I'm pleased to announce that the judges have had their say and the votes have been counted, and this seasons set of finalists have been decided. We had over 140 submissions to TLMC2 across both the 1v1 and team play portions of the contest. We were immediately blown away by the quality of the submissions and deciding between the top maps in both categories was incredibly difficult. The judges this season were instructed to look for variety and new ideas in their maps, while remaining balanced. It was this emphasis on diversity and fresh ideas that ultimately separated the very good maps from the very best. All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
So who were the judges this season?
WW.MorroW: Morrow is a progamer playing for the team Western Wolves, and has dabbled in both Terran and Zerg. While his insight as a progamer brings much to the table, Morrow was also an active mapper during the BW era and early WoL. He made the micro tournament map which bares his name and even submitted an entry to the first TLMC. The combination of both progaming and mapping knowledge made him an exceptional judge for this contest.
monk: Monk leads the TL strategy section and as a result knows a ton about the game. His ability to theorycraft and map out how maps are expected to play were invaluable assets for the judging process. He is also a high masters/gm level Protoss player and brought that expertise to his judging as well.
Ragoo: Ragoo was a finalist in the first season of TLMC but decided that he would not be submitting this season. As as a result we picked him up to judge this seasons entries. He is an incredibly talented mapper and as a result is able to give a good reflection of the perspective of the map making community in his judging.
Liquid`TLO: TLO was without doubt the best random player during the early life of WoL and has transition into one of the premier European Zergs. He was able to bring a balanced perspective to his judging because of his experience with all three races at the highest level. Despite his WCS commitments, he found the time to give his valuable input and we're really appreciative of that!
Plexa: Plexa is an admin on TL and is the organiser of the TLMC. While not directly involved in the judging, he served as the moderator for the contest's judging and decided the finalists for each category based off of the feedback/rankings of the judges.
The images below are obviously too small for you to form an opinion on the maps, so please click on the images to view full size pictures of the maps. The maps are presented in alphabetical order in each category.
The Finalists: 1v1
TPW Electric Circuit by lefix
Features: - Spawns are 1, 5, 7, 11. All spawns enabled. - There is an inbase natural and exterior natural that are easy to take - The exterior natural and main are the same height level - There is a backdoor entrance to the inbase natural blocked by rocks
CruX Frost by Semmo
Features: - Spawns are 1, 5, 7, 11. All spawns enabled. - Accessible thirds no matter where you and your opponent spawn - Thirds are harassable by backdoor paths - Two watchtowers can help you control the center
ESV Insidious by Timetwister22
Features: - Spawns are 11 and 5. - Natural has a second entrance blocked by rocks - Terrain is complex with many places to outplay your opponent
TPW Keru by Meerel
Features: - Spawns are 2 and 8. - Mains are on the lowground, natural on highground - Clearing the rocks in the center allows for an aggressive midgame - No watchtowers
TPW Khalim's Will by Meerel
Features: - Spawns are 2 and 8. - Backdoor expansion and easy to take forward base. - Back door entrance blocked by destructible rocks. - Multiple attacks paths, easier to attack back door than main
TPW Koprulu by monitor
Features: - Spawns are 1, 5, 7, 11. All spawns enabled. - Thirds are unique 'double sided' bases, similar to Outsider from Brood War - Double sided base can be taken as natural, but is easily harassable - Protoss can warp in over the double sided bases mineral wall
ESV Ravage by IronManSC
Features: - Spawns are 4 and 10. - Simple main-nat-third setup - Center highground partially blocked by rocks, serves as a major strategic focus in the mid-late game
TPW Strangewood Mire by Samro225am
Features: - Spawns are 1, 5, 7, 11. All spawns enabled. - Accessible thirds regardless of starting locations - Collapsible rocks can be used to slow down early-midgame attacks
DF Yeonsu by etcetera
Features: - Spawns are 2 and 8. - Main-nat-third setup very similar to Ohana - Islands at 11 and 5, no rocks blocking them - Standard macro oriented map
The Finalists: Teamplay
TPW Drifas Throne by Meerel 2v2
Features: - Spawns are top vs bottom. - Players are separated, but their naturals are joined via a back passage - Both naturals can be easily walled, as if it were a 1v1 map - Gold base between naturals will be a major focus point of strategy on this map
ESV Emrel Coast by Timetwister22 2v2
Features: - Spawns are bottom left, top right. - Island expansions are very close to the mains - Strategic highground divides the map in half - Defensive macro oriented map
TPW Mystic by monitor 2v2
Features: - Spawns are Left vs Right or Top vs Bottom - Map is split into two halves using a double layer of destructible rocks - Left vs Right results in two '1v1' games until players break the rocks in the center or get air units - Top vs Bottom results in an island map game - Reminiscent of the hugely successful 2v2 map 'Iron Curtain'
TPW Sandlands by lefix 2v2
Features: - Spawns are bottom left vs top right. - There are two in base expansions; one is safe one is exposed. - Two central gold bases are very difficult to defend, but may prove to be major focal points in the late game - One easy third base, other expansions are more difficult to secure
TPW Mooniacs by lefix 3v3
Features: - Spawns are bottom left vs top right. - Every player has an easy to secure natural - Thirds are reasonably easy to take as well - Conducive to macro oriented play
TPW Rimfrost by Meltage 3v3
Features: - Spawns are bottom left vs top right - Only two players have easy to secure naturals, the other has to do a little work before being able to secure the base - Defensive highground allows players to fend off attacks easily but there are multiple paths so unit positioning is very important
CruX Breeze by Semmo 4v4
Features: - Spawns are top vs bottom (light circles vs dark circles) - Highly aggressive map, most games will be mass Tier 1 or Tier 1.5 units - Map will be very simple to play, but will require good team synergy to win games - Channels the spirit of the map "The Hunters" from Brood War
ESV Retribution by NewSunshine 4v4
Features: - Spawns are bottom left vs top right. - Standard style 4v4 map - Every player has a possible natural and third to take - Central gold bases may prove to be the difference in long games
Now What?
Very shortly we will be announcing the dates for the TL Opens aimed to test these maps. You will be able to play test each of these maps in battle.net with your friends very shortly (I will be uploading the maps immediately after this, sit tight!). TL Strategy will also be taking a look at each of the 1v1 maps to give everyone a better understanding of how each map plays out. After the TL Opens have concluded there will be a public vote and a progamer vote to decide the winning maps from each category -- so start picking your favourites now!
All maps will be uploaded with the [TLMC] tag so that you and your friends can find the maps easily on the Arcade.
But for now, please join with me in congratulating the finalists on their achievement. I'm really looking forward to seeing which of these maps ends up winning!
Damn, there are some pretty great maps, looking forward to the explanation for the winning one (in the sense of, why it won and not how to play on it :D) and hope it will get picked up by some leagues.
Habitation Station didn't make it . That was my personal favorite among all the entries. Looking at these though, I like Strangewood Mire designwise especially.
Congratulations to all the finalists. All the maps look fantastic and I can't wait to see which ones will win (and hopefully get added to the Blizzard map pool)! :D
"TLO was without doubt the best random player during the early life of WoL and has transition into one of the premier European Zergs." Since he was the only one invited to the tournaments
But on topic i hope some of those will be included in the pro tournaments because map pool right now is a little bit silly.
On May 20 2013 21:55 MLuneth wrote: Will these be on all regions?
On May 20 2013 21:59 Dr.Sin wrote: Blizzard should make it easier to find these maps on Bnet.
If it works like TLMC (1), you can expect all maps being uploaded to all regions right now! They should be easy to find by searching for TLMC later today.
Keru seems interesting but the potential of warpgate allins in PVP scares me. Time to see what PVP would be like having low ground to high ground pylon warpins in HotS with Mothership Core, except this time they're high ground to low ground. :D
There are too many entries for the finalists to make up my mind about which one looks the best. Overall, Keru strikes me as a very decent map and I would love to play on it, maybe even have it on the ladder.
On May 20 2013 22:20 Arco wrote: Keru seems interesting but the potential of warpgate allins in PVP scares me. Time to see what PVP would be like having low ground to high ground pylon warpins in HotS with Mothership Core, except this time they're high ground to low ground. :D
I actually consider this a serious and unnacceptable flaw in a map, where the only viable strategy in PvP will be a 4 gate. In one of my subitted maps i have the same feature, but i actually fixed it by adding an extra layer into the natural to let the defending player have an actual ramp like in normal maps.
aka main goes up, there is a plateau, then goes up again into a smaller plateau, then goes down like a normal ramp into natural.
On May 20 2013 22:20 Arco wrote: Keru seems interesting but the potential of warpgate allins in PVP scares me. Time to see what PVP would be like having low ground to high ground pylon warpins in HotS with Mothership Core, except this time they're high ground to low ground. :D
I actually consider this a serious and unnacceptable flaw in a map, where the only viable strategy in PvP will be a 4 gate. In one of my subitted maps i have the same feature, but i actually fixed it by adding an extra layer into the natural to let the defending player have an actual ramp like in normal maps.
aka main goes up, there is a plateau, then goes up again into a smaller plateau, then goes down like a normal ramp into natural.
We're aware the the low-ground main of Keru is a significant risk. If the testing conducted this week by TL strategy concludes that pvp is broken on the map we have a highground version of the map ready to swap in. We felt that given the radical changes to SC2 via HotS it was worth giving PvP a chance on this map with lowground mains.
Some really great maps in here, I personally like Frost a lot.
I'm not so sure about double sided bases like that in SC2 though...It will be so easy for Terran to drop behind the mineral line and so hard to defend. Maybe if it was easier to get to the other side of the mineral line it would be fine, but in Khalim's Will you'd have to go aaaall the way around and it would take way too much time.
On May 20 2013 22:20 Arco wrote: Keru seems interesting but the potential of warpgate allins in PVP scares me. Time to see what PVP would be like having low ground to high ground pylon warpins in HotS with Mothership Core, except this time they're high ground to low ground. :D
I actually consider this a serious and unnacceptable flaw in a map, where the only viable strategy in PvP will be a 4 gate. In one of my subitted maps i have the same feature, but i actually fixed it by adding an extra layer into the natural to let the defending player have an actual ramp like in normal maps.
aka main goes up, there is a plateau, then goes up again into a smaller plateau, then goes down like a normal ramp into natural.
We're aware the the low-ground main of Keru is a significant risk. If the testing conducted this week by TL strategy concludes that pvp is broken on the map we have a highground version of the map ready to swap in. We felt that given the radical changes to SC2 via HotS it was worth giving PvP a chance on this map with lowground mains.
yeah. I like that the judges have been tolerant enough to try some experimental stuff. Though I'm not quite sure of what difference it does make gameplaywise, whether the main is high- or lowground (assuming it does not play out broken in the early game).
Very impressed by these, looking forward to playing on them and seeing who the winners are, I think I wanna live in Strangewood Mire. Yeonsu looks sweet and the teamplay maps look cool too, Mystic intrigues me.
God, I hope a map wins that's different from the standard Daybreak clone. The game already have lots of maps with an easy to defend natural and a relatively easy third. No diversity and all strats works the same on all current maps.
I like Electric Circuit, Khalim's Will, Koprulu a lot. The others aren't that interesting.
Congrats to everyone who has made it to the finals! I'm really looking forward to the TL Open based around these maps I just reallllllyyyyyy hope that it isn't on June 1st since I'll be casting a LAN.
Anyway best of luck guys I'm looking forward to seeing these maps in action soon!
On May 20 2013 23:37 endy wrote: Did Superouman not participate or his maps were not good enough ? :/
if I remember correctly he left mapmaking because he thought SC2 was broken (he really disliked colossi), glitchy (zerglings pushing zealots away from a hold position spot) and overall not as great of a game as BW. So I doubt he actually participated
Wow, this surprised me a lot. I thought ESV Khalis had a better shot than ravage, but hey, still good maps nonetheless! Congrats to all who made it. Some serious competition from damn good mappers here!
On May 20 2013 23:55 moskonia wrote: Not a single map from a mapper that is not in a team, I don't know if its favoritism or not, but it sure feels like it.
On May 20 2013 21:21 Plexa wrote: All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
On May 20 2013 23:55 moskonia wrote: Not a single map from a mapper that is not in a team, I don't know if its favoritism or not, but it sure feels like it.
On May 20 2013 21:21 Plexa wrote: All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
Man, these are some really cool maps. As a huge fan of Outsider, I've been waiting to see when a map like that was going to make an appearance in SC2. I hope we get some really cool games. Is it still possible to push your probe/SCV through a mineral line?
I don't think 4-gate PvP is as much of a problem anymore with the Mothership Core added to the game, so that allows for some more interesting map features that weren't allowed in WoL. I can't wait to test these maps with some friends, some of them look really cool
Congratulations finalists! I'm a little sad none of my stuff made it but /shrug, oh well. I actually agree with all the 1v1 maps except 2 (maaaybe 3). Team maps all look interesting though, although I don't have much to say about them because I don't play/create team maps at all.
Insidious was a favorite of mine when I saw TT was submitting it and it's still a favorite of mine now.
Especially gz to Mereel, more then compensating for every contest where he almost, but didnt, become a finalist! No reason to rage and get yourself banned this time hurh hurh
I love that some of them are reminiscent of great bw maps like iron curtain and outsider!! Great job on all the entries and I hope TLMC becomes a part of the community more and more.
Khalim Will must have based on some BW map that I totally forget the name Koprulu has the Outsider idea done right. Great work monitor! Electric Circuit is some of the best port out there, although the aesthetic hurts my eyes
thats my top 3 map. Keru & Frost looks interesting too, the others seem a too generic with a few twists here and there
On May 21 2013 00:42 Zax19 wrote: That’s a surprisingly poor selection. Ravage is ok, the rest is too flawed in one way or another to make it to the final IMO.
A huge problem in map making right now is that people have boxed 'acceptable' maps into a set of constraints that stifle creativity to the point where if a map isn't a daybreak clone it is a shit map. With HotS changing so many things I think it's time we leave our preconceived notions of what makes a map good at the door and see what these maps have to offer to spice up gameplay. Any serious imbalances will be treated before the TL Open after the testing of the TL Strategy team.
EDIT: all maps except retribution have been uploaded. Retribution is giving me an error when I try upload it so I will work out what is going wrong with NewSunshine and get it uploaded asap.
On May 21 2013 00:42 Zax19 wrote: That’s a surprisingly poor selection. Ravage is ok, the rest is too flawed in one way or another to make it to the final IMO.
A huge problem in map making right now is that people have boxed 'acceptable' maps into a set of constraints that stifle creativity to the point where if a map isn't a daybreak clone is it a shit map. With HotS changing so many things I think it's time we leave our preconceived notions of what makes a map good at the door and see what these maps have to offer to spice up gameplay. Any serious imbalances will be treated before the TL Open after the testing of the TL Strategy team.
Can I just use this post as an oppurtunity to not only the map makers themselves, but also yourself and the other judges/organisers of this contest to give you guys a huge, massive thankyou? I'm so glad this is the approach the contest took and I couldn't have really asked for better finalists to be chosen as you've given us a good list of very different maps that all look to play differently and add interesting concepts to the game.
I'm so happy one of these maps is going to make it on to ladder and not, as you said another Daybreak clone. I can't thank you enough, seriously. :D
Most maps look like they might be fun to play, but I'm sceptical of the backdoor entrances and the lowground main... Also, taking a third on Korpulu doesn't seem possible at all, especially against terran... I kinda like Frost the best.
The maps all look fantastic, and have great names, but some of the maps seem to have irrationally hard to take thirds. Nonetheless, they all look much better to play on than some of the crap we have now- star station >
On May 21 2013 00:42 Zax19 wrote: That’s a surprisingly poor selection. Ravage is ok, the rest is too flawed in one way or another to make it to the final IMO.
A huge problem in map making right now is that people have boxed 'acceptable' maps into a set of constraints that stifle creativity to the point where if a map isn't a daybreak clone it is a shit map. With HotS changing so many things I think it's time we leave our preconceived notions of what makes a map good at the door and see what these maps have to offer to spice up gameplay. Any serious imbalances will be treated before the TL Open after the testing of the TL Strategy team.
EDIT: all maps except retribution have been uploaded. Retribution is giving me an error when I try upload it so I will work out what is going wrong with NewSunshine and get it uploaded asap.
I thought a lot of the maps looked very interesting. Back door rocks reminds me of the original Shakuras Plateau which created so many hilarious games, for me at least. Thanks to the TL admins and members of the community for making this happen! How far out is the TL Open?
Choosing only 1 from the 1v1 maps would be a mistake. I would like to see at least 3 incorporated in the ladder these maps are pretty amazing and would be a shame to throw them in the garbage and never play on them again.
On May 21 2013 00:42 Zax19 wrote: That’s a surprisingly poor selection. Ravage is ok, the rest is too flawed in one way or another to make it to the final IMO.
A huge problem in map making right now is that people have boxed 'acceptable' maps into a set of constraints that stifle creativity to the point where if a map isn't a daybreak clone it is a shit map. With HotS changing so many things I think it's time we leave our preconceived notions of what makes a map good at the door and see what these maps have to offer to spice up gameplay. Any serious imbalances will be treated before the TL Open after the testing of the TL Strategy team.
