A new year, same old TLnet Map Contest. Well that's not 100% true, we do have some new things in store for you all but there won't be any big sweeping changes. That beeing said, let's head into the changelog.
Changelog
New map feature: Acceleration Zone Generator. Basically the opposite of the Inhibitor Zone Generator.
Inhibitor Zone Generator can now be used in all categories.
Removed one of the challenges, added a "Rush" category
Also removed the submission requirement "Why the map fits the category you selected."
Adjusted the "Average rush distance" and "Playable map dimensions" values. Over the last few contests, we've noticed that maps tend to become bigger and bigger. While this is absolutely OK we also want some variety in what's submitted and have therefore adjusted the suggested values. That being said, these are just suggestions. You can go higher or lower!
Added a Post contest map iteration "phase". After the contest, Blizzard will work directly with a few of the finalists to fine-tune their maps before they go on the ladder.
Map Features
For the following map features, here are some brief descriptions that provide some initial ideas, but feel free to use these map features in completely new or creative ways.
Rich Vespene Geyser
Just like Rich Mineral Fields, Rich Vespene Geysers give you more gas per trip. Rich Vespene Geysers can be placed in areas that are risky or difficult to control, but would provide large gas rewards if successful.
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: Rush, Standard, Macro, and Challenge #1.
Reduced Mineral Field
These nodes allow you to customize the amount of minerals that can be mined from the node. The Reduced Mineral Fields can be placed in areas to block paths, but workers can mine these minerals to open up new areas.
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 all categories: Rush, Standard, Macro, and Challenge #1.
The Inhibitor Zone Generator is a neutral indestructible structure that slows the movement speed of units in its area of effect and can be placed anywhere on the map, including ramps. You can keep some routes or paths short in terms of distance but long in terms of travel time. While we saw a lot of great ways to use the Inhibitor Zone Generators in the past, please feel free to try out new ways of using this map feature as well!
Inhibitor Zone Generators can be placed on the ground, even 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 ground and air units within the generated field by 35%. Affected units will display a visual debuff effect. The
Inhibitor Zones do not affect unit attack speeds.
Inhibitor Zone Generators can be used in all categories: Rush, Standard, Macro, and Challenge #1.
Acceleration Zone Generator
The Acceleration Zone Generator is a neutral indestructible structure that increases the movement speed of units in its area of effect and can be placed anywhere on the map, including ramps. You can keep some routes or paths long in terms of distance but short in terms of travel time.
Acceleration Zone Generators can be placed on the ground, even on ramps to generate an acceleration field.
There are three units with different radius values: 4, 5, or 6 (from the center of the unit).
Increases the movement speed of ground and air units within the generated field by 35%. Affected units will display a visual buff effect. The
Acceleration Zones do not affect unit attack speeds.
Acceleration Zone Generators can be used in Challenge #1 only.
Categories
Rush (NEW!)
Guidelines: Map favors early aggression and offensive play.
Average rush distance (main ramp to main ramp): 33 seconds or less. (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 14,000 and 16,000. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
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 (main ramp to main ramp): 33-38 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 15,000 and 17,000. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Guidelines: A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions.
Average rush distance (main ramp to main ramp): 38-43 seconds. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Playable map dimensions (not full map dimensions): Map playable area should be approximately between 16,000 and 18,000. (Note: Not a hard restriction. Could be more or less)
Guidelines: Design a map making use of the “Acceleration Zone Generator” structure. Pre-place these structures on maps as Player 0 and the structure will be neutral to all players. Even before they are revealed, these structures will display a mini-map icon at the start of matches to indicate their locations.
Since the size of maps have been increasing over time, we’ve tried to re-adjust the “average rush distance” and the “playable map dimensions” values for the different categories to encourage smaller map sizes during this submission period.
In a previous contest, when we introduced the Renegade Missile Turret map feature, we received many maps that utilized the 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 will 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 are temporarily 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 mineral bases with low risk tend to usually favor Zerg over the other races.
Be careful when adjusting the number of mineral nodes, vespene geysers, or rich vespene geysers at bases, especially in the main and natural, as it could impact balance between races and/or matchups.
During the iteration phase of the competition, small changes are often times more desirable 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 using the same criteria as the other maps in the category.
Submission rules
Mappers who submit maps MUST submit each map in one of the four categories. For this contest, the judges will pick sixteen(16) finalist maps to move on to the next stage:
Three(3) Standard Maps
Three(3) Macro Maps
Three(3) Challenge #1 Maps
Three(3) Rush 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.
Post contest map iteration (NEW!)
We want to give the map makers an opportunity to edit their maps after the contest period to make any adjustments if necessary. Hopefully this will give the map makers more control and a chance to make improvements based on any feedback from Blizzard, pro players, or the community. After the contest, Blizzard will communicate and work directly with a few of the map makers to make improvements and get the maps into a ladder-ready state before each ladder season. For instance, map makers can make small adjustments to the maps such as changes to Reaper ramps. Results from our performance tests will also be made available to map makers who can use those results to improve performance.
