• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:00
CEST 05:00
KST 12:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S Season 2 - RO4 & Finals Results (2025)0Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy4Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week0Firefly suspended by EWC, replaced by Lancer8Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."2Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.8Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)14
StarCraft 2
General
How herO can make history in the Code S S2 finals Firefly suspended by EWC, replaced by Lancer Rain's Behind the Scenes Storytime Code S Season 2 - RO4 & Finals Results (2025) Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] Darkgrid Layout
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion Recent recommended BW games FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Echoes of Revolution and Separation Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 32639 users

Team Liquid Map Contest #20 - Presented by Monster Energy

Forum Index > SC2 General
84 CommentsPost a Reply
1 2 3 4 5 Next All

Team Liquid Map Contest #20 - Presented by Monster Energy

Text byTL.net ESPORTS
December 31st, 2024 18:13 GMT
TLMC20
The future of competitive StarCraft II may be unclear, but TLMC continues to forge forward in its search for the best new maps.

After taking a detour to provide a much-needed update to the team map pool in the previous TLMC, this time we're returning to our 1v1 roots. Continuing in the spirit of TLMC 19, we've decided TLMC 20 will also be a 'freestyle' contest in spirit. While the original goal of TLMC 19 was to promote more radical maps, we were also happy with the submissions that were standard-ish with a twist. Ultimately, giving map-makers more freedom resulted in better, more interesting maps all across the spectrum. Rather than return to our previous macro/rush/standard/freestyle segments, we believe TLMC should continue in this open-ended direction.

Of course, we'd like to thank Monster Energy for being our presenting sponsor once more. By supporting us into 2025, Monster continues to show its long-term faith in not only TLMC, but in the entire StarCraft II community. We hope to repay that belief by bringing forth the best maps yet, wherever they may be played.

As the future of StarCraft II is uncertain, we cannot give an absolute, 100% guarantee that TLMC 20 maps will be rotated into the ladder. However, we are reasonably confident that ladder rotations will continue in the near future, and that TLMC maps will be a part of them. In the worst case, we will try to work with community organizers to introduce new maps into their tournaments. (None of the above should be taken as an indicator of ESL/EWC's future involvement in SC2—TL.net has no more information than the rest of the community regarding this matter.)

With all that out of the way, the map submission phase begins now!

Map Submission Guidelines

Most of the restrictions from older TLMC's have been lifted, applying 'freestyle' rules to all submissions. However, this does not mean the intent of this contest is to explicitly reward the most unorthodox maps.

We are lifting restrictions so map-makers have the most tools available with which to create the best overall maps. Maps will be judged in their entirety, where creativity is just one part of the whole. In effect, this was already the judgment criteria of TLMC 19, but we are making it more explicit this time around.

List of allowed and disallowed features (click)

Besides the explicitly disallowed elements listed above, there are no 'hard lines' regarding the implementation of non-standard features. Please inquire regarding specific features that are not listed.

Please read this list before starting the map creation process. While the rules have been loosened compared to previous contests, we have set limits in order to future-proof maps against later patches and changes, ensure maps are portable to the ladder, ensure units maintain their expected pathing behavior, and to prevent maps from being overly unintuitive to players.

The current features list is slightly more restrictive than in TLMC19. While we understand that this may be disappointing to some mapmakers, this is due to limitations in quality assurance resources available to TLMC and its partners.

  • Examples of features that can be included:
    • Healing shrines
    • Heavy or atypical usage of backdoor entrances with Mineral Walls/Reduced Mineral Patches.
    • Inhibitor and Accelerator Zones.
    • Non-standard numbers of mineral nodes or Vespene geysers at bases.
    • Semi-island starting positions
    • Neutral Zerg buildings as 'timed' obstructions
    • 3+ Starting positions
  • Past Examples: Basically every map ever made.

Other Restrictions

  • No custom textures or Force Fields.
  • No custom data which modifies units.
  • Maps must meet Melee mode requirements: Triggers can't be edited, and Data needs to comply with Melee, legibility and QA requirements.

Focus on Quality Assurance

The Team Liquid Map Contest has always welcomed a broad range of submissions within the tournament rules, regardless of the experience of the mapmaker. However, this leads to a number of submissions that do not meet the standards for competitive StarCraft II, or are poorly optimized for in-game performance.

Since we do not wish to tighten the standards for submitting a map, we request that map-makers conduct as much debugging and quality assurance as reasonably possible before submitting maps to TLMC. This will reduce strain on TLMC staff, and help assure that high quality, refined maps are considered for competitive play.

Factors to consider in QA include, but are not limited to:
  • Unit pathing
  • In-game performance (too many doodads is a frequent culprit)
  • Correct line-of-sight blocker implementation
  • Mineral/gas placement
  • Compatibility of natural expansion chokes with standard wall-offs
  • Unintended drop locations
  • Removal of misc. remnants from map creation/testing phase
Please use resources such as video documentation of TLMC map feedback, previous TLMC feedback threads, and community groups such as the “Mappers’ Circle” Discord server to learn more about the principles behind high-end map-making. In particular, community groups can be invaluable for map-making discussion and getting feedback on your maps.

