The MotM February competition is finished, and the judges have come to a decision. Hurrah- we're only a month late! This months entries were almost all fantastic (see what I did there?) and the judges had quite a difficult time deciding the Top 5. Through many test games, long discussions, and painful arguments, we have reached a verdict. NOT GUILTY! Err, wait...
Announcing the top 5 maps for February! (If you missed our special awards, check out the announcement here)
Odin... sexy map and name, eh? This masterpiece "features some features" that we haven't seen before in many competitive maps. Namely, a third that is almost inaccessible by ground but is also defended by air from the main. This expansion can really promote some fast third expansions- but careful, it opens you up your natural to counter attacks and spreads your army thin.
Clever position balance and a very dynamic natural/third area. Of the games we have seen and based on the map architecture, every area of the map provides unique engagement areas with unusual highground placement. Be careful where you engage- a wrong move could stick you in a tiny choke or a wide open plain.
Awesome aesthetics, solid gameplay, and an interesting concept are all on TPW The Grid. Three pathways through the center limit players options for harassment and engaging, similar to Metalopolis' center paths. Areas like outside the natural and on the central highground can be secured for map control.
Wow! I still don't think I can even understand how this symmetry works, but it does . There are so many different options for how players will play this map, it is truly wonderful. To quote Plexa,
This is an exceptional map once you take the time to sit down and analyse it. It isn't obvious why this map is so great upon first inspection, but as you keep looking at it you get more and more amazed. - Plexa
TPW Titanis is our most controversial top 5 pick. While it is a fairly standard layout that we have seen in the past, its proportions, aesthetics, and gameplay are very impressing. To quote Plexa, the almighty wise one, once more,
Really good map. It's Metropolis on steroids and is a way better map in my opinion. - Plexa
MotM Winter '12 will be concluded with the cast of a tournament played on these maps. Casted by the ESL crew very soon! Further details regarding the exact date will be released shortly. After this season is concluded, information on the next season will be given out. Thanks to everybody for continuing to support MotM!
Holy shit Rusty Cage looks awesome, would love to play on it. I also think it would be interesting to play on Sidewinder; it's such a large map though so I'm not sure how well I'll be able to play on it as Terran.
There are not enough Protoss in the jury. Sorry but I'm not convinced by the argument that having an "almost inaccessible" third expansion is a good thing. PvZ on Rusty Cage will be a probe slaughter. And Odin has the same faults as Arid Plateau the Blizzard map that's only stayed for 1 season in the ladder.
But this week when I read Plexa and Monitor saying you weren't far behind if you lost your main to a cannon rush it kind of opened my eyes and clearly our opinions diverge.
On March 14 2012 10:06 chuky500 wrote: There are not enough Protoss in the jury. PvZ on Rusty Cage will be a probe slaughter. Sorry but I'm not convinced by the argument that having an "almost inaccessible" third expansion is a good thing. And Odin has the same faults as Arid Plateau the Blizzard map that's only stayed for 1 season in the ladder.
But this week when I read Plexa and Monitor saying you weren't far behind if you lost your main to a cannon rush it kind of opened my eyes and clearly our opinions diverge.
Luckily balance is only one of the many things we look at when judging. Any map can be balanced through a series of updates. And I mean any map- it's just a question of how drastic something needs to be changed. What we're looking for is new concepts, good proportions, well thought-out layout, and uniqueness to the gameplay and expansion layout. However I do agree that Rusty Cage's third expansion is a little bit too far from the natural. It isn't game breaking in my opinion though- no other maps would be better in its place anyway.
What do you mean by "the same faults as Arid Plateau"? Maybe you meant that the natural can't be walled off at one choke? Actually that was not the only problem on Arid- it had a wide open middle, difficult third, and gold expos. Anyhow, the natural on Odin can still be forge FE'd because of the ramp/nexus position, so the natural isn't a big issue.
Taking something out of context as a cheap shot trying to make us look stupid is not the coolest thing you could have done to say we disagree... but yes, I still believe that on Daybreak, you can expand when being cannon rushed and come back into the game. I have seen many players do it including Sase.
On March 14 2012 10:06 chuky500 wrote: There are not enough Protoss in the jury. Sorry but I'm not convinced by the argument that having an "almost inaccessible" third expansion is a good thing. PvZ on Rusty Cage will be a probe slaughter. And Odin has the same faults as Arid Plateau the Blizzard map that's only stayed for 1 season in the ladder.
But this week when I read Plexa and Monitor saying you weren't far behind if you lost your main to a cannon rush it kind of opened my eyes and clearly our opinions diverge.
You do realise I am a masters protoss player right? If you consider any two positions on rusty protoss has a possible third. The map is sufficiently choked and the paths sufficiently long for a protoss to be able to defend a third from Zerg. What if they go mutalisk? Well that is a problem on any map, but with 4 possible third locations a good position can be found.
Congrats guys. About time these results come around! Give me feedback on my entries! PM me, stat!
I'll probably type out my thoughts about these 5 maps a little later tonight when I get some extra free time but until then, congrats again to the winners. :D
Great choices! I'm excited to try The Grid and Odin in particular.
As a followup: I am not disagreeing with the judging, looking at all the submissions going into it, it was obvious just how strong the competition for this series was. I do have a couple questions though.
1) Will any of the judges be taking time, as they did for last month's (January 2012) competition, to write to submitters about the critiques of their maps if a mapper asks for those?
and
2) I'll start with my observation, and that is that all the maps chosen were created by mappers that are on mapping teams. I know a similar case could have been made for last month as well. I do not dispute the quality of these maps, as they are all very good. But I would like to ask would the MotM panel would consider a non-affiliated "bracket" for us mappers who are not on teams or do not have access to teams?
The reason I ask is because I personally feel like teams have a unique characteristic of easy access to persons for critiques and test games, which puts non-team affiliated mappers at a distinct and almost automatic disadvantage. I know that this may or may not be possible, but I think some discussion on this particular matter may be warranted. Furthermore I think the community of mappers is increasing as of late, and doing this will hopefully motivate non-affiliated mappers to continue without being discouraged by not placing in one of these competitions.
I'm looking forward to see more TPW maps in competitions. I know the ESV one pretty well now and I can name them just from the layout (very handy when you are live-updating the LP) but the TPW ... it's still hard.
Just have a look at the map of last year : MotM 2. None of these would make the cut right now and it shows the awesome progression achieved by the map making community on TL. Now if we could really have regular MotM tournament ^^
Also I kind of agree with Sigma on point 2. Even just a quick top 1, 2, or 3 list of non-team maps (could vary by month, basically like an "honorable mention" for non-team maps) would help get a mappers name out there. Of course the top 5 is still the main competition, but might be fun to try.
Thanks for all the hard work you guys put into this! It looks great.
Great choices! I'm excited to try The Grid and Odin in particular.
As a followup: I am not disagreeing with the judging, looking at all the submissions going into it, it was obvious just how strong the competition for this series was. I do have a couple questions though.
1) Will any of the judges be taking time, as they did for last month's (January 2012) competition, to write to submitters about the critiques of their maps if a mapper asks for those?
and
2) I'll start with my observation, and that is that all the maps chosen were created by mappers that are on mapping teams. I know a similar case could have been made for last month as well. I do not dispute the quality of these maps, as they are all very good. But I would like to ask would the MotM panel would consider a non-affiliated "bracket" for us mappers who are not on teams or do not have access to teams?
The reason I ask is because I personally feel like teams have a unique characteristic of easy access to persons for critiques and test games, which puts non-team affiliated mappers at a distinct and almost automatic disadvantage. I know that this may or may not be possible, but I think some discussion on this particular matter may be warranted. Furthermore I think the community of mappers is increasing as of late, and doing this will hopefully motivate non-affiliated mappers to continue without being discouraged by not placing in one of these competitions.
I think I'd like to second everything said above. The second notion, of a non-team selection, seems like an interesting one, and would be cool to see alongside the main winners. Such a thing would give a bit of insight into what our up-and-coming mappers are coming up with. Also, if somebody(like me) put a lot of detail into a map that turns out good, but doesn't stand out like a team map, it's a bit discouraging to have it fall flat. Something like this would give those more successful "independent" mappers a bit of a morale boost - something I will straight up say is really helpful. I know there are quite a few good mappers out there who aren't quite on a team yet, almost like players who can't quite break into the GM league.
Also, some insightful feedback into our entries - what you as the judges thought, and why they didn't make the cut - would be very much appreciated. Hopefully this is something for which time can be made, for reflection, and for advice.
Arid Plateau's problem was that it was too hard to defend your natural because of the backdoor and the line of sight blockers. Players never took the 3rd expansion because games never went this far, let alone gold bases.
Talking about a cheap shot Monitor I'll just remind you that I recieved the Rick Astley award in last month's contest, that wasn't so cool either.
About Rusty Cage I can't say I was convinced by arguments like "as you keep looking at it you get more and more amazed". I stared at the map and all I saw was that on close position your path to the opponent is a straight line. And the layout of the 3rd when on close spawns is too different to be fair. You may like choked map because it fits your style but it limits the variety of gameplays you'll have on the map. In PvP I don't see players going another tech than colossus because it's so easy retreat them with all those cliffs.In PvZ you can place forcefields early in the game but what will you do in the late game against brood lords ?
Like SigmaFiE I think what would help the community would be a tournament where mappers could get feedback and try new things. The same people and teams win every month and since Motm is a very confidential tournament I think it should aim at helping the community first, rather than promoting ESV and TPW maps.
On March 14 2012 11:55 chuky500 wrote: Arid Plateau's problem was that it was too hard to defend your natural because of the backdoor and the line of sight blockers. Players never took the 3rd expansion because games never went this far, let alone gold bases.
Talking about a cheap shot Monitor I'll just remind you that I recieved the Rick Astley award in last month's contest, that wasn't so cool either.
About Rusty Cage I can't say I was convinced by arguments like "as you keep looking at it you get more and more amazed". I stared at the map and all I saw was that on close position your path to the opponent is a straight line. And the layout of the 3rd when on close spawns is too different to be fair. You may like choked map because it fits your style but it limits the variety of gameplays you'll have on the map. In PvP I don't see players going another tech than colossus because it's so easy retreat them with all those cliffs.In PvZ you can place forcefields early in the game but what will you do in the late game against brood lords ?