Tournament Phases
Note: The default timezone for TLMC is Pacific Standard Time (PST). While countdowns and specific times will be converted to your local timezone PST will be used whenever we "just" use dates in posts. For example: the end of submissions is the 2nd of February. So the deadline is the 2nd of February at 11:59 PM PST.
Submission Phase
9th of January - 2nd of February
Pre-Judging Feedback As with last season, we are giving mappers more opportunity to get feedback from judges with the intent to allow for potential issues to be ironed out prior to judging. All maps that are submitted on or before the 27th of January will be reviewed by members of the judging panel and feedback provided ASAP. 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.
TLnet Judging Phase
3rd of February - 9th of February
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.
Note: All submissions are anonymized before being sent on to the judges. Only the two main admins of the contest have access to who the submitters are.
Tournament Phase
11th of February - 16th of February
The tournament phase is extremely important both for map makers and for voters. It allows everyone to see the maps being played by some of the best players in the world. We will work together with Wardi again for the tournament. Details will be announced separately at a later date.
Iteration Phase
17th of February - 23rd of February
The iteration phase has become a vital part for mapmakers in TLMC. It gives them a chance to fix smaller issues that they may have caught during the tournament phase. Note that smaller fixes are often better than huge changes.
Last contest we introduced a finalists posts with more information about each map, which was well received. We will continue with the same format for TLMC #14. Mapmakers who make the top 16 will be given the opportunity to submit extra screenshots and link to YouTube or Twitch VODs of their map being played. We will also be collecting information about what they've changed and will mention the changes in the voting post. All this information will be sent out in a PM to the 16 finalists after the tournament phase.
Public Voting Phase
24th of February - 1st of March
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 play. However, this is your chance to make your voice heard about which maps YOU want to be on the ladder.
TLMC Winners Announced
Shortly after the conclusion of the voting phase, we will present the final standings. After this, Blizzard will take into consideration all sixteen maps upcoming ladder seasons. 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 of their maps reaching the top 16. 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
And as always, all sixteen finalists will receive a Community Commander Portrait. Once you have qualified for the top 16, please message the contest admin if you do not already have the portrait.
How To Submit
Mappers will be limited to six map submissions each with a limit on two maps per category. For example, you may submit two maps in two categories and one in the other two or two maps in three categories and none to the fourth.
Please PM your map file(s) to TL Map Contest with the below format before Monday, Feb 03 7:59am 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, please send us a reply in the original PM chain on TLnet. This to ensure there are no mixups in the submission process.
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 TLMC #12's finalists announcement. This description will be used in the announcement of the top 16 maps!
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.
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 Julmust 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 attach 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. However, we will not be allowing that in this contest. A separate team map contest will be held after the completion of the 1v1 contest.
Q: Will the winning map automatically be included in tournaments? No. A list of the top maps will be submitted to Blizzard for consideration for use in tournaments and ladder.
Q: Will any of the maps outside of the top 16 be included in tournaments? 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 us 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 us who will be happy to answer them. Best of luck in the competition.
Over the last few contests, we've noticed that maps tend to become bigger and bigger. While this is absolutely OK we also want some variety in what's submitted and have therefore adjusted the suggested values. That being said, these are just suggestions. You can go higher or lower!
On one hand I want to say "finally", on the other I know it won't change anything and the biggest maps will get in anyway
On January 10 2020 03:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote: 14000-16000 seems like a pretty ambitious suggested dimensions even for rush, given that I don't think any maps in LotV fall into that range, but w/e.
Hopefully judges are a bit more accepting of somewhat non-standard maps this time.
Last ladder map that was under 16000 is Xel'naga Caverns in October 2014. In LotV the two smallest maps are Paladino Terminal(16128) and Turbo Cruise(16240).
I really do hope we get some cool smaller maps. I know it's not popular, but I loved Defenders Landing and Paladino Terminal. Aesthetically they were my kind of map and i liked that hardcore rush was viable as well as macro play. I prefer having to adjust my playstyle / build to each map instead of just blindly doing the same thing every game. Just my opinion.
On January 10 2020 04:52 LHK wrote: I really do hope we get some cool smaller maps. I know it's not popular, but I loved Defenders Landing and Paladino Terminal. Aesthetically they were my kind of map and i liked that hardcore rush was viable as well as macro play. I prefer having to adjust my playstyle / build to each map instead of just blindly doing the same thing every game. Just my opinion.
Defender's Landing had a few minor problem such as Protoss never being able to beat Zerg due to the two openings to the natural.
I've said it before, the Rush category has never produced a good map. They're all either poorly designed, imbalanced, or both. I don't know why TLMC keeps including it.