Suggestions and Notes

  • We highly recommend that map-makers submitting maps join the “Mappers’ Circle” Discord server where the majority of participants and staff are likely to be active.
  • For clarification, maps submitted to other map competitions may be submitted to TLMC #20 as well.
  • Maps with insufficient edge-map distance have been an issue in past map pools. While recent map pools have mostly avoided this problem, we still recommend map-makers leave a modicum of air space between playable ground areas and map edges.
  • Overlord high ground scout positions over naturals have a large impact on gameplay and should be sized and placed carefully. 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.
  • 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 (more on this below), small changes are often more desirable than large radical changes that dramatically alter the map’s direction.


Post-contest map iteration

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.

After the contest, map-makers will be contacted by TLMC staff in order to fix bugs and make general improvements.For instance, map-makers can make small adjustments to the maps such as changes to Reaper cliffs. Results from our performance tests will also be made available to map-makers who can use those results to improve performance.

Contest Schedule

Note: The default timezone for TLMC is Pacific Standard Time (PST). While countdowns and specific times should be converted to local timezone on the TL.net website, PST will be used whenever we "just" use dates in posts. For example: the end date for submissions is January 27th. So the deadline is January 27th at 11:59 PM PST.

Contest dates may be adjusted as needed.

Submission Phase

December 31 - January 27

To ensure that maps are competition appropriate and have minimal performance issues, please conduct as much quality assurance as possible on your maps before submitting them to TLMC.

Pre-Judging Feedback
We will be offering pre-judging feedback so map-makers can work with TLMC staff to iron out potential issues before maps are officially submitted. All maps that are submitted before January 17th will be eligible for feedback from TLMC staff. Please keep in mind that maps with positive feedback or that have had issues fixed as a result of this review process are not guaranteed to be selected for the Top 16.

TLnet Judging Phase

January 28 - February 17

Once submissions have closed, maps will go through an initial screening by TLMC staff. The remaining maps will be submitted to a judge panel that may include professional players, community figures, and map-makers. Together, the judges will trim down all submissions to a final 16 that will be used in the next stages of the contest. Map-makers win $200 in prize money for each map that finishes in the final 16.

Note: All submissions are anonymized before being sent on to the judges. Only the main admins of the contest have access to who the submitters are.

Test Tournament & Public Voting

Late February/Early March

The exact dates for the Test Tournament and subsequent voting have not been 100% finalized as we aim to be flexible around other competitions.

The test tournament phase allows everyone to see the new maps being played by some of the best players in the world.

As with previous TLMC's, we will make a public post introducing the sixteen finalist maps. Map-makers 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.

Finally, the public will then vote on the final versions of these maps. Public voting determines how much additional prize money the map-makers win. Voting DOES NOT directly determine which maps will potentially be added to the ladder, though community opinion may be referenced in the process (TL.net may audit votes if it notices botting or other irregular voting patterns).

Iteration Phase

Ongoing after tournament phase

The iteration phase has become a vital part for map-makers in TLMC. It gives them a chance to fix smaller issues that may have been caught during the tournament phase. Note that smaller fixes are often better than huge changes.

TLMC Winners Announced

Shortly after the conclusion of the voting phase, we will present the final standings.

As mentioned, we currently cannot 100% guarantee TLMC 20 maps will be added to the official StarCraft II ladder. However, we are reasonably confident that ladder rotations will continue going forward (once more, this is not an indicator of any insider knowledge regarding ESL and StarCraft II—TL.net has the same information as the general public). Historically, the top sixteen TLMC finalists have been favored for inclusion on the ladder, but maps outside the top sixteen have been selected as well (examples: Radhuset Station, Alcyone, and Site Delta from TLMC #18).

Prize Distribution

Thanks to Monster Energy, TLMC #20 will feature a prize pool of $3750.

All finalist maps (top 16): $200 base prize

First place - $200

Second place - $125
Third place - $100
Fourth place - $75
Fifth place - $50


How To Submit Maps

Submission Rules

  • Map-makers will be limited to five(5) map submissions each.
  • Please designate each map with the traditional TLMC category it most closely aligns with: Rush, Standard, or Macro. Refer to TLMC 18 for the category guidelines.
    • This information will ONLY be used to aid internal sorting alongside other subcategories.
    • There are no submission limitations regarding these subcategories (Example: You can submit 5x "Standard" maps.
    • There is no minimum or maximum finalist quota per subcategory (Example: There could be 0x finalists from "Standard" submissions).


Please PM your map file(s) to TL Map Contest with the below format by January 27th. Please title your PMs with the name of the map. You must submit one PM for each map (five maps = five PM submissions). 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 one business day, please contact us directly. We may also PM you back requesting missing information. Your entry will not be officially confirmed until any issues with the submission have been resolved.