Like SigmaFiE I think what would help the community would be a tournament where mappers could get feedback and try new things. The same people and teams win every month and since Motm is a very confidential tournament I think it should aim at helping the community first, rather than promoting ESV and TPW maps.
Sorry about the Rick Atsley award, that wasn't my doing (nor did I know about it until after it was posted)
About a bracket for maps made by independent mapmakers, I love that idea! I'll talk to the others about it, because I think it could be really beneficial. Thanks for the suggestion.
On March 14 2012 12:16 monitor wrote: About a bracket for maps made by independent mapmakers, I love that idea! I'll talk to the others about it, because I think it could be really beneficial. Thanks for the suggestion.
I am glad the concept is well received. Thank you for your graciousness.
Since I just love throwing my feedback out on maps that win the MoTM tournaments here are my thoughts about the maps and why I like or dislike them. Please don't hate me for posting my thoughts either. I only say what I say because I love this mapping community. :D
Odin: I like this map and I love the way the natural is setup, with the "hidden" back-alley that will allow some run-bys. Also I think the 3rd is very creative. I think the paragraph you say about it is kind of false though. You say the "safer" third opens up your natural to counter attacks and spreads your army thin is a lie. It's much safer to expand there and as long as you wall off the "hidden" back-alley, you can park your main army right outside your natural which is about a 2 second walk to the ramp at that third. If anything, expanding to the north for your 3rd is much worse for terran & protoss and would spread your army out much thinner then expanding forward.I worry about terrans getting a pfort on the half base. Take a look at daybreak and when Terran are able to get a pfort on the half base they can basically take control of the map. Daybreak also has easier ways to maneuver around the 1/2 base. This map, if a terran gets a pfort up with a couple tanks next to it, good luck ever breaking it with a ground army.
Overall though, It's a good choice for a winning map. It'll play out in a unique way and it'll be interesting to watch.
Sidewinder: At first glance through out this map I didn't like it at all. I thought the setup was too gimmicky & that there was too much positional imbalances. Yet after looking over it more and more I'm starting to like it that much better. Main & Natural are perfectly setup, then you have your option of a 3rd. I think a really neat feature is the choke right out from your natural that appears to take about 2 3x3 buildings to wall off. You could easily wall off there and take the 3rd, bringing your army to the high ground to easily defend your third, but then be vulnerable to air harass.
My biggest concern is the amount of chokes. (Although I have yet to play on the map so it could just be the overview playing tricks on me) but it feels that everywhere on the map is super choked off that a 200 supply terran or protoss army will just absolutely crush anything zerg related unless they can get Brood lords out or can mass mutas up. It seems that you just can't be "caught out of place" on this map because there is always corners or cliffs to back yourself into.
Also it's worrisome about how close by air you'll be if you spawn in close positions and if they take the high ground third.
Cross positions on this map will be godlike. Close positions, while still good, might be a little boring/imbalanced depending on which race spawns where.
The Grid: Not much to say about this map besides I love it. The Main, Nat, 3rd & 4th has a similar layout to my most recent map which makes for very interesting game play. Although I do feel that the bases in the corners could be a little difficult to hold since the areas in-front of it are so wide open. Although, this can be a good thing because by the time you are taking those bases it's going to be base #5 or 6 anyway. I wish I could go more in depth to this map but I think that it is by far the best map out of the bunch and with that, there just isn't much to critique about it.
Definitely deserves the #1 spot for the month.
Rusty Cage: "Hey Johanaz, are you going to submit a map for MoTM?" "Yes I am! Although I'm worried because I don't think it's that good." "No worries, we won't even look at it but still give you a winning spot!"
It seems that Johanaz can submit a map and it wins even though, in my opinion, the gameplay isn't going to be that great. But it doesn't matter because:
A) It's Johanaz B) It's Pretty and C) It's Johanaz
Did I also mention that it's pretty?
Let me start off by saying the 4 bases in the middle are almost never going to get used. They are too close to your opponent. These are meant to be your 4th base but you're much better off taking the natural of another base so then you get a "free" 5th in the other main. The only way they will ever get used is once again by a terran that can get a pfort up and a couple of tanks and that's only because of how choked off it is. Protoss are never going to get off 2 base on this map, terran will have a tough time as well. (against zerg that is).
I do like the middle and the watchtower placement. I do like the main & natural setups. I think Close & Cross positions will definitely say who wins. Close positions the zerg loses, cross positions the zerg wins. Natural to natural in close positions looks like what, steppes of war rush distance, yet cross positions the rush distance seems long enough that most 2 base pressure will be easily thwarted, yet as I've said, 3rds are tough to take, which only favors the zerg that much more.
Titanis: I really question the judges on the reasons why they picked this map. I'm wondering if they are trolling us or something. They spend well over a month playing over maps and the 5th winning map is Metropolis Clone 2.0. The 4 middle bases are useless and would only be used by Terran, yet Terran are still better off taking their 5 bases along the edges of the map. Only reason I could see a forward third being taken is if the Terran is going to all-in on 3 base and has no plan for expanding again. Protoss will never take it and Zerg don't want to be expanding towards their opponent so once again they'll be forced to take those bases as their 6th or 7th.
The natural is less secure then Metropolis but the 3rd is easier to defend since it's on high ground. The middle is so wide open that we can expect to see many base trades on this map if both armies push out at the same time. Especially since you can move thru the middle without being in range of the watchtowers. Think of all the bigger maps where watchtowers can see almost everything in the middle and look at all the base trades we still see because both armies are pushed across the map.
I just completely don't understand the reason for picking up Metropolis 2.0. Aren't we already seeing enough of that map? And yes, this map isn't going to play out any different. I'd like to know why Plexa feels this is Metropolis on steroids because Honestly I just feel it's a sub-par version of it. No hard feelings toward Lefix at all because he can make amazing maps (Odyssey, Vulture) but because Metropolis is already popular, why do we need a clone of it?
Again, it's just feedback. So take it as you will. I just like to throw out my opinions for the TL community to read! Congratulations again to the 5 winners & I'll definitely be looking forward to the casted tournaments. (Although, once again Monitor says that'll be announced soon...so I assume that means it'll be casted in about 3 months....) <3
Rofl <3 Archy. High five to my TPW bros, I'm really excited because I think all of these maps will have some really interesting games.
As far as Sidewinder, grebliv in my opinion might be my favorite mapper ever, but while at first I had difficulty figuring out why sidewinder was any good, I think Grebliv has found a very fine thread on which to balance the map on and succeeded. Visually I want more, but I think the gameplay will shine.
On March 14 2012 12:59 SidianTheBard wrote: Sidewinder: At first glance through out this map I didn't like it at all. I thought the setup was too gimmicky & that there was too much positional imbalances. Yet after looking over it more and more I'm starting to like it that much better. Main & Natural are perfectly setup, then you have your option of a 3rd. I think a really neat feature is the choke right out from your natural that appears to take about 2 3x3 buildings to wall off. You could easily wall off there and take the 3rd, bringing your army to the high ground to easily defend your third, but then be vulnerable to air harass.
My biggest concern is the amount of chokes. (Although I have yet to play on the map so it could just be the overview playing tricks on me) but it feels that everywhere on the map is super choked off that a 200 supply terran or protoss army will just absolutely crush anything zerg related unless they can get Brood lords out or can mass mutas up. It seems that you just can't be "caught out of place" on this map because there is always corners or cliffs to back yourself into.
Also it's worrisome about how close by air you'll be if you spawn in close positions and if they take the high ground third.
Cross positions on this map will be godlike. Close positions, while still good, might be a little boring/imbalanced depending on which race spawns where.
The map actually feels really nice to play on. Maybe some chokes near the natural need to be widened, but overall it felt really good to play.
Rusty Cage: "Hey Johanaz, are you going to submit a map for MoTM?" "Yes I am! Although I'm worried because I don't think it's that good." "No worries, we won't even look at it but still give you a winning spot!"
It seems that Johanaz can submit a map and it wins even though, in my opinion, the gameplay isn't going to be that great. But it doesn't matter because:
A) It's Johanaz B) It's Pretty and C) It's Johanaz
Did I also mention that it's pretty?
Let me start off by saying the 4 bases in the middle are almost never going to get used. They are too close to your opponent. These are meant to be your 4th base but you're much better off taking the natural of another base so then you get a "free" 5th in the other main. The only way they will ever get used is once again by a terran that can get a pfort up and a couple of tanks and that's only because of how choked off it is. Protoss are never going to get off 2 base on this map, terran will have a tough time as well. (against zerg that is).
I do like the middle and the watchtower placement. I do like the main & natural setups. I think Close & Cross positions will definitely say who wins. Close positions the zerg loses, cross positions the zerg wins. Natural to natural in close positions looks like what, steppes of war rush distance, yet cross positions the rush distance seems long enough that most 2 base pressure will be easily thwarted, yet as I've said, 3rds are tough to take, which only favors the zerg that much more.
Well this certainly get in because of the aesthetics Doing 4p maps isn't always easy for a lot of the reasons you cite but I think this map has a good balance. I don't agree that the forward bases won't get taken - I can see Terrans taking them a lot as it allows for more aggressive options (particularly vs z/p). Protoss may decide to take that base vs Muta, as it is easier to blink back to your base to defend. And while the thirds can seem like a long way away, the map is designed in such a way that the attacker has to travel a long way before being able to attack, reducing the hinderedence of the base being further away than on other maps.
Titanis: I really question the judges on the reasons why they picked this map. I'm wondering if they are trolling us or something. They spend well over a month playing over maps and the 5th winning map is Metropolis Clone 2.0. The 4 middle bases are useless and would only be used by Terran, yet Terran are still better off taking their 5 bases along the edges of the map. Only reason I could see a forward third being taken is if the Terran is going to all-in on 3 base and has no plan for expanding again. Protoss will never take it and Zerg don't want to be expanding towards their opponent so once again they'll be forced to take those bases as their 6th or 7th.
