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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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" _____________________
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
- 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
At best I honestly think this just isn't the thread for the people you want to see it to see it, and at worst it's just offtopic for the thread.
"I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance )" That is a dumb as hell argument, if every unit cost 1 mineral it would affect balance, doesn't matter if it's a building or an army unit. Sure it's an extreme example, but I hope you see the point. I'm not going to engage this further.
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).
Fair enough issues like that should be addressed. 3p maps certainly have their issues, I do believe SC2 sadly got balanced to 2p maps starting with Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom. This is when 4 player maps started to become issues, while before they were commonplace.
If we want creativity in maps maybe then as I listed above King Sejong Station and Golden Wall are the way. Experiment with natural locations, and backdoor entrances. Instead of additional spawns
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.
At best I honestly think this just isn't the thread for the people you want to see it to see it, and at worst it's just offtopic for the thread.
"I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance )" That is a dumb as hell argument, if every unit cost 1 mineral it would affect balance, doesn't matter if it's a building or an army unit. Sure it's an extreme example, but I hope you see the point. I'm not going to engage this further.
The cost tweak of base could be reduced to 1 mineral also, as long as there s some balance on other units.
For my defence, i balance the cost in increasing the cost of the upgrade which will improve the "small harvesting base" to the original base,Too bad you don't want to admit that you are falling into false reasoning
If you have friends, you can ask them what they think about this question, as long as you don't ask the question in a biased way they will answer you the same thing as me
On January 03 2025 11:04 sidasf wrote: 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.
?????????? This is an example of a shrine that would've had little to no impact on the early or midgame given the reflection symmetry layout and small rush distance.
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf 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.
We have found a way to remove the RNG scouting issue, but we need community support to get Blizzard to implement it.
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf 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.
We have found a way to remove the RNG scouting issue, but we need community support to get Blizzard to implement it.
Saw the "quick ping" demo, simple and straightforward. Funnily enough in my prior post attempting to "lead the charge" on ideas for maps with more than 2 players I had the disclaimer of this concept being the "easy way out", maybe this is just Occam's Razor in action.
Since Blizzard reduced the beginning of the game in adding 6 workers instead of 3, the game lost 36 seconds of possible scouting. As the income is faster, the cheese were more agressive which lead to some issues. While the idea to speed the base developpement is good, the idea of changing the speed of the economy initially was not appreciated by the majority of players.
Does anyone know if there is a (legal) way to lock spawn positions to a particular race? I think that could open up some variety for map styles, where a certain layout for a main and natural would be fine for Zerg but not fine for Terran or Protoss, so two spawn positions on the map could be Zerg-specific and the others could be specific to Protoss and Terran. Or, a 3-spawn map with each spawn being specific to a certain race would be an option (would need to solve for mirrors).
On January 09 2025 11:43 NinjaDuckBob wrote: Does anyone know if there is a (legal) way to lock spawn positions to a particular race?
Unfortunately there is not. This would also break mirror matchups for the first time even if we did find a way, which is a bit suspect.
So I've been thinking about this, and I think the way to do this would be to have objects/units for blocking/creating paths that have a behavior/effect that scans for the nearest town hall building, and based on that it becomes invulnerable or self-destructs.
For example, if you wanted a ramp for a main that works for Zerg but not for Protoss/Terran, you would have rocks on that ramp that scan for the town hall unit, and if it's a Hatchery then the behavior/effect causes the HP of those rocks to fall to 0. If it's a Command Center or Nexus, either they stay as destructable rocks or have a behavior/effect that makes them untargetable/immune to damage.
Basically, if you can't change the area the spawn point is in, then change the area around the spawn point. It's less flexible than race-locked starting points, but it also solves for mirrors.
On January 17 2025 03:56 Cygnus wrote: Oh nice, some 3 player maps! I like how clean the layout is for Windchill, and Sinking Monastery has interesting ideas going on.
3 player maps are like the holy grail of mapmaking. They are SUCH a pain in the ass to make because there is no reliable symmetry tool for it, you're just sort of eyeballing it and counting squares. It's terrible. I love that Charactr put so much work into these :D
Category:Rush/Standard Size: 134x136 39 s Main to Main 32 s Ramp to Ramp 29 s Natural to Natural 16 blue bases
Description:
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
Image further explaining the watchtower inside the rockwall:
134x138, Standard Main Ramp to Main Ramp Distance: 37s 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.