On January 10 2020 07:37 Solar424 wrote: I've said it before, the Rush category has never produced a good map. They're all either poorly designed, imbalanced, or both. I don't know why TLMC keeps including it.
lots of people have been complaining that maps are too big, so i think they're trying to increase the variety in map sizes again.
the alternative would be forcing us to make every map roughly the same, standardized size which would be extremely boring so i'm glad that's not what they went for.
On January 10 2020 07:37 Solar424 wrote: I've said it before, the Rush category has never produced a good map. They're all either poorly designed, imbalanced, or both. I don't know why TLMC keeps including it.
Dreamcatcher was fine. 1/6 isn't a great record admittedly.
I'm super interested in what will come out of the Rush Category+Mineral Walls, the Mineral Walls have always been used in very interesting fashion coupled with aggressive maps in BW, so im quite hyped to see what mappers will be able to deliver 👀
Some good things coming from Blizzard here. There is now at least an intention to have less huge maps, and I really like the "Post contest map iteration phase" where the mapmakers themselves get to do edits to the maps, instead of blizzard just doing it.
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.
Adjusted the "Average rush distance" and "Playable map dimensions" values. Over the last few contests, we've noticed that maps tend to become bigger and bigger. While this is absolutely OK we also want some variety in what's submitted and have therefore adjusted the suggested values. That being said, these are just suggestions. You can go higher or lower!
Very nice! Makes it a tiny bit harder for Zerg to get a full scout early on but with smaller map, might just sac an Ovi once in a while
On January 10 2020 04:52 LHK wrote: I really do hope we get some cool smaller maps. I know it's not popular, but I loved Defenders Landing and Paladino Terminal. Aesthetically they were my kind of map and i liked that hardcore rush was viable as well as macro play. I prefer having to adjust my playstyle / build to each map instead of just blindly doing the same thing every game. Just my opinion.
Defender's Landing had a few minor problem such as Protoss never being able to beat Zerg due to the two openings to the natural.
its true that standard play struggled on that map but i had a good bit of success on that map opening with a 3 gate sentry expand similar to WOL, delayed expansion and putting pressure on. yeah that playstyle doesn't work on any other map, but it worked well for me at M1 / vs low gm's at the time and was a lot of fun.
i think there's always viable ways to play any map if one spends time to problem solve.
On January 10 2020 04:52 LHK wrote: I really do hope we get some cool smaller maps. I know it's not popular, but I loved Defenders Landing and Paladino Terminal. Aesthetically they were my kind of map and i liked that hardcore rush was viable as well as macro play. I prefer having to adjust my playstyle / build to each map instead of just blindly doing the same thing every game. Just my opinion.
Defender's Landing had a few minor problem such as Protoss never being able to beat Zerg due to the two openings to the natural.
its true that standard play struggled on that map but i had a good bit of success on that map opening with a 3 gate sentry expand similar to WOL, delayed expansion and putting pressure on. yeah that playstyle doesn't work on any other map, but it worked well for me at M1 / vs low gm's at the time and was a lot of fun.
i think there's always viable ways to play any map if one spends time to problem solve.
That's true at any level but the highest. And since the maps do have to be played at the pro level they should strive to be somewhat balanced. That being said it's not like smaller rushy maps are unbalanceable--they just haven't been particuarly successful in the past.
On January 11 2020 15:46 MarcusRife wrote: Are gold minerals still allowed?
Yes.
They still have the regular warning though:
When deciding to utilize a gold base, make sure there is some sort of risk associated with them. Otherwise, gold mineral bases with low risk tend to usually favor Zerg over the other races.
On January 10 2020 20:06 Branch.AUT wrote: Dear Map Makers,
Please make maps without the peeping-tom spot for overlords over the natural expansions. Thanks!
Sure, get rid of Zerg's only way of telling what the opponent is doing without getting a 100/100 upgrade, makes sense.
Let's not pretend that Zerg, with current economy, game tempo and map layout, has to make any real sacrafices to get thorough scout of the enemy. It is much harder to hide tech and mix it up vs Zerg than it was, let's say, 3 years ago. Removing overlord spots on some maps would be 1 way of testing whether the Z intel advantage can be set off with maps or if it's a problem inherent to the expandability of overlords.
On January 10 2020 20:06 Branch.AUT wrote: Dear Map Makers,
Please make maps without the peeping-tom spot for overlords over the natural expansions. Thanks!
Sure, get rid of Zerg's only way of telling what the opponent is doing without getting a 100/100 upgrade, makes sense.
Let's not pretend that Zerg, with current economy, game tempo and map layout, has to make any real sacrafices to get thorough scout of the enemy. It is much harder to hide tech and mix it up vs Zerg than it was, let's say, 3 years ago. Removing overlord spots on some maps would be 1 way of testing whether the Z intel advantage can be set off with maps or if it's a problem inherent to the expandability of overlords.
How is Zerg supposed to scout if the opponent walls off and builds any sort of anti-air without overlord spots?
