On February 22 2015 12:54 ZeromuS wrote: Blink is too strong anytime 2 bunkers cannot cover all blink angles if the distance for the terran is far greater than the distance for protoss to attack. So for example, Sejon Station -- the protoss can attack the nat ramp *bunker* and then try to blink up on the side of the main *bunker* OR run around 3/4 of the map to blink into the other side (more than enough time to reposition as terran).
That is generally how we approach blink.
This is the type of feedback I'd love to hear more about. That is a very clear way of looking at Blink.
Do you use any other formulas to approach certain balance issues? I know that there was a minimum distance from natural to natural around 45 or something (I really don't remember what the exact number was), are there any other magic numbers regarding distance, openness, space in the main, etc?
Basically, what are the tests you guys run when determining which maps you want to be finalists?
A lot of maps were automatically discarded because of back door rocks into the main, as an example of something we were specifically looking at this time. Some maps didn't make it because they were standard maps that weren't quite as good as some other standard maps, not because there was anything particularly wrong with them. Other maps didn't make it by virtue of being too non-standard, and in a way that didn't look playable. We did go out of our way to try to include a non-standard map or two (which is why Neo Emerald made the list), but even that was very contentious.
I'll try to get a more thorough set of feedback up when I can, I've been very busy these past few days.
I'm in the process of drafting my comments on all 50-60 maps that made the initial shortlist. I did not review in detail the others. I should have it up by tomorrow at the latest, I apologize for the delay.
On February 27 2015 05:41 Whitewing wrote: I'm in the process of drafting my comments on all 50-60 maps that made the initial shortlist. I did not review in detail the others. I should have it up by tomorrow at the latest, I apologize for the delay.
You're heroic for taking the time out to give feedback on 50 maps! Don't feel the need to rush it, much better that the feedback is solid and best represents your thoughts, so that the mapmakers get more out of it!
So, I actually goofed up and lost part of the document I had written, so I'm going to post what I have for now and come back and finish the rest again later. I've got more than 40 more maps to put on here, and they will be coming soon, I apologize for the delay.
So, here are my notes on the first few of the 56 maps that made the initial shortlist. I can't speak to the other maps, but hopefully this gives you an idea of my thought process. I just want to note that this is my opinion, and I do not speak for the entire Strategy Team, or any of the pros who gave us their thoughts.
Adun's Shrine
I really liked this map overall. It has a good flow to it, and felt like taking a third base shouldn't be too difficult. The potential backdoor path to attack the third with the rocks made it less safe than it could have been, The middle of the map looks to be an interesting area for engagements, and the terrain there offers some interesting options.
However, the map looks a little too safe at first glance. While the natural does not have a ramp, making 1 base pressure stronger, it's fairly safe to take a third and even a fourth. There isn't a lot of drop room on the map, and it's fairly simple to defend multiple locations and attack at the same time.
Ancient Realm
I had some issues with this map. The third looks exceedingly difficult to secure, and the middle of the map is pretty empty of noteworthy objectives. I am personally very much not a fan of rocks into the natural or main base as a backdoor, unless the value on them could be changed. Since ladder maps are not permitted to have tweaked stats on the destructible rocks, that creates a vulnerability that I think would be hevaily abused. There's almost no path to protect your bases and attack at the same time, meaning it is very difficult to expand through pressure. I would expect to see a lot of all-ins on this map.
Annihilation Station RE
This is a fairly solid map all around. I liked how it tried to play around with some new elements without messing too much with the reasonable 3 base paradigm. As much fun as it is to promote aggression by limiting early base counts, certain races (zerg and protoss) rely on reasonable to take expansions to be able to compete. The outer bases on the high ground with a wide ramp could be difficult to attack by ground, and are out of the way enough to make attacking by air deliberate and not incidental. It seems like the kind of macro map where hidden bases might be taken, but doesn't seem to unreasonable to attack or harass on. There are some interesting shapes and pathways in the middle of this map. My one concern is that it might be a little bit too 'chokey'.
