agree more. Who needs those boring clones of overgrowth while we can play on maps with innovative slowing fields and mineral patches with less minerals in them (or bases w/o vespen geysers). Now that's what i call innovation. Noone can deny how much these innovations contributed to the evolvement of SC2. Well done, blizzard! And very innovative.
p.s. and those who think otherwise are just people who deny progress itself.
This could be read as earnest or the most sarcastic post in the world haha.
I’m inclined to agree with at least trying stuff and seeing what works for sure.
As a veteran SC2 player/viewer I recall a time where destructible rocks were widely criticised and made fun of, but over time map makers have improved and came up with used for them that do add strategy and variety.
|
On May 22 2019 21:49 insitelol wrote:
Yes, more map "features" please. We clearly didn't had enough of them. This is so innovative and fresh. Lots of "features" from previous TLMCs had an immensely positive impact on the gameplay. They opened up new possibilities and exciting strategies, even changed the meta (also in a positive way). They were so good, that Pros even started to veto standard maps in tournaments (even forfeited matches on purpose if it was supposed to be played on standard maps). And i couldnt agree more. Who needs those boring clones of overgrowth while we can play on maps with innovative slowing fields and mineral patches with less minerals in them (or bases w/o vespen geysers). Now that's what i call innovation. Noone can deny how much these innovations contributed to the evolvement of SC2. Well done, blizzard! And very innovative.
p.s. and those who think otherwise are just people who deny progress itself.
As I was reading this I was just thinking "is this meant to be a super sarcastic post?"
|
I sincerely wish good luck to everyone entering, I hope you all get some cool ideas. It will be nice to be able to take another crack at the new challenge categories and come up with interesting uses for the features.
Though, and I think this is the first time I've done this, but I'm sitting things out. I've needed a break for a while, I think. GLHF guys.
|
On May 22 2019 03:28 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2019 21:03 Pklixian wrote:I'm tired of dark maps, Year Zero LE in particular. Hope we'll see some cheerful maps. Honestly, bright maps grow boring over time. Which explains the amount of dark and gloomy maps. Its so easy to make bright maps like kings cove that it grows boring. But I understand you want to see maps that don't dim down the light. Hoping to see better maps is a great idea, and all you gotta wait for is the finalist! or what sees the ladder, so you can complain about it. i don't understand how being able to see things can be boring. when i'm playing a beautiful open world game with great graphics i never think "im bored of all the stuff im looking at, id better turn the brightness way down". i also have no idea why you think it's easier to make well lit maps. i would think it's far far easier to just throw a bunch of industrial blacks and greys together with a few red and blue glowy bits, which is the definition of boring at this point
Its not that it grows boring for the player/viewer its that, as a mapmaker myself.
I spend days to a week making maps, and its in my reflex to make a map without too dark textures, and a lighting visibly bright.
It grows boring in a stance of maps never seem to change that much when it comes to themes if everything is a bright beach/forest/temple/facility etc. Which is why when darker maps came out, its more interesting to make and study the map on a mapmaker side in cases.
There is many who LOVE to make bright maps, and I cannot judge them on that.
But they still grow boring, dark maps doesnt make it harder to see stuff, unless the mapmaker has a dark lighting on dark textures. Just there was no long period of time to adjust to the sudden darkness.
Also your stance on whats easier is actually, something that made me laugh a bit.
Its easier to produce a map so common and seen as the textures in use are fairly similar between 5-15 to hundreds of maps. Or other cases.
Industrial maps arent easy to make, throwing stuff in doesnt give you the feel the map wants to provide.
Same with just grey with glowly colors, you need a contrast with whats in use.
Everything requires time, but simply making what people just want against all odds cause its bright pretty.
Means the map is more reproducible, and in return. As a mapmaker, boring if the same color scheme is repeated.
which is almost always is.
I respect your opinion, but this is the stance. If I call something boring, I'm not taking a stance of a average joe who plays the game. As then I'd prefer only bright maps, and not want dark and gloomy maps with their own feel in my sight.
As then I'd clearly not want difference that allows those who makes the maps you play on, have access to creativity.
Anyways, it doesnt matter. Its my opinion, its your opinion. I'm agreeing to disagreeing so I can get back to stressing about mineral walls.
|
On May 22 2019 22:12 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 21:49 insitelol wrote:
Yes, more map "features" please. We clearly didn't had enough of them. This is so innovative and fresh. Lots of "features" from previous TLMCs had an immensely positive impact on the gameplay. They opened up new possibilities and exciting strategies, even changed the meta (also in a positive way). They were so good, that Pros even started to veto standard maps in tournaments (even forfeited matches on purpose if it was supposed to be played on standard maps). And i couldnt agree more. Who needs those boring clones of overgrowth while we can play on maps with innovative slowing fields and mineral patches with less minerals in them (or bases w/o vespen geysers). Now that's what i call innovation. Noone can deny how much these innovations contributed to the evolvement of SC2. Well done, blizzard! And very innovative.
p.s. and those who think otherwise are just people who deny progress itself. This could be read as earnest or the most sarcastic post in the world haha. I’m inclined to agree with at least trying stuff and seeing what works for sure. As a veteran SC2 player/viewer I recall a time where destructible rocks were widely criticised and made fun of, but over time map makers have improved and came up with used for them that do add strategy and variety.
Some feature will never work properly because they need to be properly put in place to not disadvantage certain races. e.g. close gold, open naturals, naturals without a ramp, naturals with a wide ramp, rich vespene, low vespene expansions.
And obviously, the biggest thanks to the PvP, we still have to use 1 force field ramps to the main and mains on the high ground 
|
TLMC are the best~! I always loved casting/watching people play on them. I can't wait to see what the map makers come up with this time around
|
Let's open the game and bump this thread for visibility now, that there is nearly one week left before pre-judging feedback deadline.
Standard:
Blood Shore
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8ghJUBu.jpg) Dimensions: 138x138 Size: 19044 Main to Main distance: 46s Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: 38s Natural to Natural distance: 35s
Golden Forge
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1RQ15LX.jpg) Dimensions: 146x148 Size: 21608 Main to Main distance: 48s Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: 39s Natural to Natural distance: 36s
Macro:
Glacier Bloom
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dxNi3dY.jpg) Dimensions: 148x148 Size: 21904 Main to Main distance: 49s Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: 40s Natural to Natural distance: 37s
Thihoi Isle
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/JSTqnNz.jpg) Dimensions: 148x146 Size: 21 608 Main to Main distance: 51s Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: 43s Natural to Natural distance: 41s
Challenge #2:
Apatite Facility
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/ex4yoEa.jpg) Dimensions: 144x148 Size: 21312 Main to Main distance: 51s Top of main ramp to top of main ramp distance: 41s Natural to Natural distance: 37.88s
I will probably create a map for Challenge #1 this week.
|
Hi mapmakers,
My editor is not functioning, and I will not be able to get bootcamp running on my mac before the submissions are over. Do any mapmakers have interest in adding spawn locations/player info/etc. to finish my maps and submitting them as a combined effort? I have 2 or 3 finished maps that just need the finalized details to make them playable.
I used to be a highly active mapmaker in WoL and was the first mapmaker, along with Superouman, to have a map in the ladder (Korhal Compound).
Plz send me a PM if interested!
|
I'll do my best to help you out Monitor, since you've been there from the beginning.
And its kind to help a fellow mapmaker even with different ideals of design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