EDIT: all maps except retribution have been uploaded. Retribution is giving me an error when I try upload it so I will work out what is going wrong with NewSunshine and get it uploaded asap.
Well, that’s the thing. I love Daybreak because it’s a good map, and a good map is more important to me than a new map. It’s not about being a clone anyway, for example Penumbra, EK Icecrown , The Belly of the Beast, Artesia Prospect and Eureka seem interesting. I don’t think that going for quirky maps just for the sake of something new is a good idea. You made your opinion clear during CTL so it’s not a new concept to me but I didn’t expect TLMC to turn out this way.
Wow super cool maps! TPW Koprulu looks insane and I really like CruX Frost and ESV Ravage. Shame there weren't more 3-player style maps but these look fantastic, great job to all the mapmakers!
Wasn't the main-low-ground tried in Proleague and ditched because of the dramatic changes of the early defense paradigm? It seems like a high-ground bunker or cannon rush would be unstoppable, and as a result you'd be forced to taking your high ground and not letting anything past the natural choke asap in all match-ups except ZvZ, forcing the fast-expand-or-die-trying mentality that you saw mostly in early SC2 maps like Shattered Temple or Metalopolis, with one-base openings being inherently all-in?
Wasn't the main-low-ground tried in Proleague and ditched because of the dramatic changes of the early defense paradigm? It seems like a high-ground bunker or cannon rush would be unstoppable, and as a result you'd be forced to taking your high ground and not letting anything past the natural choke asap in all match-ups except ZvZ, forcing the fast-expand-or-die-trying mentality that you saw mostly in early SC2 maps like Shattered Temple or Metalopolis, with one-base openings being inherently all-in?
On May 20 2013 22:20 Arco wrote: Keru seems interesting but the potential of warpgate allins in PVP scares me. Time to see what PVP would be like having low ground to high ground pylon warpins in HotS with Mothership Core, except this time they're high ground to low ground. :D
I actually consider this a serious and unnacceptable flaw in a map, where the only viable strategy in PvP will be a 4 gate. In one of my subitted maps i have the same feature, but i actually fixed it by adding an extra layer into the natural to let the defending player have an actual ramp like in normal maps.
aka main goes up, there is a plateau, then goes up again into a smaller plateau, then goes down like a normal ramp into natural.
We're aware the the low-ground main of Keru is a significant risk. If the testing conducted this week by TL strategy concludes that pvp is broken on the map we have a highground version of the map ready to swap in. We felt that given the radical changes to SC2 via HotS it was worth giving PvP a chance on this map with lowground mains.
Extend PvP to all matchups but yeah, we're aware but we want to test properly before abandoning the low ground.
Especially gz to Mereel, more then compensating for every contest where he almost, but didnt, become a finalist! No reason to rage and get yourself banned this time hurh hurh
I can't say lefix and samro being finalists is a surprise considering they've helped organize the tournament. I can't say I like the maps that are selected and I was hoping for a bit more originality or new features. Several maps play exactly like Daybreak and I think the layout has had its time, some maps have impossible 3rds which is the problem on already existing maps in hots. The only features that seem to have been validated are low ground mains or warpable backdoors and they're getting very old. Plus they're not fun features and make random/broken games. I included a replay of my map with Euro GM players and apparently noone of the judges bothered to look at it to know if my features were balanced.
All in all I think Blizzard does a better job at experimenting new features with the ladder maps.
On May 21 2013 01:34 chuky500 wrote: I can't say lefix and samro being finalists is a surprise considering they've helped organize the tournament. I can't say I like the maps that are selected and I was hoping for a bit more originality or new features. Several maps play exactly like Daybreak and I think the layout has had its time, some maps have impossible 3rds which is the problem on already existing maps in hots. The only features that seem to have been validated are low ground mains or warpable backdoors and they're getting very old. Plus they're not fun features and make random/broken games. I included a replay of my map with Euro GM players and apparently noone of the judges bothered to look at it to know if my features were balanced.
All in all I think Blizzard does a better job at experimenting new features with the ladder maps.
chuky. 1) Back2back will never win any map tournament no matter how many times you submit it. Sorry. 2) Read the OP. All maps were judged without any way for the judges to identify the maps as being from the author or from a team.
Strangewood Mire looks good for mech against protoss. The choke at natural allows tanks on the highground in your main to protect you from immortal busts and other all ins. Kind of like neo planet S. and has a bw flavor to your first 3 bases. I hope this map is added.
On May 21 2013 00:42 Zax19 wrote: That’s a surprisingly poor selection. Ravage is ok, the rest is too flawed in one way or another to make it to the final IMO.
A huge problem in map making right now is that people have boxed 'acceptable' maps into a set of constraints that stifle creativity to the point where if a map isn't a daybreak clone it is a shit map. With HotS changing so many things I think it's time we leave our preconceived notions of what makes a map good at the door and see what these maps have to offer to spice up gameplay. Any serious imbalances will be treated before the TL Open after the testing of the TL Strategy team.
EDIT: all maps except retribution have been uploaded. Retribution is giving me an error when I try upload it so I will work out what is going wrong with NewSunshine and get it uploaded asap.
Well, that’s the thing. I love Daybreak because it’s a good map, and a good map is more important to me than a new map. It’s not about being a clone anyway, for example Penumbra, EK Icecrown , The Belly of the Beast, Artesia Prospect and Eureka seem interesting. I don’t think that going for quirky maps just for the sake of something new is a good idea. You made your opinion clear during CTL so it’s not a new concept to me but I didn’t expect TLMC to turn out this way.
Looking at every HoTS game played on it, Daybreak is far from a good map.
We don't know what a good HoTS map is yet.
Also @Keru, I like the low ground main and I honestly don't see what the difference it makes. Surely in everything but maybe PvP you could wall in on the highground and zerg take early expands in every matchup anyway so it makes little to no difference to them.
I remember plenty of maps in BW where as Terran I'd have to wall off initially at the choke to my nat rather than my main and it worked fine.
These are the 1v1 finishes lol? Yeonsu and Ravage are the only good/great ones there, the rest are below average imo. Nice contest any ways I like the team play addition we needed it.
Koprulu won me with the mineral wall on the side. All maps are really great, to me they are all winners already, and hopefully we will see them played a lot.
p.s. This should have a front page panel among the other major TL news.
Grats to the winners! I didn't really expect to win, since mine didn't have the greatest aesthetics (and clearly aesthetics were one of the important things here). But I had some hope of course :-P
I think I like most of the choices, and I'm glad they chose some experimental maps (was really afraid of all-standard)! I think Koprulu was probably a mistake (<3 most of monitor's maps though) because of the ginormous positional imbalance.. but we'll see how it plays. I'm also highly dubious of lowground mains in SC2 @ Keru, but we should playtest before deciding for sure..
Looking forward to seeing them played and seeing what emerges from the rest!
I really like the maps from Meerel.. The guy had guts to play around with 1v1 maps with different pathings on the middle, though that last map of his (with Throne in the name) looks a lot like "Eye of the storm" from BW.. Liked to play PvZ a lot on that one, so kinda cool that there is similar map again..
There are some maps that I don't like TBH.. A lot of the 4 spawn in corner maps seem to have the same or a very similar at least pathing in the middle..
Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player (platinum) and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
I played all of them in a row just now with clan mates, Ravage and Strangewood Mire were the favorites by far by most of us. I hope these reach the ladder.
On May 21 2013 02:48 saltis wrote: Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
Sadly, there are only a few non dark tile sets. Sc2 is just a dark game, and that's just how it goes. But saying you wouldn't pick a map cause of aesthetics is horrendous. Gameplay first man. Always gameplay first.
On May 21 2013 02:59 Blargh wrote: What if Blizzard would actually USE one of these maps? Wouldn't that be crazy??!
You are aware that blizzard will consider the top 3-5 right? In the first TLMC, the top 3 maps were all used on ladder: cloud kingdom, ohana, and korhal compound.
On May 21 2013 02:48 saltis wrote: Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
Sadly, there are only a few non dark tile sets. Sc2 is just a dark game, and that's just how it goes. But saying you wouldn't pick a map cause of aesthetics is horrendous. Gameplay first man. Always gameplay first.
Well, the reason is not simply because of design, the reason is practical - I hardly can see what is on the dark map when I have sun shining into my room. As i mentioned before, I am not a Pro gamer with best living pro conditions to perform on the best level. I love this game, it is the best game in the long term, but its not exciting to have strained eyes.
I haven't played on any yet, but Strangewood in particular is very physically beautiful, which to be honest is a big factor in me not getting bored of maps so quickly (not more so than great gameplay, but definitely something that counts)
Honestly I hope lots of these get picked up in tournaments because nothing reinforces/renews my interest in SC2 like seeing/playing a map I haven't taken 500 games in on already.
While it's pretty safe to say that TPW is the strongest team right now, I don't think they are so dominate that they deserve 60% of the finalist positions. It must be great to have your teammate judging the maps.
Really sad I and other people aswell put in so much time and hard work, creating some really nice maps, only to not have a chance anyways, since not being on ESV, TPW etc. It's a shame bad maps from teams made it in there, while other good maps haven't been able. :/ Sorry but some map designs and ideas are just bullshit and it's pretty obvious, that they are going to completely suck, especially in some matchups. Kind of disappointing.
You guys don't really deserve a response, but if you truly believe Ragoo being on TPW favored TPW maps, his opinion accounted for only 1/4th of the final standings. Also,
All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
On May 21 2013 03:24 GeOnoSis wrote: Really sad I and other people aswell put in so much time and hard work, creating some really nice maps, only to not have a chance anyways, since not being on ESV, TPW etc. It's a shame bad maps from teams made it in there, while other good maps haven't been able. :/ Sorry but some map designs and ideas are just bullshit and it's pretty obvious, that they are going to completely suck, especially in some matchups. Kind of disappointing.
Please read the OP. The judges did not judge with knowing who made what or what teams the maps came from. The only exception is Ragoo, as he's well informed about the mapmaking scene, the authors, and the teams. The other judges probably did not though.
I really like Keru & Koprulu simply because they're throwing in new elements. We already have plenty of huge macro maps with small main ramps, easy thirds, blah blah blah. We need new ideas, new map concepts, and these two maps have it.
You guys don't really deserve a response, but if you truly believe Ragoo being on TPW favored TPW maps, his opinion accounted for only 1/4th of the final standings. Also, All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
Pretty shitty taste of maps and sense of what might be complete bullshit then. I mean like Keru.. seriously. This is not creativity, this is just dumb. Imagine any PvP or sth on a map like this. Okay my fault if 3/4 of the judges did not know who created those maps. Still sad that many good maps did not make it through and some really crappy maps did.
A disappointing thing in the maps is appart from Insidious, every map has a siegable natural or 3rd base. Props to Electric Circuit, Koprulu and Keru who even have the natural's CC/Nexus/Hatch that's siegable from outside the base. Haven't mappers learnt from Steppes of War and Lost Temple ? Even Khoral Compound and Tal'darim Altar have already demonstrated that you can't have a siegable 3rd nor a part of the natural, but still Khalim's Will has half the mineral line and a gas that's siegable, and Ravage has a gas in the natural that you can hit with tanks. The sad part is Monitor is even accentuating his former winning map's flaw. In Korhal Compound the siegable 3rd was bad and now he puts a siegable natural...
I kept browsing the Custom maps thread and mappers say they know so much more now than when they started mapping but in my opinion there's still a long way to go. I thought this was about trying new features not about proving that broken features from 3 years ago were indeed broken.
You guys don't really deserve a response, but if you truly believe Ragoo being on TPW favored TPW maps, his opinion accounted for only 1/4th of the final standings. Also, All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
Pretty shitty taste of maps and sense of what might be complete bullshit then. I mean like Keru.. seriously. This is not creativity, this is just dumb. Imagine any PvP or sth on a map like this. Okay my fault if 3/4 of the judges did not know who created those maps. Still sad that many good maps did not make it through and some really crappy maps did.
How is a highground main with barely any room to warp in any different from having a low ground main?
Also it encourages you to go nexus first or gate into nexus with mothership core and you can even wall the highground. You could even put unbuildable terrain at the point where you can warp down and warp ins don't ever happen again.
If you're getting contained on a ramp by a forcefield, that happens regardless if it's up or down.
How is a highground main with barely any room to warp in any different from having a low ground main?
Also it encourages you to go nexus first or gate into nexus with mothership core and you can even wall the highground. You could even put unbuildable terrain at the point where you can warp down and warp ins don't ever happen again.
If you're getting contained on a ramp by a forcefield, that happens regardless if it's up or down.
It's a huge difference. Easiest example PvT or PvP. You can't just poke UP a choke vs marines etc. that easily without any risks. Now think how a Stalker poke will look like when you have complete vision. Not only that, but now your opponent can't even look up. It's just dumb and will make this matchup really weird, but surely not in a good way. Even TvT walling would be a bad idea, since they can destroy your wall with literally a handful of units.
PvP kind of the same. Bring back the good old 4 Gate/early 3 Gate pressure etc. And even if the game doesn't end in 7 mins it's a matchup where the games often tend to be on 1 base for quite some time. There used to be a thing called the defenders advantage, but on this map, it's more like the opposite. Especially vs Protoss where distance for reinforcement doesn't matter. The attacking player will have the advantage.
PvT again: Protoss all ins, Terran has to lift the Base and take it to the highground IN YOUR MAIN to be able to defend the attack. A design like this will make all ins even stronger than they already are in many cases.
On May 21 2013 03:41 chuky500 wrote: A disappointing thing in the maps is appart from Insidious, every map has a siegable natural or 3rd base. Props to Electric Circuit, Koprulu and Keru who have the Natural's CC/Nexus/Hatch that's siegable from outside the base. Haven't mappers learnt from Steppes of War and Lost Temple ? Even Khoral City and Tal'darim Altar demonstrated that you can't have a siegable 3rd nor a part of the natural, but Khalim's Will has half the mineral line and a gas that's siegable, and Ravage has a gas in the natural that you can hit with tanks.
I kept browsing the Custom maps thread and mappers say know so much more now than when they started mapping but in my opinion there's still a long way to go. I thought this was about trying new features not about proving that broken features from 3 years ago were indeed broken.
Way to look at the big picture of a map, the way every feature of a map comes together to create the whole, and not pick terrible examples to demonstrate your point.
I'm disappointed people don't really have an open mind, especially when considering top level play. Not every single map has to be standard in this voting pool. Only what, 1-3 will be seriously considered for a ladder spot or 2, and even then they reserve the right to place none of them into their pool. This is a broad map contest/tournament in general, not just for ladder, but a great excuse to test what works and what doesn't in a HotS environment with many players and even pros. Even tournaments could pick some up if they are interesting and lead to good gameplay.
If you want standard maps, vote for standard maps. You can always veto non-standard, I guarantee you blizzard will never put more non-standard maps into the pool than you have vetos, 100% guarantee it.
Things that were downright terrible in WoL could easily end up being viable in HotS. Gameplay has changed so much, people (including me, being toss) thought speedivacs were the most ridiculous fucking idea on the planet...but my opinion is now that Terran literally needs them, or they would fall behind P and Z. New ideas, especially those that force people to 'play better', different, or adapt, should be welcomed with open arms.
For ladder in general, I believe standard maps are the way to go for the most part, however, due to the veto system blizzard can afford to put maps that have proven to be at the very least 'not bad' for the game into ladder to see how the game develops based on maps. A good ratio will be what I'm hoping for, potential progress will not come if maps never change the gameplay enough to matter. Will some of the maps lead to no progress, or even be downright bad in a HotS environment? You bet! Honestly, what the hell isn't like that? The future will come by itself, progress will not.
Standard maps will be plentiful in the coming months and years, especially with everyone's new stance on the map pools stagnating. Suck it up and vote for whatever maps you want and enjoy the ride, don't scorn those willing to try something that in the end will not hurt the game for having been tried when the opportunity presents itself.
On May 21 2013 03:30 monk wrote: You guys don't really deserve a response, but if you truly believe Ragoo being on TPW favored TPW maps, his opinion accounted for only 1/4th of the final standings. Also,
All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
Are you claiming that there was absolutely zero cross-communication between judges such that it would have been impossible for Ragoo to have influenced the other judges' decisions? Are you also claiming that Ragoo didn't know which maps were made by TPW simply because you left the names off them? Really? I know you guys worked really hard on judging these maps, and I can't wait to read the judges comments on the maps, if any are forthcoming. But please, don't be dismissive of complaints like that.
I'd make the team maps immediately go in the ladder pool, except for Drifas Throne, because, it may be too... complex for the ladder pool, according to Blizzard. You see, an island map? Oooohhhhhhhhhhhh, that's too hard for the casual player (mind you that the casual player has been playing for three years)
For 1v1 my favorite is Crux Frost, there's so many avenues for counter attacks it's good for drops/overlords it seems, and I could see all kinds of plays on it. It has a lot of room for proxies and allins despite its size. And it looks like it would lead to really nice macro games I'd imagine.