On January 10 2020 20:06 Branch.AUT wrote: Dear Map Makers,
Please make maps without the peeping-tom spot for overlords over the natural expansions. Thanks!
Sure, get rid of Zerg's only way of telling what the opponent is doing without getting a 100/100 upgrade, makes sense.
Let's not pretend that Zerg, with current economy, game tempo and map layout, has to make any real sacrafices to get thorough scout of the enemy. It is much harder to hide tech and mix it up vs Zerg than it was, let's say, 3 years ago. Removing overlord spots on some maps would be 1 way of testing whether the Z intel advantage can be set off with maps or if it's a problem inherent to the expandability of overlords.
How is Zerg supposed to scout if the opponent walls off and builds any sort of anti-air without overlord spots?
On January 10 2020 20:06 Branch.AUT wrote: Dear Map Makers,
Please make maps without the peeping-tom spot for overlords over the natural expansions. Thanks!
Sure, get rid of Zerg's only way of telling what the opponent is doing without getting a 100/100 upgrade, makes sense.
Let's not pretend that Zerg, with current economy, game tempo and map layout, has to make any real sacrafices to get thorough scout of the enemy. It is much harder to hide tech and mix it up vs Zerg than it was, let's say, 3 years ago. Removing overlord spots on some maps would be 1 way of testing whether the Z intel advantage can be set off with maps or if it's a problem inherent to the expandability of overlords.
How is Zerg supposed to scout if the opponent walls off and builds any sort of anti-air without overlord spots?
By paying 100/100.
Alternatively, since overlord pillars allow you only to overlook a natural, fly there sacraficing an overlord, which is 100 minerals.
On January 10 2020 20:06 Branch.AUT wrote: Dear Map Makers,
Please make maps without the peeping-tom spot for overlords over the natural expansions. Thanks!
Sure, get rid of Zerg's only way of telling what the opponent is doing without getting a 100/100 upgrade, makes sense.
Let's not pretend that Zerg, with current economy, game tempo and map layout, has to make any real sacrafices to get thorough scout of the enemy. It is much harder to hide tech and mix it up vs Zerg than it was, let's say, 3 years ago. Removing overlord spots on some maps would be 1 way of testing whether the Z intel advantage can be set off with maps or if it's a problem inherent to the expandability of overlords.
How is Zerg supposed to scout if the opponent walls off and builds any sort of anti-air without overlord spots?
Sac and overlord or pay for the upgrade. Scouting doesn't have to be free you know
On January 13 2020 22:00 sneakyfox wrote: Is "main ramp to main ramp" a generally agreed upon definition of rush distance, as the OP says?
Seems like it would be good to have a standard for that, since it could also be "main to nat", "main to main", etc
I don't think anyone's too consistent about which measure to use, though it doesn't really matter here since these are rough estimates. The submissions need to provide main to main, top of main ramp to top of main ramp and nat to nat to reduce ambiguity.
On January 13 2020 22:00 sneakyfox wrote: Is "main ramp to main ramp" a generally agreed upon definition of rush distance, as the OP says?
Seems like it would be good to have a standard for that, since it could also be "main to nat", "main to main", etc
I don't think anyone's too consistent about which measure to use, though it doesn't really matter here since these are rough estimates. The submissions need to provide main to main, top of main ramp to top of main ramp and mat to nat to reduce ambiguity.
Okay, thanks. The maps' pages on LP are now going with the ramp to ramp measure.
On January 13 2020 22:00 sneakyfox wrote: Is "main ramp to main ramp" a generally agreed upon definition of rush distance, as the OP says?
Seems like it would be good to have a standard for that, since it could also be "main to nat", "main to main", etc
I don't think anyone's too consistent about which measure to use, though it doesn't really matter here since these are rough estimates. The submissions need to provide main to main, top of main ramp to top of main ramp and mat to nat to reduce ambiguity.
Okay, thanks. The maps' pages on LP are now going with the ramp to ramp measure.
The one thing to be careful about with 'ramp to ramp' is to measure from the top of the ramp. People occasionally make mistakes with that (though of course even then it's just a second or so).
On January 13 2020 22:00 sneakyfox wrote: Is "main ramp to main ramp" a generally agreed upon definition of rush distance, as the OP says?
Seems like it would be good to have a standard for that, since it could also be "main to nat", "main to main", etc
I don't think anyone's too consistent about which measure to use, though it doesn't really matter here since these are rough estimates. The submissions need to provide main to main, top of main ramp to top of main ramp and mat to nat to reduce ambiguity.
Okay, thanks. The maps' pages on LP are now going with the ramp to ramp measure.
The one thing to be careful about with 'ramp to ramp' is to measure from the top of the ramp. People occasionally make mistakes with that (though of course even then it's just a second or so).
Thanks. I did measure from top to top, and that is also the definition on LP.