Apotheosis
Let me first just say that I am not a big fan of the aesthetics of this map. That aside, the map actually looks like it would play pretty well. The presence of the middle bases is what really sold me on this: it allows you to choose a variety of attack paths and secure bases along that route, while also allowing for several different counter attack paths to respond to that route. Taking the third doesn't look too difficult, but isn't as easy as some other maps because of how much open space there is in front of the natural. All in all I think it's a good map, although it might be a little too tight or constricting in a few key areas.
Brimstone
The high ground area right outside the 3rd base was a bit of a concern for me, just like it was on habitation station, which is what this map immediately reminded me of. The removal of the gold bases is a good thing compared with that map. I liked the idea behind the pseudo-island base at the top of the map using rocks to simulate an island but giving ground troops the opportunity to attack it if given time, but I think it would have been better served at the bottom of the map instead. It's current location is too dropable, and the base pretty much can't be taken, and might as well not be there. The two middle bases look to be pretty impossible to secure as well: imagine brood lords or tempests or something flying over that gap. Overall, I think this map had some interesting ideas but lacked in execution.
Callisto
I think this map tried to push the envelope a little too much in terms of creating something very new. There is just way too much potential for aggression and cheese in so many ways, way too many attack paths. As a general rule, back door rocks into the main are an automatic disqualifiction in my book.
Cassiopeia
This was a cool map, and while it didn't make my personal list, I think it has some merits. I'm concerned about the blink options into the main where that reaper cliff is: it's a very short distance for the attacker to bounce between the main and natural but an incredibly long distance for the defender, which suggests blink will likely be very strong on this map as an all-in. The map layout is intriguing however, and I can see a variety of options for all races. This is a pretty unique way to approach a map that's different but still reasonably playable, as securing 3 bases doesn't appear to be impossible or even particularly difficult. I like the multiple reasonable choices for a fourth, and I think this represents a decent use of watchtowers.
Coda
I like this map. The natural is reasonably safe, and blink and reapers are options without being excessive. The third is securable, but not trivial to defend and can be pressured. Drop play is viable, and the map allows for a more aggressive third by taking the base in the middle, which can then be used to take a middle fourth and put a stranglehold on the map. You have another option for a fourth base as well. It's just an all around solid map with good potential.
Color Crush
To be honest with you, looking at this map actually gave me a headache, and I imagine I can't be the only one. Look at a map like fruitland for a good example of how to make a colorful map without harming the players. However, I will look at this map again shortly and modify this review to cover actual map elements other than the colors.
Cosmic Cortex
Frankly, my major gripe with this map is that it's just way too safe. I do really like the idea of an island base which can be hit by long range ground units like siege tanks, but the position it's in makes that feature irrelevant because it can be dropped even easier, en route to the opponent's main, making it unusable.
Dark Matter
There's nothing particularly wrong with this map, but my main gripe is the middle of the map design and movement patterns. It's not a bad map, persay, but it seems not quite as good as some of the other maps in this contest. It's just a little bland without having the same interesting army movement patterns that some of the other maps have.
Daydreams
Blink is a devastating threat on this map, which is the first thing I noted when looking. The middle of the map is extremely wide open and mostly empty, but the design is such that those two middle bases likely cannot be secured. The map feels very circular based on the expansion path that's basically forced.
Devil's Dance
This map certainly looks interesting, but the design of the only viable fourth base choice kind of turned me off from it. The third base seems almost too easy to take and secure with that high ground defensive postiion directly between the natural and third, and you pretty much have only one option for a fourth base, so you're expansion pattern has no real deviations. It has some interesting design features, but the power of air based harass once the game progresses to 4 or 5 bases is expounded by the heavy limitation on ground unit movement to get to your own fourth or fifth base.
I should have feedback for the rest of the 56 maps and revised feedback up for Color Crush sometime in the next few days, sorry for the delay, have had other stuff pop up that was time sensitive, and my job is eating up a ton of time.