For 2v2 Drifas Throne looks really interesting. I'm not much of a 2v2 player but the 2v2 maps seem to be reallllly bad. This one actually looks pretty decent imo.
On May 21 2013 04:00 fezvez wrote: I'd make the team maps immediately go in the ladder pool, except for Drifas Throne, because, it may be too... complex for the ladder pool, according to Blizzard. You see, an island map? Oooohhhhhhhhhhhh, that's too hard for the casual player (mind you that the casual player has been playing for three years)
it would get rid of the traditional problem of rushing in team games
there might be casual players who have never known what it's like not to live in fear or the infamous 6 pool 3 rax 4 gate dt follow up.
On May 21 2013 03:30 monk wrote: You guys don't really deserve a response, but if you truly believe Ragoo being on TPW favored TPW maps, his opinion accounted for only 1/4th of the final standings. Also,
All entries were judged without any information which would identify them as being by a particular author or associated to a particular team.
Are you claiming that there was absolutely zero cross-communication between judges such that it would have been impossible for Ragoo to have influenced the other judges' decisions? Are you also claiming that Ragoo didn't know which maps were made by TPW simply because you left the names off them? Really? I know you guys worked really hard on judging these maps, and I can't wait to read the judges comments on the maps, if any are forthcoming. But please, don't be dismissive of complaints like that.
Without revealing too much, there was limited, if any communication between the judges. The response I gave could have been less harsh, but I believe it was appropriate given that the two comments before me outright directly accused the judges of favoritism.
On May 21 2013 02:48 saltis wrote: Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
Sadly, there are only a few non dark tile sets. Sc2 is just a dark game, and that's just how it goes. But saying you wouldn't pick a map cause of aesthetics is horrendous. Gameplay first man. Always gameplay first.
Well, the reason is not simply because of design, the reason is practical - I hardly can see what is on the dark map when I have sun shining into my room. As i mentioned before, I am not a Pro gamer with best living pro conditions to perform on the best level. I love this game, it is the best game in the long term, but its not exciting to have strained eyes.
I agree SC2 in general has way too dark maps. In the client and on stream - sometimes the gameplay is barely visible, because it's too dark.
I love darkness in games, but in an RTS it's of the highest importance to recognize units on the screen.
(edit: raising the gamma too much is also not an acceptable solution)
Without revealing too much, there was limited, if any communication between the judges. The response I gave could have been less harsh, but I believe it was appropriate given that the two comments before me outright directly accused the judges of favoritism.
I guess we were both exaggerating a little bit, sorry for that. My point of some maps being really bad and disappointing stays though.. I hope someone gets to explain me why maps like Keru should be any good on a professional level. Maybe it's just my own stupidity and I don't get it, but the bad design and huge problems that come with it should be pretty obvious to anyone..
Without revealing too much, there was limited, if any communication between the judges. The response I gave could have been less harsh, but I believe it was appropriate given that the two comments before me outright directly accused the judges of favoritism.
I guess we were both exaggerating a little bit, sorry for that. My point of some maps being really bad and disappointing stays though.. I hope someone gets to explain me why maps like Keru should be any good on a professional level. Maybe it's just my own stupidity and I don't get it, but the bad design and huge problems that come with it should be pretty obvious to anyone..
When is anything new blatantly and completely obvious, even to the pros? New builds/timings/ideas are constantly found over the course of months, when basically nothing is changed, not even the maps. Can you really say just trying new things is downright bad? Especially given an entire expansion was released since we seriously tested shit like this? There are some standard maps in there too, and most likely those will be chosen for ladder if any are. Keep an open mind...this isn't just for ladder, it's for mapping in general. It's an excuse to try shit.
When is anything new blatantly and completely obvious, even to the pros? New builds/timings are constantly found over the course of months, when basically nothing is changed, not even the maps. Can you really say just trying new things is downright bad?
It's obvious that this map would need some MAJOR CHANGES in gameplay or otherwise would be pretty imbalanced imo, but do you really want every map to be like this? Either that, or players would waste a lot of time, trying to figure out how to play it, which would definetely require a lot of time. Just to know how you should play on this one single map. I don't want to say that new things are bad. There will always be a change in gameplay and just the general pace, which is a good thing I guess! But there is a point where creativity and "change" goes to far and will just produce many problems and bad gameplay. What do you think about Klonats Mire? Fucking AWESOME, isn't it? Well if you think so.. you will neve get my point anyways I guess. I don't want to insult anyone, just making clear what I mean and how I mean it. Sorry for bad writing, explanation and just general english btw.
When is anything new blatantly and completely obvious, even to the pros? New builds/timings are constantly found over the course of months, when basically nothing is changed, not even the maps. Can you really say just trying new things is downright bad?
It's obvious that this map would need some MAJOR CHANGES in gameplay or otherwise would be pretty imbalanced imo, but do you really want every map to be like this? Either that, or players would waste a lot of time, trying to figure out how to play it, which would definetely require a lot of time. Just to know how you should play on this one single map. I don't want to say that new things are bad. There will always be a change in gameplay and just the general pace, which is a good thing I guess! But there is a point where creativity and "change" goes to far and will just produce many problems and bad gameplay. What do you think about Klonats Mire? Fucking AWESOME, isn't it? Well if you think so.. you will neve get my point anyways I guess. I don't want to insult anyone, just making clear what I mean and how I mean it. Sorry for bad writing, explanation and just general english btw.
rofl, 'in your opinion', Enough said. Klontas? who knows, who cares, they tried something new, maybe it will be bad, maybe it will be great. It's not a 'waste of time'. Nothing is lost for trying. Veto it if you don't like it, others will experiment. You can play the standard maps all you want buddy.
Things that were 'bad' in people's (even the pros) opinions ended up being good, just sit back and enjoy the ride, no one's forcing anything on you. It's an excuse to try shit with a tournament with plenty of players and maybe even a few pros.
Don't forget it's 2013 not 2011, HotS is out, and even the slightest changes in gameplay, thinking, or tactics can lead to paradigm shifts. This is a great opportunity.
When is anything new blatantly and completely obvious, even to the pros? New builds/timings are constantly found over the course of months, when basically nothing is changed, not even the maps. Can you really say just trying new things is downright bad?
It's obvious that this map would need some MAJOR CHANGES in gameplay or otherwise would be pretty imbalanced imo, but do you really want every map to be like this? Either that, or players would waste a lot of time, trying to figure out how to play it, which would definetely require a lot of time. Just to know how you should play on this one single map. I don't want to say that new things are bad. There will always be a change in gameplay and just the general pace, which is a good thing I guess! But there is a point where creativity and "change" goes to far and will just produce many problems and bad gameplay. What do you think about Klonats Mire? Fucking AWESOME, isn't it? Well if you think so.. you will neve get my point anyways I guess. I don't want to insult anyone, just making clear what I mean and how I mean it. Sorry for bad writing, explanation and just general english btw.
Well, I am master, but I don't see the obvious major changes required. I can see that perhaps, if proved by extensive testing, the map can be broken. With WoL knowledge, I can say that yes, it is likely to be broken.
But we are playing HotS. When is the last time you faced a PvP 4-gate that warped in your base? Never I guess. So you don't know how the MC changes the game
I am just a player, I don't design maps, but I'd like to give it a try.
rofl, 'in your opinion', Enough said. Klontas? who knows, who cares, they tried something new, maybe it will be bad, maybe it will be great. It's not a 'waste of time'. Nothing is lost for trying. Veto it if you don't like it, others will experiment. You can play the standard maps all you want buddy.
First of all, ofc I say in my opinion, since I can only talk for myself. Saying anthing else would be complete bullshit. People think about things differently, sure, no problem with that. The thing is, this is originally about a contest, where the goal should be to find good maps right? A good map can be creative aswell, it even should IMO(!!!!!) But this is not a map which should get so far in a contest like this. "maybe it will be bad, maybe it will be great." Yeah.. that's pretty much how you think about everything it seems. But should a map, that will maybe be fun or maybe (most likely) be just bad make it to the final maps? I really don't think so.
Well, I am master, but I don't see the obvious major changes required. I can see that perhaps, if proved by extensive testing, the map can be broken. With WoL knowledge, I can say that yes, it is likely to be broken.
But we are playing HotS. When is the last time you faced a PvP 4-gate that warped in your base? Never I guess. So you don't know how the MC changes the game
I am just a player, I don't design maps, but I'd like to give it a try.
I am mid-high Masters aswell. But that's not even saying that much. And I was just saying, that a map like this will probably just bring boring 4 Gates back and just overall result in bad games. But since they won't just overthink their choices of maps anyways, it's pretty senseless to discuss with all of you anyways. Gl hf everybody..
rofl, 'in your opinion', Enough said. Klontas? who knows, who cares, they tried something new, maybe it will be bad, maybe it will be great. It's not a 'waste of time'. Nothing is lost for trying. Veto it if you don't like it, others will experiment. You can play the standard maps all you want buddy.
First of all, ofc I say in my opinion, since I can only talk for myself. Saying anthing else would be complete bullshit. People think about things differently, sure, no problem with that. The thing is, this is originally about a contest, where the goal should be to find good maps right? A good map can be creative aswell, it even should IMO(!!!!!) But this is not a map which should get so far in a contest like this. "maybe it will be bad, maybe it will be great." Yeah.. that's pretty much how you think about everything it seems. But should a map, that will maybe be fun or maybe (most likely) be just bad make it to the final maps? I really don't think so.
*cough*
'Maps which encourage the metagame to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.'
'Maps which encourage the metagame to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.'
*cough*
You sure know how to properly discuss something. Might aswell discuss with my wall then since it's giving respones, pretty similar to yours. If you think that will develop in interesting ways.. well can't help you sorry.
'Maps which encourage the metagame to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.'
*cough*
You sure know how to properly discuss something. Might aswell discuss with my wall then since it's giving respones, pretty similar to yours. If you think that will develop in interesting ways.. well can't help you sorry.
What's there to discuss? Your basic assumptions were wrong. These kind of maps *should* be in the finals.
it's 'your opinion' that was my point, you have no idea, nor does anyone else. Hence this kind of contest.
What's there to discuss? Your basic assumptions were wrong. These kind of maps *should* be in the finals.
Can say same about you. Maybe you're right. Big difference is though, that based on your replies, you would never accept it if you were wrong, which is exactly the reason discussing with most of the people via the internet or actually even IRL is just senseless. Good bye.
What's there to discuss? Your basic assumptions were wrong. These kind of maps *should* be in the finals.
Can say same about you. Maybe you're right. Big difference is though, that based on your replies, you would never accept it if you were wrong, which is exactly the reason discussing with most of the people via the internet or actually even IRL is just senseless. Good bye.
Blizzard specifically said to pick maps that will shake up the metagame. That is what we did. There were some maps that we knew wouldn't work, no matter what the modifications, that were submitted. Those did not make it. The judges in this contest, most of whom are very high level players, deemed that these "risks" had a good chance of being successful. In the near future, we will be testing these maps both in lots of private games and the TLOpen. Should these "risks" be too drastic, we can simply make some modifications. For example, how hard is it really to turn the low ground main on Keru into high ground? Also, I'll note that Keru probably would have made it even if the main were originally high ground.
To be fair, Blizzard has made the pylons in HOTS so you can't warp to the high ground for balance purpose, so what's the point of erasing that change just for the sake of it ? You don't see 4 gates anymore but tbh there are so many features in those maps that have been proven to be broken or boring over the years, like the backdoor rocks from Blistering Sands, the siegable natural from Lost Temple and Steppes of War, or impossible 3rds or the "non-droppable wall" that allows you to warp with a prism while hidden. You don't favor experimenting by forcing 3 year old features back in the game, especially when they were broken.
I'd be ok if the finalists were maps with cool features that have never been tested, but the maps don't have those cool features. And if I didn't know who had made those maps I would have said they have very little experience with mapping, because of all the flaws. (btw most mappers posted their submission and made threads on TL so it was pretty hard not to know who'd made the maps).
these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
Congrats to the finalists! Can't wait to watch the TL Open to see how these play out.
EDIT: Also, people need to be less angry. o_O Galaxy didn't get any maps into the finalists either, guys, but that's ok. We'll work harder next time~ It's one thing to be disappointed that your map(s) didn't make it, but don't hate on the judges/winners.
On May 21 2013 05:06 Aturion wrote: these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
I hope you're aware that Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, and Daybreak were all community-made maps? 2 of those were from the first TLMC, and the community maps, to date, are the most balanced and most played compared to the dozens upon dozens of blizzard maps made. What other "serious maps" are there that make these uncomparable?
On May 21 2013 04:59 chuky500 wrote: To be fair, Blizzard has made the pylons in HOTS so you can't warp to the high ground for balance purpose, so what's the point of erasing that change just for the sake of it ? You don't see 4 gates anymore but tbh there are so many features in those maps that have been proven to be broken or boring over the years, like the backdoor rocks from Blistering Sands, the siegable natural from Lost Temple and Steppes of War, or impossible 3rds or the "non-droppable wall" that allows you to warp with a prism while hidden. You don't favor experimenting by forcing 3 year old features back in the game, especially when they were broken.
I'd be ok if the finalists were maps with cool features that have never been tested, but the maps don't have those cool features. And if I didn't know who had made those maps I would have said they have very little experience with mapping, because of all the flaws. (btw most mappers posted their submission and made threads on TL so it was pretty hard not to know who'd made the maps).
See that's the thing though...it's been years, and HotS is big enough of an upset to revisit things from time to time.
As monk pointed out, these maps can (and maybe will, in many cases) be modified.
On May 21 2013 05:06 Aturion wrote: these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
what the hell dude, maybe you should just delete your account if you just made it fro trolling
On May 21 2013 04:05 monk wrote: The response I gave could have been less harsh, but I believe it was appropriate given that the two comments before me outright directly accused the judges of favoritism.
I really do think the judges picked their favorite maps, regardless of what teams the maps came from. I also think the choices were pretty good for the most part. However, it would be pretty ignorant to say that no team had an advantage from the selection of judges. It's not that Ragoo picked maps because they were from TPW, but rather that TPW happens to make maps that are more likely to satisfy his tastes.
Like I said earlier, TPW is the strongest mapping team right now, so it's not surprising to see them represented the most. All I am saying is that they are probably overrepresented in the finalists by a couple of maps. Overall, it might not be a big deal, but it really sucks for whoever made the other top candidates.
On May 21 2013 05:06 Aturion wrote: these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
User was warned for this post
I dont agree with this post, but I wonder why the user was warned?? He offered and opinion + reasoning. He is wrong, (for the most part) but his opinion shouldnt be censored even just because it was negative one.
On May 21 2013 05:06 Aturion wrote: these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
User was warned for this post
I dont agree with this post, but I wonder why the user was warned?? He offered and opinion + reasoning. He is wrong, (for the most part) but his opinion shouldnt be censored even just because it was negative one.
There's a difference between giving a negative opinion versus saying that maps are terrible and will never go a step forward.
Q: How crazy can I be in my map? Ultimately, these maps will need to be ladder appropriate i.e. need to be accessible to players of all skill levels. Things like geysers blocking ramps, which require prerequisite knowledge to be able to use, are thus not contest appropriate. Use this as a guide when deciding on what features to include on your maps.
And then I see some maps with some "crazy" things, or at least things that needs knowledge.. i just dont understand why discourage "crazy" things first and then choose them like finalist, i'm not even complaining, just trying to understand.
On May 21 2013 05:42 InVerno wrote: I just dont get this
Q: How crazy can I be in my map? Ultimately, these maps will need to be ladder appropriate i.e. need to be accessible to players of all skill levels. Things like geysers blocking ramps, which require prerequisite knowledge to be able to use, are thus not contest appropriate. Use this as a guide when deciding on what features to include on your maps.
And then I see some maps with some "crazy" things, or at least things that needs knowledge.. i just dont understand why discourage "crazy" things first and then choose them like finalist, i'm not even complaining, just trying to understand.
What's really crazy about these maps? There's a big difference between needing some knowledge about a map (as in, after you play it once or twice, you'll realize your nat has a back door), and "geyser blocking ramps" (as in, you would have no idea how to get past it, even if you sit there staring at it).
On May 21 2013 04:59 chuky500 wrote: To be fair, Blizzard has made the pylons in HOTS so you can't warp to the high ground for balance purpose, so what's the point of erasing that change just for the sake of it ? You don't see 4 gates anymore but tbh there are so many features in those maps that have been proven to be broken or boring over the years, like the backdoor rocks from Blistering Sands, the siegable natural from Lost Temple and Steppes of War, or impossible 3rds or the "non-droppable wall" that allows you to warp with a prism while hidden. You don't favor experimenting by forcing 3 year old features back in the game, especially when they were broken.
I'd be ok if the finalists were maps with cool features that have never been tested, but the maps don't have those cool features. And if I didn't know who had made those maps I would have said they have very little experience with mapping, because of all the flaws. (btw most mappers posted their submission and made threads on TL so it was pretty hard not to know who'd made the maps).
See that's the thing though...it's been years, and HotS is big enough of an upset to revisit things from time to time.
As monk pointed out, these maps can (and maybe will, in many cases) be modified.