If you want to submit a revised 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 submission PM must contain:
  • Map name
  • A download link to your map
  • A picture of your map. Please use the standard 90° top down overview—do not use any angled or tilted images. Please mark start locations and describe any starting location constraints. You may attach additional images to highlight map features if you wish, but the top-down view is most important.
  • The map subcategory (for sorting purposes only): Rush, Standard, or Macro
  • The size (dimensions) of the map
  • Number of bases (note the number of bases with rich minerals and/or Vespene)
  • 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 description of the map: This is a very useful resource for judges and TLMC admins who are examining dozens of maps, so please try to be both informative and concise. We recommend around 800 characters at most, although this isn't a hard limit.
    • Point out any alternate resources, destructible rocks, or other elements that aren't obvious at first glance.
    • Explain the general concept and style of the map
    • Describe the features that distinguish it from 'normal' maps
    • Check out some of the map descriptions provided by the TLMC #17 finalists. As a specific example, here is Marras' short description of Stargazers from TLMC #16:

      Stargazers offers the opportunity to either play standard games or make things a bit more spicy by opening up the path through the pocket natural.

      Features:
      • There are 12 blue bases in total plus one gold base at the 6 o'clock position
      • The pocket naturals have a standard amount of minerals and gas but the base is blocked by two mineral nodes with the value of 10 per each
      • The minerals blocking the ramp leading from the pocket natural have a value of 40 each making opening up that path a big commitment if done by the attacker
      • Line of sight blockers are situated in the middle area and the bottom of the map
      • The Xel'naga Tower at the 12 o'clock position can see a little bit of the outermost parts of the pocket natural mineral lines.

The map FILE must contain:
  • A short gameplay description: There is a field for this with a limit of 300 chars. You can include some flavor text here, or base it on the gameplay description from your map submission.


Entries not in this format may be excluded from consideration. Please do not send questions to the 'TL Map Contest' account; contact TLMC admin Waxangel instead.

Submit your map


Time remaining for submissions:



FAQ

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 Google Drive, Imgur, Dropbox, or OneDrive and include the link in your entry.

Q: How do I attach a map file or image to a PM?
The Team Liquid PM system does not support attachments. Instead, use an external image/file hoster such as Google Drive, Dropbox, or OneDrive for map files or Imgur for image files. Please send those links along with your submission.

Q: Will the first place map automatically be included in tournaments?
Historically, all high-placing TLMC maps have been considered for ladder and/or tournaments, but the first place map has not been 100% guaranteed to be included.

Q: How crazy can my maps be?
Although this is a Freestyle-oriented contest, maps still need to be ladder appropriate. Please refer to the first section of this article to check our general philosophy on maps, as well as the detailed list of allowed/disallowed map elements.

Q: I’m interested in the contest, but I’m horrible at map making. What can I do to support the map-makers?
Post in their map threads and give them support, encouragement, and replays on their maps! Giving your favorite map-maker support will be much appreciated by the map-maker. Replays are especially valuable as it helps the map-maker 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. Again, we highly recommend you join the “Mappers’ Circle” Discord server.


Best of luck in the competition!
Facebook Twitter Reddit
TL+ Member
OmniSkepticSC
Profile Joined November 2023
19 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-02-18 23:38:02
December 31 2024 18:58 GMT
#2
Make sure to show Monster Energy some love! Without their support, many mapmakers wouldn't be able to deliver maps of the same high quality.

TLMC#19 lifted many overbearing rules but mapmakers were still learning how to use the new mechanics. Now that some time has passed and these mechanics are slightly better understood, we should see some much more coherent and harmonic designs in TLMC#20.

+ Show Spoiler [Disclaimer] +
The following list contains only the submissions I have full data for. This means many maps and mapmakers will be missing.

Maps marked in red are no longer in consideration for finalists.
Maps that make finalist will be marked in green after judging.

Map categories are only used for organizational and informative purposes this TLMC; all maps are free to mix and match elements from each category, including non-standard elements.

Many mapmakers put a tag using their initials before the name of their map when uploading to Battle.net to make them easier to find. Example: "[AX] Mapname"
_____________________

Sorted By Mapmaker

Anarchay
+ Show Spoiler [Obsidian Depths (32s) - (134x134)] +

[image loading]
Standard layout but with a twist; 2 extra island bases than the normal 8 bases. One island can be taken as early as a natural base. The other will be much later, unless you choose to sneak an early island base. The islands are easily reachable by long range ground units, and are very harassable.

+ Show Spoiler [Shattered Sands (33s) - (128x128)] +

[image loading]
A standard layout featuring a fissure running through the center of the map splitting the aesthetics in two. Xel'Naga towers help secure the forward 4th and triangle 4th.

+ Show Spoiler [Blindside Basin (35s) - (142x142)] +

[image loading]
Cross spawns only (Left+Right, Top+Bottom). An exposed but pocket gold base is available as a natural option. Main bases will open up in the midgame by breaking rocks to access rotating expansion patterns. Promotes diverse strategies and expansion patterns.

+ Show Spoiler [Bear's Den (37s) - (200x100)] +

[image loading]
Macro map with diverse expansion layouts. Can take forward bases or line bases.


