|
On February 05 2025 13:46 SC2Sole wrote:
I finally got some time to test out the submissions, and I walked away really impressed with the ideas you came up for this round. Like the gold minerals on Abacus is actually genius.
I think it's hard to fully appreciate the intricacies of the maps with just the top down perspective. There's a lot of maps this round that feel totally different in game. Thanks, but I can't take credit for the creation of mineral walls. That's already become an "alt"-standard feature being used on maps for a while (El Dorado is the only one in this pool, but last pool we had Amphion, Post Youth, Alcyone, and technically Ghost River all utilizing the feature). The tower is certainly an interest approach to balancing an additional entrance to the natural though.
There's definitely limitations to using overviews, particularly without knowing rush distances to give context to attack paths. Given that the only rush distances I don't really have at this point are from the less active, less "social", or from the most petty mapmakers I don't think many more are likely to be posted going forward so we'll have to wait for the finalists or spreadsheet for better context (Some of these guys [music,killer,potentially avex] are almost certainly deliberately just trying to fuck with me at this point by not posting them as one of the lamest quasi-boycotts of all time. A bit ironic given music was the one whinging in past contests about how I didn't equally wait on all maps when it came to rush distance).
Of my maps the one I'm most worried about being judged poorly from overview is "The Map That Needs No Name". Looks like it was poorly made by a complete novice, even though I spent by far the most time on it out of my 5 submissions because you have to balance so many things like blink/tank/lib distances, walling off depending on preferred expansion layout, etc.
|
Of my maps the one I'm most worried about being judged poorly from overview is "The Map That Needs No Name". Looks like it was poorly made by a complete novice, even though I spent by far the most time on it out of my 5 submissions
I feel that. VHS was over a year of tweaking, play-testing, and getting feedback from players. It was hilarious how easy maps came after that when you didn't have to reinvent the wheel and consider every abusable strategy. I think you first saw the map when it was three lanes (I still appreciate the kind comments from back then. Instead of shitting on it, you helped pull me into the fold and point out ways to make it better received). The map has a lot of "monkey-paw" features, which I think are perceived as faults when they're meant as intended game-play.
I played around with The Map That Needs No Name over the last couple of days. I really liked that I didn't immediately know the optimal strategy when I loaded in and that there were a lot of features to experiment with. Both this map and Guckton felt like HotS, which is a huge win in my book.
With EWC hanging in the balance and the pro-circuit uncertain, I'm sure they want to lead with predictable, guaranteed bangers. Although, I personally think the contest should have been labeled Standard (+ the addition of the three pre-approved features) rather than Free-style with a standard-twist. But, it's basically semantics at this point.
The tower is certainly an interest approach to balancing an additional entrance to the natural though.
Yeah, this is what I was referring to -- the mineral-wall + destructable tower combo to create multiple entrances. So far, I've seen it on Abacus and Killswitch. Very cool feature that allows both the defender and aggressor to take advantage of it.
|
On February 07 2025 14:05 OmniSkepticSC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There's definitely limitations to using overviews, particularly without knowing rush distances to give context to attack paths. Given that the only rush distances I don't really have at this point are from the less active, less "social", or from the most petty mapmakers I don't think many more are likely to be posted going forward so we'll have to wait for the finalists or spreadsheet for better context (Some of these guys [music,killer,potentially avex] are almost certainly deliberately just trying to fuck with me at this point by not posting them as one of the lamest quasi-boycotts of all time. A bit ironic given music was the one whinging in past contests about how I didn't equally wait on all maps when it came to rush distance).
Uhhh, what?
|
On February 11 2025 10:45 themusic246 wrote:
Uhhh, what?
You don't remember going around convincing people I was deliberately trying to hide people's maps because you were too lazy to ctrl c + ctrl v your info? I wish I could say that was shocking. Timmay in particular was pretty hyped to parrot your bullshit. A large reason I recall I put extra effort into the TLMC19 compilation post was out of spite specifically from your past dickish-ness, in a sort of bid to prove to myself I wasn't being the cunt
|
Im greatful for your consolidated map posts in TL for these map contests, they are an awesome convenience tool for the maps you do post. I've checked them out several times. I am not totally sure anyone is as passionate about the map list posts as you are. Perhaps that is the misalignment here. We are just making sc2 maps as a fun hobby, no one is out to get you. The weird divisiveness is definitely uncalled for regardless.
|
On February 11 2025 15:18 themusic246 wrote:
I'm greatful for your consolidated map posts in TL for these map contests, they are an awesome convenience tool for the maps you do post. I've checked them out several times. I am not totally sure anyone is as passionate about the map list posts as you are. Perhaps that is the misalignment here. We are just making sc2 maps as a fun hobby, no one is out to get you. The weird divisiveness is definitely uncalled for regardless.