146x136, Standard Close Positions - Main Ramp to Main Ramp: 32s Cross Positions - Main Ramp to Main Ramp: 37s 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).
136x128, Rush Main Ramp to Main Distance: 33s 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.
126x142, Standard Main Ramp to Main Ramp Distance: 36s 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.
140x120, Rush Main Ramp to Main Ramp Distance: 32s 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.
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.
NOTE: 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.
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.
Outsider features a harassment path wrapping behind both the triangle and line 3rd bases. Destroying a key rock tower on the side reduces mobility on this path. In exchange, the natural choke is small and easy to defend.
I was expecting some more maps that use worker paths, zerg rocks or destroying minerals, but we got some very refined standard maps in the mix. Judges are gonna have it tough this time too. Glhf to all the mapmakers.
On January 29 2025 14:15 Cygnus wrote: So many great maps dropping! Cool seeing the "crop" concept on Bear's Den, really distinguishes it in the lineup.
I love maps with strange dimensions! I'm a tad worried that the triangular fourth is doing this map a disservice but it's hard to tell
Some very interesting submissions in general! Can't wait to look closer at some I *suspect* are standouts except can't actually reasonably confirm without rush distance (not everybody has been uploading the rush distances which is far more relevant to reading maps these days imo than the dimensions smfh)
Without full info though, I gotta say one of the more "emergent" designs that doesn't depend on any new mechanics, "holdover freshness" due to outdated meta, or other trickery for me would be music's Storm Surge. The balance is likely very chaotic to determine from overview with this sort of design but also it's so cool. Being able to leapfrog up the map using those small ramps with tanks sounds so interesting. Love it (as well as the aesthetics which he always nails)
On January 29 2025 20:17 volumin wrote: Tokamak Arctic Fall Killswitch Old Republic Rusty Anchor
Tokamak looks too much like Alcyone imo, during iteration it should have one of its trims changed colour imo (maybe replace one of them with purple or red)?
Here's my top 16 predictions in no particular order based on the maps that we know of.
1. Continuumby Monitor 2. Incorporealby Monitor 3. Persephoneby Patches 4. Talismanby Patches 5. Storm Surgeby Music 6. Pylonby Music 7. Antimatterby Music 8. Torchesby Killersmile 9. Rusty Anchorby Volumin 10. Tokamokby Volumin 11.Botanicalby Avex 12. Diffusionby Avex 13. Ruskalettoby Legan 14. Eldeyjaby Legan and the last two are probably some ego-brained ass picks especially considering I haven't had a finalist since tlmc 17 but... 15. Sandwyrmby me 16. Flowering Nightby me
gl to everyone who entered, and I hope to see some good tlmc tournament games on some fresh maps.
Also I wish I could put 3/4 player maps into my prediction list, but they're usually not favourable among the judges which is enough to tank their score, but I'll give Motherboardby Monitor an honourable mention because I think it's a cool 4 player map.
I'm ngl, I did not have Xel'naga Caverns remake on my TLMC bingo card.
Haha, thanks. You're actually one of my biggest influences. I really liked your TLMC19 maps. Thanks for pushing boundaries and trying new things.
Oh, thank you. I'm ngl I would never have expected that I would influence somebody that way from my maps. Though to be honest, I'm not sure going as out there as my TLMC 19 maps is the way to go. In hindsight I feel I sort of pushed concepts to too much of an extreme or had too much going on at once, I've never really been good at executing on freestyle concepts in a coherent way without taking things too far. Which is why this time around Sandwyrm is just kind of a much more standard version of Dragon Teeth, though maybe to too much of a degree. They might be fun crazy maps, but will probably never do well in a tlmc. My advice would be that unless your map is really well executed, 1 lighter twist that sets your map apart is better than one or many larger ones.
I would also say to master making boring standard maps before you put the twist on them, but that's totally up to you. Just as long as they're slightly more modern maps that figured out 3 building walls as naturals, but if you're simply making maps that you think would be fun with your friends, then get as carried away as you want. Really depends on what you're goals are. Either way, happy mapmaking.