And please make more maps like Kairos Junction and Dreamcatcher. Dreamcatcher is especially fun since it's a straight forward no high ground anywhere else other than the main and the natural.
Welcome to Seaside Resort, where there is plenty of room, bases and paths for everyone. Most bases are in traditional layout, but there are two forward bases that provide richer experience. For tropical experience take the wider low ground path with more turns and some bushes. For more straight approach open the tighter high ground path.
This ancient keep was built to watch over the long polar night. Traditional base layout is mostly safely on top of the keep, but two bases can be found outside. The middle path has more ramps and some tighter chokes, but on the side there is straighter paths between opposing bases.
A spaceship build into block of ice where most of initial paths go through high grounds in front of natural’s ramp. Control the richer base on the high ground to control the flow or use the long path on edge to avoid those high grounds.
Hello, Nakajin. Day ago I've sent 5 messages to "TL Map Contest" with maps I'd like to submit to TLMC 14.
>> If you have not received a reply within 24 hours, please contact us directly
I didn't get any feedback until now. Did I miss something that I had to do? This is my first participation to TLMC and I'm glad to become it's member.
Thanks, GelioS
Woooo people think I'm of the staff now! Give me my fucking hammer
But seriously, who am I suppose to direct him too?
Edit: Hum, the "message the contest admin" and "contact us directly" link on the main page redirect to a pm to....me? So is it a bug or did I just inherit a new job?
On January 15 2020 07:52 Nakajin wrote: Hello, Nakajin. Day ago I've sent 5 messages to "TL Map Contest" with maps I'd like to submit to TLMC 14.
>> If you have not received a reply within 24 hours, please contact us directly
I didn't get any feedback until now. Did I miss something that I had to do? This is my first participation to TLMC and I'm glad to become it's member.
Thanks, GelioS
Woooo people think I'm of the staff now! Give me my fucking hammer
But seriously, who am I suppose to direct him too?
Edit: Hum, the "message the contest admin" and "contact us directly" link on the main page redirect to a pm to....me? So is it a bug or did I just inherit a new jobs?
He should have contacted Julmust as announcement says. Also the feedback part doesn't mention that previously they have send feedback to everyone around the pre-judging feedback deadline ( or at least I received it around then last two times) so that everyone gets feedback from most of the judges giving feedback. This helps to avoid someone getting more feedback or multiple times because they can update their map. Also amount of time people have to fix the issues is nearly the same.
@Legan, by "feedback" I mean " Once your map has been received you will receive a PM back confirming that we have received it". Maybe I should use another word since "feedback" here used for chacking maps and not for their receiving confirmation. I'll contact Julmust as you mentioned. Thanks
On January 15 2020 07:52 Nakajin wrote: Hello, Nakajin. Day ago I've sent 5 messages to "TL Map Contest" with maps I'd like to submit to TLMC 14.
>> If you have not received a reply within 24 hours, please contact us directly
I didn't get any feedback until now. Did I miss something that I had to do? This is my first participation to TLMC and I'm glad to become it's member.
Thanks, GelioS
Woooo people think I'm of the staff now! Give me my fucking hammer
But seriously, who am I suppose to direct him too?
Edit: Hum, the "message the contest admin" and "contact us directly" link on the main page redirect to a pm to....me? So is it a bug or did I just inherit a new job?
Preferably Julmust or me, not sure how you ended up in the OP...? Fixed (and received GelioS's maps).
On January 15 2020 07:52 Nakajin wrote: Hello, Nakajin. Day ago I've sent 5 messages to "TL Map Contest" with maps I'd like to submit to TLMC 14.
>> If you have not received a reply within 24 hours, please contact us directly
I didn't get any feedback until now. Did I miss something that I had to do? This is my first participation to TLMC and I'm glad to become it's member.
Thanks, GelioS
Woooo people think I'm of the staff now! Give me my fucking hammer
But seriously, who am I suppose to direct him too?
Edit: Hum, the "message the contest admin" and "contact us directly" link on the main page redirect to a pm to....me? So is it a bug or did I just inherit a new job?
Preferably Julmust or me, not sure how you ended up in the OP...? Fixed (and received GelioS's maps).
Np, I can understand why you would put a link to PM me. I mean I think we can all agree I'm basically the only one on this website worth talking to.
On January 15 2020 07:52 Nakajin wrote: Hello, Nakajin. Day ago I've sent 5 messages to "TL Map Contest" with maps I'd like to submit to TLMC 14.
>> If you have not received a reply within 24 hours, please contact us directly
I didn't get any feedback until now. Did I miss something that I had to do? This is my first participation to TLMC and I'm glad to become it's member.
Thanks, GelioS
Woooo people think I'm of the staff now! Give me my fucking hammer
But seriously, who am I suppose to direct him too?
Edit: Hum, the "message the contest admin" and "contact us directly" link on the main page redirect to a pm to....me? So is it a bug or did I just inherit a new job?