Still he got a point in that it seems some of these makers really didn't consider that this maps should be considered for ladder play.
Kero strikes out to me as a map where there at no point was considered that the majority of players potentially playing it would be Gold Level or below;
Lowground main causing all sorts of issues long since fixed. Rock towers not fully covering their paths. "No Xelnaga Tower" as a listed feature.
All of these decisions seemingly made to promote skill i guess, but on ladder it is just going to cause the map to be Vetoed en mass should it win, which i hope it don't. Not sure how it made it this far.
Koprulus douple-sided expansions seems in direct violation with the rule of standard expansions too through, again not sure what they are doing with these picks.
On May 21 2013 05:42 InVerno wrote: I just dont get this
Q: How crazy can I be in my map? Ultimately, these maps will need to be ladder appropriate i.e. need to be accessible to players of all skill levels. Things like geysers blocking ramps, which require prerequisite knowledge to be able to use, are thus not contest appropriate. Use this as a guide when deciding on what features to include on your maps.
And then I see some maps with some "crazy" things, or at least things that needs knowledge.. i just dont understand why discourage "crazy" things first and then choose them like finalist, i'm not even complaining, just trying to understand.
I think this is a somewhat valid complaint. Personally, I would have submitted 2 completely different maps if I had known that the initial statement they made was more or less untrue and they would actually be picking experimental stuff. I think the vast majority of people were under the impression that they would only seriously consider stuff that was somewhat normal.
Regardless I am quite, quite glad that some experimental stuff is getting recognized. Finally.
On May 21 2013 05:06 Aturion wrote: these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
User was warned for this post
I dont agree with this post, but I wonder why the user was warned?? He offered and opinion + reasoning. He is wrong, (for the most part) but his opinion shouldnt be censored even just because it was negative one.
Calling the mapmakers bronze players and saying they don't know how the game works would probably be a decent reason for the warning.
I really wanna know the dates for the TL Opens~ Easier for me to plan for watching them without double booking myself!
On May 21 2013 05:06 Aturion wrote: these maps look like shit to be honest ... are the people who are making these map bronze players or do they just don´t know How the game works ? most of the maps have Way to much dead space, and too much sapce to abuse really easy, they are not really playable to even comparable to serious maps, noone of them will ever make it to a serious tournament.
User was warned for this post
I dont agree with this post, but I wonder why the user was warned?? He offered and opinion + reasoning. He is wrong, (for the most part) but his opinion shouldnt be censored even just because it was negative one.
Calling the mapmakers bronze players and saying they don't know how the game works would probably be a decent reason for the warning.
I really wanna know the dates for the TL Opens~ Easier for me to plan for watching them without double booking myself!
Perhaps, it's just that worse things than that are said all the time.
Can not being able to target unbuildable rocks please become the new thing? It tickles my fancy. (Koprulu I think it was)
P.S.
While the complaint of 'it should be completely ladder compliant' is somewhat valid, none of these except for possibly the low ground main are exactly 'not ladder compliant', but more-so, 'not meta-game compliant'...Generally anyone below top masters/GM likely won't know how to use any map or meta game to their advantage anyway, they aren't different enough to completely cause an upheaval. The maps can still undergo changes based on feedback, a great many players will most likely have a standard game compared to the rest of your games 95% of the time, aside from breaking down some rocks to make an alternate entrance when you go to kill them, if you so choose.
Also, this isn't a 100% ladder approval based contest, and blizzard specifically asked for a 'shake up'. All of the finalists (which include at least 2 rather standard maps), are considered by blizzard, and they reserve the right to change them to be more friendly if necessary. So basically they will most likely pick the standard maps unless one of the experimental maps pans out very well. Which we can't really know if we don't try.
The winners of this contest won't necessarily be the ladder map, if any.
On May 21 2013 06:20 a176 wrote: Can I get an idea how many submitted maps weren't posted in the original thread. Just want to go over all of them by myself.
From what i've heard there were around 140 submitted maps across both platforms (1v1 and team). Do the math
On May 21 2013 00:07 garbanzo wrote: Man, these are some really cool maps. As a huge fan of Outsider, I've been waiting to see when a map like that was going to make an appearance in SC2. I hope we get some really cool games. Is it still possible to push your probe/SCV through a mineral line?
Unfortunately you cannot push workers through the minerals
On May 21 2013 03:41 chuky500 wrote: A disappointing thing in the maps is appart from Insidious, every map has a siegable natural or 3rd base. Props to Electric Circuit, Koprulu and Keru who even have the natural's CC/Nexus/Hatch that's siegable from outside the base. Haven't mappers learnt from Steppes of War and Lost Temple ? Even Khoral Compound and Tal'darim Altar have already demonstrated that you can't have a siegable 3rd nor a part of the natural, but still Khalim's Will has half the mineral line and a gas that's siegable, and Ravage has a gas in the natural that you can hit with tanks. The sad part is Monitor is even accentuating his former winning map's flaw. In Korhal Compound the siegable 3rd was bad and now he puts a siegable natural...
I kept browsing the Custom maps thread and mappers say they know so much more now than when they started mapping but in my opinion there's still a long way to go. I thought this was about trying new features not about proving that broken features from 3 years ago were indeed broken.
For my next trick, I will put hostile siege tanks in the naturals bases!
To make mech work in TvP, which is weak to almost every 1-2 base Protoss all-in, the main base needs to bleed into the natural creating a choke. Like the map TPW Strangewood Mire or the Brood War map Fighting Spirit. These are for the tanks on the high ground to protect the entrance into the natural from immortal all ins, 1 base colossus, delayed 4-gate, etc. Think Neo Planet S, but with a more exaggerated natural entrance.
That 'foot' or 'boot' of high ground that sticks-out is key, other wise tanks in siege mode have to be too close to the cliff in order to cover the entrance into the natural, and can get sniped by pretty much everything. TPW Strangewood Mire is also great because the backside of the main is dead space for the most part, so Blink Stalker all-ins can't immediately counter your siege tanks just having blink. Blink all ins instantly kill a player going mech on maps like Star station where 50% or more of the main is accessible to blink stalkers.
The High Ground Advantage, for terrans going mech TvP, is practically everything. In HotS Blizzard removed the requirement for siege mode upgrade, in the hopes that it would help terrans defend all-ins better using mech or bio. But the Mothership Core provides high ground vision extremely early in the game. This immediately negates all highground advantage that siege tanks need early in the game, and in small numbers. This was further compounded by the way SC2 maps were being made.
In the HotS Beta Blizzard changed the mothership core, from being locked to a nexus(and transporting between nexus) to freely moving around as an individual unit. The mothership core now comes out after the first zealot or stalker, much sooner than an observer. This is extremely painful if you do any early tank opener for defense, in-which 2stalkers and a MsC can snipe your tank, let alone an immortal bust without obs can just melt all the tanks on the highground, if the tanks are too close to the edge.
I hope the community and blizzard will reconsider a map like TPW Strangewood Mire and TPW Koprulu, and add it to the ladder although Koprulu looks strange with the low ground metal textures.
I've just managed to get a game on Keru done, well a few and can I just say as a meching terran vs Toss I love it. It reminds me quite a lot of Neo Jade in terms of getting the natural fast with a wall and it's got a really nice choke to hold off a bunch of those pesky all ins with a good old siege expand. Thumbs up from me.
A lot of these look really good but the only one I'm actually excited to play on is ESV Ravage by IronManSC. CruX Frost by Semmo looks really pretty but I'm not a huge fan of the strategic layout.
Oh shoot :/ oh well i'll get a better luck next time :p
3 maps by lefix and mereel, wow that's quite an achievement guys. And for the other maps i must say that i'm trilled to have some good quality maps on the ladder ^^ but i hope they don't last too long in it (IE Cloud Kingdom, daybreak, etc) and blizz/TL start doing this contest more often (around 2 seasons or so)
On May 21 2013 04:54 monk wrote: Blizzard specifically said to pick maps that will shake up the metagame. That is what we did. There were some maps that we knew wouldn't work, no matter what the modifications, that were submitted. Those did not make it. The judges in this contest, most of whom are very high level players, deemed that these "risks" had a good chance of being successful. In the near future, we will be testing these maps both in lots of private games and the TLOpen. Should these "risks" be too drastic, we can simply make some modifications. For example, how hard is it really to turn the low ground main on Keru into high ground? Also, I'll note that Keru probably would have made it even if the main were originally high ground.
This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than: "Maps which encourage the metagame to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well."
When the guidelines were listed, I assumed that was something team liquid had devised based on the repeated use of the word "we" instead of saying Blizzard. I assumed the judges would end up choosing maps that were a lot like the ones from TLMC 1. Boy was I way off in that assessment.
I actually like that a few of the maps are at least dabbling with collapsible rocks. Yeah we all laughed when their inclusion in HotS was first announced and thought they were really gimmicky (because lets be honest, they kind of are) but I think they have a lot of potential. They do work really well for their intended purpose on Akilon and could probably be one way of tackling the criticism that thirds are now too easy to take/hold. Guess we'll see, looking forward to giving these a go and seeing if any will eventually make it to ladder.
I hate how liberally the term "gimmick" is thrown around mapping circles. "Gimmick" should only be applied to something that adds absolutely nothing to the map other than to look cool or be there for the sake of being different.
Something that adds strategic options to the game that can have real impact on its outcome such as rock towers (assuming they aren't placed retardedly) aren't gimmicky.
Out of all of them that I've played I think I loved Electric Circuit, Keru and Korpulu the most. Although as a meching terran I had a lot of issue against warp prisms against toss on Electric Circuit. I think I need more games/practice on it though and it's certainly not broken.
The other big issue I have with it is it feels that 3-4 gate pressure can destroy the back rocks far too easily, maybe that was me playing badly though.
On May 20 2013 21:59 Dr.Sin wrote: Blizzard should make it easier to find these maps on Bnet.
If it works like TLMC (1), you can expect all maps being uploaded to all regions right now! They should be easy to find by searching for TLMC later today.
He's right though, these should be featured on the home screen news or something. And they should all be highlighted in the custom games tab.
Khalim's Will is missing a mineral cluster in the normal expansion for the 2 o'clock base. It has 7 clusters while the natural for the 8 o'clock base other has 8
Congrats to the finalists, I would have picked a lot of the same maps if I were judging! My favorites are TPW Mooniacs, CruX Breeze, and ESV Insidious. I think each of these maps offers something new to their respective matches without having any features that are too out there or crazy (My maps were probably all a little too crazy! )
The ones I would question, and perhaps I am missing something? But ESV Emrel Coast seems extremely Terran favored with those island expansions and small ramps. TPW Mystic is interesting, but I really don't see the attraction of having two 1v1s play out on the same map at the same time. The reason being that on ladder, you will sometimes get a gold/gold team versus a silver/platinum team. Its obvious what the outcome will be in left v right games... the platinum will be last man standing. It also generally discourages team play.
Anyway, not trying to be the party pooper but those are my thoughts.
On May 21 2013 12:25 TheFish7 wrote: The ones I would question, and perhaps I am missing something? But ESV Emrel Coast seems extremely Terran favored with those island expansions and small ramps.
Hell yeah, free islands are awesome. But mostly just did that so all races could take safe expos. Brings something different to 2s. Terran does have it best, but w/e. Team games are for fun, and islands are fun ^^
Keru just looks like a bad Cloud Kingdom. I really like the Brood War influences in the other maps like low-ground mains and double sided bases. Way Cool.
On May 21 2013 04:54 monk wrote: Blizzard specifically said to pick maps that will shake up the metagame. That is what we did. There were some maps that we knew wouldn't work, no matter what the modifications, that were submitted. Those did not make it. The judges in this contest, most of whom are very high level players, deemed that these "risks" had a good chance of being successful. In the near future, we will be testing these maps both in lots of private games and the TLOpen. Should these "risks" be too drastic, we can simply make some modifications. For example, how hard is it really to turn the low ground main on Keru into high ground? Also, I'll note that Keru probably would have made it even if the main were originally high ground.
This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than: "Maps which encourage the metagame to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well."
When the guidelines were listed, I assumed that was something team liquid had devised based on the repeated use of the word "we" instead of saying Blizzard. I assumed the judges would end up choosing maps that were a lot like the ones from TLMC 1. Boy was I way off in that assessment.
Hi Flyingbeer (and fatam). I do appreciate that with the comment about the 'metagame development' and 'suitable for ladder' may have been misleading given the maps that won in TLMC1. But really, the only map which is really pushing the 'suitable for ladder' rule is Koprulu/Mystic and the reason that we decided to give it the go ahead was the email that monk is referencing that came in nearing the end of the contest. The other reason we were more willing to give more experimental maps the go ahead without alteration (e.g. Keru) is because HotS is new and overall the map pool is a lot healthier than when we ran TLMC1. There isn't a need for another daybreak clone to be added to the map pool, the game needs to test the boundaries with regard to mapping to see where concepts can be used or not used in the future.
On May 21 2013 11:17 tenklavir wrote: Khalim's Will is missing a mineral cluster in the normal expansion for the 2 o'clock base. It has 7 clusters while the natural for the 8 o'clock base other has 8
On May 21 2013 11:16 EatThePath wrote: How amazing would SC2 be if the TLMC finalists was the current tournament map pool? =D
btw congratz samro
Thanks! My main goal was to develop a rather unique 4-spawn geometry and a really elaborated layout with all spawns enabled and three different kind of games one can expect. Plus a unique visual theme that I hope to receive some love After putting all the ideas i was interessed in into this map i did not submit a second, i had an axial 4p prepared in addition (dating back to hots beta)
On May 21 2013 15:43 PVJ wrote: Khalim's Will Strangewood Mire Yeonsu
- These three are the ones I like the most, and seem to have the most interesting ideas.
I think you are right in picking three maps with distinctive concepts but i think we really need to wait for the TL Open to understand what maps would be good to be together in a mappool with the others, or maps we already have on ladder/in tournamnets. In TLMC1 we looked for solid and well made maps, because the mappool had some serious issues back then. With these nine maps we have so much new stuff going on and most of us still find it difficult to predict what maps will work together the best. Among these - and also given the different situation than in TLMC1 - i do not see a best map (like Cloud Kingdom), but only concepts that work more or lese well together.
So you are totally right in looking for a group of 3-5 maps that should go to tournaments (and ladder probably), but in my opinion it is a bit to early. I am glad Strangewood is among them though obviously
electric circuit: Not a fan of possible start pos imbalance due to radial symmetry. Maps like WW gave you a choice where to take the third, but this one doesn't. Seems potentially worse-than-terminus if diagonal.
Frost: Like it in general, maybe towers offer too much control?
Insidious: Interesting, but maps of this 'lotsa paths' pattern heavily promote base trades in the long run (bel'shir, crossfire, icarus, etc). Do we like that kind of thing?
Keru: Since planet S I've wanted to see more no-tower maps, esp since planet S had that other funky two-paths thing going on. No-tower on a more traditional map could be fun to see play out. However, there is 0 reason to have lowered mains in SC2, except to promote horrible horrible cheese (imagine roro-soulkey game II on this map).
Khalim's Will: While not a fan of free naturals, this is the best one that uses that concept thus far.
Korprolu: Fascinating, no idea how it will balance out. A map you want to randomly see thrown into Proleague for laughs until someone finds out how to break it. Will very much enjoy 5~6 min factory float widow mine rushes.
Ravage: Not terribly ambitious, but I wouldn't mind a having a "new daybreak" as our de facto macro/standard map in the pool.
However, there is 0 reason to have lowered mains in SC2, except to promote horrible horrible cheese (imagine roro-soulkey game II on this map).
I hate to ask you this out of everyone, but what's the reason not to have it? The way the map is designed it really isn't hard to secure your highground very quickly and you can't get walled in at the bottom of your ramp so it really isn't a huge deal. Unless you get completely destroyed early game there's never going to be a moment where they can warp in to your main from the highground as every race can secure that highground with either a wall into natural or in zergs case an early natural which they take anyway.
There's little to no reason to have all highground mains on every single map. It's why I love Electric Circuit so much as the main is on the same level as the natural.
Also maybe I'm imagining things, but on Electric Circuit there is a choice of thirds, you can take one of the added "fourth base in a cluster" bases and it's not exactly far from your natural in terms of where you'd place your army.
A good number of the maps just look like slightly varied clones of ladder/tourney maps we already have/had /: I guess the scene isn't quite ready for concept maps yet as the game is still developing with meta and patches changing stuff. I should have worked on my 3 player map concept considering there were none that made it in.
TPW Khalim's Will, TPW Koprulu seem decent. TPW Strangewood Mire might be interesting. Some of these maps need Higher quality pics, hard to tell what's going on; DF Yeonsu.
As far as team maps go, I hate it when the linear progression of bases is nonexistent so any map that has 1 natural or oddly placed bases is automatic fail. Essentially, team maps should just be created the same was as 1v1 maps with minor tweaks for allied play. I am interested to see the team play maps where the ally isn't so close or shared as well, never get to see or play those being that all the ladder maps are like that.
TPW Mystic is awesome. TPW Drifas Throne is interesting. TPW Sandlands seems ok, i wish there was just 1 shared entrance and then the nats having 2 separate paths into them (one being like a bifrost backdoor path or something).