CharactR [Char]
+ Show Spoiler [Sandwyrm (32s) - (128x124)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Flowering Night (35s) - (140x140)] +

[image loading]

3 Player Map

+ Show Spoiler [Windchill (30s) - (148x148)] +

[image loading]

3 Player Map

+ Show Spoiler [Sinking Monastery (32s) - (156x156)] +

[image loading]

3 Player Map

+ Show Spoiler [Elsecaro Island (30s/35s) - (144x144)] +

[image loading]

4 Player Map (All Spawns Enabled)


Eclipse
+ Show Spoiler [Dark Origin (32s) - (134x136)] +

[image loading]



Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]



Three lanes, one through the center, two around. Different 3rd base options with follow up bases nearby. Some are better suited depending on the matchup and race, providing more open space, flank routes or chokes.
four Watchtowers in total, 2 are inside the rock wall and can only be activated if the wall is destroyed.

Map Features:
-Main ramp can be blocked off by a single depot and barracks.
-Rockwalls blocking path from triangle third towards center + Watchtower inside.
-Overlord pillars are highlighted with blue lights, share same doodad and terrain texture.
-Watchtower between corner bases.
-Highgrounds spread around the dead space in the corners, which can be used as cover for air units vs ranged ground.
-Building helpers for walls at the natural choke.
-Small pathingblocker doodad in the natural choke for walloffs with fewer buildings


Killersmile [KS]
+ Show Spoiler [10000 Feet (32s) - (124x136)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Torches (33s) - (128x144)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Wrath (33s) - (140x140)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Killer's Mile (34s) - (144x132)] +

[image loading]



MayOnFire [MayOnFire] or [MoF]
+ Show Spoiler [Nightvision (33s) - (124x140)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Red Paladin (34s) - (144x136)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Everlasting (37s) - (146x134)] +

[image loading]



Monitor
+ Show Spoiler [Canopy (32s) - (140x120)] +

[image loading]


A backdoor out of the natural, which leads to a pocket third, can be walled off with two pylons or widened by mining the four gold mineral patches (7 each). The pocket third can be accessed by the opponent once the zerg rocks break.
Features:
- Backdoor that can be walled with two pylons or a gateway and zealot.
- Backdoor path can be widened by the defender by mining the gold minerals (7 each).
- Pocket third base is blocked by ground with zerg rocks. Once opened, the opponent and defender can travel in and out.
- Many expansions are positioned defensively, with exposed minerals.

+ Show Spoiler [Everlasting (33s) - (136x128)] +

[image loading]

A small, winding rush map featuring a clockwise expansion pattern. As the game progresses, players must adapt to changing terrain and shorter distances to the opponent.
Features:
- No triangle third: both players expand clockwise and can choose between forward or defensive expansions.

+ Show Spoiler [Incorporeal (36s) - (126x142)] +

[image loading]


A central Xel'Naga Tower splits two central high ground pods. Gaining control of the tower provides vision of the primary attack paths, with only the outer paths out of vision range. Collapsible rocks block off strategic pathways.
Features:
- Two center mineral-only expansions contain 10 blue minerals.
- Corner expansions can be walled with collapsible rocks, becoming a semi-island.

+ Show Spoiler [Almanac (37s) - (134x138)] +

[image loading]


A backdoor "disco" ramp out of the natural can be traversed by tiny units only - like zealots, adepts zerglings, banelings, marines, marauders. No stalkers, tanks, roaches, or larger. A second backdoor out of the natural is blocked by two rows of HY minerals, 7/ea.
Features:
- Two backdoors: a disco ramp for tiny units and a mineral wall.
- Two semi-island areas: the corners of the map can only be accessed by the defender via the tiny unit disco ramp. Once rocks are broken, both players can access.

+ Show Spoiler [Motherboard (32s/37s) - (144x136)] +

[image loading]


A four spawn map designed for 1v1 only; the opponent’s spawn location is pinged immediately at the start of the game. No need to guess where to scout! This rotational symmetry map creates a variety of scenarios, including asymmetrical but balanced close spawns. A backdoor can be accessed by mining the gold minerals.
Features:
- The opponent’s spawn location is pinged at the start of the game.
- No RNG with scouting.
- Asymmetrical but balanced spawns create many interesting scenarios that are unachievable with a 2 player map!
- Backdoor can be accessed by mining the gold minerals (two trips opens a path).


themusic246
+ Show Spoiler [Pylon (33s) - (132x136)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Antimatter (35s) - (136x140)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Arbiter (35s) - (136x144)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [The Grid (35s) - (148x140)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Storm Surge (36s) - (134x138)] +

[image loading]



OmniSkeptic [OS]
+ Show Spoiler [Guckton (32s) - (148x118)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]



Better explanation of mechanics: https://imgur.com/a/guckton-standard-rush-32s-small-size-148x118-tlmc20-975Sbcf

"A Horrible, Horrible Place." This map utilizes the new feature "Zerg Rocks" to give players a real choice on which natural base to take. There is an easily securable expansion to the south but taking it greatly complicates which other expansions are viable to simultaneously defend.