The natural is less secure then Metropolis but the 3rd is easier to defend since it's on high ground. The middle is so wide open that we can expect to see many base trades on this map if both armies push out at the same time. Especially since you can move thru the middle without being in range of the watchtowers. Think of all the bigger maps where watchtowers can see almost everything in the middle and look at all the base trades we still see because both armies are pushed across the map.
I just completely don't understand the reason for picking up Metropolis 2.0. Aren't we already seeing enough of that map? And yes, this map isn't going to play out any different. I'd like to know why Plexa feels this is Metropolis on steroids because Honestly I just feel it's a sub-par version of it. No hard feelings toward Lefix at all because he can make amazing maps (Odyssey, Vulture) but because Metropolis is already popular, why do we need a clone of it?
Well let's clear some things up. I think Metropolis is a boring map and I think this is a much better rendition of the map as it allows for more aggression and more expansion options. Moreover, it had been developed before Metropolis was released so it really was a matter of timing between the two maps to see which was the 'clone'.
The only negative thing I can say about Rusty Cage is that it is confusing as shit. I lost a lot of infestors due to me messing up the pathing on the map. ><
That said its plays incredibly interestingly, and I really want to see some competetive matches on it.
I do know that Titanis was developed well before Metropolis was. But it still doesn't change the fact that Metropolis became popular and is now taking off and every tournament is picking it up, even Blizzard. It just feels to me that the two maps are not only almost identical but they will play out the same exact way the majority of the time, minus the couple of times a terran will expand to a forward expansion.
I think Metropolis is an extremely boring map to watch as well as play on. So it's really hard to be excited about a map that is basically the same.
It's also kind of a bummer for other mappers because iirc these 10 maps get a chance at being in the IEM map pool and honestly, if IEM has Metropolis, they will not pick up Titanis. Same thing that happened last month with Cloud Kingdom.
From a Protoss prospective I really have to ask why are all of these maps so inaccessible for FFE openings against zergs? If these were ever used in pro play this could pose a huge problem considering the current meta-game of PvZ is almost completely reliant on FFE.
IMO the natural chokes should require 4 buildings to completely block and thats at max, I haven't tested them each out specifically but most of the chokes seem absurdly wide.
On a side note I think Titanis is probably the best out of these maps and even better then Metropolis, it has my vote.
Oh wow. I really, really like the look of Odin upon first glance. Reminds me of scrap station in a good way. Because its fresh and not your standard boring map layout. Can't say how it would check out balance-wise, but if I were to judge solely by how interesting a map looked, I would choose Odin.
On March 14 2012 15:32 Astro-Penguin wrote: From a Protoss prospective I really have to ask why are all of these maps so inaccessible for FFE openings against zergs? If these were ever used in pro play this could pose a huge problem considering the current meta-game of PvZ is almost completely reliant on FFE.
IMO the natural chokes should require 4 buildings to completely block and thats at max, I haven't tested them each out specifically but most of the chokes seem absurdly wide.
On a side note I think Titanis is probably the best out of these maps and even better then Metropolis, it has my vote.
I think you're probably somewhat overestimating the choke sizes, Here is sidewinder for comparision:
On March 14 2012 11:19 SigmaFiE wrote: Great choices! I'm excited to try The Grid and Odin in particular.
As a followup: I am not disagreeing with the judging, looking at all the submissions going into it, it was obvious just how strong the competition for this series was. I do have a couple questions though.
1) Will any of the judges be taking time, as they did for last month's (January 2012) competition, to write to submitters about the critiques of their maps if a mapper asks for those?
and
2) I'll start with my observation, and that is that all the maps chosen were created by mappers that are on mapping teams. I know a similar case could have been made for last month as well. I do not dispute the quality of these maps, as they are all very good. But I would like to ask would the MotM panel would consider a non-affiliated "bracket" for us mappers who are not on teams or do not have access to teams?
I'd like to support both points.
Especially the teamless bracket. How do you get on a team ? You make good maps and show them off in contests. How do you make better maps ? You get helped by a team. See the problem ? It's an advantage it isn't easy to negate.
So happy! Thanks and congratz to the other finalists.
As for judges being biased towards me, I can only say that I have submitted maps for MotM every single time (like 12 maps total), and I have had master players test all my maps before submitting.
Gas Chamber Zhakul Strife Autumn Hills Crimsonite Vanadium Rock Bottom Rusty Cage (2P version) Mud Rock RE
Each map represents 40+ hours of work. So the list translates into 2 months of full time. I like to think that I learned something from all that work.
As for you non-team mappers, make your own damn team, that´s what we did. During the first year of SC2 map making there was only one team, iCCup (now ESV), and then we founded TPW of what we thought were the best non-team map makers at the time. Maybe now is the time for you guys to do the same. Pm each other, make a Skype channel, make a website, work harder, help each other. - sounds like a lot of time and effort? sure, but it´s definitely worth it.
There were quite a few teamless maps that were close to making the cut - the difference between those and these ones were that there were some fundamental flaws in the map, despite being conceptually very interesting. Having the feedback of other mappers (like johanaz suggests) is really invaluable in refining concepts to tournament ready maps.
I'm a bit reserved about Odin PvT (incredibly open drop areas) and Rusty Cage PvZ (third is pretty far away). Regardless all maps seem pretty good with advantages/disadvantages. I like it.
Great maps, congratulations to the TPW team for having four maps in the top 5!
Could someone from the judging panel tell me whether my map [M] (2) Sludge Pit did well or not and what i have to improve on it and my future maps? Would really appreciate it.
On March 14 2012 15:32 Astro-Penguin wrote: From a Protoss prospective I really have to ask why are all of these maps so inaccessible for FFE openings against zergs? If these were ever used in pro play this could pose a huge problem considering the current meta-game of PvZ is almost completely reliant on FFE.
IMO the natural chokes should require 4 buildings to completely block and thats at max, I haven't tested them each out specifically but most of the chokes seem absurdly wide.
On a side note I think Titanis is probably the best out of these maps and even better then Metropolis, it has my vote.
FFE works on Odin like so:
The long rush distance gives you enough time to get the expansion set up, but it is still partially vulnerable to attack, so you can't just assume its free like on some maps.
On March 14 2012 18:04 Johanaz wrote: Each map represents 40+ hours of work. So the list translates into 2 months of full time. I like to think that I learned something from all that work.
As for you non-team mappers, make your own damn team, that´s what we did. During the first year of SC2 map making there was only one team, iCCup (now ESV), and then we founded TPW of what we thought were the best non-team map makers at the time. Maybe now is the time for you guys to do the same. Pm each other, make a Skype channel, make a website, work harder, help each other. - sounds like a lot of time and effort? sure, but it´s definitely worth it.
[/spoiler]
My point is not to degrade the amount of time and effort that you and your fellow practitioners put into the affair Johanaz. I think its wonderful that you and your compatriots have decided to team up. As for the creation of a new team, I think it is a valid point. But I do not think that it addresses the root problem that I see, and that is unaffiliated mappers not gaining attention due to the inherent disadvantage of not being on a team. By forming a new team, for those new members it may solve the problem depending on their ability to co-ordinate and progress together. But it does not solve the problem for the rest of the non-affiliated mapping community. The problem remains. Hence why I think a non-affiliated bracket (without prizes: leave those for the full competition where everyone can enter and only the truly best win -- this would just be like an honorable mentions type deal) would definitely help.
I can't speak for ESV, but in my experiences with TPW/MCL/LOS (and I'm not speaking on behalf of all of TPW, this is just what I've seen) we always keep an eye out for good mappers that show a lot of promise. In one case we have pursued someone only to be rejected (they didn't want to join a team). I think at the moment TPW might feel a bit big, as evidenced by this month's tournament we are producing a lot of quality maps and we don't necessarily feel like we need more minds for the think tank.
I think without a doubt there are enough unteamed mapmakers to start a new team. My suggestion: someone who is a good organizer should set up a Skype channel and a team dropbox account and get to work picking people up.
Names like MisfortuneS_Ghost, spinnaker, and ArcticRaven come to mind as standout mappers who are not teamed at the moment.
Not sure why you would say that without actually knowing how many protoss are on the jury, lol.
1) Will any of the judges be taking time, as they did for last month's (January 2012) competition, to write to submitters about the critiques of their maps if a mapper asks for those?
Is Barrin (or somebody else) going to give brief feedback on every map like he did last month?
I do not really plan on giving feedback for every map, as at this point I feel that would be an incredibly inefficient way of improving. Seriously, every last mapmaker (including myself) needs to play and/or watch A LOT more starcraft. And when you do make a map, get more feedback before you put too much effort into aesthetics that you wont want to undo. If someone platinum+ is really really having a hard time improving then PM me with latest map(s) and I'll give what feedback I have.
But I would like to ask would the MotM panel would consider a non-affiliated "bracket" for us mappers who are not on teams or do not have access to teams?
Well first I want to say that the bias bullshit has to stop. When judging, I don't even look at who made the map let alone what team they're in. I do that only after placing the maps. Not that you were saying that.
This is a terrible idea in it's current state. You (almost) assume that ALL team mapmakers are better than ALL indepedent mapmakers. This is incredibly wrong.
The lesser (teamless) bracket would be just that: lesser. If your map got top 5 in the lesser bracket, pretty much nobody would give a shit, and therefore you probably wouldn't give many shits either. Taking away the potential for a real (finalist) win simply for being an independent mapmaker is pretty lame.
The upper (team) bracket would also be more lame. Instead of winning over everyone! you would be winning over only people who were in a team. This is not nearly as great of a win.
--
But, Barrin!!! You don't know what it's like down here with the rest of us, you're a judge so it doesn't affect you!
I am officially resigning as an MotM judge for future MotM events (I'll still be here as we choose jan and february #1's).
It was a blast judging MotM 8, MotM 9, MotM Jan, and MotM Feb. Maybe I'll end up judging again, and/or maybe even start a solo-ran mini-competition to complement MotM. We'll see. For now I have other things to focus on.
GG
--
So yeah, as an independent mapmaker competing once again in MotM's, I would be utterly disappointed if I could not compete against everyone, especially most of the best (read: teamed people).