Preferably Julmust or me, not sure how you ended up in the OP...? Fixed (and received GelioS's maps).
Np, I can understand why you would put a link to PM me. I mean I think we can all agree I'm basically the only one on this website worth talking to.
Now you are obligated to give feedback to every single map submitted to the contest. Thank you for your contribution to the community! :3
This is an unofficial compilation of all TLMC14 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.
On January 17 2020 18:08 ObsidianScabbard wrote: I am going to school for design, so this shouldn't be a challenge.
Sorry to spoil the bubble but thats... not how it works. Learning the editor and sc2 mapdesign isn't something you can easily do without constant feedback from people that been using it for multiple years.
And also just general shaping/philosophies that lead to generally playable maps isn't really common sense. In general its something learned over a course of multiple months of trial and error. You're free to give it a try, but it would be a challenge to make a map that is playable.
Just being in a school for design doesn't mean you understand sc2's design of map layouts, and never will unless thats one of the many things such school trains you for.
All I want from this TLMC is a series of maps where none of the starting workers immediately go to mine a mineral patch from behind and I have to manually fix it.
On January 21 2020 06:24 Elentos wrote: All I want from this TLMC is a series of maps where none of the starting workers immediately go to mine a mineral patch from behind and I have to manually fix it.
Blizz often redoes mineral lines before the map hits ladder so it's unclear if the TLMC can save you.
On January 21 2020 06:24 Elentos wrote: All I want from this TLMC is a series of maps where none of the starting workers immediately go to mine a mineral patch from behind and I have to manually fix it.
Well what ever map from this tlmc's finalist reaches to ladder might not have that issue, or will because blizzard and their questionable QA changes~ A lot of the time melee mapmakers avoid mineral lines that cause that as often if its in the main or natural, its REALLY bad. But yeh we have to see.
Pogchamp @Marras i was kinda surprised nobody had posted any of their submissions until now considering the other tlmc contest threads. I had planned to earlier but I still have to finish all 6 of my submissions (currently 4/6).
On January 24 2020 07:32 Crocolisk Dundee wrote: Can we get another map like Abyssal Reef where destroyed units float up? I loved that effect.
Well, Atlantean Rift is like that :D And I think that there's a couple of other maps with an underwater theme that some other mapmakers have been working on lately as well
Tournament information coming soon! We've now figured out which tournament is going to clash with the dates so we can move forward with the rest of the setup!!
It s the first time i m looking at this Map contest,
The difference between a standard and macro map is equal to 94% (???), in other words, it doesn t exist anymore (comparing to rts game in general...),....
They could really adjust the number of workers to the size of the map, this isn t a big deal.
On January 25 2020 23:51 Vision_ wrote: It s the first time i m looking at this Map contest,
The difference between a standard and macro map is equal to 94% (???), in other words, it doesn t exist anymore (comparing to rts game in general...),....
They could really adjust the number of workers to the size of the map, this isn t a big deal.
The distinction has often been hard to pin down, but maps aren't just about their dimensions. Ideally the distinction between standard and macro is as more about ease of expansion and layout than just the numbers. In practice that hasn't so much been the case admittedly.
On January 25 2020 23:51 Vision_ wrote: It s the first time i m looking at this Map contest,
The difference between a standard and macro map is equal to 94% (???), in other words, it doesn t exist anymore (comparing to rts game in general...),....
They could really adjust the number of workers to the size of the map, this isn t a big deal.
The distinction has often been hard to pin down, but maps aren't just about their dimensions. Ideally the distinction between standard and macro is as more about ease of expansion and layout than just the numbers. In practice that hasn't so much been the case admittedly.
ahah ease of expansion....
When Blizzard introduce to community the pocket expand...
Indeed, it was after increasing the number of workers.. is it right ?
How "the ease of extension" could be a factor more important than the size of the map ?
I'm not an expert but if you can get more bases safely, you'll probably focus on expanding rather than attacking. If it's safe to take another base, it's also hard to attack. So players will mostly try to get big economy and go to the late game. Of course you can rush or try to all in on every map, but on some it's simply not worth it. So those map are called macro I think.
On January 26 2020 01:03 Vision_ wrote: When Blizzard introduce to community the pocket expand...
Indeed, it was after increasing the number of workers.. is it right ?
There's been maps with backdoor bases since Wings of Liberty.
Yes true, my mistake,
On January 26 2020 03:17 Microglycerin wrote: I'm not an expert but if you can get more bases safely, you'll probably focus on expanding rather than attacking. If it's safe to take another base, it's also hard to attack. So players will mostly try to get big economy and go to the late game. Of course you can rush or try to all in on every map, but on some it's simply not worth it. So those map are called macro I think.
Really...it can be resume as a design issue.. Blizzard call "Macro maps" the little big maps... As the size difference is none significant, so we can conclude overall that "Build Orders" were more impacted by the layout of a map on WoL and HoTS, than actually, with the "12-workers economy system".