CruX Breeze is cool if it is what I think it is, but it's kind of confusing looking.
PS- I don't know what TPW is, and I didn't choose the maps I liked based on names/makers, but if they are a team, they seem to be knowing what they are doing. :cheers:
On May 21 2013 19:01 MarlieChurphy wrote: A good number of the maps just look like slightly varied clones of ladder/tourney maps we already have/had /: I guess the scene isn't quite ready for concept maps yet as the game is still developing with meta and patches changing stuff. I should have worked on my 3 player map concept considering there were none that made it in.
TPW Khalim's Will, TPW Koprulu seem decent. TPW Strangewood Mire might be interesting. Some of these maps need Higher quality pics, hard to tell what's going on; DF Yeonsu.
As far as team maps go, I hate it when the linear progression of bases is nonexistent so any map that has 1 natural or oddly placed bases is automatic fail. Essentially, team maps should just be created the same was as 1v1 maps with minor tweaks for allied play. I am interested to see the team play maps where the ally isn't so close or shared as well, never get to see or play those being that all the ladder maps are like that.
TPW Mystic is awesome. TPW Drifas Throne is interesting. TPW Sandlands seems ok, i wish there was just 1 shared entrance and then the nats having 2 separate paths into them (one being like a bifrost backdoor path or something).
CruX Breeze is cool if it is what I think it is, but it's kind of confusing looking.
PS- I don't know what TPW is, and I didn't choose the maps I liked based on names/makers, but if they are a team, they seem to be knowing what they are doing. :cheers:
oh god, how did you think it would be a good idea to post in plexa's thread
Electric circuit is pretty good; I like how he makes an ostensibly "easy" expo layout relatively dynamic-- the 3rd and 4th are only superficially near, and paths leading to the nat and 3rd are distinctly different, and positioning of the expos makes each one uniquely vulnerable to different forms and from different directions of harassment. So a combination of simple and familiar elements has created a map which should play out differently than any other.
The pathing seems good and varied, but I'm concerned that the paths may be too tight. I think the middle is needlessly choked, and that the tower is detrimental to gameplay by giving the player who already has enough map control to hold the tower too much additional map control. I don't like devices which strongly favour the player who already holds the advantage. Especially with the middle being so choked-- the middle is basically inaccessible to the player who doesn't hold the tower, since he can't possibly get a positional advantage. I may be exagerating how impactful this will actually be in most games, but I just see that as compared to the options of either not choking the mid or not having the tower or both (if I had to pick one of those options and not both I would favour removing the tower), this is inferior.
Additionally, and especially in conjunction with the tightness of and with the presence of the tower in the middle, I think the side paths that run through the 4th bases might be a little tight too. They might be fine though; I can't tell from the picture alone.
I would have preferred Frost to be rotationally symmetrical (I think this layout could be done that way); this symmetry really limits the pathing. I think the author could've done more with highground-lowground variance. I look at plateau leading out of the nat that dips into a valley which contains the 3rd directly up into another plateau, and I like that a lot. I would have liked for the layout to have more of that; e.g. something similar off the other ramp from the nat. I think it would have made for a much more interesting middle, without compromising the expo layout, which was done well I think.
I don't see that the towers help gameplay at all; the pathing is already linear, why do players need help watching those paths? Strikes me as being sc2-mapping syndrome, where towers (rocks, not so much here at least) and other "features" are just arbitrarily added to the maps without any consideration for their effect on gameplay. I'm not saying these towers necessarily hurts gameplay, I just find them to be utterly uninteresting and not beneficial. If they aren't helping gameplay, why add them? Maps should be centered around an idea, a concept, not an assortment of features.
The map is of course not bad (assuming the mains have enough building space, which is my only real concern) however. Certainly this is one of the better x + y symmetrical maps; I just abhor this kind of symmetry because of what it does to the pathing.
I don't like Insidious. I think most of the rocks and the tower definitely hurt gameplay, and that the map just isn't very interesting. The expos are just way too easy for the kind of distances and pathing present. I don't see that the expos convey any strategic or positional value, which prevents some of the neat pathing intricacies from actually being relevant. It's just "oh hey, an expo; oh hey, another expo; oh cool, just what I wanted: yet another expo". I see the map as being a messy version of Chupung-Ryeung. I dunno if the nat is sufficiently secure-- looks vulnerable to some all-ins, like some 2base nydus play or something, which doesn't seem to reflect the gameplay the rest of the map drives. If I were to edit the map, I think I would remove the 5ths, move the main/nat/3rd/4th around to fill the new space in a way that makes the 3rd and 4th more different from each other (positionally and/or strategically), and remove all the rocks and the tower, redesigning the nats so they don't need the "backdoor" rock.
Keru is great. I don't care for the weird hots rocks at 12/6, but whatever. I love the pathing, and think that the expo layout, count, distances, vulnerabilities, the map's size, and the position/rammifications of the middle rocks all sync up, complementing each other perfectly to create exactly one concept/kind of gameplay. The map's features are all consistent in this regard, creating a a distinct gameplay experience. Everything is concise, without any conflicting/contradicting elements which can confuse things and lead to messy gameplay. My one concern is that there may be too much space allocated to the area between the 3rd, 4th, and 5th bases. Despite this location between between and connected to via the pathing all three of those expos, I just don't see it being frequently occupied by two armies, the only thing which could warrant that much space despite there not actually being an expo (at that particular spot). I'm not however aware of any simple way to redistribute some of that space, and it's almost certainly not worth that much trouble even if I am right (and I may not be). By the way, are the nat cliffs pathable?
Khalim's will is absolutely bizarre, and I love it for that. I don't mind the towers here (though removing them probably wouldn't be detrimental anyway!). Assuming the lowground nat's cliffs are pathable, I like the dynamic between that and the backdoor to the highground nat which forces players to decide which to actually take first. I like how there's some expo ambiguity additionally: players could can to expo in the direction of both "nats", depending on a myriad of choices/conditions. I kind of wish the 4th nearer to the lowground nat was a little closer to it, reinforcing the idea of expo ambiguity, but perhaps I'm misreading the author's intentions here. If I understand how gameplay will work here correctly, then I further like how the significance of each path can vary between games/points in time. I like the pathing in general.
My concern with the map is with the pathing through the highground nat. I dislike how the expansion blocks the army pathing, which would be necessary for defending the expos in that direction. It's just needlessly messy. I don't see why the mineral formation isn't just made into a single line (instead of two lines) at the map edge, with the ramps flipped to allow pathing through the expo nearer to the belly of the map, and with the anti-tanking clutter being removed to facilitate this change (and it no longer being necessary with the expo hugging the map-edge instead of being half-edge half-belly facing). That would fix the pathing problem and make better use out of the space at the same time. Additionally I'm concerned with the pathing from the main production facilities towards that direction. This may be a nonissue, I can't tell, but if it is a problem it's also easily fixed: by removing the map-edge decoration which prevents the main mineral formations from being aligned with the lowground nat mineral formations, which would make the main building space easier to make use of.
Koprulu is pretty good, but I think the middle is weak. Firstly, I think the backdoor/side expos are great and have a lot of potential for interesting gameplay. That being said, I'm not sure the rest of the map fits that aspect/those features. The very center is pointlessly choked. There's no reason for there to be any more space past those chokes than in through the chokes themselves, since your army isn't going to just expand after it passes through the choke, since in being bottlenecked it'll be in some relatively rigid formation at some set speed from choke to choke. Also it's not like a significant battle will ever occur there, because there's nothing to fight over. It's dead-end real-estate: no expo, and it's not an essential path to secure/use. By comparison, the areas outside the nats are positively vacuous. Rather than being a balance of tight and open, it just strikes me as being unpolished/not-well-thought-out. The pathing through the lowground expos is a bit awkward as well: I don't like the angle of the unblocked ramp that runs from the area outside the nat through the lowground expos, it seems a bit sharp/choked-by-the-expo. The rocks make no sense to me at all. I'm not even sure the map needs those expos (I'm leaning towards suggesting to remove them). In addition to making the key feature of the map more impactful/significant on/to gameplay, removing them would enable the mid to be completely redone, as they're the root of its current awkwardness. That way the mid could be made useful/interesting, instead of the garbled mess it is currently. I however don't currently have any ideas on how to best replace/change the mid. I'm not sure what the layout/concept need from the middle.
At anyrate, while I dislike the map's middle currently, it doesn't hold the map back from being good and interesting. I think the middle ought to be changed/redone so that the map can be as good as possible, but the map is probably fine to play on in its current condition. The gameplay is likely to be a bit messy/scrappy given the layout/concept anyway, with a messy middle or not.
Ravage is entirely uninteresting. I have absolutely nothing good to say about it. I have no idea what the judges see in it. The pathing is extremely linear, the distances are unwieldy, and the expos have no real positional/strategic value (I mentioned this in an earlier map-- it matters in two-player maps). The concept of having somewhat side-oriented gameplay/layout which later changes into a center-focused king-of-the-hill of sorts is not a bad idea, but I just don't think it was executed well. The 4ths and 5ths are obnoxiously far from each other and are fairly indefensible. This matters a great deal for the player who doesn't control mid (e.g. the tower), and can't secure his highground expo as a 5th instead. Throw in the complex of having to deal additionally with relatively short reinforcement distances once the rocks are gone, and it just becomes a nightmare to try to defend anything.
The reason why this is a problem rather than just being something that players will adapt their tactics/builds to is that the builds and tactics best suited for those kind of conditions are entirely unsuited for the map during the time period when those builds are most effective. To restate: the problems with gameplay that I foresee lie in the distance between expos and from the main to various hot-points on the map in conjunction with the indefensibility of the expos (the distances are part of that, but it's mostly the openness that creates that problem). And I feel that the nat2nat distance once the rocks are down in the lategame (it likely won't be a problem as soon as you can break the rocks, only later when economies support certain reinforcement) exacerbates these problems. The distance between paths accentuates its linearity additionally. I just view the map's gameplay as being a mess of accidental and desperation base races with no hope for stability. While this gameplay is different than the norm-- difference which might normally be good for making a map stand out among all the other maps, I just think there isn't enough strategic variety supported by the layout and the concept's execution, and that the layout and the map's features don't fully support the concept (if I'm identifying it correctly).
I dunno what to make of Strangewood mire. It's a weird blend of rotational and x/y symmetry aspects. I think the pathing is too linear, the rocks are messy, and don't like the distance between the nat and the far 3rd for horizontal positions. I don't like how the race/player(build dependent) with the midgame advantage who can take the close 3rd in horizontal positions, simultaneously making it hard for his opponent to expo and giving him an easy 4th. I think it just compounds the advantaged player's advantage needlessly (to the detriment of gameplay). Harass potential seems to be a little lacking in general as well, if I understand the map correctly (I could be wrong in that regard, but the pathing seems a bit linear). I don't really have any more to say about it. Maybe I just don't get this map, but at anyrate I don't think I like it. Also, the tower is unnecessary.
I'm also not a fan of Yeonsu. I don't see what the map has going for it relative to any other map. I don't see any succinct or distinct concept. I don't see that gameplay is different here than on any other map. The pathing seems uninteresting. The rocks and towers seem poorly used. The islands aren't especially or cleverly useful to the expo layout, concept, or gameplay. The mains might not have enough building space, not sure.
I don't like Drifas Throne-- it's big and boring. It's like a more linear team-version of Ravage. Now don't get me wrong, I don't inherently hate large maps-- in fact my favourite maps are Rockdarim and Whirlwind. I just see a lot of space and not a whole lot conceptually going on.
Emrel Coast is interesting, but I'm concerned the map's size combined with its intense bilinearity could backfire and make too turtley of a map. I think it would be improved by either making the pathing less linear or by making the map less tall. I'm inclined to like it even as it is though.
I don't like Mystic because I don't like its symmetry (or anything else about the map besides the boringly-executed-concept itself, but that's what stands out to me).
Sandlands is pretty straight-up, so I don't have a whole lot to say about it. It's not bad, and straight-up, not-bad maps are exactly what the ladder pool could use right now. I think the tower should be removed though, because the paths are so tight.
I like the nat arrangement of Mooniacs. I don't like the even-pathing, but maybe it's not so bad in a 3v3. I think the map's features are consistent to its concept, so it's probably okay in spite of its overall tightness.
Believe it or not, but Blizzard's fewer-than-one-nat-and/or-third-per-player bullshit is actually utterly unenjoyable to play with. I like Rimfrost's layout, but not that aspect of its expo layout.
Breeze is great. Its layout and features are all consistent with its concept. The layout is neat in general. That the map is so poor in resources is well-offset by the pathing and relative tightness I think, just as Hunters was.
Retribution hurts my eyes; I dunno what's going on in it. But the judge's description says it's standard and has 1 nat and 3rd per player, so it sounds perfectly acceptable. Maybe give it a paint-job?
So my top3 for 1v1 and team respectively are in descending order: Keru, Khalim's Will, Electric Circuit; and Breeze, Emrel Coast, Sandlands.
However, there is 0 reason to have lowered mains in SC2, except to promote horrible horrible cheese (imagine roro-soulkey game II on this map).
Unless you get completely destroyed early game.
there you go :o
Isn't that the case on maps with ramps that go down too though? I realise having them warp into your main is bad, but I find it really hard to imagine a situation where you get so far behind in the early game to let it happen. Maybe it's my inexperience with zerg and toss, but as a terran (I mech in all matchups, so I would imagine it to be more of a problem for me than say a bio terran) I find it hard to understand a situation where being locked in your base would work any differently than being locked in on a highground main.
ESV Khalis is better than half of these 1v1 maps. Very disappointed it did not make it. It is such a kick ass map with such an interesting concept in the 2 in 1 idea too, and so well executed. Could barely stop playing it when me and my friends play tested it.
Really like the look of ESV Insidious.
CONGRATS to all the maps and map makers that did make it.
PvP Qikz... The matchup where you can take your natural at 14 minutes. Also the wall behind the low main helps hiding proxy oracles and 4 gate warprism. You can't just spend a scan or put an overlord to see the warp prism and kill it so you'll constantly get warped from 2 fronts. The wall also favors drop plays as you can't see them in advance. And the natural is siegable like in good old Steppes of War.
This map (as most of the finalists) reminds me of the early days of mapping in sc2 where everyone would put backdoors, a siegable natural and all the silly features that ladder maps had while saying Blizzard/Browder sucked. There's even a high ground on top of the natural like in Lost Temple, you can't drop it but seeing of empty it is, it's obvious it used to be droppable in a previous version. In my opinion it just show the mapper doesn't have enough experience.
If you want to see how warping in your base and a wall behind a base play in HOTS why don't you try Delta Quadrant ? I thought it was proven to be bad.
On May 21 2013 22:50 chuky500 wrote: PvP Qikz... The matchup where you can take your natural at 14 minutes. Also the wall behind the low main helps hiding proxy oracles and 4 gate warprism. You can't just spend a scan to see the warp prism and kill it so you'll constantly get warped from 2 fronts. The wall also favors drop plays as you can't see them in advance. And the natural is siegable like in good old Steppes of War.
This maps (as most of the finalists) remind me of the early days of mapping in sc2 where everyone would put backdoors, a siegable natural and all the silly features that ladder maps had, while saying Blizzard/Browder sucked. There's even a high ground on top of the natural like in Lost Temple, you can't drop it but the doodads shows it used to be droppable in a previous version. In my opinion it just show the mapper doesn't have enough experience.
If you want to see how warping in your base and a wall behind a base play in HOTS why don't you try Delta Quadrant ? I thought it was proven to be bad.
Judging from images and also playing the map, those walls seem far too thick to be able to warp in with a pylon over them and a warp prism shouldn't really be a massive issue for terran to deal with as either mech or bio by that point in the game you've usually got one of your buildings floating (either Rax or Factory) or even air units if you're going bio.
For all the protoss I've been watching early expand builds seem a lot more common in pretty much every matchup, including PvP thanks to the mothership core on certain maps and surely the mothership core or an observer would allow you to shoot down the warp prism from above? You'll also most certainly be able to see drop plays coming if you leave an observer or any other spotting unit there. I'm really unsure as to how the wall bit behind the mains is any different to say the deadspace around some maps, it just changes the way you scout things.
I really don't want a really good map to be changed purely on the basis of PvP. I can see the map being a really interesting map to play in not only TvT but TvZ as well and even TvP mech on that map is really sick (played quite a lot of it yesterday). It'd be such a shame to lose interesting concepts thanks to a mirror matchup.
It also renders the canons useless. PvP is the same as before expand wise, you still get roflstomped if you tried to expand and you opponent didn't. Overall the wall unfavors Protoss because it forces to make a unit just for that. Also Protoss units are the weakest when they're not all together so the fact that you can be attacked from 2 fronts unfavors them. So not only PvP is bad but TvP probably as well.
Overall almost every map was made along this recipe : on 1 base you get attacked from 1 front, on 2 bases you get attacked from 1 front, on 3 bases you get attacked from 2 fronts. If you make it easy to have 2 fronts for 1 base early in the game you unfavor protoss because you force him to split his army. That's why Blistering Sand was bad and that's why Khalim's Will is probably bad as well.