You could let independent mapmakers enter themselves into the team bracket if they want. I guess this would be totally fine if all the above-average independent mapmakers did so (which may or may not happen).
But of the rest of the below-average independent mapmakers, how many of them need a team to improve more than they need to just play/watch a lot more starcraft? I'd venture to say almost none of them.
This is a terrible idea in it's current state. You (almost) assume that ALL team mapmakers are better than ALL indepedent mapmakers. This is incredibly wrong.
The lesser (teamless) bracket would be just that: lesser. If your map got top 5 in the lesser bracket, pretty much nobody would give a shit, and therefore you probably wouldn't give many shits either. Taking away the potential for a real (finalist) win simply for being an independent mapmaker is pretty lame.
The upper (team) bracket would also be more lame. Instead of winning over everyone! you would be winning over only people who were in a team. This is not nearly as great of a win.
Agree with this completely. Top 5 or bust. Why bother if you're "Top 5 of the other bracket" If your maps are good enough, PM a team or create your own. It's not like you need Monitor to post saying your map is top 5 material, just go with your gut.
I agree with Barrin about no-team exception. It doesn't mean shit if your map is the best among the non-team mapmakers. It doesn't even indicate if you are talented and stuff, cos it's only one map. If you rly want to know if you got talent and stuff, PM me and I will give you some honest feedback (careful!: I will call your mapmaking skills horrible if they are, ask tehtemplar).
Overall I'm happy with the maps we picked this month. With the lack of 4 player maps last month it's good to see some this month. And the 2p maps certainly have something fun going on as well. Also from an aesthetic view point all of them are great
There were quite some maps that I enjoyed that didn't make top5 for many reasons, maybe I will write about some of the maps later if I'm not too lazy (= very unlikely I will).
Looking forward to the tournament and to future contests!
Also; Ragoo is a great guy to have on the judging squad as he has a keen sense of finding merit in really unassuming maps. Non-team people rest assured that Ragoo has your back!
But then, give us back judging appreciations of non-listed maps ! They were great to have.
Oh right. I forgot I was planning on doing that lol. I'm not going to give feedback for every map, but I am going to give a shoutout for every map that I think deserves it (explaining why).
BTW a lesser bracket makes plenty of sense if there was A LOT more mapmakers, it was a nice thought ^^
Rusty Cage is a beautiful map, not many maps truly have multiple equal options for taking a third. Unfortunately, it's just part of a growing trend in map-making where Mech is becoming more and more difficult.
But I would like to ask would the MotM panel would consider a non-affiliated "bracket" for us mappers who are not on teams or do not have access to teams?
Well first I want to say that the bias bullshit has to stop. When judging, I don't even look at who made the map let alone what team they're in. I do that only after placing the maps. Not that you were saying that.
This is a terrible idea in it's current state. You (almost) assume that ALL team mapmakers are better than ALL indepedent mapmakers. This is incredibly wrong.
The lesser (teamless) bracket would be just that: lesser. If your map got top 5 in the lesser bracket, pretty much nobody would give a shit, and therefore you probably wouldn't give many shits either. Taking away the potential for a real (finalist) win simply for being an independent mapmaker is pretty lame.
The upper (team) bracket would also be more lame. Instead of winning over everyone! you would be winning over only people who were in a team. This is not nearly as great of a win.
--
But, Barrin!!! You don't know what it's like down here with the rest of us, you're a judge so it doesn't affect you!
I am officially resigning as an MotM judge for future MotM events (I'll still be here as we choose jan and february #1's).
It was a blast judging MotM 8, MotM 9, MotM Jan, and MotM Feb. Maybe I'll end up judging again, and/or maybe even start a solo-ran mini-competition to complement MotM. We'll see. For now I have other things to focus on.
GG
--
So yeah, as an independent mapmaker competing once again in MotM's, I would be utterly disappointed if I could not compete against everyone, especially most of the best (read: teamed people).
You could let independent mapmakers enter themselves into the team bracket if they want. I guess this would be totally fine if all the above-average independent mapmakers did so (which may or may not happen).
But of the rest of the below-average independent mapmakers, how many of them need a team to improve more than they need to just play/watch a lot more starcraft? I'd venture to say almost none of them.
I apologize if it appears that I am being biased. That is not my intent. I am not trying to cause a disruption here. And I will try and clarify my suggestion (which I think is misconstrued by parties who agree and disagree with it) --
-- which is that non-affiliated mappers be allowed non-competitive recognition when their map quality warrants such recognition. This would not impede on the current competition at all -- the main competition remains with all submissions allowed. This is merely a sidenote to the main competition -- I encourage all map makers to continue putting forth their work in the competition for judgement and critique in the hopes of one day being the best over ALL other competitors (affiliated or not). I know I will. My suggestion merely allows a position for the judging panel to recognize those maps created without the distinct advantage (and I want to emphasize advantage, not better) of team affiliation. If this is already practiced than I apologize for even bring the idea up.
I do not advocate a separate bracket. I do not advocate upper and lower brackets.
Hope that clears up my suggestion, and I am now done talking about it to get us back on track of celebrating these great maps and mappers!
GO THE GRID!
On a completely separate note -- I will miss your competition judging Barrin. I hope this particular instance is not the point that drove you to resign. And I wish you the best of luck in all of your future endeavors. You will be missed.
I hate the idea of rewarding maps that aren't the best because they aren't on a team.
It's like randomly paying a prize to someone who gets 65th overall at MLG because they were teamless.
If you want win, join/make a team and get better. If you want to remain independent, then your maps will never hit that next level. I think I can easily say every single ESV map would have sucked had we not had the team environment to process feedback back and forth and such.
Maybe a compromise/different, similar idea would be a general honorable mentions section whose criteria are different than the top 5. For example maps that weren't necessarily 6th/7th placers but instead maps that deserve a shoutout for being cool or interesting. For example a map that has a tonne of unique, interesting, potentially feasible features but isn't refined enough to be played competitively and therefore wasn't necesssarily in the running for top picks. This way, independant mappers who show unique thinking and creativity but don't necessarily have access to the same resources have a chance to show off their stuff but it's not necessarily restricted to independents. It's only a more even playing field where the individual's idea is rewarded. For a more specific example, if for some reason The Grid wasn't in the runnning, I would put it in the honourable mentions for it's awesome aesthetics.
Or is that what Barrin was already planning to do?
Is there an IRC chat specifically designated for finding people to play customs with?
If so, I think it should be added to the Practice Partners Season 6 thread in Strategy.
If not, do people think that would be a good idea? I assume it's at least been tried at some point. If people could get united behind a single channel it could be a nice resource.
On a completely separate note -- I will miss your competition judging Barrin. I hope this particular instance is not the point that drove you to resign. And I wish you the best of luck in all of your future endeavors. You will be missed.
This is not at all what drove me to resign, I've been planning to do this, I almost didnt judge this month :D
Careful about wishing me luck, I'm now your competition again! ^^ Kinda; I'll elaborate on this later ^^ I'm not going anywhere.
BTW looking back I may have been a little harsh, sorry bout that lol
---
I've done this shoutout/highlight thing in the past (twice), it's just all I'm doing this time.
To be clear, these shoutout/highlight things from me are ONLY from me, not with any sort of official MotM endorsement. I am(was) one judge of many.
On a completely separate note -- I will miss your competition judging Barrin. I hope this particular instance is not the point that drove you to resign. And I wish you the best of luck in all of your future endeavors. You will be missed.
This is not at all what drove me to resign, I've been planning to do this, I almost didnt judge this month :D
Careful about wishing me luck, I'm now your competition again! ^^ Kinda; I'll elaborate on this later ^^ I'm not going anywhere.
BTW looking back I may have been a little harsh, sorry bout that lol
Oh snap!! And here I thought I might catch a break
Don't worry about the harshness. Grew up with a couple of attorneys as parents and a brother that's now in law school. If anything, I get some sort of sick pleasure out of arguments.
On March 15 2012 04:41 Zyufin wrote: If so, I think it should be added to the Practice Partners Season 6 thread in Strategy.
If not, do people think that would be a good idea? I assume it's at least been tried at some point. If people could get united behind a single channel it could be a nice resource.
I'd like to complete what SigmaFiE said about selecting more maps. Some people thought it meant having a sort of useless division 2 that wouldn't even manage to promote the maps. But that's not what Motm should be about. Motm should be about helping the mapping community improve maps and get feedback. The best way to get feedback is to have players play the maps.
There were already presitigious mapping contests like the Teamliquid and the IPL one that got new maps to big tournaments, which Motm hasn't managed to achieve yet. Blizzard is now getting used to having polls about the map pool, and will add 2 GSL maps. The way maps are included into tournaments is turning into a popularity contest and Motm can't compete with the popularity of the GSL or a TL contest. If Blizzard would include new maps in the future they'd rather suggest a new TL contest rather than picking Motm.
Motm is too much aimed at maps competing against eachother and not enough about getting maps better through cooperation. Many maps have similarities (ie the metagame of maps) so if the pool of finalists was bigger, during the tournament it would be more obvious to mappers what works and what doesn't, or how far a 3rd expansion is too far, or what size and amount of chokes is fine. It may seem like it's been understood for a while but look at the amount of criticism Khoral Compound gets in the thread about the poll for season 7. Also if you've watched the Motm that was casted by Mr. Bitter and Rotterdam this winter, they were not particularly pleased with the maps and often said things like "I'm not sure about this feature" or "its like an awkward version of [other map]". So there's still a long way to go before finalists are good.
And now if you look at the number of maps in tournaments : Playhem NA has 13 maps, Go4sc2 has 7. Don't you find counterproductive that Motm whose goal is to play new maps only has 5 ? It means only 5 maps will be able to get a boost of feedback, sometimes 4 like when Cloud Kingdom was a finalist despite being in the GSL, in the Blizzard ladder, and being the TL contest winner. Like I said the only good way to get feedback is to have players play the map. More maps = more feedback. And don't tell me about creating a new team of mappers for feedback because even mappers from big mapping teams publicly say they either stopped playing or play 2v2/3v3 games. Sure they may have a high level but they lack the insight of playing in the current metagame. For example players in a tournament will have better insight about Terrans and Zergs double expanding against Protoss, which is pretty common nowadays.
