WCSUser was temp banned for this post.
TLnet Map Contest 13 Finalists - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ej_
45778 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain14441 Posts
| ||
the p00n
Netherlands552 Posts
On July 05 2019 14:22 SidianTheBard wrote: Earthrise vs Eternal. Don't even deny it. (Shit I think the entire main layout is exactly the fucking same...) I BARELY did any edits besides rotating the map 90 degrees and it's the SAME MAP! ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iy25ODa.jpg) If you want me to go into more details on the other maps I can... But to sit here and say every map is unique and different and that's why they won is complete and utter bullshit. I get it. TLMC is hard to judge and looking at new maps and picking winners and losers is really tough. But when I, someone who only saw the maps less than 1 day looks at these maps and goes... wow, these are the same god damn maps when you judges had... weeks(?) to narrow it down? Honestly... it's pretty damn pathetic. Seriously...? Go ahead? Tell me these maps are not similar or will play out the completely different? The dude who spent 15 minutes looking at the finalists compared to the judges who apparently spent over a week... As much as I dislike asinine rage/sore losers/general whining/etc., I mean... he's not wrong here, lol. | ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
As maps develop towards better standards they're going to become increasingly similar, it's just part of it. But don't spread misconceptions about maps being identical when they clearly are not >.< | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States4105 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2386 Posts
Edit: Super you did just copy+paste the main/Nat layout right? If not, you have really developed your mapping "style" lol | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2206 Posts
It's the same thing that I bitched about with Blue Shift & Catalyst. I do this every TLMC and truthfully it's pretty irritating that people think I'm complaining because I didn't win. Look at every TLMC finalist post and you'll see that I do this all the time. I share my thoughts on the maps. Love it or hate it, I've been mapping on this video game for over a decade now and I like to believe that even though I may not be some Grand Master player that I still can look at a layout and read how a map would play out. I've said it before, I'm all for having a sc2 map pool which has nothing but completely standard maps. Hell, I think these challenge categories are a waste of time and I wish TLMC was just 16 Standard/Macro maps because those are the real gems. But when you can clearly see the first three bases (truthfully... most games never go beyond the first 3 base) it really makes me a little irritated. I mean, shit, it's basically the same thing I did with King's Cove. I used generally the same main>nat>third layout, yet rotated it and all of a sudden it's such a great map. Although at least the difference between Abyssal and King's Cove is all the other bases I tried to change it up. I moved around the corner bases, the pathing, the middle. Yet when the "biggest" change between these two maps is one has LOSB in the middle while the other has ramps (honestly, both mainly accomplish the same exact thing) it's pretty annoying. --- Look... The main is EXACTLY the same, even down to every little nook and cranny... Shit, even the nat and third are barely changed one bit. But hey, rotate the map 90 degrees and nobody (most people?) won't be able to tell anyway! ![[image loading]](https://im5.ezgif.com/tmp/ezgif-5-1567a4221a7b.gif) | ||
|
wawajps
6 Posts
 | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2206 Posts
This may be my end because too many mappers cry and complain and yet when you retaliate and give your input on why these maps aren't any good, instead of telling you the reason, they QQ, they abuse their status and they kick you. Congrats Avex, pull your head out of your ass dude, everything doesn't revolve around you. Cheers my friends... | ||
|
Ej_
45778 Posts
| ||
|
Superouman
France2105 Posts
On July 06 2019 10:16 SidianTheBard wrote: My biggest problem is that the main, natural and third are completely the same. You missed a big difference in the third base. On Eternal Empire, there are two entrances and the shortest is up a ramp and the second entrance that requires a big detour is flat, which is the whole theme of the map. you know, the basic idea of "the longer path gives a better attack angle" which i push further here. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bch9bGW.png) On Earthrise, there is only one entrance which is already flat. And on top of that, Earthrise is physically slightly bigger than Eternal Empire but has shorter distances between both players because the middle is very different. Earthrise (Standard): 144x140: 20160 area, Natural to Natural travel time: 29s Eternal Empire (Macro): 140x140: 19600 area, Natural to Natural travel time: 35s | ||