On May 21 2013 20:00 Nightmarjoo wrote: Electric circuit is pretty good; I like how he makes an ostensibly "easy" expo layout relatively dynamic-- the 3rd and 4th are only superficially near, and paths leading to the nat and 3rd are distinctly different, and positioning of the expos makes each one uniquely vulnerable to different forms and from different directions of harassment. So a combination of simple and familiar elements has created a map which should play out differently than any other.
The pathing seems good and varied, but I'm concerned that the paths may be too tight. I think the middle is needlessly choked, and that the tower is detrimental to gameplay by giving the player who already has enough map control to hold the tower too much additional map control. I don't like devices which strongly favour the player who already holds the advantage. Especially with the middle being so choked-- the middle is basically inaccessible to the player who doesn't hold the tower, since he can't possibly get a positional advantage. I may be exagerating how impactful this will actually be in most games, but I just see that as compared to the options of either not choking the mid or not having the tower or both (if I had to pick one of those options and not both I would favour removing the tower), this is inferior.
Additionally, and especially in conjunction with the tightness of and with the presence of the tower in the middle, I think the side paths that run through the 4th bases might be a little tight too. They might be fine though; I can't tell from the picture alone.
I would have preferred Frost to be rotationally symmetrical (I think this layout could be done that way); this symmetry really limits the pathing. I think the author could've done more with highground-lowground variance. I look at plateau leading out of the nat that dips into a valley which contains the 3rd directly up into another plateau, and I like that a lot. I would have liked for the layout to have more of that; e.g. something similar off the other ramp from the nat. I think it would have made for a much more interesting middle, without compromising the expo layout, which was done well I think.
I don't see that the towers help gameplay at all; the pathing is already linear, why do players need help watching those paths? Strikes me as being sc2-mapping syndrome, where towers (rocks, not so much here at least) and other "features" are just arbitrarily added to the maps without any consideration for their effect on gameplay. I'm not saying these towers necessarily hurts gameplay, I just find them to be utterly uninteresting and not beneficial. If they aren't helping gameplay, why add them? Maps should be centered around an idea, a concept, not an assortment of features.
The map is of course not bad (assuming the mains have enough building space, which is my only real concern) however. Certainly this is one of the better x + y symmetrical maps; I just abhor this kind of symmetry because of what it does to the pathing.
I don't like Insidious. I think most of the rocks and the tower definitely hurt gameplay, and that the map just isn't very interesting. The expos are just way too easy for the kind of distances and pathing present. I don't see that the expos convey any strategic or positional value, which prevents some of the neat pathing intricacies from actually being relevant. It's just "oh hey, an expo; oh hey, another expo; oh cool, just what I wanted: yet another expo". I see the map as being a messy version of Chupung-Ryeung. I dunno if the nat is sufficiently secure-- looks vulnerable to some all-ins, like some 2base nydus play or something, which doesn't seem to reflect the gameplay the rest of the map drives. If I were to edit the map, I think I would remove the 5ths, move the main/nat/3rd/4th around to fill the new space in a way that makes the 3rd and 4th more different from each other (positionally and/or strategically), and remove all the rocks and the tower, redesigning the nats so they don't need the "backdoor" rock.
Keru is great. I don't care for the weird hots rocks at 12/6, but whatever. I love the pathing, and think that the expo layout, count, distances, vulnerabilities, the map's size, and the position/rammifications of the middle rocks all sync up, complementing each other perfectly to create exactly one concept/kind of gameplay. The map's features are all consistent in this regard, creating a a distinct gameplay experience. Everything is concise, without any conflicting/contradicting elements which can confuse things and lead to messy gameplay. My one concern is that there may be too much space allocated to the area between the 3rd, 4th, and 5th bases. Despite this location between between and connected to via the pathing all three of those expos, I just don't see it being frequently occupied by two armies, the only thing which could warrant that much space despite there not actually being an expo (at that particular spot). I'm not however aware of any simple way to redistribute some of that space, and it's almost certainly not worth that much trouble even if I am right (and I may not be). By the way, are the nat cliffs pathable?
Khalim's will is absolutely bizarre, and I love it for that. I don't mind the towers here (though removing them probably wouldn't be detrimental anyway!). Assuming the lowground nat's cliffs are pathable, I like the dynamic between that and the backdoor to the highground nat which forces players to decide which to actually take first. I like how there's some expo ambiguity additionally: players could can to expo in the direction of both "nats", depending on a myriad of choices/conditions. I kind of wish the 4th nearer to the lowground nat was a little closer to it, reinforcing the idea of expo ambiguity, but perhaps I'm misreading the author's intentions here. If I understand how gameplay will work here correctly, then I further like how the significance of each path can vary between games/points in time. I like the pathing in general.
My concern with the map is with the pathing through the highground nat. I dislike how the expansion blocks the army pathing, which would be necessary for defending the expos in that direction. It's just needlessly messy. I don't see why the mineral formation isn't just made into a single line (instead of two lines) at the map edge, with the ramps flipped to allow pathing through the expo nearer to the belly of the map, and with the anti-tanking clutter being removed to facilitate this change (and it no longer being necessary with the expo hugging the map-edge instead of being half-edge half-belly facing). That would fix the pathing problem and make better use out of the space at the same time. Additionally I'm concerned with the pathing from the main production facilities towards that direction. This may be a nonissue, I can't tell, but if it is a problem it's also easily fixed: by removing the map-edge decoration which prevents the main mineral formations from being aligned with the lowground nat mineral formations, which would make the main building space easier to make use of.
Koprulu is pretty good, but I think the middle is weak. Firstly, I think the backdoor/side expos are great and have a lot of potential for interesting gameplay. That being said, I'm not sure the rest of the map fits that aspect/those features. The very center is pointlessly choked. There's no reason for there to be any more space past those chokes than in through the chokes themselves, since your army isn't going to just expand after it passes through the choke, since in being bottlenecked it'll be in some relatively rigid formation at some set speed from choke to choke. Also it's not like a significant battle will ever occur there, because there's nothing to fight over. It's dead-end real-estate: no expo, and it's not an essential path to secure/use. By comparison, the areas outside the nats are positively vacuous. Rather than being a balance of tight and open, it just strikes me as being unpolished/not-well-thought-out. The pathing through the lowground expos is a bit awkward as well: I don't like the angle of the unblocked ramp that runs from the area outside the nat through the lowground expos, it seems a bit sharp/choked-by-the-expo. The rocks make no sense to me at all. I'm not even sure the map needs those expos (I'm leaning towards suggesting to remove them). In addition to making the key feature of the map more impactful/significant on/to gameplay, removing them would enable the mid to be completely redone, as they're the root of its current awkwardness. That way the mid could be made useful/interesting, instead of the garbled mess it is currently. I however don't currently have any ideas on how to best replace/change the mid. I'm not sure what the layout/concept need from the middle.
At anyrate, while I dislike the map's middle currently, it doesn't hold the map back from being good and interesting. I think the middle ought to be changed/redone so that the map can be as good as possible, but the map is probably fine to play on in its current condition. The gameplay is likely to be a bit messy/scrappy given the layout/concept anyway, with a messy middle or not.
Ravage is entirely uninteresting. I have absolutely nothing good to say about it. I have no idea what the judges see in it. The pathing is extremely linear, the distances are unwieldy, and the expos have no real positional/strategic value (I mentioned this in an earlier map-- it matters in two-player maps). The concept of having somewhat side-oriented gameplay/layout which later changes into a center-focused king-of-the-hill of sorts is not a bad idea, but I just don't think it was executed well. The 4ths and 5ths are obnoxiously far from each other and are fairly indefensible. This matters a great deal for the player who doesn't control mid (e.g. the tower), and can't secure his highground expo as a 5th instead. Throw in the complex of having to deal additionally with relatively short reinforcement distances once the rocks are gone, and it just becomes a nightmare to try to defend anything.
The reason why this is a problem rather than just being something that players will adapt their tactics/builds to is that the builds and tactics best suited for those kind of conditions are entirely unsuited for the map during the time period when those builds are most effective. To restate: the problems with gameplay that I foresee lie in the distance between expos and from the main to various hot-points on the map in conjunction with the indefensibility of the expos (the distances are part of that, but it's mostly the openness that creates that problem). And I feel that the nat2nat distance once the rocks are down in the lategame (it likely won't be a problem as soon as you can break the rocks, only later when economies support certain reinforcement) exacerbates these problems. The distance between paths accentuates its linearity additionally. I just view the map's gameplay as being a mess of accidental and desperation base races with no hope for stability. While this gameplay is different than the norm-- difference which might normally be good for making a map stand out among all the other maps, I just think there isn't enough strategic variety supported by the layout and the concept's execution, and that the layout and the map's features don't fully support the concept (if I'm identifying it correctly).
I dunno what to make of Strangewood mire. It's a weird blend of rotational and x/y symmetry aspects. I think the pathing is too linear, the rocks are messy, and don't like the distance between the nat and the far 3rd for horizontal positions. I don't like how the race/player(build dependent) with the midgame advantage who can take the close 3rd in horizontal positions, simultaneously making it hard for his opponent to expo and giving him an easy 4th. I think it just compounds the advantaged player's advantage needlessly (to the detriment of gameplay). Harass potential seems to be a little lacking in general as well, if I understand the map correctly (I could be wrong in that regard, but the pathing seems a bit linear). I don't really have any more to say about it. Maybe I just don't get this map, but at anyrate I don't think I like it. Also, the tower is unnecessary.
I'm also not a fan of Yeonsu. I don't see what the map has going for it relative to any other map. I don't see any succinct or distinct concept. I don't see that gameplay is different here than on any other map. The pathing seems uninteresting. The rocks and towers seem poorly used. The islands aren't especially or cleverly useful to the expo layout, concept, or gameplay. The mains might not have enough building space, not sure.
I don't like Drifas Throne-- it's big and boring. It's like a more linear team-version of Ravage. Now don't get me wrong, I don't inherently hate large maps-- in fact my favourite maps are Rockdarim and Whirlwind. I just see a lot of space and not a whole lot conceptually going on.
Emrel Coast is interesting, but I'm concerned the map's size combined with its intense bilinearity could backfire and make too turtley of a map. I think it would be improved by either making the pathing less linear or by making the map less tall. I'm inclined to like it even as it is though.
I don't like Mystic because I don't like its symmetry (or anything else about the map besides the boringly-executed-concept itself, but that's what stands out to me).
Sandlands is pretty straight-up, so I don't have a whole lot to say about it. It's not bad, and straight-up, not-bad maps are exactly what the ladder pool could use right now. I think the tower should be removed though, because the paths are so tight.
I like the nat arrangement of Mooniacs. I don't like the even-pathing, but maybe it's not so bad in a 3v3. I think the map's features are consistent to its concept, so it's probably okay in spite of its overall tightness.
Believe it or not, but Blizzard's fewer-than-one-nat-and/or-third-per-player bullshit is actually utterly unenjoyable to play with. I like Rimfrost's layout, but not that aspect of its expo layout.
Breeze is great. Its layout and features are all consistent with its concept. The layout is neat in general. That the map is so poor in resources is well-offset by the pathing and relative tightness I think, just as Hunters was.
Retribution hurts my eyes; I dunno what's going on in it. But the judge's description says it's standard and has 1 nat and 3rd per player, so it sounds perfectly acceptable. Maybe give it a paint-job?
So my top3 for 1v1 and team respectively are in descending order: Keru, Khalim's Will, Electric Circuit; and Breeze, Emrel Coast, Sandlands.
Could you make this into an e-book? I'm going on a 8 hour flight tomorrow and i'd like some light reading...
On May 21 2013 00:07 garbanzo wrote: Man, these are some really cool maps. As a huge fan of Outsider, I've been waiting to see when a map like that was going to make an appearance in SC2. I hope we get some really cool games. Is it still possible to push your probe/SCV through a mineral line?
Unfortunately you cannot push workers through the minerals
I still feel uneasy that Ravage made it in instead of ESV Khalis. The map was entirely based on, and created off of, Ohana, so yes to many folks it looks identical in terms of base layout. That's because I didn't touch the first 3-4 bases. My goal was to make Ohana bigger with an extra base, and it appears i've succeeded in that. Anyways, will be a little shocked if that sucker wins. Not something i'm going to be particularly proud of personally because I know it's not really that different.
On May 21 2013 12:25 TheFish7 wrote: The ones I would question, and perhaps I am missing something? But ESV Emrel Coast seems extremely Terran favored with those island expansions and small ramps.
Hell yeah, free islands are awesome. But mostly just did that so all races could take safe expos. Brings something different to 2s. Terran does have it best, but w/e. Team games are for fun, and islands are fun ^^
While I agree in principle, Its not really fun when your opponents have 2 orbitals on you and you are forced to research ventral sacs/ make a robo every single game, or go air to try and stop the expanding.
And so people don't think I am trying to pick on Timetwister, I will also point out that Drifas Throne is a split base 2v2 map. That in itself is problematic because it means that the attacking team has the ability to "divide and conquer" This is exacerbated by forcefields and I just don't think split base 2v2 maps work very well. There is a good reason that Blizzard removed all the split base 2v2 maps from ladder and replaced them with maps that have a shared natural choke. The large size and back way between the bases might be enough to overcome this, but I'm not holding my breath.
If you've seen my posts you know I am all for experimenting with new map features, I just don't think island expansions and split base 2v2 are things that will ever work (edit: on ladder)
I've got a bug on Frost, I only see weird flickering where the orange stuff (larva) should be. I haven't got any problems on other maps, so I don't think it's a problem with my PC. Does anyone else have this bug as well?
On May 21 2013 23:44 Yello wrote: I've got a bug on Frost, I only see weird flickering where the orange stuff (larva) should be. I haven't got any problems on other maps, so I don't think it's a problem with my PC. Does anyone else have this bug as well?
Shoot a PM to Semmo about it, I'll also alert him to this post so that we can get that looked at ASAP.
On May 21 2013 23:44 Yello wrote: I've got a bug on Frost, I only see weird flickering where the orange stuff (larva) should be. I haven't got any problems on other maps, so I don't think it's a problem with my PC. Does anyone else have this bug as well?
Hi. I'm the mapmaker for Frost. I have not been able to recreate this bug - I had numerous test games and stuff. Is it still there after you restart the map? Also, can you show me the map image via PM? Thanks.
On May 21 2013 23:44 Yello wrote: I've got a bug on Frost, I only see weird flickering where the orange stuff (larva) should be. I haven't got any problems on other maps, so I don't think it's a problem with my PC. Does anyone else have this bug as well?
Hi. I'm the mapmaker for Frost. I have not been able to recreate this bug - I had numerous test games and stuff. Is it still there after you restart the map? Also, can you show me the map image via PM? Thanks.
PM'ed you with a screen shot. Does anyone else know another map that uses the canyons with the larva (?) like this, so I can test if I have the problem on other maps as well?
Edit: 4 other people I know have tested the map as well and nobody of them seems to have the problem. I guess it could be some problem with my PC after all
There's a wierd flickering bug in sc2 when you force ambient occlusion in the driver settings (Nvidia, maybe with other settings too). Maybe that's related to your bug. In game usually changing the texture quality fixes the bug for this time but it comes back when you load the map again. Though I've seen a WCS stream with the same flickering bug on Daybreak and I doubt streamers activate such options. So I don't know but try to see if anything is default in the drivers settings.
A little sad that there are so many 1v1 maps that still uses watch towers and lotsa very close 3 base. I don't know in what way you could do it but I'd love for some more different maps.They all seem kind of similar even though i havent seen them before. Maybe nostalgia goggles but at the first contest the maps were so diverse :O
Fair amount of misinformed opinion in the last couple pages. And a fair amount of nightmarjoo. XD I love the way you think about maps.
Re: Keru and PvP, I don't really understand why that is the lowground-main-is-bad example of choice. Nexus cannon has made dedicated 4gate almost impossible to win with. MSC gives you highground vision. So the highground mechanic (vision) is irrelevant even on current maps. You can still FF the ramp. The one thing is that blink is better attacking at the ramp, but it has very little surface area to use. And blink is already infrequently used as an opener (for good reason).
tl;dr more critical thinking please
Re: Base-tradey after the 4th base (with good dynamics from 1-4 bases) doesn't seem like a huge problem. That just means positional value is amplified. At the highest level of play, you can ask for split army aggression and defense in a semi-stable fashion, and the decision to put it all on removing a lategame base (the 5th below the main cliff most often I'd assume) should be met with a viable counterthreat to dissuade it. Taken abstractly, this is not dissimilar from how Cloud Kingdom plays at the 4->5 base stage.
The mothership core is the first thing that gets sniped and then you lose the vision. The Nexus canon doesn't last for long, once it's over the opponent comes back. In case of expand vs 1 base allin it's even more favoring the allin because you have to retreat to an unsafe place. Plus the fact that the natural isn't even safe since you can siege it with tanks from the bottom the base. Since when is criticism not critical thinking ?