One last thing, this is not the first time mappers complain about finalists being all from ESV and TPW and in my opinion the only way to answer this problem is to have judges that aren't part of any of these teams. You may think that you're being fair but it is a bias. It'd be like if court judges were in a political party, or if politicians had their campaign financed by big industries. Now Barrin has resigned from Motm I believe it's time to renew the Motm jury and I'd like to apply as a judge. I also suggest that other teamless mappers apply. It can only make the community more sane.
I'd like to complete what SigmaFiE said about selecting more maps. Some people thought it meant having a sort of useless division 2 that wouldn't even manage to promote the maps. But that's not what Motm should be about. Motm should be about helping the mapping community improve maps and get feedback. The best way to get feedback is to have players play the maps.
There were already presitigious mapping contests like the Teamliquid and the IPL one that got new maps to big tournaments, which Motm hasn't managed to achieve yet. Blizzard is now getting used to having polls about the map pool, and will add 2 GSL maps. The way maps are included into tournaments is turning into a popularity contest and Motm can't compete with the popularity of the GSL or a TL contest. If Blizzard would include new maps in the future they'd rather suggest a new TL contest rather than picking Motm.
Motm is too much aimed at maps competing against eachother and not enough about getting maps better through cooperation. Many maps have similarities (ie the metagame of maps) so if the pool of finalists was bigger, during the tournament it would be more obvious to mappers what works and what doesn't, or how far a 3rd expansion is too far, or what size and amount of chokes is fine. It may seem like it's been understood for a while but look at the amount of criticism Khoral Compound gets in the thread about the poll for season 7. Also if you've watched the Motm that was casted by Mr. Bitter and Rotterdam this winter, they were not particularly pleased with the maps and often said things like "I'm not sure about this feature" or "its like an awkward version of [other map]". So there's still a long way to go before finalists are good.
And now if you look at the number of maps in tournaments : Playhem NA has 13 maps, Go4sc2 has 7. Don't you find counterproductive that Motm whose goal is to play new maps only has 5 ? It means only 5 maps will be able to get a boost of feedback, sometimes 4 like when Cloud Kingdom was a finalist despite being in the GSL, in the Blizzard ladder, and being the TL contest winner. Like I said the only good way to get feedback is to have players play the map. More maps = more feedback. And don't tell me about creating a new team of mappers for feedback because even mappers from big mapping teams publicly say they either stopped playing or play 2v2/3v3 games. Sure they may have a high level but they lack the insight of playing in the current metagame. For example players in a tournament will have better insight about Terrans and Zergs double expanding against Protoss, which is pretty common nowadays.
One last thing, this is not the first time mappers complain about finalists being all from ESV and TPW and in my opinion the only way to answer this problem is to have judges that aren't part of any of these teams. You may think that you're being fair but it is a bias. It'd be like if court judges were in a political party, or if politicians had their campaign financed by big industries. Now Barrin has resigned from Motm I believe it's time to renew the Motm jury and I'd like to apply as a judge. I also suggest that other teamless mappers apply. It can only make the community more sane.
Valid points, and no real obvious solution in my opinion.
Maybe there could be an Insane Month? All the maps have to be non-standard(or do not support the current metagame)? I would personally love this!
Changing MotM in any way that is not for creating, refining, and showing off competitive maps to the world, is a bad idea. MotM is needed to bring attention to good maps made by the community that aren't in GSL. It's important for the foreign mapmaking scene. It helps prevent the Koreans/GSL from having total monopoly over the mapping community. It should be kept the way it is, except for maybe one or two months a year that are more like "joke MotMs". For example, in the Day9 Daily, there are the days that are serious, and then there is Funday Monday. An Insane Month (or whatever it should be called) would be like Funday Monday.
Being on a team should not restrict you from being a judge. If there is a judge that is outside a team, then they will be bias against maps made by members of a team. You cannot get rid of bias easily, it's not possible. I understand the bias, it is definitely there, it exists, but it isn't that big of a deal. To make a comparison to political parties like you did, TPW vs ESV isn't like Democrats vs. Republicans. Not at all.
I'd like to complete what SigmaFiE said about selecting more maps. Some people thought it meant having a sort of useless division 2 that wouldn't even manage to promote the maps. But that's not what Motm should be about. Motm should be about helping the mapping community improve maps and get feedback. The best way to get feedback is to have players play the maps.
There were already presitigious mapping contests like the Teamliquid and the IPL one that got new maps to big tournaments, which Motm hasn't managed to achieve yet. Blizzard is now getting used to having polls about the map pool, and will add 2 GSL maps. The way maps are included into tournaments is turning into a popularity contest and Motm can't compete with the popularity of the GSL or a TL contest. If Blizzard would include new maps in the future they'd rather suggest a new TL contest rather than picking Motm.
Motm is too much aimed at maps competing against eachother and not enough about getting maps better through cooperation. Many maps have similarities (ie the metagame of maps) so if the pool of finalists was bigger, during the tournament it would be more obvious to mappers what works and what doesn't, or how far a 3rd expansion is too far, or what size and amount of chokes is fine. It may seem like it's been understood for a while but look at the amount of criticism Khoral Compound gets in the thread about the poll for season 7. Also if you've watched the Motm that was casted by Mr. Bitter and Rotterdam this winter, they were not particularly pleased with the maps and often said things like "I'm not sure about this feature" or "its like an awkward version of [other map]". So there's still a long way to go before finalists are good.
And now if you look at the number of maps in tournaments : Playhem NA has 13 maps, Go4sc2 has 7. Don't you find counterproductive that Motm whose goal is to play new maps only has 5 ? It means only 5 maps will be able to get a boost of feedback, sometimes 4 like when Cloud Kingdom was a finalist despite being in the GSL, in the Blizzard ladder, and being the TL contest winner. Like I said the only good way to get feedback is to have players play the map. More maps = more feedback. And don't tell me about creating a new team of mappers for feedback because even mappers from big mapping teams publicly say they either stopped playing or play 2v2/3v3 games. Sure they may have a high level but they lack the insight of playing in the current metagame. For example players in a tournament will have better insight about Terrans and Zergs double expanding against Protoss, which is pretty common nowadays.
One last thing, this is not the first time mappers complain about finalists being all from ESV and TPW and in my opinion the only way to answer this problem is to have judges that aren't part of any of these teams. You may think that you're being fair but it is a bias. It'd be like if court judges were in a political party, or if politicians had their campaign financed by big industries. Now Barrin has resigned from Motm I believe it's time to renew the Motm jury and I'd like to apply as a judge. I also suggest that other teamless mappers apply. It can only make the community more sane.
Valid points, and no real obvious solution in my opinion.
Maybe there could be an Insane Month? All the maps have to be non-standard(or do not support the current metagame)? I would personally love this!
Changing MotM in any way that is not for creating, refining, and showing off competitive maps to the world, is a bad idea. MotM is needed to bring attention to good maps made by the community that aren't in GSL. It's important for the foreign mapmaking scene. It helps prevent the Koreans/GSL from having total monopoly over the mapping community. It should be kept the way it is, except for maybe one or two months a year that are more like "joke MotMs". For example, in the Day9 Daily, there are the days that are serious, and then there is Funday Monday. An Insane Month (or whatever it should be called) would be like Funday Monday.
Love this idea. Having ridiculous conditions every couple of months would be amazingly fun. Something like island maps only, two level maps only, revision maps only, etc. would be a fun break.
On March 15 2012 12:03 Phried wrote: Love this idea. Having ridiculous conditions every couple of months would be amazingly fun. Something like island maps only, two level maps only, revision maps only, etc. would be a fun break.
We tried doing this a while back, the problem is that for a lot of mapmakers it takes a very long time to make a map and 1 month simply isn't enough time and ultimately hurts the competition and you end up with fewer quality submissions.
If it was a map layout competition that would be cool, though. No aesthetics required.
On March 15 2012 11:02 chuky500 wrote: I'd like to complete what SigmaFiE said about selecting more maps. Some people thought it meant having a sort of useless division 2 that wouldn't even manage to promote the maps. But that's not what Motm should be about. Motm should be about helping the mapping community improve maps and get feedback. The best way to get feedback is to have players play the maps.
The way I understand it that *is* what MOTM is about: maps compete, the 5 judged to be the best for that month go through some games, and feedback is given to those mappers on improvements. The community is usually privy to these changes as the map threads are then updated with the revisions. This may not be the system you envision, nor maybe the ideal system, but it *is* technically a way for the community to get some map feedback. Maybe someone like Diamond can elaborate here and clear up what seems like a misunderstanding of how MOTM/ESV work together?
There were already presitigious mapping contests like the Teamliquid and the IPL one that got new maps to big tournaments, which Motm hasn't managed to achieve yet. Blizzard is now getting used to having polls about the map pool, and will add 2 GSL maps. The way maps are included into tournaments is turning into a popularity contest and Motm can't compete with the popularity of the GSL or a TL contest. If Blizzard would include new maps in the future they'd rather suggest a new TL contest rather than picking Motm.
I'm really not sure where you are going with this or if you even understand the history of what's been going on in mapping. MOTM has been around way (by "way" I mean several months) before the TL mapping contest. Why MOTM has never gotten maps into tournaments (and I'm not even sure this is true) I would guess would have to do with their lack of affiliation with any tournaments for a while (I think they are affiliated with IEM now, right? when did that start?). That may have been in part due to some of the stigma of spawning out of ICCUP, which, while may have been great in its own right, was not "legit" in terms of the SC1 EULA. But regardless of the reasons, or really any of that, I don't think you can trivialize what MOTM has done as far as getting people interested in mapping in a more or less organized fashion; you also canot trivialize how far they have come since the ICCUP roots in becoming a legit force in the SC2 map-making community.
