|
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.
|
On February 20 2025 07:40 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2025 21:03 Meavis wrote: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"
Blame Blizzard and the pro players from 2014-2021 for being insistent on their need to have the game be a very specific way; and as a result corner the game's balance to be so delicate that any deviation from the norm will completely rip the game apart. Players do not test maps, hell some refuse to even play in online tournaments, and to a smaller scale, won't even bother to learn the proper observer extension mod that they should be used to hosting on by now. Players take the easiest, least resistant route possible; they will not practice new builds, they will let someone else come up with something and just copy them instead. I didn't spend 7 years begging for people to consider judging let alone getting people to vote for contests, watching all the more creative authors like myself, Fatam, Meavis, Enekh, etc have our less-standard work get judged out only to be told "Well why don't you just NOT make standard maps?"
The reason things are as they are, are a consequence of the decade prior, and the unwillingness of the scene to take responsibility for itself.
|
|
|
On February 20 2025 07:40 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2025 21:03 Meavis wrote: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"
heading into this TLMC I had planned a longer blogpost but scrapped it, it argued against standard and stagnating maps and as a result gameplay, and about the roles of maps and balance and the dangers of using maps as a balancing tool.
because what it creates is mindsets such as in your statement where maps are obsolete, if the game only works for 1 type of map, why have different maps at all.
if this mindset was present from the start, we would all still be playing on xel'naga caverns and shattered temple.
we've had periods where maps were rotated extremely slowly, where ohana, cloud kingdom and daybreak were staple F.E.
when maps stagnate, they get figured out, the game becomes solved, and the meta stagnates too.
nowadays we rotate maps pretty quickly, but the maps are still stagnant to a degree because of how formulaic and standardized they are.
so yes maps should change things up but we really ought to ask ourselves which changes and why, because we're still trying to make good maps here, and not randomized changes that could lead to some very un-fun maps.
in regards to minerals/bases, they are at such a fundamental level that is integral to starcraft, you would be hard pressed to make changes that don't uplift the game as a whole, every single thing you build is tied to the economy, and bases are tied to investments of a cc/hatch/nexus and workers, sure bases can vary a bit but there's only so much it can do and accomplish, and more importantly, these changes are better accomplished through balance than through maps, bases are not integral parts of a map, but they are to starcraft as a whole, .
I've tried to enter some maps in the past few contests, and historically, that take drastically different approaches to scale of economy, but they tend to get the boot pretty fast because it doesn't fit in existing meta, but that's an issue with the TLMC format and I've had plenty rants about that.
Point is that you're calling for something that is already being done, with a very ignorant perspective mind you, but like many, don't even care to look, and just scream at mapmakers.
|
On February 20 2025 07:40 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2025 21:03 Meavis wrote: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"
I tried to design a map around a modified economy in TLMC19... Anomaly Found was scored like #4 in its category and won the voting phase of the contest. It still wasn't used, so I don't have high hopes we will ever see a map with a modified economy on the ladder
|
At the end of the day, it's tournament organizers who decide the maps, and it's the map makers that create the maps. So you could imagine a world where tournament organizers and map makers get together to do a modified economy. If it becomes rly popular, we might even see it on ladder.
Personally, I'd like to see maps where the fat mineral patches have 3k minerals and the sparse ones have 1k, the kicker being that only the Mains have 8 mineral fields, the rest of the expos have only 6.
This is as many minerals as WoL, but the max saturation is less, and pretty quick they become 3 mineral bases. This would make it so you need MANY bases to keep up, but at the same time, if you are starved for bases you don't just peter out and die on the spot. Im general it would just make so every base is more contested, but at the same time the scaling is less. It's even a buff to 1 base playstyle, because you only go 6 mineral patches behind instead of the 8 and the patches that you do have last longer. The scaling should go down making it both less desirable, but also slow down how fast you get the 200 supply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