+ Show Spoiler [Wunderlight (33s) - (136x132)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]



Core base layout very loosely inspired by Brood War. The deadspace in the main is limited, but deadspace around the natural is difficult to retain vision of. The rush path is also quite direct with a very aggressive forward base. The corners of the map increase in elevation rather than decrease.

+ Show Spoiler [The Map That Needs No Name (34s) - (13…] +

[image loading]


Additional Images:+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]


Better explanation of mechanics: https://imgur.com/a/map-that-needs-no-name-rush-rush-34s-medium-large-136x132-tlmc20-jG7ZYE4

There are 2 types of balance:
A) monotony where no race can abuse anything, or B) catastrophe where all races can abuse everything.

This map increases volatility using (B). Features: Zerg Rocks, Islands, WOPs, Healing Shrines, Collapsible Towers, Destructible Vision Towers, Low HP rocks, Colossus-traversal ledges, reduced resource bases, rich vespene geysers, LOS blockers, Air-resistant borders, and a semi-pocket natural

+ Show Spoiler [Abacus of Betrayal (36s) - (136x148)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]



Better explanation of mechanics: https://imgur.com/a/abacus-of-betrayal-macro-rush-36s-large-136x148-tlmc20-sw6jq7w

This large macro map has a high rush distance, but counter-balances this with a design that stretches a player with a defensive setup thin. Inhibitor zones counter-balance otherwise wide open areas.

There are many non-standard mechanics. For instance, the main base's deadspace has "blink pillars" and the drop area in the main contains obstructive terrain. Many cliffs and object types are traversable by colossus. The area outside the natural where players are likely to position their army is unsupportable by structures due to unbuildable terrain. There is a healing shrine and a worker-only-path that leads to a hidden high ground terrain at the corner of the map.


Patches "PT: "
+ Show Spoiler [Everbloom (33s) - (134x136)] +

[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Talisman (34s) - (124x148)] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Celestial Enclave (34s)) - (132x132)] +

[image loading]
Scout Distance with Worker-Only-Path is 32s

+ Show Spoiler [Hellscape (34s)) - (132x134)] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Persephone (36s) - (124x146)] +

[image loading]


SC2Sole
+ Show Spoiler [Voidhaven Station (26s) - (188x148)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
Rock Collections:
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]

Expansion Routes:
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]



+ Show Spoiler [Caverns of Time (28s) - (132x132)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
Analysis:
[image loading]
[image loading]

Proxy Locations:
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]




volumin
+ Show Spoiler [Rusty Anchor (32s) - (126x126)] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Arctic Fall (33s) - (126x130 )] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Killswitch (33s) - (148x136)] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Old Republic (34s) - (140x140)] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Tokamak (37s) - (148x130)] +

[image loading]


Zuratu [Zura]
+ Show Spoiler [BF 1138 (34s) - (144x140)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
M2M: 39s
N2N: 31s
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Mothball Station (35s) - (148x140)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
M2M: 43s
N2N: 32s
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]


+ Show Spoiler [Meditations (33s) - (148x130)] +

[image loading]


Additional Images: + Show Spoiler +
M2M: 38s
N2N: 32s
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]



===========================================================
Confirmed Submissions I Lack Full Data On
+ Show Spoiler +

Emerald Citadel
Eldeyja
Amethyst Colony
Ruskaletto
Valerian Academy
Outsider
Aureate
Botanical
Cenotaph
Diffusion
Selaginella

sidasf
Profile Joined February 2023
79 Posts
Last Edited: 2024-12-31 19:59:52
December 31 2024 19:45 GMT
#3
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating.

Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating.

How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto.

Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game.

I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game).

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality.
CommanderChp
Profile Joined May 2021
United States6 Posts
December 31 2024 21:31 GMT
#4
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating.

Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating.

How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto.

Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game.

I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game).

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality.


You're missing the point, Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's automatically good/finalist.

If there's a fantastic 3p map, then maybe it will get finalist (but historically 3p maps are downvoted, which is fine. it's just nice for mappers to have an option to try it if they want)

same with all map feautres, if a map uses healing shrines in a well balanced and interesting way, then I don't see why it can't be finalist or go on ladder.
TLMC19 Finalist (Sacred Isle and Atlantis) TLMC20 Finalist (Persephone)
OmniSkeptic
Profile Joined January 2021
Canada68 Posts
January 01 2025 00:42 GMT
#5
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun.

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


Could you try not shitposting just for one time, that would be great

3+ Starting Positions have been in the rules as viable submissions for years already. Notice they haven't been picked like ever

If the last map pool didn't cause you to quit, healing shrines won't either given healing shrines are not nearly as ubiquitous as the design flaws in that one. We'd be lucky to get a single map with a shrine on it, which even means it's perfectly veto-able.
Mapmaker and M1 Terran from Canada. Most notable maps include 1st place TLMC#19 finalist "Anomaly Found", ladder map "NeoHumanity", and other maps that try to be competitive yet non-standard such as the asymmetrical Gridworm or resource-deviant Deadwind
Gemini_19
Profile Joined June 2010
United States1229 Posts
January 01 2025 01:20 GMT
#6
Damn I wonder if maps from these winners will actually be chosen instead of ignored for terribly outdated maps that completely ruin the modern ladder/tournament map pool so much that individual tournament organizers are replacing them with other maps!
@GGemini19 GM Protoss | http://www.twitch.tv/geminisc2 | I <333 HerO & Trap | Check out my Build of the Week series on /r/allthingsprotoss, TL, or Spawning Tool
KillerSmile
Profile Joined November 2018
Germany86 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-01 10:35:56
January 01 2025 07:36 GMT
#7
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating.

Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating.

How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto.

Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game.

I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game).

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality.


That these things are allowed does not mean they are required. Many of the TLMC judges in the past have agreed with your sentiment on 3+ spawn maps and categorically tanked those map's rating. All I know is that in Broodwar 3 and 4 player maps are consistently the most balanced ones statistically and provide a certain variance desired by the viewerbase. SC2 mapmakers have experimented reducing the possible spawn positions you have to scout on 4 player maps from 3 down to 2 to mitigate the downside of what you describe, which is largely a result of the faster snowballing economy in SC2 compared to Broodwar.

I'm personally not a big fan of healing shrines either, but you vasty overstate their impact. Last TLMC we've had plenty of maps with healing shrines on them, they didn't get used on purpose a single time even tho to the end of the tournament Wardi set out a bounty to whoever uses one.

They are usually out on the map away from other strategically important areas. People tend to not conserve units at low HP to bring them back to base with the exception of maybe Battlecruisers and other harassing flying units to repair them at home. If you do that they can immediately serve to defend a counter attack. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere.

The scenario you describe where you were otherwise outplaying somebody and then lose because the opponent was smart enough to get into a position where they get healed and you don't means you are the one that is being outplayed. You deserve to lose. That would actually be an intended and desired outcome for healing shrines, problem is we've never seen it.

There is a version of the current ladder map Whispers of Gold that had a healing shrine on it. The powers that be chose the shrine-less version for ladder over it, despite the one with the shrine being a TLMC finalist(called Gold Dust in TLMC 19).

Being allowed to use a feature does not automatically represent an upside to the mapmaker. The TLMC just likes to signal that that we can do all sorts of things, whether it's wise for mapmakers to do them is separate. Arguably the best strategy will again be to submit a completely standard map with maybe a slight inoffensive twist or two.
Mapmaker, author of Data-C, Solaris, Ley Lines, Torches and Reclamation LE
PtyBisKuit
Profile Joined July 2012
France13 Posts
January 01 2025 08:40 GMT
#8
Glad to see the TLMC keep going !

With 9 maps in the cureent map pool, I wish at least 1 (or 2?) would have 3 or 4 starting positions, both as a viewer and a player. Diversity in the map pool may be source of balance issues or personal frustration but I also believe it is also a component in the fun I have while playing or watching Stacraft 2.
Beelzebub1
Profile Joined May 2015
1004 Posts
January 01 2025 16:17 GMT
#9
"3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating."

I used to feel this way, but at this point in SC2's lifespan ie the dwindling years, I think having some maps with a bit of RNG in them is okay. Maps over the last few years have reached kind of a meta level where all the maps start blurring together, they are too safe in their design, it just leads to repetition.

Having a viable threat of proxy or 12 pool is not inherently bad for the game, god forbid anyone has to play with an actually safe opener and maybe micro in the early game vs. playing the most standard greedy macro builds.
Captain Peabody
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States3099 Posts
January 01 2025 17:24 GMT
#10
Geez, TL dot net isn't even sure if they'll switch out the ladder pool in the future? Not having big tournaments is one thing, but has the Blizzard Intern stopped answering his emails or what?
Dies Irae venit. youtube.com/SnobbinsFilms
Cygnus
Profile Joined February 2004
United States845 Posts
January 01 2025 19:09 GMT
#11
On January 02 2025 01:17 Beelzebub1 wrote:
"3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating."

I used to feel this way, but at this point in SC2's lifespan ie the dwindling years, I think having some maps with a bit of RNG in them is okay. Maps over the last few years have reached kind of a meta level where all the maps start blurring together, they are too safe in their design, it just leads to repetition.

Having a viable threat of proxy or 12 pool is not inherently bad for the game, god forbid anyone has to play with an actually safe opener and maybe micro in the early game vs. playing the most standard greedy macro builds.


There might be creative ways though map design to have 3+ starting position maps while still reducing RNG (without the lazy option of showing position on minimap at game start).

Not sure if all these concepts have been explored to their maximum potential but some idea's that MIGHT work.

- Modify the map layout with something like a outward spiral and have senor towers in range of main bases through scouting path (likely need to utilize air block zones to still have balanced mid-game from air attacks and drops).

- Backdoor speed zones and/or WOPs for direct scouting.

- 2 semi-islands layout for 4 starting zones so each player either scouts or doesn't (potentially use air blockers as well due to overlords and floating buildings).

- This might be really out there and not even allowed but make a "special watchtower" in centralized location on map that reveals opponents location.