On May 22 2013 03:45 chuky500 wrote: The mothership core is the first thing that gets sniped and then you lose the vision. The Nexus canon doesn't last for long, once it's over the opponent comes back. In case of expand vs 1 base allin it's even more favoring the allin because you have to retreat to an unsafe place. Plus the fact that the natural isn't even safe since you can siege it with tanks from the bottom the base. Since when is criticism not critical thinking ?
MSC has longer vision range than stalkers can shoot. There's no reason to lose it. If someone is 4gating you, you should have 3gates + tech by the time your first overcharge wears off. Most builds don't try to hold a 4gate at the ramp anymore, so the lowground isn't even very important in those cases.
I'm really looking forward to the tourney and I hope a lot of pros show up for these. Seeing a tournament testing new maps is f*cking amazing and I really loved the last one, it produced my favorite map in SC2 so far. <3
You need to update to the hots metagame eatthepath, 4 gate is a thing of the past. Most PvP have air so you can snipe the mothership core, or DT rush and you break the forcefield with archons. If you cared reading you'd know I was talking about proxy stargate and 4gate warp prism on this map.
The 1:1 maps look fine. The 2:2 maps look really good for the most part. The 3.3 maps look absolutely terrible to play. CruX Breeze looks like a new hunters and therefor awesome.
I hope the 4:4 maps are not that huge as some of the new ones, where you have to turn down everything if you dont want a lagfest.
I agree with David Kim that there should be some imbalanced maps in order to force more variety of play style, where certain strategies are more powerful on some maps and less so on others.
I'm really interested to see how these maps play out. Unfortunately I'm a bit apprehensive about a lot of the design choices, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for refreshing gameplay!
Props to everyone who submitted a map (regardless of if it made it this far or not) and good luck to everyone with a chance to win!
Watched the game of mine you casted Iron, sorry it went a bit funky but quite a lot of my games go late like that. It may have looked as if I didn't know what I was doing I guess, but a lot of my TvZs end up with me setting up and slowly trying to starve the zerg.
Also I'd just like to say to the specs of that game, the reason why I didn't get vikings early, is they're for all intents and purposes, not as good as ravens. Ravens beat BL/Corrupter on their own and vipers are dealt with with turrets (and also having a large tank count that's pretty much unbreakable). Maybe when I'm a little bit better I'll write a guide up for my TvZ style since when I don't make mistakes or I'm used to a map my games end up pretty cool.
Either way I really enjoyed the map itself and although it did stalemate like that, I really enjoyed all the little positions I could take to set up and what have you. I was going to transition into BCs much sooner but I kept spending all the supply :p
On May 22 2013 01:48 a176 wrote: Based on Maps posted in TLMC thread
What are some of the maps you feel "stand out" ? These maps aren't necessarily "solid maps", but they have some unique quirks that I feel should be appreciated.
While most of this map is fairly basic, its the combined townhall+ramp design that really stands out. At first, you would obviously think this is designed for Protoss with MSC, but it also offers benefits to the other races; Zerg can "wall" with the hatch, and there's some room to put a crawler on the high ground for forward static defense, and terran can literally do a fast and safe rax-cc expand on such a smaller map. Some criticisms include the lack of dynamic terrain, its a fairly flat and open map, and the center attack path is perhaps too direct.
Here, you can obviously see the very open and exposed expansions. Though being exposed, I feel Scorp did a good job with the pathing and creating chokes to greatly help the defender. There types of maps I favor because you must be "active" on the map, rather than the sit-around-and-react type of playstyle. The map makes good use of minimizing airspace.
This map looks fairly run of the mill, but to appreciate this map you have to have a little history of maps dating back to even BW. In particular the design of the 3/9 oclock bases give off a heavy BW feel. In addition, the two elevated paths beside these bases as well. Personally I feel the center path is a bit too choked, and the paths leading into the nats also.
What I specifically want to point out in this map is the use of the 'forward' third. That is an early base which doesn't straddle the exterior the map and in this case is very much exposed. Further to this there is no direct route to the 3/9oclock fourth base. The design of both the third and fourth forces a player to defend out on the map rather than in or near the base. Though I feel for the rest of the map, it is perhaps just a tad on the large size. Theres alot of empty terrain on the top/bottom of this map, and through the center attack path, and a large empty pocket of airspace at the main/third.
The center of this map is what makes it fairly unique. The kind of zigzag would make for very enjoyable games for players who can split their armies and successfully pull off flanking moves. Though a big issue with the map is how constricted this center terrain is. There's large amounts of terrain to use outside of this, which would promote people to defend, rather than attack, having the defenders advantage in both army resupply and army positioning thanks to the very thin corridors in the center. A slight enlargening of the center to accommodate medium to large army sizes would do wonders.
Special Mention, Habitation Station by SidianTheBard
I wanted to just point out this map for Sidian doing an amazing job putting some fresh life into mirror symmetry maps. Obviously it is a magnificent and beautiful map. The third, fourth, fifth bases are wonderfully designed. My criticisms lie in the top part of this map. the design of the top base being an island really detracts from the zerg matchups, as both terran and protoss have units that can easily access or defend this base (blink, colossus, dropship, even pylons). I think one or two more bases up here would be great.
Will try to get a 'finalists' opinion in the coming days.
Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
Maybe finally some team-maps that allow you to fucking expand. Never understand how Blizz can have maps in their pool that does not even have naturals for all teammates.
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
Probably just because it's an ESV map and it's made by IronMan. Personally I thought Ohana was highly overrated as well - both Ohana and Ravage have very linear expansion patterns, and close 3rds make it easy to turtle (especially in the case of Ohana).
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
This is totally not directed at Ironman, but tbh I share the same thought.
On May 22 2013 03:40 monk wrote: Btw, we'll be playing TLMC maps throughout the day in channel TLMC on NA. Featuring a mini-tournament. Come play or obs if you'd like.
Cool. If someone would organize something like this on EU I would play, tonight.
On May 22 2013 03:40 monk wrote: Btw, we'll be playing TLMC maps throughout the day in channel TLMC on NA. Featuring a mini-tournament. Come play or obs if you'd like.
Cool. If someone would organize something like this on EU I would play, tonight.
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
Probably just because it's an ESV map and it's made by IronMan. Personally I thought Ohana was highly overrated as well - both Ohana and Ravage have very linear expansion patterns, and close 3rds make it easy to turtle (especially in the case of Ohana).
Jß With that logic, that means in TLMC3, lefix, timetwister and meerel will get chosen again unanimously, right?
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
IMO it's because it's one of the most familiar and solid looking standard maps, along with yeonsu being the next closest standard map. So it's no surprise many people will like it.
It's arguably one of the better aesthetically pleasing map, boosting it even higher on the likability list
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
Probably just because it's an ESV map and it's made by IronMan. Personally I thought Ohana was highly overrated as well - both Ohana and Ravage have very linear expansion patterns, and close 3rds make it easy to turtle (especially in the case of Ohana).
Jß With that logic, that means in TLMC3, lefix, timetwister and meerel will get chosen again unanimously, right?
I believe everyone who was selected in TLMC 1 who submitted to TLMC 2 also got selected again. Grebliv didn't submit, right? It's not a stretch to believe that's what's going to happen.
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
Probably just because it's an ESV map and it's made by IronMan. Personally I thought Ohana was highly overrated as well - both Ohana and Ravage have very linear expansion patterns, and close 3rds make it easy to turtle (especially in the case of Ohana).
Jß With that logic, that means in TLMC3, lefix, timetwister and meerel will get chosen again unanimously, right?
I believe everyone who was selected in TLMC 1 who submitted to TLMC 2 also got selected again. Grebliv didn't submit, right? It's not a stretch to believe that's what's going to happen.
People with the superior mapping skills are picked often? Blasphemy.
There were plenty of solid maps from other more reputable mappers that also didn't get picked, that's life.
5 finalists out of 9 have siegable naturals, I bet they must love Steppes of War and Lost temple. Call that superior mapping skills if you want I call that a disgrace. After 3 years of mocking Blizzard and trolling other community mappers (I personally got a Rick Astley award) that's what they've came up with ? After the multiple circle jerks about "VARS" (only left-right symmetry was balanced), the solid vs creative, the 4player-rotational-symmetry, big-main-tiny-natural-touching-3rd, circle syndrome, 6-minerals-bases, daybreak clones, now siegable naturals and backdoors to the main is the new thing ? I really doubt you will "shake up the metagame" by going back to 3 year old gimmicks. I've organized a handful of tournaments with community maps and top players and in my opinion the good mappers have left the community a long time ago. This is not superior skills and they were neither the most balanced nor creative maps out there.
On May 23 2013 02:51 chuky500 wrote: 5 finalists out of 9 have siegable naturals, I bet they must love Steppes of War and Lost temple. Call that superior mapping skills if you want I call that a disgrace. After 3 years of mocking Blizzard and trolling other community mappers (I personally got a Rick Astley award) that's what they've came up with ? After the multiple circle jerks about "VARS" (only left-right symmetry was balanced), the 4player-rotational-symmetry, big-main-tiny-natural-touching-3rd, circle syndrome, 6-minerals-bases, daybreak clones, now siegable naturals and backdoors to the main is the new thing ? I really doubt you will "shake up the metagame" by going back to 3 year old gimmicks. I've organized a handful of tournaments with community maps and top players and in my opinion the good mappers have left the community a long time ago. This is not superior skills and they weren't even the best maps out there.
On May 22 2013 16:02 wrl wrote: Yeonsu, Insidious, and Electric Circuit are 3 of my favorites, but can someone link me to an explanation as to why Ravage is good? I think it is totally out of its league compared to the other finalists. A lot of people seem to like it, but I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it should even be considered. Sure it is all around solid, but so were 50 other maps submitted. Insidious has many of the same concepts yet seems to do all of them better. Someone help me out here???
Probably just because it's an ESV map and it's made by IronMan. Personally I thought Ohana was highly overrated as well - both Ohana and Ravage have very linear expansion patterns, and close 3rds make it easy to turtle (especially in the case of Ohana).
Jß With that logic, that means in TLMC3, lefix, timetwister and meerel will get chosen again unanimously, right?
I believe everyone who was selected in TLMC 1 who submitted to TLMC 2 also got selected again. Grebliv didn't submit, right? It's not a stretch to believe that's what's going to happen.
People with the superior mapping skills are picked often? Blasphemy.
There were plenty of solid maps from other more reputable mappers that also didn't get picked, that's life.
You shouldn't assume someone's opinion when they simply state a fact. I never stated agreement with anything NegativeZero wrote.
On May 23 2013 02:51 chuky500 wrote: 5 finalists out of 9 have siegable naturals, I bet they must love Steppes of War and Lost temple. Call that superior mapping skills if you want I call that a disgrace. After 3 years of mocking Blizzard and trolling other community mappers (I personally got a Rick Astley award) that's what they've came up with ? After the multiple circle jerks about "VARS" (only left-right symmetry was balanced), the solid vs creative, the 4player-rotational-symmetry, big-main-tiny-natural-touching-3rd, circle syndrome, 6-minerals-bases, daybreak clones, now siegable naturals and backdoors to the main is the new thing ? I really doubt you will "shake up the metagame" by going back to 3 year old gimmicks. I've organized a handful of tournaments with community maps and top players and in my opinion the good mappers have left the community a long time ago. This is not superior skills and they were neither the most balanced nor creative maps out there.
hmm by my count only 3 of them have mineral lines that are at all siegable from outside of the nat.. and one of those you can just barely hit 1 geyser, (and another one your siege tank(s) would be in such a vulnerable position that doing it probably wouldn't be worth it). Would need to measure/test to be 100% sure, of course, but I have a pretty decent eye for it. Not sure which others you think are siegable.
Regardless, something being siegable isn't the end of the world. You have to consider the context of it. And just because a map has 1 feature you don't like doesn't mean the entire map is bad. I think if you're going to take aim at something, I would take aim at the 2 maps that seemingly have large positional imbalances, or that the contest wasn't terribly clear on the kind of maps it was looking for.
On May 23 2013 02:51 chuky500 wrote: 5 finalists out of 9 have siegable naturals
Which ones?
I bet they must love Steppes of War and Lost temple.
Of course they do, those maps were awesome.
Call that superior mapping skills if you want I call that a disgrace.
They actually apply the concepts correctly into the maps.
After 3 years of mocking Blizzard and trolling other community mappers (I personally got a Rick Astley award)
Seems like you got rickrolled.
that's what they've came up with ? After the multiple circle jerks about "VARS" (only left-right symmetry was balanced), the solid vs creative, the 4player-rotational-symmetry, big-main-tiny-natural-touching-3rd, circle syndrome, 6-minerals-bases, daybreak clones, now siegable naturals and backdoors to the main is the new thing ? I really doubt you will "shake up the metagame" by going back to 3 year old gimmicks.
It sounds like the real 'circle syndrome' is happening now when it comes to which features are popular.
I've organized a handful of tournaments with community maps and top players and in my opinion the good mappers have left the community a long time ago.
Awww man, I wanted to see them.
This is not superior skills and they were neither the most balanced nor creative maps out there.
On May 23 2013 02:51 chuky500 wrote: 5 finalists out of 9 have siegable naturals, I bet they must love Steppes of War and Lost temple. Call that superior mapping skills if you want I call that a disgrace. After 3 years of mocking Blizzard and trolling other community mappers (I personally got a Rick Astley award) that's what they've came up with ? After the multiple circle jerks about "VARS" (only left-right symmetry was balanced), the solid vs creative, the 4player-rotational-symmetry, big-main-tiny-natural-touching-3rd, circle syndrome, 6-minerals-bases, daybreak clones, now siegable naturals and backdoor to the main is the new thing ? I really doubt you will "shake up the metagame" by going back to 3 year old gimmicks. I've organized a handful of tournaments with community maps and top players and in my opinion the good mappers have left the community a long time ago. This is not superior skills and they were neither the most balanced nor creative maps out there.
I would just like to say to everyone reading Chuky's comments, that I don't think he has any idea what he is talking about, so please do not take him seriously and ignore his negativity.
Firstly, siegable from the low ground naturals and mains are fine. Several maps in the past, including Ohana, Metalopolis, and TDA have such a feature, and those played out just fine in regards to the main and natural sieging. TDA was a bit iffy for the fact that the units sieging the natural were incredibly hard to attack into because of this little 'nook'. Yet, the balance stats showed that TDA was one of the most balanced maps of all time. So, whatever. Additionally, maps that did not have such a 'nook' never saw siege play. I would also like to point out that Back to Back, Chuky's map, has both and he says that map is just fine. I smell a bit of hypocrisy on Chuky's part.
Secondly, I think Chuky doesn't understand why Back to Back has not been chosen in any map tournament for the last 2 or 3 years. The map is incredibly boring, with very linear pathing and expansion pattern. It literally has nothing that would make it stand out from any other maps submitted. Whether the map is balanced or not, Daybreak is quite frankly more interesting, and that's saying something. The map also looks like it was made in roughly an hour, and did no receive any high amounts of care until proam, where the talented mapmaker Johanaz made the map the best it could ever be. Even with such drastic changes, it still is nothing special. I think Chuky just has to realize that in order to get a map anywhere, it has to be different than the dozens of other maps that are made each month, and Back to Back is far from such
Thirdly, I just think Chuky is mad that his map never gets picked for anything, and is thus making nonsensical rage about it. Where this is certainly subjective, I think it's quite valid with the harsh tone and negativity he seems to be coming out with in his comments.
As a result of these factors, I do not think he has any idea what he is talking about, and is just looking to start shit. Thus, I once again please ask anyone reading his comments to not take him seriously and to ignore his negativity. Thanks!
P.S. Chuky, you should try and move on and make another map.
If you believe sieging a tank between the main and natural is not only possible but that it's the same as sieging from outside the base then I understand why you call me an hypocrit. FYI the version that was submitted is there. About your opinion that it's boring, DOA has casted a King of the Hill on it on the IPL TV, so other people have different views as you. You have your opinion, other people have different ones, no need to call me a hypocrit or say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and btw I have more experience in mapping as you do so maybe you should respect that.
edit : after rereading your post I'd like to reply to you saying I only got attention after the proam contest, I've run several tournaments with players like Dayshi, Seiplo, AdelScoot and other Euro GM so I think it's got plenty of attention before that. The whole Proam contest was a big troll like the Rick Astley award. Johanaz erased most of the work we did on the last day and submitted a different version than what we'd been workin on. Then he mocked me on forums but I didn't say a word about it because he's a respected guy. But that was pretty disrespectful from his side. Now maybe you understand why the so called mapping community isn't high in my heart.
On May 23 2013 04:49 chuky500 wrote: If you believe sieging a tank between the main and natural is not only possible but that it's the same as sieging from outside the base then I understand why you call me an hypocrit. FYI the version that was submitted is there. About your opinion that it's boring, DOA has casted a King of the Hill on it on the IPL TV, so other people have different views as you. You have your opinion, other people have different ones, no need to call me a hypocrit or say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and btw I have more experience in mapping as you do so maybe you should respect that.
edit : after rereading your post I'd like to reply to you saying I only got attention after the proam contest, I've run several tournaments with players like Dayshi, Seiplo, AdelScoot and other Euro GM so I think it's got plenty of attention before that. The whole Proam contest was a big troll like the Rick Astley award. Johanaz erased most of the work we did on the last day and submitted a different version than what we'd been workin on. Then he mocked me on forums but I didn't say a word about it because he's a respected guy. But that was pretty disrespectful from his side. Now maybe you understand why the so called mapping community isn't high in my heart.