Although my map hasn't got any yet, just want to thank The_Templar, Whitewing, and anyone else giving map feedback that its greatly appreciated and I really hope you guys keep it up. Thanks :D
On March 03 2015 10:01 TheSkunk wrote: Although my map hasn't got any yet, just want to thank The_Templar, Whitewing, and anyone else giving map feedback that its greatly appreciated and I really hope you guys keep it up. Thanks :D
Subtile way of saying "where's my feedback". Trolling aside, I really appreciate this feedback and thank you guys for all the effort. Really helps reading up on that stuff to see what you guys think of certain features.
I didn't request any feedback so I wasn't waiting on it/expecting it. The "hasn't got any yet" was referring to Whitewing who seemed to be going through the entire list not just going by requests, was just trying to let him know feedback was appreciated even if a lot of the authors aren't necessarily coming in the thread and asking for it.
Though Templar did send me feedback even though I didn't PM him or ask for it in this thread, and he made one comment I wasn't aware of, so was cool. :D
Primary concern is the easily accessible backdoor rocks into the natural next to the ramp. It makes it too easy to bypass the natural and push up the main ramp. It's also the natural attack path from the natural of the opponent. While the ramp to the main is barely reached by photon overcharge it's not quite enough, especially because the defenses naturally sit on the opposite side of the natural. Siege tanks sitting in the little ledge outside the rocks cover a significant portion of the main and the entire main ramp while being protected by the rocks which is a problem. Image here: http://puu.sh/gmG2t/4ff89d3b72.jpg
Twin Entangler
One spawn has backdoor rocks, but ignoring that and just looking at the other spawn it has a major problem with blink from the rocks side. Yes, the rocks do slow the pressure to an extent, but once they're down you can apply major pressure to the natural and then turn and blink next to the mineral line of the main right away while also being difficult to deny a time warp on the ramp. The dual gold base is kind of cute, but it's also kind of the natural 3rd to take in many situations, which is one of the reasons Foxtrot was disliked so much and removed from the map pool. I don't think anyone considered the implications of a gas only base, which kind of exists at that gold.
I like the design of the middle and the potential army flow between the spawns.
Devil's Dance
Zerg has an issue defending a third against protoss. Two ramps run into the third with very low surface area around the third itself. The path to reach the attacking ramp from other opposite side is extremely long. If you want to take the other third, there's only 1 ramp, should the protoss force muscle its way up the ramp, it can pick it off with ease and then recall out. Just as a personal note, I dislike the terrain that appears that it may be used, but is actually off limits.
Trapped Under Ice
This map shares the terrain issue of Devil's Dance but in a more gameplay affecting way. Specifically this section, especially from this angle: http://puu.sh/gmIrd/f84cd70460.jpg Even rotating the camera doesn't show anything that should obviously impede the reaper's way: http://puu.sh/gmIw8/01d3691511.jpg and the high ground U shape is simply off limits entirely as is the small section to the lower right. It's very confusing even when you understand it's there because there's no visual indication that it's not accessible as it shares the texture with or is extremely similar to the adjacent, navigable terrain. As I navigated around the map, the reaper was also frequently confused by the terrain and bugged out.
3rd accessibility for Zergs is also an issue here. Before the main rocks are down, the path to the back third is extremely long and the other potential third is a decent distance away and up a single ramp.
On March 05 2015 08:59 TheWinks wrote: Twin Entangler
One spawn has backdoor rocks, but ignoring that and just looking at the other spawn it has a major problem with blink from the rocks side. Yes, the rocks do slow the pressure to an extent, but once they're down you can apply major pressure to the natural and then turn and blink next to the mineral line of the main right away while also being difficult to deny a time warp on the ramp. The dual gold base is kind of cute, but it's also kind of the natural 3rd to take in many situations, which is one of the reasons Foxtrot was disliked so much and removed from the map pool. I don't think anyone considered the implications of a gas only base, which kind of exists at that gold.
I like the design of the middle and the potential army flow between the spawns.
Thank you for the feedback. I didn't realize the backdoors would be such a big deal -- I'm assuming it's a general objection rather than one related to a specific strategy or scenario? Never thought they'd constitute an auto-DQ. You make a great point regarding time warp on the ramp -- that hadn't occurred to me at all: I figured one bunker on the high ground and on the low ground would be ample, and I found precedent for that in Deadwing's Main/Nat setup. Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate you guys giving feedback like this.