- Just embrace the RNG and work with larger maps that have some built-in defenders advantage. With so many cheese options and warp in as mechanic this might be tough. Maybe have a large ring of "no building zone" outside of mains.
OmniSkeptic
Profile Joined January 2021
Canada68 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-01 19:50:53
January 01 2025 19:50 GMT
#12
- Backdoor speed zones and/or WOPs for direct scouting.

I believe Hyper actually did have a map at one point that did something like this so you could scout by sending a probe along the outside of the map through speed zones even though the main bases were islands. Theoretically you could bypass the 4 spawn issue by allowing workers to traverse super quickly to opponent's mains
Mapmaker and M1 Terran from Canada. Most notable maps include 1st place TLMC#19 finalist "Anomaly Found", ladder map "NeoHumanity", and other maps that try to be competitive yet non-standard such as the asymmetrical Gridworm or resource-deviant Deadwind
Vision_
Profile Joined September 2018
861 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-02 07:50:49
January 02 2025 07:21 GMT
#13
Hey guys

My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 :

Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference :

Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45)
Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20)
Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20)

With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve :


- Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers)
- Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns
- Vary build orders
- More freedom for mapmakers
- Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4)

I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers.

Kinds regards,
CharactR
Profile Joined January 2020
Canada105 Posts
January 02 2025 11:39 GMT
#14
On January 02 2025 16:21 Vision_ wrote:
Hey guys

My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 :

Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference :

Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45)
Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20)
Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20)

With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve :


- Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers)
- Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns
- Vary build orders
- More freedom for mapmakers
- Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4)

I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers.

Kinds regards,

Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy.
Creator of ladder maps: Altitude LE, Undercurrent (2v2), Crimson Research Lab (2v2), Sandstorm (3v3), Lexiphanicism (4v4), Floodplain (4v4)
Vision_
Profile Joined September 2018
861 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-02 20:16:20
January 02 2025 14:49 GMT
#15
On January 02 2025 20:39 CharactR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 02 2025 16:21 Vision_ wrote:
Hey guys

My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 :

Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference :

Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45)
Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20)
Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20)

With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve :


- Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers)
- Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns
- Vary build orders
- More freedom for mapmakers
- Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4)

I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers.

Kinds regards,

Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy.


Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map)

Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on).

As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here.

I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion
Mutaller
Profile Blog Joined July 2013
United States1051 Posts
January 02 2025 22:43 GMT
#16
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating.

Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating.

How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto.

Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game.

I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game).

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality.


Say what you will about maps being "imbalanced" for having creativity. 12 pool is an annoying strat, but some of my favorite games played have been on creative or 3p maps like Catallena, King Sejong Station, and Golden Wall.

A unique map pool would bring me back from AoE2 and BW. The state of maps being clones of each other is just as concerning to me as having imbalanced maps is to you.
"To practice isn't for you to get better now in the present. Practice will never betray you and will always come back for you in the future." -Jaedong
Mizenhauer
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
United States1840 Posts
January 02 2025 23:45 GMT
#17
On January 03 2025 07:43 Mutaller wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating.

Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating.

How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto.

Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game.

I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game).

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality.


Say what you will about maps being "imbalanced" for having creativity. 12 pool is an annoying strat, but some of my favorite games played have been on creative or 3p maps like Catallena, King Sejong Station, and Golden Wall.

A unique map pool would bring me back from AoE2 and BW. The state of maps being clones of each other is just as concerning to me as having imbalanced maps is to you.


Yeah, Catellena, the map with asymmetrical creep spread so spawning in certain bases is automatically better than spawning in the other spots (refer to Rogue vs soO at Blizzcon 2017).
┗|∵|┓Second Place in LB 28, Third Place in LB 29 and Destined to Be a Kong
CharactR
Profile Joined January 2020
Canada105 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-03 01:29:02
January 03 2025 01:23 GMT
#18
On January 02 2025 23:49 Vision_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 02 2025 20:39 CharactR wrote:
On January 02 2025 16:21 Vision_ wrote:
Hey guys

My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 :

Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference :

Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45)
Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20)
Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20)

With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve :


- Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers)
- Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns
- Vary build orders
- More freedom for mapmakers
- Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4)

I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers.

Kinds regards,

Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy.


Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map)

Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on).

As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here.

I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion


"Balance is not concerning by my suggestion,... Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg)"
Whether you want to admit it or not that changes that balance of the economy
You can't mod the game in your submissions... and even if you could blizzard would not put a map that changes the balance of the economy on ladder unless they entirely just made a new update that revamped the economy for every map.

if i submitted a map like this it'd be insta dq'd. so no, it's not the place for it.
if you read the part of the post that says
"No custom data which modifies units.
Maps must meet Melee mode requirements: Triggers can't be edited, and Data needs to comply with Melee, legibility and QA requirements."

you would know that.
Creator of ladder maps: Altitude LE, Undercurrent (2v2), Crimson Research Lab (2v2), Sandstorm (3v3), Lexiphanicism (4v4), Floodplain (4v4)
sidasf
Profile Joined February 2023
79 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-03 02:07:13
January 03 2025 02:04 GMT
#19
On January 01 2025 09:42 OmniSkeptic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun.