Motm is too much aimed at maps competing against eachother and not enough about getting maps better through cooperation. Many maps have similarities (ie the metagame of maps) so if the pool of finalists was bigger, during the tournament it would be more obvious to mappers what works and what doesn't, or how far a 3rd expansion is too far, or what size and amount of chokes is fine. It may seem like it's been understood for a while but look at the amount of criticism Khoral Compound gets in the thread about the poll for season 7. Also if you've watched the Motm that was casted by Mr. Bitter and Rotterdam this winter, they were not particularly pleased with the maps and often said things like "I'm not sure about this feature" or "its like an awkward version of [other map]". So there's still a long way to go before finalists are good.
I do not think the status quo MOTM contest is a bad contest, in fact it's a fun little king-of-the-hill battle -- always interesting to see the outcome. That said, I am all in favor of furthering the flow of melee mapping information, both in the gathering and in the dissemination. I think there are many maps that do not make it to the finalist stage of each MOTM contest that would be worth playing on and testing out to see if they are good/fun that given a different set of judges might make it through instead -- but it is what it is, no contest is going to come up with the objectively best map. That's why its great that MOTM happens *every month* (ish) and not just every time Blizzard or IPL get a whim to look for community feedback.
And now if you look at the number of maps in tournaments : Playhem NA has 13 maps, Go4sc2 has 7. Don't you find counterproductive that Motm whose goal is to play new maps only has 5 ? It means only 5 maps will be able to get a boost of feedback, sometimes 4 like when Cloud Kingdom was a finalist despite being in the GSL, in the Blizzard ladder, and being the TL contest winner. Like I said the only good way to get feedback is to have players play the map. More maps = more feedback. And don't tell me about creating a new team of mappers for feedback because even mappers from big mapping teams publicly say they either stopped playing or play 2v2/3v3 games. Sure they may have a high level but they lack the insight of playing in the current metagame. For example players in a tournament will have better insight about Terrans and Zergs double expanding against Protoss, which is pretty common nowadays.
The interesting contradiction you are missing here, is that MOTM does not look at the same maps (with very limited exception) with each contest. The map pools for these other tournaments, thought they change from time to time, remain somewhat static. So actually, you get more map idea coverage than less, despite there only being 5 map finalists per month.
One last thing, this is not the first time mappers complain about finalists being all from ESV and TPW and in my opinion the only way to answer this problem is to have judges that aren't part of any of these teams. You may think that you're being fair but it is a bias. It'd be like if court judges were in a political party, or if politicians had their campaign financed by big industries. Now Barrin has resigned from Motm I believe it's time to renew the Motm jury and I'd like to apply as a judge. I also suggest that other teamless mappers apply. It can only make the community more sane.
Good luck, more power to you, but it is *their* contest. If you want to hold a competing contest, tournament, etc., and only ask non-teamed mappers (ooh, ooh! pick me! pick me!) to be judges, you should definately try your hand at it -- I'd be interested in reading your blog post when it is all done to see what kind of hoops you jumped through to get sponsors, pro players, feedback, etc. Diamond can probably shed some light on what that post will look like.
All that being said, I do like the idea that SigmaFiE put forward in having more recognition back about maps if there are any good ideas to take away from maps (particularly for non-team mappers since it can be difficult for them to get good sources of feedback). To me, there is too much negative feedback in general, and not enough positive feedback, by that I mean the community is great at saying "I don't like that" or "that doesn't work", but not often enough do you hear "that's a good idea" or "focus on that more". Obviously, there needs to be negative feedback or else nothing would ever be parsed down to the really refined good ideas, but especially for newer or non-teamed mappers, veteran and/or teamed mappers really ought to help raise the bar with some good positive feedback. I'm not saying it never happens, because I see positive feedback in map threads all the time, but it is disproportionately missing in my opinion. MOTM I think is a good event to help rectifiy this with an honorable mention or two, even if it is only to say "hey, this is a neat concept to work with for another map" even if the map it comes from as a whole does not seem to work.
On March 15 2012 12:03 Phried wrote: Love this idea. Having ridiculous conditions every couple of months would be amazingly fun. Something like island maps only, two level maps only, revision maps only, etc. would be a fun break.
We tried doing this a while back, the problem is that for a lot of mapmakers it takes a very long time to make a map and 1 month simply isn't enough time and ultimately hurts the competition and you end up with fewer quality submissions.
If it was a map layout competition that would be cool, though. No aesthetics required.
Forgot this: Samro spearheaded an initiative like this a few months before the TL contest. The idea was to have a different challenge each month focusing on the creativity, but still trying to make the maps somewhat geared toward the competitive. The first (and only I believe) was the Asymmetric Mapping Challenge. Then the judging took a while, then a MOTM hit and then the TL contest hit and it hasn't been brought up again since the results were finally posted some time after the TL contest. I've wondered if this would get started back up again, but I think everyone has just settled back to see the next moves Blizz will make and do MOTM to pass the time. At least that's the sense I get.
MotM and ESV have no relation besides we submit maps. Monitor is a mapper for us and runs-ish MotM but there is 0 overlap. For a long time ESV did not even enter maps in MotM.
I think some of you really have the wrong idea about map teams. Being in a team doesn't automatically make your maps good. It takes time and effort to make a good map, something that I fail to see in most of the submissions (I am sorry for being so blunt).
Most of the maps on tl fail at the most fundamental things, such as proportions and, of course, aesthetics. In most cases you don't really need a team to tell you what's wrong with your map. There are plenty of guides written (also by map team members) and many discussions to found here on tl. There are certain boundaries that we call 'standard', which we have to follow in order to make a successful map. Violating these standards will most often cause your map to fail. "But I wanted the map to be like this" is usually just a bad excuse for not bothering of getting the most basic things done right. I strongly recommend you learn and understand these basics first, and successfully make a few standard maps, before you attempt to reinvent the game. In the industry, these are 2 very different jobs. The game designer, who decides on how the game is supposed to be played, and the level designer, who builds levels - strictly following the game design. Aesthetics, in 9 out of 10 maps, are just plain bad. Again, most of the times, this is due to lazyness. Sure, some people are better than others when it comes to aesthetics, but this only means that you have to work harder. I promise you, if you take the time to paint over textures again and again, it will eventually look good. You don't know which doodads to use? It takes alot of time to get familiar with every doodad (just like textures). So unless you are already experienced with them, don't be lazy and take the neccesary time. Don't give me the "aesthetics don't matter, map layout is what counts" excuse. While many judges in motm would agree with that, I think that in order to make a professional map, you absolutely have to meet minimum requirements in both layout and aesthetics.
You don't neccessarily need a team to do these things right. There's people like Sidian or Zolek who seem to have no problem doing so, despite not being in a team. For me, being in a mapmaking team is more about promoting maps. It is about establishing a brand that people will recognize and trust to be good, it is about making a professional appearance towards tournaments and the community. But I don't think it helps in motm at all, where we already have known each other for so long.
On March 15 2012 11:02 chuky500 wrote: I'd like to complete what SigmaFiE said about selecting more maps. Some people thought it meant having a sort of useless division 2 that wouldn't even manage to promote the maps. But that's not what Motm should be about. Motm should be about helping the mapping community improve maps and get feedback. The best way to get feedback is to have players play the maps.
No, the TL mapmaking forum should be about improving maps and get feedback. MotM should be about picking the best maps we made and decide which ones we want to promote and get into competition first and foremost.
On March 15 2012 11:02 chuky500 wrote: There were already presitigious mapping contests like the Teamliquid and the IPL one that got new maps to big tournaments, which Motm hasn't managed to achieve yet. Blizzard is now getting used to having polls about the map pool, and will add 2 GSL maps. The way maps are included into tournaments is turning into a popularity contest and Motm can't compete with the popularity of the GSL or a TL contest. If Blizzard would include new maps in the future they'd rather suggest a new TL contest rather than picking Motm.
TL contest for Blizzard and MotM so far had different goals. TL contest was about finding ladder maps, so the maps had restrictions to be very standard (8m2g) while MotM is just about finding good tournament maps, pretty much regardless of "standard" as long as it works out nicely for competition. And the winner of MotM January/February is supposed to be used in the next IEM season which is a BIG deal.
On March 15 2012 11:02 chuky500 wrote: And now if you look at the number of maps in tournaments : Playhem NA has 13 maps, Go4sc2 has 7. Don't you find counterproductive that Motm whose goal is to play new maps only has 5 ? It means only 5 maps will be able to get a boost of feedback, sometimes 4 like when Cloud Kingdom was a finalist despite being in the GSL, in the Blizzard ladder, and being the TL contest winner. Like I said the only good way to get feedback is to have players play the map. More maps = more feedback.
No it's not counterproductive, it works as intended. 5 maps is already quite a lot for a single small tournament to get proper feedback, more maps just makes it worse. Also we don't want to promote 10 maps as our best, less maps = higher quality and bigger prestige.
On March 15 2012 11:02 chuky500 wrote: One last thing, this is not the first time mappers complain about finalists being all from ESV and TPW and in my opinion the only way to answer this problem is to have judges that aren't part of any of these teams. You may think that you're being fair but it is a bias. It'd be like if court judges were in a political party, or if politicians had their campaign financed by big industries. Now Barrin has resigned from Motm I believe it's time to renew the Motm jury and I'd like to apply as a judge. I also suggest that other teamless mappers apply. It can only make the community more sane.
No that is a horrible idea as far as I can tell. I haven't seen proof that you are fit to judge maps whatsoever. If you want to be a judge you would have to be either a high level mapmaker and proven it or a high level player or someone who has been around forever (BW) and always had a big interest in mapmaking (like Plexa or Diamond).
And about the bias. Let's see, this month we had Barrin, Nightmarjoo and Plexa who are all teamless and monitor from ESV who approved 4 TPW maps in top5. That leaves us with TPW bias from Nullcurrent and me. And for me personally I can say that my own top5 had 2 ESV maps, 2 TPW maps and 1 teamless maps, so where is the bias? You are just making up stuff.
As lefix said, just admit that teamless maps are generally worse and don't make up stuff about us circlejerking and picking only team maps cos we have some kind of monopole. If you invest enough time and have good understanding of the game ( = watch a lot of sc2) and read all the posts and feedback in this forum made by known mapmakers you will eventually be good enough so TPW or ESV wants to pick you up, or a new team forms. We all came from somewhere, just go back a year and look at my MotM submissions then.