Also, It s a loss of strategic wealth which can be identify as a part of uniformity loss.
On January 26 2020 03:17 Microglycerin wrote: I'm not an expert but if you can get more bases safely, you'll probably focus on expanding rather than attacking. If it's safe to take another base, it's also hard to attack. So players will mostly try to get big economy and go to the late game. Of course you can rush or try to all in on every map, but on some it's simply not worth it. So those map are called macro I think.
Really...it can be resume as a design issue.. Blizzard call "Macro maps" the little big maps... As the size difference is none significant, so we can conclude overall that "Build Orders" were more impacted by the layout of a map on WoL and HoTS, than actually, with the "12-workers economy system".
Also, It s a loss of strategic wealth which can be identify as a part of uniformity loss.
Macro maps have always been a community word. Blizzard did introduce that term. Macro maps exist in other RTS as well. Macro map is not about the size. It is about the way the games on that map usually play out. Size is one helping factor, but it is not the deciding factor. The most often referred to factor, by casters, is the ease of securing a third/fourth base. In HotS beta there was a macro map with a semi pocket expand (collapsing rock tower needed to fall) as a third base. That was Akilon Wastes. That map stayed long and got played often. Zerg could get to 4 bases and the other races could macro up safely on 3 bases. Akilon Wasres was a big map, falling into the macro size category. Another of the HotS macro maps is Echo. That map had a standard map playable area, but it was THE Macro map. That map delayed schedules because of game lenghts.
It is not really about size. It is definitely not about amount of workers at the start. If it is hard to defend bases, the games will be aggressive. If it is easy to defend bases and secure additional bases, the games will be macro.
For the challenge, I would like to see something like a central low-ground path, kind of like Frozen Temple, but with speed zones along it. Essentially like a fast alleyway that's vulnerable to attack.
On January 27 2020 09:23 Agaton wrote: Alright, here are my submissions:
I would like to note my previous tl account was invalid99 and i had prevously made a thread for this map. only reason i made another one is i guess i kinda wanted to rebrand or whatever
I'm a newer mapper, this is my first TLMC. Here are my submissions so far!
Edit: Maps updated with changes due to Pre-Feedback! Also, I re-named La Mancha to Outsider. Fit the map theme better and it was honestly disrespectful to brood war's La Mancha. Lots of aesthetic updates on Forgotten Strand, Fulfilled Promises, Outsider!
I am glad to see that there are some maps here that aren't 2 player maps with rotational symmetry. There are some 4 player maps and some maps with mirror symmetry.
On January 27 2020 22:10 IeZaeL wrote: Neo Matchpoint - Standard + Show Spoiler +
This map is labelled standard. Does it really play out like that? I am genuinly curious. It looks like with a pocket expansion, easy 3 base and easy 4 base, this would be a macro map. There is only 1 entrance for 3 bases and 2 entrances for 4 bases. Maybe the tiny area of the pocket base makes it hard to defend vs aerial assaults, and that is what makes it a non-macro map.
Size: 118x136 = 16048 Main to main: 45 Ramp to ramp: 35 Natural to natural: 33 Description: Ion Fazekath is a spaceship built into a block of ice, where most of the initial paths go through high grounds in front of natural’s ramp. Control the base with rich vespene geyser on the high ground to control the flow or use the longer path on edges to avoid those high grounds. Features:
High ground base with rich vespene geyser has only 6 mineral batches.
Size: 136x140 = 19040 Main to main: 43 Ramp to ramp: 36 Natural to natural: 32 Description: This ancient keep was built to watch over the long polar night. Traditional base layout is mostly safely on top of the keep, but two bases can be found outside. The middle path has more ramps and some tighter chokes, but on the side there is straighter paths between opposing bases.
Size: 142x142 = 20164 Main to main: 43 Ramp to ramp: 37 Natural to natural: 31 Description: Welcome to Seaside Resort, where there is plenty of room, bases and paths for everyone. Most bases are in traditional layout, but there are two forward bases that provide richer experience. For tropical experience take the wider low ground path with more turns and some bushes. For more straight approach open the tighter high ground path. Features:
On January 31 2020 15:28 OhThatDang wrote: Just wanted to ask if there was ever a challenge or standard map where the main bases start on the low ground instead? Or is that not a thing in sc2
It hasn't been a thing in sc2 for quite a while now (essentially due to SCII's defender advantage being much weaker). There were some in the early days of SCII--the most recent map I can think of that had that is Sacred Path .
90% chance this is all i'm going to get done before the deadline, but maybe i'll sneak one more in last minute, who knows
I really like all 3 of them. The first two look like great maps for their categories, and the third one is a bit offbeat, but I think we should have more of that. If this is all you manage, you still achieved a lot of variety in your submission. Cool stuff.