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


Could you try not shitposting just for one time, that would be great

3+ Starting Positions have been in the rules as viable submissions for years already. Notice they haven't been picked like ever

If the last map pool didn't cause you to quit, healing shrines won't either given healing shrines are not nearly as ubiquitous as the design flaws in that one. We'd be lucky to get a single map with a shrine on it, which even means it's perfectly veto-able.


I am not shitposting and I don't appreciate you accusing me of doing so. In fact I think your insulting use of the term only weakens your argument. Which, really, it seems you don't have any kind of argument or rebuttal to my points at all, in this case it's you who is shitposting.



On January 01 2025 16:36 KillerSmile wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote:
So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"?

3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating.

Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating.

How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto.

Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game.

I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game).

If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines.


I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality.



I'm personally not a big fan of healing shrines either, but you vasty overstate their impact. Last TLMC we've had plenty of maps with healing shrines on them, they didn't get used on purpose a single time even tho to the end of the tournament Wardi set out a bounty to whoever uses one.

They are usually out on the map away from other strategically important areas. People tend to not conserve units at low HP to bring them back to base with the exception of maybe Battlecruisers and other harassing flying units to repair them at home. If you do that they can immediately serve to defend a counter attack. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere.



I appreciate your post. The fact is that healing shrines are just a very, very powerful game mechanic-much more meaningful than increasing disruptor aoe removing queen transfuse off creep. It's a very big change that changes defenders advantage (since you now get a huge artifical advantage by attacking and being out in the map). It will be problematic to the point where maps with healing shrines will have OP/abusive strats, but we can't nerf those lest they become useless on non shrine maps.

If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere.


Just look at ghost river, where the healing shrine spot was about a ten second walk to the enemy base. That map would have been horrifying with healing shrines. Just 2 base all in w/ terran or roaches, retreat, heal, attack again=game over.

The scenario you describe where you were otherwise outplaying somebody and then lose because the opponent was smart enough to get into a position where they get healed and you don't means you are the one that is being outplayed. You deserve to lose. That would actually be an intended and desired outcome for healing shrines, problem is we've never seen it.


Technically, yes. In the same way that in Smash Bros Brawl, if you dash to try to take control but end up tripping, you were outplayed and lost. Point being, it's an awful mechanic. We've had 14 years of SC2 where if you outmacro the opponent, but also outmicro them, don't fall victim to multiprong/harass/unit switch, you will win. Now all of a sudden there might be an artifical objective in the middle of the map that turns everything we know from winning into losing.

Ultimately every mapmaker, judge, pro player, and map picker must ask themselves this, lest harm the SC2 game and community: If this new mechanic creates an abusive/unfun/broken strategy that hurts ladder or competitive play, what is the solution to fixing it when blizzard says 'you don't get to patch the game for another 12 months'? Is it worth the risk introducing shrines? I do not see why is it even necessary or beneficial to put this game mechanic in 14 years into the game's life span.
Vision_
Profile Joined September 2018
861 Posts
Last Edited: 2025-01-03 12:47:03
January 03 2025 09:06 GMT
#20
On January 03 2025 10:23 CharactR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 02 2025 23:49 Vision_ wrote:
On January 02 2025 20:39 CharactR wrote:
On January 02 2025 16:21 Vision_ wrote:
Hey guys

My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 :

Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference :

Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45)
Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20)
Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20)

With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve :


- Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers)
- Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns
- Vary build orders
- More freedom for mapmakers
- Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4)

I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers.

Kinds regards,

Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy.


Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map)

Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on).

As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here.

I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion


"Balance is not concerning by my suggestion,... Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg)"
Whether you want to admit it or not that changes that balance of the economy



Ideally if you are playing a race it s because you think the race is competitive and efficient. In term of balance it means that if the game works out so every unit is worth it, and if every unit is worth it so the mining rate doesn t matter.

I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance )

As you said there s data modification and so there s no place for this kind of map but if i m talking of this here it s only because i can ask to community to think about this idea.

I agree on the fact data modification could prevent the map of being part of the contest, i m sorry if people haven t understand the goal of my post.
1 2 3 4 5 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 GSL S2 - Ro8 Group B
CranKy Ducklings115
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft807
Nina 148
ROOTCatZ 90
Ketroc 38
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 16163
Artosis 813
HiyA 197
Icarus 15
ajuk12(nOOB) 12
Shine 11
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1326
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Trikslyr85
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K842
Other Games
summit1g6202
C9.Mang01075
shahzam837
WinterStarcraft196
Maynarde140
Mew2King117
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1698
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH292
• practicex 9
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt395
Other Games
• Scarra1078
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
7h
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
WardiTV Qualifier
13h
PiGosaur Monday
21h
RSL Revival
1d 7h
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
1d 21h
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Harstem vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
[ Show More ]
SC Evo League
4 days
Circuito Brasileiro de…
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #3 - GSC
2025 GSL S2
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST Open Fall 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.