I wasn't a judge in this contest so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think this particular map has a lot of potential, it did win MotM but I don't think it's a map that as polished or as good as it could possibly be. Let me break down why that is the case. The main-nat-third setup is unique, it's absolutely the central feature of the map and that particular innovation is what draws people to the map. Indeed, so much discussion about the map is centered around how that configuration will play out.
The result is that the rest of the map simply exists. It doesn't do anything except serve as intermediate ground between the two interesting points on the map. To illustrate,
There's nothing inherently wrong with this center, but its pretty much the same as anything we've previously seen. There's no interesting interplay between high-low ground, a few bridges to restrict movement, slightly awkward 4-5-6 expansion pattern, an unusual low ground expansion for some reason and that's about it. Fill in the main-nat-third in a standard configuration and you have yourself a perfectly average and totally unremarkable map (compared to some of the other stuff that's submitted).
Why is this a problem? 1) Past the three base mark the map simply converges with everything else 2) There's no strategic compensation for the main-nat-third elsewhere on the map 3) The map beyond the first 10 minutes is really boring, so if the concept fails we just end up with really boring games
Here's the thing about concept maps, you can't just rely on the gimmick to make the map successful. The rest of the map has to be well thought out as well else it won't give you the rich strategic tapestry that you're aiming for with this map. I'm guessing you thought "oh shit I've got so much crazy shit going on in the main-nat-third that the rest of the map needs to be normal to compensate" and then over compensated on the normality of the rest of the map. I think you need to go away and redesign this center area so that it better supports the main-nat-third.
One obvious example would be to offer players a choice between taking the safe main-nat-third setup or taking a more risky base that has other strategic benefits (be it a gold base which is what habitation station did, controlling a critical position (possibly with a watch tower) etc.) Another thing that could be looked at is accepting that a lot of games will be easy three base (like deadwing, since super easy three base is possible and likely to happen in games despite the possibility of some aggression to nullify that) and then working on the rest of the map to better support interesting 4-5-6 base play (and by support I mean ways to give better players the tools to defeat lesser players on a given map, like Cloud Kingdom used high/low ground to allow better players to exploit the terrain advantage and gain better positioning in fights).
You have my skype (or easy access to it anyway) so feel free to msg me about it if you want.
On March 06 2015 09:27 Plexa wrote: @Scorp and Rao Mesa
I wasn't a judge in this contest so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think this particular map has a lot of potential, it did win MotM but I don't think it's a map that as polished or as good as it could possibly be. Let me break down why that is the case. The main-nat-third setup is unique, it's absolutely the central feature of the map and that particular innovation is what draws people to the map. Indeed, so much discussion about the map is centered around how that configuration will play out.
The result is that the rest of the map simply exists. It doesn't do anything except serve as intermediate ground between the two interesting points on the map. To illustrate, Image There's nothing inherently wrong with this center, but its pretty much the same as anything we've previously seen. There's no interesting interplay between high-low ground, a few bridges to restrict movement, slightly awkward 4-5-6 expansion pattern, an unusual low ground expansion for some reason and that's about it. Fill in the main-nat-third in a standard configuration and you have yourself a perfectly average and totally unremarkable map (compared to some of the other stuff that's submitted).
Why is this a problem? 1) Past the three base mark the map simply converges with everything else 2) There's no strategic compensation for the main-nat-third elsewhere on the map 3) The map beyond the first 10 minutes is really boring, so if the concept fails we just end up with really boring games
Here's the thing about concept maps, you can't just rely on the gimmick to make the map successful. The rest of the map has to be well thought out as well else it won't give you the rich strategic tapestry that you're aiming for with this map. I'm guessing you thought "oh shit I've got so much crazy shit going on in the main-nat-third that the rest of the map needs to be normal to compensate" and then over compensated on the normality of the rest of the map. I think you need to go away and redesign this center area so that it better supports the main-nat-third.