|
DSK
England1015 Posts
| ||
|
Sr18
Netherlands930 Posts
On July 06 2019 08:33 Liquid`Snute wrote: As maps develop towards better standards they're going to become increasingly similar, it's just part of it. But don't spread misconceptions about maps being identical when they clearly are not >.< Meanwhile, ASL has weird and unique maps every season. Which I enjoy a lot as a viewer, as it creates unique games. So I don't think it's at all neccessary or inevitable that maps become increasingly similar. They only become that way when new maps have to fit in an increasingly more defined mold. At which point you might as well stop making new maps. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain14441 Posts
On July 06 2019 21:09 Sr18 wrote: Meanwhile, ASL has weird and unique maps every season. Which I enjoy a lot as a viewer, as it creates unique games. So I don't think it's at all neccessary or inevitable that maps become increasingly similar. They only become that way when new maps have to fit in an increasingly more defined mold. At which point you might as well stop making new maps. Err, they're called "standard" maps for a reason. The point is clearly that they are meant to encourage standard play, where the timing attacks are normal, and if you know how to defend a proxy 3-rax on king's cove you kinda also know how to do that on Golden Forge. The time it can hit may be 1 or 2 seconds shorter or longer, but you know it approximately. Meanwhile there are plenty of funky maps in the other categories. There have been some interesting games on Purity and Industry, and also on Golden Wall has stood out as having some weird quirks to it. I'm sure you could create unique maps without using these particular challenges, but the challenges have definitely worked to create quirky maps this time around. Games on Podcast have also been fun...and Avant Garde has been a clown fiesta. | ||
|
monitor
United States2386 Posts
On July 07 2019 00:30 Acrofales wrote: Err, they're called "standard" maps for a reason. The point is clearly that they are meant to encourage standard play, where the timing attacks are normal, and if you know how to defend a proxy 3-rax on king's cove you kinda also know how to do that on Golden Forge. The time it can hit may be 1 or 2 seconds shorter or longer, but you know it approximately. Meanwhile there are plenty of funky maps in the other categories. There have been some interesting games on Purity and Industry, and also on Golden Wall has stood out as having some weird quirks to it. I'm sure you could create unique maps without using these particular challenges, but the challenges have definitely worked to create quirky maps this time around. Games on Podcast have also been fun...and Avant Garde has been a clown fiesta. Agreed that is what the "challenge" maps are theoretically meant for, but anybody who watches/plays/makes maps in SC2 knows those aren't the maps we see in tournaments or ladder. The only exception I can think of is Thunderbird, which utiilizes a standard map concept with added mineral blocks that are a fun variation on the norm, but do not dramatically shift gameplay outcomes. I'd be overjoyed to see a map like Golden Wall make it to the ladder (I don't like Purity and Industry), that will genuinely facilitate some alternative syles of gameplay. But I'd make a large bet that it won't make it past top 16 because it ventures too far from the standard map requirements. EDIT: Cliffhanger by ATTx was my favorite submission to this TLMC, but it doesn't take more than a glance to realize that a majority of judges most likely ruled it out immediately because it is so far from what is considered appropriate in a map. It is a pipedream that maps that are as creative and unique as Cliffhanger would ever be allowed into SC2. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uAldzhn.jpg) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq14292 Posts