Grateful enough to write a paragraph but not grateful enough to copy/paste the 5 integers you have already entered into TL.net when you submitted the maps
Lose the gaslighting, consider replacing it with an apology
|
On February 18 2025 03:03 OmniSkepticSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2025 15:18 themusic246 wrote:
I'm greatful for your consolidated map posts in TL for these map contests, they are an awesome convenience tool for the maps you do post. I've checked them out several times. I am not totally sure anyone is as passionate about the map list posts as you are. Perhaps that is the misalignment here. We are just making sc2 maps as a fun hobby, no one is out to get you. The weird divisiveness is definitely uncalled for regardless. Grateful enough to write a paragraph but not grateful enough to copy/paste the 5 integers you have already entered into TL.net when you submitted the maps Lose the gaslighting, consider replacing it with an apology
have you considered asking politely for them instead of making up a conspiracy where you are the victim
|
On February 18 2025 05:07 -NegativeZero- wrote:
have you considered asking politely for them instead of making up a conspiracy where you are the victim I don't see myself as a victim
The mapmakers have already been asked, I asked Patches to ask in the mapmaker's discord for me since he's still in there. Music has literally found the time to make an entirely different compilation list but still couldn't be bothered giving those few numbers
There's no logic to not providing the information, it's going to come out anyway and get added to the thread when the judging spreadsheet is released (or even the finalists). The only explanation for actively avoiding posting the info despite repeatedly returning to this thread is spite, and given I was told that Killer said in response to being asked, and I'm copy-pasting verbatim here, "when [Omni] is purposefully omitting people to pressure them into doing what he wants then he can go ahead and have an incomplete list", calling it a conspiracy theory is not being charitable
The same people were totally fine sharing the info last contest ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Again, I'm sure it's not everybody. People like Maevis or Legan I just can't imagine a world where they are deliberately withholding info. But some of these guys, it's absolutely intentional which is unfathomably petty
|
Bro chill your beans, he just made a list without the extra information, it's not like it was all given to him.
I appreciate that it's even up whether the info is there or not.
|
"Slowly steps backward toward nearest emergency exit"
|
On February 18 2025 12:27 CharactR wrote:
Bro chill your beans, he just made a list without the extra information, it's not like it was all given to him.
I appreciate that it's even up whether the info is there or not.
??? I've also been glad he made that compilation thread, saved me a lot of time in more ways than one. More options is never bad. I think you may be missing the point here
|
|
|
On February 18 2025 13:19 MrIronGolem27 wrote:
um.
so.
reeeesults wen
Hyper asking the real questions here.
|
Hey Omni, 2 of Monitor's maps have the same picture in your post.
|
So, you only created maps with 8 minerals per field and with the same pattern as usually ?
|
On February 18 2025 16:03 KillerSmile wrote:
Hey Omni, 2 of Monitor's maps have the same picture in your post.
Whoops, fixed it, thank you!
On February 19 2025 06:40 Vision_ wrote:
So, you only created maps with 8 minerals per field and with the same pattern as usually ?
I regret not submitting a map with more nonstandard mineral allocation. Perhaps there's still time. If my most standard map makes it through, maybe in the iteration stage I can modify the distribution slightly or something. Absolutely off the table for the crazier ones though
|
On February 19 2025 06:40 Vision_ wrote:
So, you only created maps with 8 minerals per field and with the same pattern as usually ?
at the end of the day we're still making starcraft maps, a game which is designed and balanced around 8m2g bases, I'm glad by now we're permitted to deviate from this, the thing is as with all things maps, when deviating you really ought to ask "why?"
|
On February 19 2025 21:03 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2025 06:40 Vision_ wrote:
So, you only created maps with 8 minerals per field and with the same pattern as usually ? at the end of the day we're still making starcraft maps, a game which is designed and balanced around 8m2g bases, I'm glad by now we're permitted to deviate from this, the thing is as with all things maps, when deviating you really ought to ask "why?"
My question is why do you still go on to create maps while it could be as much interessant to pick previous maps with old graphics and apply new textures. The game has been designed for Esport but SC2 is awful repetitive so in varying the speed of economy with the tweaks i talked previously into this thread will lead to some diversity in build orders.
"the same causes produce the same effects"
|
Bummer. I missed this. Will there be another TLMC this year?
|
On February 22 2025 23:11 CrystalWarden wrote:
Bummer. I missed this. Will there be another TLMC this year?
Apparently, this year is covered, but I don't know if it means this contest was the last or one more. Without ESL announcing anything, it is hard to say. I could see something being worked out if ESL or something similar continues. You can always join the discord. People will help you to get started anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