One obvious example would be to offer players a choice between taking the safe main-nat-third setup or taking a more risky base that has other strategic benefits (be it a gold base which is what habitation station did, controlling a critical position (possibly with a watch tower) etc.) Another thing that could be looked at is accepting that a lot of games will be easy three base (like deadwing, since super easy three base is possible and likely to happen in games despite the possibility of some aggression to nullify that) and then working on the rest of the map to better support interesting 4-5-6 base play (and by support I mean ways to give better players the tools to defeat lesser players on a given map, like Cloud Kingdom used high/low ground to allow better players to exploit the terrain advantage and gain better positioning in fights).
You have my skype (or easy access to it anyway) so feel free to msg me about it if you want.
First of all, thanks for taking the time to write up such an in-depth comment. I agree with a lot of what you're saying - particularily how it manages to get crowd support because of the innovative 3-base layout. I think this is a strong indicator that it deserves to be explored further, with Rao Mesa being the first stepping stone in that direction. The issue with Rao Mesa is, as you mention, that in the later stages of the game, the map will play out much like any other map, which may or may not be an overcompensation, but it definitely is a goal of mine to address it somehow. Ideally, the 3-base layout would impact decisions throughout the game, and not just for a limited period of time. Whether Rao Mesa will undergo comprehensive changes or the 3-base layout will see use in other contexts is yet to be decided, but I'm confident it's a field to be explored. I highly encourage any mapmaker to take inspiration in Rao Mesa and use it to help explore the possibilities.
On March 06 2015 09:27 Plexa wrote: @Scorp and Rao Mesa
I wasn't a judge in this contest so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think this particular map has a lot of potential, it did win MotM but I don't think it's a map that as polished or as good as it could possibly be. Let me break down why that is the case. The main-nat-third setup is unique, it's absolutely the central feature of the map and that particular innovation is what draws people to the map. Indeed, so much discussion about the map is centered around how that configuration will play out.
The result is that the rest of the map simply exists. It doesn't do anything except serve as intermediate ground between the two interesting points on the map. To illustrate, Image There's nothing inherently wrong with this center, but its pretty much the same as anything we've previously seen. There's no interesting interplay between high-low ground, a few bridges to restrict movement, slightly awkward 4-5-6 expansion pattern, an unusual low ground expansion for some reason and that's about it. Fill in the main-nat-third in a standard configuration and you have yourself a perfectly average and totally unremarkable map (compared to some of the other stuff that's submitted).
Why is this a problem? 1) Past the three base mark the map simply converges with everything else 2) There's no strategic compensation for the main-nat-third elsewhere on the map 3) The map beyond the first 10 minutes is really boring, so if the concept fails we just end up with really boring games
Here's the thing about concept maps, you can't just rely on the gimmick to make the map successful. The rest of the map has to be well thought out as well else it won't give you the rich strategic tapestry that you're aiming for with this map. I'm guessing you thought "oh shit I've got so much crazy shit going on in the main-nat-third that the rest of the map needs to be normal to compensate" and then over compensated on the normality of the rest of the map. I think you need to go away and redesign this center area so that it better supports the main-nat-third.
One obvious example would be to offer players a choice between taking the safe main-nat-third setup or taking a more risky base that has other strategic benefits (be it a gold base which is what habitation station did, controlling a critical position (possibly with a watch tower) etc.) Another thing that could be looked at is accepting that a lot of games will be easy three base (like deadwing, since super easy three base is possible and likely to happen in games despite the possibility of some aggression to nullify that) and then working on the rest of the map to better support interesting 4-5-6 base play (and by support I mean ways to give better players the tools to defeat lesser players on a given map, like Cloud Kingdom used high/low ground to allow better players to exploit the terrain advantage and gain better positioning in fights).
You have my skype (or easy access to it anyway) so feel free to msg me about it if you want.