If you want someone for inspiration, look at Zolek. He just came in this forum as a complete unknown some months ago and to this day as far as I know he has no regular contact to the inner mapmaking circle, yet he continues to improve and make rly nice maps!
There were several non-team maps which had interesting stuff in both specific map features and general layout. If they had been improved/remade (depending on what I perceive as the problem with the map) I think they definitely would be competing for the top 5.
But as lefix said, they fail on some of the basic stuff (symmetry, positional balance, aesthetics, base-layout, proportions (sizes of paths, open spaces, bases)) and therefore I cannot really recommend any of them for the top 5. One of the most common problems, I think, was positional symmetry on 4p maps. Many of the 4p maps submitted which used pure rotational symmetry had a problem with the third being very different depending on if you spawn clockwise or counterclockwise against your opponent.
I recommend trying to create maps which borrow a lot from existing popular maps, as that will greatly help you to improve most of what I listed above. Do not start with radical stuff until you feel like you can make a "standard" map which looks good and plays like a "standard" map.
NullCurrent hit the nail on the head. Conceptually the non-team maps are no worse than the teamed maps, but often it is the execution which is lacking. Generally the refinement that the best maps have is a product of experience and feedback from other good mappers and players.
I haven't followed MotM much lately, but I wonder: If you only chose the maps which were really really good, would the number of maps "winning" increase, decrease, or stay pretty much the same?
Hmm, thinking of awards, the Nobel Prize - few (if any) of the winners really need it, to get more appreciation from the scientific community - however, its purpose is really to highlight scientific and some cultural advances for "the general public".*
The nobel commitey often are "late" or feel behind on awarding important discoveries - partly because so much has been done, but also because you can't always know right away if a discovery will be ground breaking
Edit: Also, I really liked the MotMs which had topics (4p, cityscape, jungle, rotational, etc) announced way before due deadline. I don't think that it is impossible to bring back similar things, as long as the announcements are made well in advance, and mapmakers accept that they can't necessarily deliver well at each month. At least in combination with a relaxing on that it has to be 5 maps. I think it would make it a lot more spectator friendly.
I agree that teamless maps take more time to refine than when the mapper is in a team. But how many maps selected for Motm were actually adjusted after the ESL Motm tournament ? Motm could be more efficient if it was used to improve the quality of maps rather than being a marketing buzz. But the idea that team maps are already refined when they enter the contest too often stops mappers from updating them. And where are the maps now, who plays them ? That's why I suggest to aim the organization more towards the mapping community and improving the quality of maps.
The underlying idea is mapping teams need to stop looking down on other mappers and being condescending, like when neobowman says only a few percentage out of the top players are able to discuss strategy, and that if your map wasn't selected it's because it was terrible. Or when lefix starts giving a lesson on professionalism and the gaming industry. Take the biggest success of the mapping community, Cloud Kingdom. I took screenshots of the positional imbalances, mostly because both naturals aren't symmetrical : + Show Spoiler +
The first error was fixed by Blizzard but still remains on the ESV version that tournaments use. The second error comes from bad copy pasting, all minerals and gas are displaced by 1 square in each direction, resulting in a gas geiser needing 4 probes to be efficiently mined. There was a thread in the strategy section about this problem stating that such a gas earns 127 less gas at the time a regular gas is mined out.
So yes, please tell me about the professionalism of teams, how such monstruosities were left out by the most professional mappers out there ? Mapping teams need to stop blindly thinking that good mappers produce flawless maps. You need to focus on raw gameplay rather than the spaceshark position. I won't talk about the blurry look of the map in high settings but more generally about the aesthetics, and the disgrace of the WCG reskins told ESV shouldn't be so proud of themselves.
And please stop believing the only people that understand the game or watch a lot of Starcraft 2 on Teamliquid are the TPW and ESV teams. We all do. If you want I can link you to VODs of big games where bugs happened and were caused by the mappers. Most of the bugs would only have required a few clicks to fix if the mappers were aware of what causes these bugs. But apparently no one in mapping teams noticed them. And please don't tell me again that mistakes should remain.
Plus it's not like you have to be in a Team to still get good feedback. (first hand experience here!) If you're in the Mapper Skype channel you can ask there and get help from everybody who is in the channel (ESV, TPW, Teamless) or I'm not sure about most people but if somebody sent me a PM here asking me feedback on their map I will completely gut the map apart and tell you everything I think about it.
Usually I'll scan through maps here on TL and won't post that often about feedback on some of the not as good maps, yet if you actually PM'd me, I will help you the best I can.
Heck, I did this to Barrin recently, he tends to ignore me otherwise (lol!), and he gave me some great feedback on my newest map.
i have just started an irc channel called #sc2maps on quakenet. hopefully this will help closing the communication gap between the people who are exchanging feedback on skype and those who don't. we will see
I haven't followed MotM much lately, but I wonder: If you only chose the maps which were really really good, would the number of maps "winning" increase, decrease, or stay pretty much the same?
There's usually 2 or 3 maps that really stand out, and the next few (until about 7 or 8) tend to be about as good as each other.
I haven't followed MotM much lately, but I wonder: If you only chose the maps which were really really good, would the number of maps "winning" increase, decrease, or stay pretty much the same?
There's usually 2 or 3 maps that really stand out, and the next few (until about 7 or 8) tend to be about as good as each other.
I think it would be an interesting thing to see. Obviously, I'm not asking to see all the submissions and what all the judges thought about each one, that would be highly impractical. However, if there are a number of good submissions that stood out, but didn't make the top 5, it would be cool to see what the judges thought about those in particular, like how to improve a crucial failing of the map, for example.
If an idea like this is being tossed around, I say go for it.
On March 16 2012 02:06 chuky500 wrote: I agree that teamless maps take more time to refine than when the mapper is in a team. But how many maps selected for Motm were actually adjusted after the ESL Motm tournament ? Motm could be more efficient if it was used to improve the quality of maps rather than being a marketing buzz. But the idea that team maps are already refined when they enter the contest too often stops mappers from updating them. And where are the maps now, who plays them ? That's why I suggest to aim the organization more towards the mapping community and improving the quality of maps.
The underlying idea is mapping teams need to stop looking down on other mappers and being condescending, like when neobowman says only a few percentage out of the top players are able to discuss strategy, and that if your map wasn't selected it's because it was terrible. Or when lefix starts giving a lesson on professionalism and the gaming industry. Take the biggest success of the mapping community, Cloud Kingdom. I took screenshots of the positional imbalances, mostly because both naturals aren't symmetrical : + Show Spoiler +
The first error was fixed by Blizzard but still remains on the ESV version that tournaments use. The second error comes from bad copy pasting, all minerals and gas are displaced by 1 square in each direction, resulting in a gas geiser needing 4 probes to be efficiently mined. There was a thread in the strategy section about this problem stating that such a gas earns 127 less gas at the time a regular gas is mined out.
So yes, please tell me about the professionalism of teams, how such monstruosities were left out by the most professional mappers out there ? Mapping teams need to stop blindly thinking that good mappers produce flawless maps. You need to focus on raw gameplay rather than the spaceshark position. I won't talk about the blurry look of the map in high settings but more generally about the aesthetics, and the disgrace of the WCG reskins told ESV shouldn't be so proud of themselves.
And please stop believing the only people that understand the game or watch a lot of Starcraft 2 on Teamliquid are the TPW and ESV teams. We all do. If you want I can link you to VODs of big games where bugs happened and were caused by the mappers. Most of the bugs would only have required a few clicks to fix if the mappers were aware of what causes these bugs. But apparently no one in mapping teams noticed them. And please don't tell me again that mistakes should remain.
We already fixed that imbalance a bit ago, just no one is using it yet. We submitted it to Blizz too.
Also wtf was wrong with the WCG maps?
Stop blaming us or MotM because you don't get picked and instead look at yourself and your maps. Placing blame will nto help you improve at all.
But then, give us back judging appreciations of non-listed maps ! They were great to have.
Oh right. I forgot I was planning on doing that lol. I'm not going to give feedback for every map, but I am going to give a shoutout for every map that I think deserves it (explaining why).
Chuky you sound very very bitter. Is your mind really clear about what you're talking about ? Here, you're not argumenting on what we were talking about, just trying to get people to know how terrible and unfair TPW/ESV really are when we're saying from the beginning that being on a team doesn't mean you're better. That, and you're putting everyone answering you on the same side.
Mappers on teams aren't your enemies man, so stop talking like they were, please D:
Lots of maps that aren't far behind the cut (though imo rightfully cut) this time. Only the first two of these first five are from teamless people :O
Pavilion by Mieszko This map (along with Rusty cage) represents the types of things people should be trying to make 4p maps work. In this map's case, the way the backdoor base is designed is absolutely fantastic (in theory) for fixing positional imbalance on 4p rotational. Let me say that again: in theory it is really badass. Unfortunately there are some issues that Plexa would be better at explaining than me.
Aperture by iGrok Low circle syndrome, boundary-pushing 2p map that plays out very well. Too many interesting but non-overwhelming features to list here. It's just really cool. I believe it's downfall in this competition was mostly due to a lack of conformity to aesthetic norms (something I felt fine overlooking but other judges did not).
ESV Borealis by neowbowman I really love the way this map encourages you to move your army onto the center of the map to secure additional sections of expansions. The army positioning gameplay is as close to a large square BW map as I've seen on any other map. Either you get it or you don't, too hard to explain. I would have felt perfectly fine with this map in the top 5 (something I wasn't so sure of at first).
TPW Lunar Colony by SmashHammer Solid, low circle syndrome 2p map. I really like how the close proximity of the natural to the high ground covering your opponent's side of the map encourages you to use that high ground to poke and prod at him. The backdoor mineral thing is pretty cute too. Solid, unique, easily in the same league as The Grid and Aperture.
ESV Pantheon by Grebliv Really cool 4p rotational. Spawning as zerg counterclockwise to a terran or protoss opponent on close positions could prove problematic (even with less resources at the forward base, though that helps a lot), but otherwise it seems pretty fun to me. Need more good 4p maps around.