You are unable to construct buildings on the water in the middle of the map. Creep tumors can be placed though. An easy to hold Natural but after that with the map being as small as it is, you really need to go on the aggressive stance.
A standard, care-free, easy going map. Plenty of bases allow you to play passive or you can get a little more aggressive but open yourself up to easier harass. Take down the rocks to open up another direct attack path to help with flanks or pushes.
Another standard map with an easy to hold natural and a choice of thirds. Depending which third you take you can easily get a 4th or push onto the enemy. There are many cliff elevations which make the map overall very enjoyable for all races.
A long early game attack time thus resulting in more macro heavy openings. At that point you can expand to a choice of thirds and after that grab a defensive or aggressive fourth to put pressure or retaliate on against your opponent.
The challenge comes from all the choke points in the middle. In the original Habitation Station you could move through the choke points in the middle and secure a huge advantage by taking out or holding onto your gold base. In this version, if you move through the choke points you are sped up, move at a faster pace and therefore and better defend... or attack into the enemy bases.
I didn't create anything new unfortunately... at this point in my sc2 life... I don't really have time anymore so instead I just edit my older non-winning maps and hope for the best! Wishing the greatest of luck to all participants and may the best mapper win!
On January 31 2020 15:28 OhThatDang wrote: Just wanted to ask if there was ever a challenge or standard map where the main bases start on the low ground instead? Or is that not a thing in sc2
It hasn't been a thing in sc2 for quite a while now (essentially due to SCII's defender advantage being much weaker). There were some in the early days of SCII--the most recent map I can think of that had that is Sacred Path .
So with me switching the category to standard I already figured i should make the 3rd mineral lines a bit less droppable/siegeable. so it was suggested I make the linear base far less siegeable even though the spot where the tank would be is kind of at the top of a wide ramp it was a change i was debating making anyway. The other changes are that the forward mineral wall base has only 1 rich gas as opposed to the previous 1 rich/1 normal, Added extra ground space at 1/7 bases so that you can't pocket (say) an oracle between 2 queens between the natural and that base in the airspace. other than that the random dip at the third is gone and the paths in the airspace have crashed vehicles in them so it doesn't look like anything can be dropped there.
So the low ground base outside the main I figured would only be taken by terran anyway if they wanted to float out a third, but I was told that the low ground base just wouldn't be taken or wouldn't want to be taken on the original version. In order to change this i tried to help the base by making the severity of a tank spot outside of it less severe and making it so that there wasn't 2 high grounds leading into it and making the 6/12 bases low ground. The only other change is that i made the main mineral line a lotv mineral one, which btw i think it's silly to even pick that out because the hots ones only have 1 worker stacking spot but w/e.
I want to thank Stealthy, Kesai and The_Music for their additional input on top of my tlmc feedback. I didn't take every suggestion but the extra feedback was helpful regardless.
Some of the maps reaper cliffs look fairly large and appears there is dead air space to hide dropships/BCs at main and occasionally other bases. If both of these are true, you have my vote to replace this season's map pool!
Here are my picks. These are NOT predictions, and are based on quickly reviewing public overviews. My opinions could change a lot if I look closer or see them in game.
Rush In Absentia by -NegativeZero- Hellfire by CharactR Deliverance by ObsidianScabbard Submarine by Zweck
Standard Quicksand by CharactR Takeover by Marras Cheruno 9 by Sanglune Sidewinder by themusic246
Macro Siberus by Panzermann Academy by Superouman Ice and Chrome by themusic246 Nemesis by themusic246 Atlantean Rift by Marras
Challenge Beckett Industries by Superouman pJkoojl by insidious_bombardier Arcade by CharactR
Rush: In Absentia by -NegativeZero- Hellfire by CharactR Blackburn by Insidioussc2 Kill Switch by Zweck Submarine by Zweck
Standard: Hard Rain by ATTx Cheruno 9 by Sanglune Sidewinder by themusic246
Macro: Containment by KillerSmile Atlantean Rift by Marras Bamboozle by ObsidianScabbard Elara by Zweck Ice and Chrome by themusic246
Challenge: Earth Drinker by Superouman the map by insidious_bombardier Mainframe by themusic246
Honorable mention goes to themusic's other maps. Overall I feel that there are quite a few nice maps in the Rush and Macro categories, Standard was rather uninspiring this time for some reason, and Challenge was quite bad.
My prediction of maps that I find the most interesting/polished and hope do well (except for my own maps):
Rush: Ultra Kompactor by Superouman Kill Switch by Zweck Oxide by themusic246 Sun Temple by Killersmile
Standard: Fate's Valley by samsim Cryogen by ZigguratOfUr Containment by Killersmile Cheruno 9 by Sanglune Takeover by Marras
Macro: Second Dream by NegativeZero Aqueducts by Superouman Defrost by Attx Seaside Resort by Legan Challenge: Mainframe by themusic246 Arcade by CharactR DoubleDong by Superouman