Because making a single map gives you more experience than the dozens of maps that I have made. Seems legit.
Edit: Some of my maps have been played on by notable players such as Top, Teaja, Tassadar, Ganzi, Life, and Jjakji. They have also have been played in tournaments such as TL Open, Dreamhack, and the ESV Korean Weekly. Now, have you heard of my maps getting such achievements? I doubt it. Thus, I don't think running little tournaments and getting a couple GM validates as attention.
On May 23 2013 04:49 chuky500 wrote: If you believe sieging a tank between the main and natural is not only possible but that it's the same as sieging from outside the base then I understand why you call me an hypocrit. FYI the version that was submitted is there. About your opinion that it's boring, DOA has casted a King of the Hill on it on the IPL TV, so other people have different views as you. You have your opinion, other people have different ones, no need to call me a hypocrit or say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and btw I have more experience in mapping as you do so maybe you should respect that.
Because making a single map gives you more experience than the dozens of maps that I have made. Seems legit.
On May 23 2013 05:10 chuky500 wrote: Well I've published 4 and linked to a thread of a whole map pool I reskinned so yeah keep trying attacking me while I get warned.
That still doesn't give you the same amount of mapping experience as TimeTwister, let alone more of it. Running tournaments with GM players in it also doesn't qualify as mapping experience; I've done the same and I can guarantee I didn't learn anything about mapping while being busy updating brackets, finding games for casters, and supporting the players with their questions.
I think a little dose of reality might do you some good, man. o_O
On May 23 2013 05:10 chuky500 wrote: Well I've published 4 and linked to a thread of a whole map pool I reskinned so yeah keep trying attacking me while I get warned.
Why would reskinning a map give you any experience? I mean, it's cool, but I don't see how that would give you a better insight in map design.
Being in the scene since the beginning of SC2 mapping gives you experience, and modifying the same map over 3 years, watching the metagame evolve over the years and tweaking the map accordingly gives you experience. I won't comment on the claim that it was made in "roughly an hour". I was there when every community map had a backdoor to the main like Blistering Sands and a siegeable natural like Lost Temple. Timetwister22 wasn't. So he made Haven's Lagoon and now he's popular, but it doesn't give him the right to say I have no idea what I'm talking about.
On May 23 2013 05:48 chuky500 wrote: Being in the scene since the beginning of SC2 mapping gives you experience, and modifying the same map over 3 years, watching the metagame evolve over the years and tweaking the map accordingly gives you experience. I won't comment on the claim that it was made in "roughly an hour". I was there when every community map had a backdoor to the main like Blistering Sands and a siegeable natural like Lost Temple. Timetwister22 wasn't. So he made Haven's Lagoon and now he's popular, but it doesn't give him the right to say I have no idea what I'm talking about.
okay guys, let's sort this out. chuky has been around here forever and has seen all kind of maps with strange features and the metagame evolve. timetwister has made more than one ugly, but famous (and quite good) map called lagoon something.
now back to playing and/or mapping, pron or whatever. this shit here leads to nothing and destroys my favorite thread in the last two years.
On May 23 2013 05:10 chuky500 wrote: Well I've published 4 and linked to a thread of a whole map pool I reskinned so yeah keep trying attacking me while I get warned.
Your perception of "mapping experience" makes no sense. Basically your argument is
"Timetwister, you just make maps. Cool. But I make maps and re-skin them, so I have more mapping experience!"
Re-skinning is nothing but a low-rated skill. Can you precisely port over a Broodwar map? Can you take an old WoL map and make it totally different for HotS like I did with Khaydaria/Khalis? Do you understand lighting regions? Can you make tutorials? Have you posted anything in the Map Art Thread? How many maps, aside from Back2back and Congo did you make? What's your latest?
Running a few tournaments and altering your map for the past 3 years does not give you mapping experience. It gives you knowledge of the metagame, plain and simple. If you want to claim you have such experience, then your next map should no doubt look like the next Cloud Kingdom.
On May 23 2013 05:48 chuky500 wrote: Being in the scene since the beginning of SC2 mapping gives you experience, and modifying the same map over 3 years, watching the metagame evolve over the years and tweaking the map accordingly gives you experience. I won't comment on the claim that it was made in "roughly an hour". I was there when every community map had a backdoor to the main like Blistering Sands and a siegeable natural like Lost Temple. Timetwister22 wasn't. So he made Haven's Lagoon and now he's popular, but it doesn't give him the right to say I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Dude, get some respect and stop attributing every failure on your part to some kind of global conspiracy against you. If you've allegedly been tweaking the map in line with the metagame you should consider the fact that it's barely changed at all in all that time. It's not a good map and the fact that you organised tournaments and put it in the map pool or poorly recoloured a few ladder maps doesn't mean you have a better understanding of map balance than: (1) the entire mapmaking community; (2) the judges of this competition; (3) the pros who have given feedback not only in the form of judging (i.e. TLO, Morrow) but also in terms of the feedback that the mapmaking teams regularly get from decent players.
You have been modifying the same map for over 3 years? Honestly, If people don't like it the first time you show it, they won't like it any more the second time, let alone the xth time 3 years later. Some people don't like your map, that happens more often than not. The best thing you can do is make another map and hope people will like it more. We all hate Havens Lagoon when we first saw it, Timetwister went on to make dozens of other maps, every single one being better than the one before. At this point, I consider him leagues above your level. Now go make another map!
On May 23 2013 05:48 chuky500 wrote: Being in the scene since the beginning of SC2 mapping gives you experience
The experience of being an armchair critic, not being a good mapper.
On May 23 2013 05:48 chuky500 wrote: and modifying the same map over 3 years, watching the metagame evolve over the years and tweaking the map accordingly gives you experience.
The experience of beating a dead horse and making minor adjustments to a failed project, not being a good mapper.
On May 23 2013 05:48 chuky500 wrote: I won't comment on the claim that it was made in "roughly an hour". I was there when every community map had a backdoor to the main like Blistering Sands and a siegeable natural like Lost Temple. Timetwister22 wasn't. So he made Haven's Lagoon and now he's popular, but it doesn't give him the right to say I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Your belief that Timetwister's only contribution to being a respected community member is through Haven's Lagoon shows a clear disconnect with the mapmaking community as a whole. He's done far more than that, and gives me pause when taking your claims of "being in the scene" since the beginning of SC2 at face value.
I honestly recommend you take a breather, then spend some time working toward contributing to the mapmaking scene instead of having a tantrum over the TLMC finalists and the fact your 3-year-old map was rejected.
I was replying to Timetwister who claimed I supposedly only made a single map that took roughly 1 hour, that I had no idea what I was talking about and that Ohana and Metalopolis had a siegable main (whatever) therefore I was a hypocrit. I'm the one who got a warning btw. The first mapping contest was about finding standard and solid maps, and this one was about finding creative ones that's why I submitted it, and it's not even the same version. If the rules stayed the same I wouldn't have submitted.
You can argue all you want about it being bad or ugly but I consider my map layout in advance for reasons you probably don't care about (distances between bases prevent base trades, attack path is different from defense path, watch towers are used for attack instead of defense, making harassing less 1 sided and other features). When Timetwister claims you can't make a bright lighting with a dark tileset, I don't consider this being leagues above my level. Skinning may be a low skill like Ironmansc says, but I know that each base must have a different set of textures and a different mineral line orientation, because it helps the players and spectators recognize where they are when the camera jumps from a place to another one. So I believe I do know what I'm talking about and I know things you don't. Yes that's experience. But if the mapping community stopped giving troll awards, backstabbing the mapper they're working with and other things you don't know but I won't mention because I've said enough..., and started listening to what other mappers have to say without calling them out the level of maps would increase.
I hope my encouragement wasn't the deciding factor in chuky resubmitting that map so many times >.< First time it was submitted I was judging and I gave it an unofficial *CONCEPT* honorable mention (not good execution), which was partially tempered by the fact that chuky was new and I was surprised. You still have much potential chuky, but it really is time to move to a different map :x
On May 23 2013 07:03 chuky500 wrote: You can argue all you want about it being bad or ugly but I consider my map layout in advance for reasons you probably don't care about (distances between bases prevent base trades, attack path is different from defense path, watch towers are used for attack instead of defense, making harassing less 1 sided and other features).
Considering I am a mapper myself and run a mapmaking team, I'm gonna go on a limb and say I do care about those things. This is what I'm talking about regarding your disconnect with the mapmaking community.
On May 23 2013 07:03 chuky500 wrote: When Timetwister claims you can't make a bright lighting with a dark tileset, I don't consider this being leagues above my level. Skinning may be a low skill like Ironmansc says, but I know that each base must have a different set of textures and a different mineral line orientation, because it helps the players and spectators recognize where they are when the camera jumps from a place to another one. So I believe I do know what I'm talking about and I know things you don't. Yes that's experience. But if the mapping community stopped giving troll awards, backstabbing the mapper they're working with and other things you don't know but I won't mention because I've said enough..., and started listening to what other mappers have to say without calling them out the level of maps would increase.
Are you daft? There's nothing you've stated that I don't already know. What I don't know is why you have this ego complex, but acting superior with mediocre mapmaking knowledge doesn't win you any points. I'm really not sure why you're surprised the mapping community doesn't treat you well when you act like this; you and I have never had any interaction with one another in the past, but I can tell you right now that your behaviour isn't the way to go about making friends.
On May 23 2013 07:03 chuky500 wrote: When Timetwister claims you can't make a bright lighting with a dark tileset, I don't consider this being leagues above my level.
I made no such claims, nor does really any of your post make any sense...
On May 21 2013 02:48 saltis wrote: Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
Sadly, there are only a few non dark tile sets. Sc2 is just a dark game
edit : iamcaustic like I said in the post it wasn't directed at you, so thanks for calling me daft but it was a reply to that :
On May 23 2013 04:23 Timetwister22 wrote: I would just like to say to everyone reading Chuky's comments, that I don't think he has any idea what he is talking about, so please do not take him seriously and ignore his negativity.
[...] As a result of these factors, I do not think he has any idea what he is talking about, and is just looking to start shit. Thus, I once again please ask anyone reading his comments to not take him seriously and to ignore his negativity.
On May 21 2013 02:48 saltis wrote: Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
Sadly, there are only a few non dark tile sets. Sc2 is just a dark game, and that's just how it goes. But saying you wouldn't pick a map cause of aesthetics is horrendous. Gameplay first man. Always gameplay first.
On May 21 2013 02:48 saltis wrote: Uh, i really sick of dark maps. Even if it would be of a great design i still wouldn't vote for a dark maps. They are simply unattractive, depressive and unplayable at sunny day. p.s. I am just a casual player and dare to speak in the name of newbies and for the sake of SC2 popularity.
Sadly, there are only a few non dark tile sets. Sc2 is just a dark game
So where does that say you can't have bright lighting with dark tilesets? That just says sc2 has a lot of dark tilesets, which it does. No where in there am I claiming that you're physically unable to change the lighting of a tileset.
On May 23 2013 08:12 chuky500 wrote: edit : iamcaustic like I said in the post it wasn't directed at you, so thanks for calling me daft but it was a reply to that :
On May 23 2013 04:23 Timetwister22 wrote: I would just like to say to everyone reading Chuky's comments, that I don't think he has any idea what he is talking about, so please do not take him seriously and ignore his negativity.
[...] As a result of these factors, I do not think he has any idea what he is talking about, and is just looking to start shit. Thus, I once again please ask anyone reading his comments to not take him seriously and to ignore his negativity.
You really need to work on the context of your posts, then. Nevertheless I'll stand by those statements I made even if they're directed at Timetwister. You have displayed no examples or evidence of you having greater mapmaking knowledge than him, or knowing things he doesn't.
On May 21 2013 19:01 MarlieChurphy wrote: A good number of the maps just look like slightly varied clones of ladder/tourney maps we already have/had /: I guess the scene isn't quite ready for concept maps yet as the game is still developing with meta and patches changing stuff. I should have worked on my 3 player map concept considering there were none that made it in.
TPW Khalim's Will, TPW Koprulu seem decent. TPW Strangewood Mire might be interesting. Some of these maps need Higher quality pics, hard to tell what's going on; DF Yeonsu.
As far as team maps go, I hate it when the linear progression of bases is nonexistent so any map that has 1 natural or oddly placed bases is automatic fail. Essentially, team maps should just be created the same was as 1v1 maps with minor tweaks for allied play. I am interested to see the team play maps where the ally isn't so close or shared as well, never get to see or play those being that all the ladder maps are like that.
TPW Mystic is awesome. TPW Drifas Throne is interesting. TPW Sandlands seems ok, i wish there was just 1 shared entrance and then the nats having 2 separate paths into them (one being like a bifrost backdoor path or something).
CruX Breeze is cool if it is what I think it is, but it's kind of confusing looking.
PS- I don't know what TPW is, and I didn't choose the maps I liked based on names/makers, but if they are a team, they seem to be knowing what they are doing. :cheers:
oh god, how did you think it would be a good idea to post in plexa's thread
After posting this, I was listening to SotG 94 with David Kim, and he mentioned that a lot of the issues with balance or complaints about how at the end of WoL some of the builds and the game was sort of stagnated was primarily to do with the fact that all the maps were built to play out a certain way and were perhaps too boring/balanced. He said that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some specifically questionable maps that may be imbalanced in order to inject the game with some excitement/timings (or whatever you want to call it). Coincidentally, this is exactly what we started seeing with BW with all the custom editors and weird concepts and gimmicks they were trying out.
I like most the maps except those backdoor rock ones. Imo those are pretty Z friendly maps. Still I agree that we need some revamp in the map style. Like the kespa crazy style of maps.
On May 23 2013 16:24 Belha wrote: I like most the maps except those backdoor rock ones. Imo those are pretty Z friendly maps. Still I agree that we need some revamp in the map style. Like the kespa crazy style of maps.
Well some of them are based off of Kespa maps and atleast Electric Circuit is based heavily off a Kespa map from BW, not that that's a bad thing as it was one of my favourite maps.
On May 24 2013 00:36 turtles wrote: I'm guessing it's too much to ask for any of them to be unlocked so we can open them in the editor?
i have no idea why you would want to do so, but i guess if you ask the authors for the file and have a good reason to have them here is a chance you get your hands on them. tbh i never give files "away" for no reason. results may vary from map maker to map maker.
On May 24 2013 00:57 Samro225am wrote: i have no idea why you would want to do so, but i guess if you ask the authors for the file and have a good reason to have them here is a chance you get your hands on them. tbh i never give files "away" for no reason. results may vary from map maker to map maker.
For use with training tools. I am about to release a build order tester / practice mod (I've been saying this for months but I'm telling the truth this time!). I finished a tutorial video a few days ago.
So it would make a cool tie in to release it on these maps. That way I can have a bunch of people help test it and find any bugs and these maps can get a more rigorous testing. Win-win for every one.
Unfortunately the map making teams are either korean or don't have any contact info
I'm sure there are other modders who would like to get their greasy paws mods onto these maps as well.
On May 24 2013 00:57 Samro225am wrote: i have no idea why you would want to do so, but i guess if you ask the authors for the file and have a good reason to have them here is a chance you get your hands on them. tbh i never give files "away" for no reason. results may vary from map maker to map maker.
For use with training tools. I am about to release a build order tester / practice mod (I've been saying this for months but I'm telling the truth this time!). I finished a tutorial video a few days ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY09ub8jeKs
So it would make a cool tie in to release it on these maps. That way I can have a bunch of people help test it and find any bugs and these maps can get a more rigorous testing. Win-win for every one.
Unfortunately the map making teams are either korean or don't have any contact info
I'm sure there are other modders who would like to get their greasy paws mods onto these maps as well.
Ravage is a very solid map but it doesn't have anything new. Some other maps however may have balance issues but they look exciting to play. I would rather vote for an exciting map than for a solid map
I'm definitely gonna vote for electric circuit for old time sake but also because we don't have this kind of map in Sc2, the other maps are bugging me a bit, I feel like most of them are lacking a tiny bit of space
I dont know if it have been mentioned but the bottom left nat on CruX Breeze has a misplaced gas, atleast on the eu version. Weirdly enough it is not misplaced on the pic in the OP. Anyways it's kinda hard to test a map were one expansion is blocked by a gas so you cant mine even remotely efficent.
On June 01 2013 00:22 Eatme wrote: I dont know if it have been mentioned but the bottom left nat on CruX Breeze has a misplaced gas, atleast on the eu version. Weirdly enough it is not misplaced on the pic in the OP. Anyways it's kinda hard to test a map were one expansion is blocked by a gas so you cant mine even remotely efficent.
Thats really odd, I'll get Semmo to look into this thanks.
If only the rocks leading up to the main on TPW Electric Circuit were on the high ground with another ramp on the other side as well. Would make for a very well made map.