First of all, thanks for taking the time to write up such an in-depth comment. I agree with a lot of what you're saying - particularily how it manages to get crowd support because of the innovative 3-base layout. I think this is a strong indicator that it deserves to be explored further, with Rao Mesa being the first stepping stone in that direction. The issue with Rao Mesa is, as you mention, that in the later stages of the game, the map will play out much like any other map, which may or may not be an overcompensation, but it definitely is a goal of mine to address it somehow. Ideally, the 3-base layout would impact decisions throughout the game, and not just for a limited period of time. Whether Rao Mesa will undergo comprehensive changes or the 3-base layout will see use in other contexts is yet to be decided, but I'm confident it's a field to be explored. I highly encourage any mapmaker to take inspiration in Rao Mesa and use it to help explore the possibilities.
Very nice explanation. Personnaly, both as player and viewer, the first thing I look at in a map is the center and base 4-6, it often makes the difference between epicness and boredom.
I like who Uvantak really conceptualize his center areas, even if they are not my personnal favorite, at least he's trying hard and I think it should be the main goal of all mapmakers, design the center first, then think about main-natural-third.
Not using highgrounds and chokes should be considered a feature too... Most maps these days utilize chokes and highgrounds a lot and it forces you to play those maps in a very similar way.
The only ones that come to mind that don't are Deadwing and Vaani and those have some of the most boring base layouts possible. It would actually be really nice to have a map with an interesting base layout and a rather open, flat middle.
On March 09 2015 00:47 Gwavajuice wrote: Very nice explanation. Personnaly, both as player and viewer, the first thing I look at in a map is the center and base 4-6, it often makes the difference between epicness and boredom.
I like who Uvantak really conceptualize his center areas, even if they are not my personnal favorite, at least he's trying hard and I think it should be the main goal of all mapmakers, design the center first, then think about main-natural-third.
I might have phrased my view on Rao Mesa too negatively. What I dislike is the ordinary base progression past 3 bases. I designed the map around the 3 first bases, as well as a middle to compliment that design, but aside from that, there's no other remarkable features, and the base progression beyond those 3 bases is pretty standard. I do however disagree with his stance on the very middle of the map - I like it a lot and think it has an interesting dynamic in the mid/late game, which is what Rao Mesa promotes.
I feel like if I was judging maps I would be writing my thoughts down as I was looking at each map on the shortlist...thus it should just be an easy copy/paste to give all your feedback. How do you guys even rate the maps on a shortlist without writing stuff down and if you did, why don't you just copy/paste that?
On March 10 2015 13:08 SidianTheBard wrote: Been almost ~3 weeks now.
I feel like if I was judging maps I would be writing my thoughts down as I was looking at each map on the shortlist...thus it should just be an easy copy/paste to give all your feedback. How do you guys even rate the maps on a shortlist without writing stuff down and if you did, why don't you just copy/paste that?
Discussion about maps doesn't happen *just* by looking at maps and writing down comments. Some people have their own feedback lists with comments. Others discussed the maps in depth on skype (no written record) others discussed the maps in game.
I'll give you some feedback from an external perspective. Killzone isn't something that we were interested in exploring, that is, we're not interested in maps that deliberately reduce rush distances and base distances to make things 'interesting'.
The edits you made to Moonlight I felt made the map less viable than what it was before. I thought this was a bit of a shame, because it could have probably done much better than it did if you submitted the original. For instance, http://i.imgur.com/LhIv5jB.jpg has a lot of interesting decision making (do I take the safe base, or venture out for the gold?) while not being meta breaking by default having entrances. Not saying that this version is perfect (I would tighten up some of the proportioning) but it's significantly better than what was submitted. In fact, I'd go as far to say you should submit this in TLMC6 (happy to talk about making changes to it over skype or something) because I'm confident it will do well.
Color Crush, minus the polarizing aesthetics, just doesn't seem that interesting as a map. While alternate expansions are offered, the predominant expansion direction is vertical leading to metropolis/shakuras type scenarios. While not necessarily a disqualifying factor, the only interesting thing the map has going for it is the gold bases which we're not even sure is a good thing. It's not really interesting enough to be a concept map, but it's not standard enough to be a standard map. The result is a map that was seen as inferior to other maps submitted and didn't make it far as a result.