Also shoutout @ TPW Alder Terrace by wrl, TPW Prophecy by Meltage, TPW Elder Roots by Icetoad, TPW Tlacopan by Mereel, and last but not least White Fire by ArcticRaven. These maps are *almost* a in the same league as Aperture / The Grid / Lunar Colony imo... such a large amount of low circle syndrome 2p maps this month ^^
There really is just a lot of good maps nowadays. I'm really impressed with how far we've come as a community.
I think the next step for most people is to put a lot more effort into a single map. Stop making so many maps ^^ I know I said a lot of people need to stop focusing on doing this (sorta) a month or so ago, but this is good advice for most people who made a map in these top 15. Learn how to scrap a bad concept early.
Since I've posted tons of feedback on the current maps I was wondering if some of the judges would be so kind to let me know their thoughts/feedback on my main submission Ultrix Prime. I know pretty much all of the responses in thread point out so many things people enjoy about it, whether it is the unique features, the aesthetics or the layout. It also has a very close main/nat/3rd/4th layout to The Grid. It also seems like if it was rotated symmetry instead of reflective symmetry it would have almost the same feeling as The Grid does. I'm hoping to grab some of your guys feedback on why it was passed over.
On March 15 2012 17:24 Diamond wrote: MotM and ESV have no relation besides we submit maps. Monitor is a mapper for us and runs-ish MotM but there is 0 overlap. For a long time ESV did not even enter maps in MotM.
I stand corrected. I only assumed they were more closely tied together given the ESL Winter stuff. Apologies for the misrepresentation. I don't think this really changes my point though (fortunately ;}).
Diamond, does that mean that the whole ESL/IEM thing was not an ESV effort and only something that MOTM pushed for/was approached with?
On March 15 2012 17:24 Diamond wrote: MotM and ESV have no relation besides we submit maps. Monitor is a mapper for us and runs-ish MotM but there is 0 overlap. For a long time ESV did not even enter maps in MotM.
I stand corrected. I only assumed they were more closely tied together given the ESL Winter stuff. Apologies for the misrepresentation. I don't think this really changes my point though (fortunately ;}).
Diamond, does that mean that the whole ESL/IEM thing was not an ESV effort and only something that MOTM pushed for/was approached with?
Yep MotM and ESV are 100% separate orgs. I have 0% of anything to do with anything about MotM.
Diamond's word should be plenty but you have mine too: ESV has pretty much nothing to do with MotM.
The only remote connection is monitor, an ESV member, who has been a non-bias judge for a very long time an an objective leader for the past few months (he took over when iGrok resigned).
On March 16 2012 06:04 SidianTheBard wrote: Since I've posted tons of feedback on the current maps I was wondering if some of the judges would be so kind to let me know their thoughts/feedback on my main submission Ultrix Prime. I know pretty much all of the responses in thread point out so many things people enjoy about it, whether it is the unique features, the aesthetics or the layout. It also has a very close main/nat/3rd/4th layout to The Grid. It also seems like if it was rotated symmetry instead of reflective symmetry it would have almost the same feeling as The Grid does. I'm hoping to grab some of your guys feedback on why it was passed over.
Thanks,
This is actually the very next map I would have listed in the honorable mentions if I didn't cut it off at 10 (seriously this month and I think last month too each map is not much worse than the next all the way down to like the worst 20%, hard to do cutoffs ).
I guess I feel like people are too encouraged to expand south-west. When both players do this, the rush distance becomes a little too small a little too fast. Expanding the other way is an option, but then the opponent can keep expanding across the southwest area (and still have his north base when he wants it). The problem here is that the top right base is not very good for zerg who would most likely want to expand away from the south west area. Also, there's not much reason to move across the center of the map at different angles, it's pretty static in that sense.
On March 16 2012 02:06 chuky500 wrote: I agree that teamless maps take more time to refine than when the mapper is in a team. But how many maps selected for Motm were actually adjusted after the ESL Motm tournament ? Motm could be more efficient if it was used to improve the quality of maps rather than being a marketing buzz. But the idea that team maps are already refined when they enter the contest too often stops mappers from updating them. And where are the maps now, who plays them ? That's why I suggest to aim the organization more towards the mapping community and improving the quality of maps.
The underlying idea is mapping teams need to stop looking down on other mappers and being condescending, like when neobowman says only a few percentage out of the top players are able to discuss strategy, and that if your map wasn't selected it's because it was terrible. Or when lefix starts giving a lesson on professionalism and the gaming industry. Take the biggest success of the mapping community, Cloud Kingdom. I took screenshots of the positional imbalances, mostly because both naturals aren't symmetrical : + Show Spoiler +
The first error was fixed by Blizzard but still remains on the ESV version that tournaments use. The second error comes from bad copy pasting, all minerals and gas are displaced by 1 square in each direction, resulting in a gas geiser needing 4 probes to be efficiently mined. There was a thread in the strategy section about this problem stating that such a gas earns 127 less gas at the time a regular gas is mined out.
So yes, please tell me about the professionalism of teams, how such monstruosities were left out by the most professional mappers out there ? Mapping teams need to stop blindly thinking that good mappers produce flawless maps. You need to focus on raw gameplay rather than the spaceshark position. I won't talk about the blurry look of the map in high settings but more generally about the aesthetics, and the disgrace of the WCG reskins told ESV shouldn't be so proud of themselves.
And please stop believing the only people that understand the game or watch a lot of Starcraft 2 on Teamliquid are the TPW and ESV teams. We all do. If you want I can link you to VODs of big games where bugs happened and were caused by the mappers. Most of the bugs would only have required a few clicks to fix if the mappers were aware of what causes these bugs. But apparently no one in mapping teams noticed them. And please don't tell me again that mistakes should remain.
I still stand by my statement. And we don't make flawless maps. A flawless map would actually be boring. But either way, we're people too. We make mistakes. Point them out to us and we'll fix them right away. Like Diamond said, we already fixed Cloud Kingdom and it's due to communication errors that tournaments still use the unfixed version.
On March 16 2012 04:46 Barrin wrote: Barrin's List of Honorable Mentions
You forgot to mention that borealis has a big problem with the accessibility of the third
I personally believe that it wouldn't be too hard to hold. As Toss, forcefields + units can hold the middle bases quite handily as can Terran with a planetary. Zerg doesn't need to expand to a safe location and can go mutaling. Even if you take the clock position bases, you can still forcefield the long paths.
But that's all theorycrafting and you'd need some solid testing on that. Which is not present so it's understandable that it didn't make it in.
On March 16 2012 04:46 Barrin wrote: Barrin's List of Honorable Mentions
You forgot to mention that borealis has a big problem with the accessibility of the third
I personally believe that it wouldn't be too hard to hold. As Toss, forcefields + units can hold the middle bases quite handily as can Terran with a planetary. Zerg doesn't need to expand to a safe location and can go mutaling. Even if you take the clock position bases, you can still forcefield the long paths.
But that's all theorycrafting and you'd need some solid testing on that. Which is not present so it's understandable that it didn't make it in.
I played a few games on it, and the distance is really really big. In BW it would be fine, but not in sc2 unfortunately Like pavillion, Borealis had a sick concept that we really wanted to work but it didn't I really hope you try and improve the map - PM me if you want some games played on it and/or more feedback.
If I can drop a note on Titanus, Lefix. Much better name than Metropolis, by the way. Anyway, when watching the EG team games, the distinctive art in the metropolis bases served as a very easy indicator to me when I was watching of just which base we were at (this was a tvt). It's a very viewer friendly feature. And the base-distinguishing art didn't distract or break the theme, but it really did make observing easier. (The spawns were 12 and 6, and the 12 had a mostly light color background and the bottom one dark. This served as a fantastic visual shorthand.) If you can find a way to keep that edge in your update of that, it would be awesome.
In fact, I think all maps would benefit from it. Can anyone give a reason it shouldn't be done?
Also, DAAAYYUUM, these aesthetics are really looking top notch and clean, and still distinct. The community is amazing. Some of these styles are so good, I hope to see them used again if it doesn't work out with their current map.
While we're at it, air space (at least at the borders) should always be clearly visible (highly contrasting) on the minimap. And pathable area should never be confusable with unpathable area on the minimap.
While we're at it, air space (at least at the borders) should always be clearly visible (highly contrasting) on the minimap. And pathable area should never be confusable with unpathable area on the minimap.
Which btw you don't have to fix in the editor. You can just open the map file with the mpq editor and fix the actual minimap picture.
If you are getting bored of mapmaking and feel there aren't enough options, PLEASE speak up in that thread.
I hate 8m2g. I hate it with passion.
I do not feel comfortable judging maps designed for something that I feel is fundamentally flawed, nor should you feel comfortable in me doing it either (not that I can't be objective in this sense, I'm just tired of doing it). If I were to continue judging, I would mostly pick maps I think would work good on 7m or 6m regardless of if they're 8m, and argue for them as if they were 7m. I will be making maps that are designed for 6m or 7m (mostly 7m), but I will be making 8m versions of them to compete in competitions.
Heretic, blasphemer. Call me what you want. I would like to say I don't care, but that's not true. This is actually quite sad IMO.
If you are getting bored of mapmaking and feel there aren't enough options, PLEASE speak up in that thread.
I hate 8m2g. I hate it with passion.
I do not feel comfortable judging maps designed for something that I feel is fundamentally flawed, nor should you feel comfortable in me doing it either (not that I can't be objective in this sense, I'm just tired of doing it). If I were to continue judging, I would mostly pick maps I think would work good on 7m or 6m regardless of if they're 8m, and argue for them as if they were 7m. I will be making maps that are designed for 6m or 7m (mostly 7m), but I will be making 8m versions of them to compete in competitions.
Heretic, blasphemer. Call me what you want. I would like to say I don't care, but that's not true. This is actually quite sad IMO.
Quite enlightening, I must say.
However, heretic and blasphemer fail to apply. I would describe you as a visionary.
Perhaps I should have warned people that reading the Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article might kill their interest in the way SC2 is now :X Maybe that's not really what this is but it's a nice thought ^^