On July 07 2019 06:22 monitor wrote: Agreed that is what the "challenge" maps are theoretically meant for, but anybody who watches/plays/makes maps in SC2 knows those aren't the maps we see in tournaments or ladder. The only exception I can think of is Thunderbird, which utiilizes a standard map concept with added mineral blocks that are a fun variation on the norm, but do not dramatically shift gameplay outcomes. I'd be overjoyed to see a map like Golden Wall make it to the ladder (I don't like Purity and Industry), that will genuinely facilitate some alternative syles of gameplay. But I'd make a large bet that it won't make it past top 16 because it ventures too far from the standard map requirements. EDIT: Cliffhanger by ATTx was my favorite submission to this TLMC, but it doesn't take more than a glance to realize that a majority of judges most likely ruled it out immediately because it is so far from what is considered appropriate in a map. It is a pipedream that maps that are as creative and unique as Cliffhanger would ever be allowed into SC2. + Show Spoiler + Cliffhanger's use of slow zones is nothing interesting. All those slow zones on a tiny elongated choke surrounded by cliffs just mean that no one is ever going to go through it after the early game (and in fact no one would do that even if the slow zones didn't exist). | ||
|
monitor
United States2386 Posts
On July 07 2019 07:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Cliffhanger's use of slow zones is nothing interesting. All those slow zones on a tiny elongated choke surrounded by cliffs just mean that no one is ever going to go through it after the early game (and in fact no one would do that even if the slow zones didn't exist). Oh yeah I should have clarified, the slowing zones aren't what I think is the interesting part about the map. Just allowed it to be in the category. It's essentially a Hitchhiker remake from BW. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2395 Posts
Congrats! | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq14292 Posts
On July 07 2019 07:33 monitor wrote: Oh yeah I should have clarified, the slowing zones aren't what I think is the interesting part about the map. Just allowed it to be in the category. It's essentially a Hitchhiker remake from BW. With how strong air play is in SCII I'm not convinced that a map like Cliffhanger would be fun given that by ground you just have two small chokes to split the map. Though generally speaking I do agree that it would be nice if the TLMC and SCII tournaments in general were friendlier to non-standard maps. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States2952 Posts
Nice dynamic pathing, good balance of high/lowground, distinct-feeling expansion path choices Biosphere Messy but intriguing; probably one too many expansions though; maybe remove one each of the rocks at 3/9 Hurricane I like the heavy focus on highground control Avant Garde Blocking geysers with minerals is not fun; rest of the map seems neat, although I'm not a fan of backdoor expansions at all, but I like the central valley and the flanking opportunities it creates Zen Mineral blocks might be excessive, but I like the central valley vs side expansion dynamic Polaris The lowground 3rd is a mistake and should be removed from the map; the highground 3rd and lowground 4th are very nice; the pathing is a little annoying-- the way that it's so difficult for bottom left to get to top left for example, but I suspect this leads to interesting gameplay if it's not too constricted Zeta Orion I like the map a lot, but no one in the history of sc2 will take a min-only expansion-- you don't need an incentive to control the highground, it's the highground Purity and Industry Neat concept, but way too many expansions and the land-based layout is very messy-- needs a lot of work still Ever Dream Too many expansions frustrate an otherwise neatly simple layout; also while it's beautiful from a full-map-view it seems too plain at in-game depth Earthrise The lowground expansion due north/south of the natural expansion should be removed, and the walls that split the very center should probably be moved slightly away from the center (towards the expansion I want removed) to promote the southwest vs northeast dynamic; even with this it might have too many expansions Golden Forge I want to like it, but the cool ramp and valley pathing is no where near any expansion so the whole dynamic gets muddled up-- I think this needs remade from scratch with a more clear design that associates the pathing and expansions better Podcast Unbelievable mess-- too many expansions and incredibly annoying pathing; and do you really expect anyone to ever in the history of sc2 take the expansions facing the center? That concept is playable as seen in older maps, but not when it's that deep in the middle and so high up on the list of expansions to take (6th base?) Golden Wall Actually a really neat idea that was poorly executed-- the way to make this work is remake it from scratch with many fewer expansions so the players' choices are more important (and with bigger mains); also you probably want to make it a little easier to defend the main-backdoor-mineral path-- it's kind of a long ramp to wall off given that you still have to wall off the "front" ramp too; and while I like the top vs bottom dynamic, I wonder if the wall idea works better in a diagonally reverse symmetry, e.g. wall going from southwest to northeast | ||
| ||
|
| ||