On February 02 2025 06:35 CharactR wrote: Though to be honest, I'm not sure going as out there as my TLMC 19 maps is the way to go. In hindsight I feel I sort of pushed concepts to too much of an extreme or had too much going on at once, I've never really been good at executing on freestyle concepts in a coherent way without taking things too far.
Relatable. I think in a lot of my designs both in past contests and this one I’m trying to bend the rules past what anybody is capable of predicting the outcome for so even if I pass the unlikely hurdle of not breaking the game it’s still a waste of my own time
If I end up submitting to the next contest, I will definitely be trying to hit a more even distribution… hopefully attempting some multi-spawn maps to try and placate the ever-present ADHD itch to throw new stimulus at the wall
Torches by KillerSmile Wrath by KillerSmile Flowering Night by CharactR Incorporeal by monitor Canopy by monitor Persephone by me (cope) Talisman by me (double cope) Arbiter by Music Pylon by Music Diffusion by Avex Cenotaph by Avex Nightvision by MayOnFire Amethyst Colony by Legan Killer's Mile by KillerSmile Rusty Anchor by volumin Killswitch by volumin
I think in a lot of my designs both in past contests and this one I’m trying to bend the rules past what anybody is capable of predicting the outcome
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. It's so simple and such an efficient use of space. I could easily see that becoming a standard feature in future maps.
Guckton is what I thought TLMC19 was going to be; and, Abacus, in its concepts, is what I was expecting for TLMC20. 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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lPTUNzV.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WsBOHIO.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Wiy5mF1.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/X9o5EZ0.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VFZOjLw.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/83bxmrz.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/T7QtaJE.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/o7CaLNc.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OncutKT.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nHM9p8U.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AsYAiCa.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uJGOqVw.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/r4XNU1P.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/d1Knnbk.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EsHho2P.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FanmamI.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PYbD0SD.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jKcJCPt.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FUyYDY5.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kfLROrb.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/418rLAL.jpegg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NcyYxZM.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KU26Tw5.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GMAsxJ1.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/85clktT.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mcjdjMi.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WFgXnuX.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rah1iIC.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/077Mm2Y.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BqjUGri.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0ZSX2t4.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aahmE0S.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9HxTFPc.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y1T3fTv.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TsmwAA2.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SlPqgeo.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zfp6sB6.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jpSRHH8.jpegg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KEHAKyS.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GF8KIfn.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RZSrPaD.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RLu972i.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TQ6GYz0.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B80lDeH.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oMhEVcX.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/prb3bCp.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hfUJX60.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JlidUVX.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/B5dFjTS.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nHJQBzJ.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CstJxp7.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/d15b15438b95c863496d5654f1f5355f.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/b10fe81286b526ec589df545a1d89842.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/821ce934fc3c538a491e4bab37bb8d51.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/75374b6c762acc3be39583b744e1724b.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tKvJr48.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bJ08JdV.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/XXOzKlk.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Y1HKUrU.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3OgRtOl.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zC63tQC.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kTNGUIh.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QyGJ6JV.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wNGAJUt.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BLsfDvv.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FrruG8f.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2wHBYta.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bi5amkW.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EPkIR1h.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TvAxqo7.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yWJWNqV.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SS20IwX.pngg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/d5T1Qxj.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WA7BV1F.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/Ld3HjrRd/rusty-anchor.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/jPgm8JN0/arctic-fall-4.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/bMNnrjVX/Killswitch.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/SD5Q3Ysc/old-republic.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/WNq1vvrt/tokamak.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jyMyrS5.jpegg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZqVi75C.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nVVWBO8.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Rt49rzj.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WqASBna.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TX9HT9f.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QDFPsYn.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uOzCJ1C.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2WRfjbI.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iR20ts7.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/C76aGLR.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CbhBIdT.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/f2SfccU.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/VneYeS4.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/tfs3VgR.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/x7MJ7yJ.png)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/5DCSuGt.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/418rLAL.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/otAfDpj.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uQ6biGw.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vT2i2aY.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HVgR967.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gKXNumm.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rM40AeR.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Z5BkUH7.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6GLAMqM.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3UrM9tC.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iXkhG6y.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sYS9ezA.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/btSVeLM.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lDvVMwx.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SS20IwX.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jyMyrS5.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eXnEVCg.png)
