|
United States8476 Posts
Here we go, some insight to the judging of TLMC and feedback on your submitted maps. Before we begin, here are some comment threads from previous TLMCs. The suggestions from these two thread are still very relevant and I'll be reiterating what's said in following two threads a lot.
My Thoughts on TLMC2 Plexa's Thoughts on TLMC4
The Judging Process
- 130 Maps in Total were submitted.
- The First Cut involved 5 TL Strategy judges independently looking at each map and voting Yes, Maybe, or No to see if they would move onto the next round. If a map got 5 No's, 4 No's and 1 Maybe, or 3 No's and 2 Maybes, it would be stopped dead in its tracks here. In total, 48 maps were cut at this stage.
- The Second Cut involved all 5 TL Strategy judges getting in a call to discuss each remaining map individually. In general, the judge who had the dissenting opinion on the map was asked to defend his stance and we debated until we all got to a decision we were comfortable with. The aim of this round was to cut the remaining map pool to less than 40 maps, so that we wouldn't waste the pro player judges' time. 47 Maps were cut in this stage. An additional 20ish maps were put in the borderline category, and the rest moved on.
- The Third Cut involved revisiting all the "boardline" maps to see if they stood a chance against the advanced maps. These were the most difficult cuts and in the end, we cut 13 maps from this stage, bringing the final shortlist to 23 maps.
- At this point, we brought in the Pro Judges. A total of 8 Pro Judges were invited to take a look at the remaining maps to give feedback and vote. These 8 Pros as well as 5 TL Strategy Judges composed the final Judging Panel. Each judge was given a judging sheet and asked to rate each map on a scale of 1 to 10 (Overall Impression) as well as rate maps in three categories: Layout, Aesthetics, and Creativity. No judge could see the other judges' sheets. In the end, we averaged all the "Overall Impression" scores to determine the winners. The other categories were only used to guide judges and provide us with some cool stats; they did not directly affect the outcome of the final ranking at all.
Why did my map get cut? First, refer to the other two threads I linked above. The most common reasons your map got cut include:
- Clear inexperience as a mapmaker: These are most of the first wave of cuts.
- Poor use of space/proportions: Related to inexperience as a mapmaker.
- Glaring imbalances and not enough redeeming features to warrant the headache to correct them: Relatively rare in this contest. The LotV metagame isn't developed enough for us to really spot clear imbalances as easily.
In addition, each category had its own specific quirks in terms of what got cut.
- Macro: As noted in the finalist announcement, this was by far the most difficult category. A very large portion of maps were cut for simply not being good enough; other maps did the same concept better. This category really tested mappers' execution.
- Rush: So many of the submitted maps were just not rushy enough. In fact a lot of these maps seemed to be just standard maps that had somewhat short rush distances and submitted to this category because they didn't belong in any other category. We really wished we could see a bit more creativity in the submissions from this category as we do admit that yes, Rush maps are hard to execute in a way that player will actually enjoy to play on.
- New: All about creativity here. A lot of maps didn't go far enough here. Others went in a creative direction but had poor execution in way that wouldn't lead to interesting games.
- Gold: A lot of maps were cut immediately for not utilizing Gold bases in a way that would drive the direction of the game. In general, all successful maps in this category must have a Gold base as one of your first potential three bases. We really judged based on how well the Golds were utilized in this category.
Now, unlike the previous contests, I won't go too deep into more general tips about mapping. First, I think the previous two threads I linked already do that pretty well. And second, the LotV metagame hasn't developed enough us to add specific tips.
If you would like feedback on your maps that didn't make it, post the name of your map, a picture of that map, and any questions you may have. Also, let us know if you would like to know when your map dropped out of the competition. We'll try to give you feedback on these maps slowly but surely.
|
I hope to learn from the judges infinite wisdom Here are the maps I submitted :
Dead Man's Bridge in the macro category : + Show Spoiler +
Aemon's Wrath in the rush category : + Show Spoiler +
Black Water Mesa in the macro category : + Show Spoiler +
|
I'd like to know what feedback my map got.
Nazca + Show Spoiler +
And as for questions, I'd like to know if the aesthetics were too distracting, if the middle of the map was too restrictive, and if the fourth base was too distant, and if the watchtowers are a mistake. Also I'd like to know when my map dropped out.
Thank you very much for doing this.
|
Any feedback in the map I submitted would be appreciated.
Assiduous Expanse+ Show Spoiler +
I also made a alternate version (after conclusion of TLMC), so tell me if you think it improves the map from the last picture at all. + Show Spoiler +
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Here's a point of general feedback that hasn't been covered in previous threads. I think this is a key differentiator between the best maps and good maps and is something generally reflected in my judging. Every isometric grid on your map should be there for a reason. Every feature should be on your map for a reason. Every design decision you make on your map should be contributing to an overall theme or idea that you want to see expressed on your map.
So many maps look polished but don't do this well at all.
EDIT: Sorry Solstice, but I'm going to pick on you as an example. This is by no means exclusive to your map, but was one that suffered from this criticism.
There's nothing inherently wrong with any one of the design decisions made here, but when added together things don't add up. The first obvious feature is that the third bases are actually really close together (relative to other maps) which isn't a bad thing; this is something that needs to be explored still so it's a good idea. The blue base in the center (which could be seen as a fourth) reinforces the idea that this map is all about contested expansions and lots of conflict.
In this light, what on earth is the gold base doing on this map? It's a 'safe' base (relative to other bases) and it's high yield making it more attractive as an expansion option. It's completely in tension with the design decisions regarding the third. You could build the map around the gold; but I think the number of interesting strategic decisions to be made with this kind of gold base are less than the interesting strategic decisions about a map with lots of contested expansions. In either case, a design decision needs to be made and the rest of the map built to support that theme.
Now look at the bottom left/top right. The intention here is that one player gets a natural stronghold over one of the corners while the other player can control the other. In other games you can have contested expansions, but realistically one race will elect to take a base in one of the corners and the other race will take a base in the opposite corner for safety. How well does that work with the rest of the map? The corners diffuse the tension around the third-fourth blue bases by offering safer alternatives and that's why they feel out of place.
Each of the three major design decisions (gold base, corners, close thirds) is independently a fine idea. But when combined they fail to add up to a cohesive concept for the map. This kind of conceptual/critical eye is something that everyone should strive for imo.
|
did you just look at the maps?
|
On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote: Here's a point of general feedback that hasn't been covered in previous threads. I think this is a key differentiator between the best maps and good maps and is something generally reflected in my judging. Every isometric grid on your map should be there for a reason. Every feature should be on your map for a reason. Every design decision you make on your map should be contributing to an overall theme or idea that you want to see expressed on your map.
So many maps look polished but don't do this well at all.
But Plexa, Sc2 uses a rectangular grid
This is definitely one of my major struggles, giving an identity to individual chunks of the map. This applies to *all* good maps even outside of SC2.
|
On May 21 2016 01:35 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote: Here's a point of general feedback that hasn't been covered in previous threads. I think this is a key differentiator between the best maps and good maps and is something generally reflected in my judging. Every isometric grid on your map should be there for a reason. Every feature should be on your map for a reason. Every design decision you make on your map should be contributing to an overall theme or idea that you want to see expressed on your map.
So many maps look polished but don't do this well at all. But Plexa, Sc2 uses a rectangular grid This is definitely one of my major struggles, giving an identity to individual chunks of the map. This applies to *all* good maps even outside of SC2.
That's why if an isometric grid shows up on your SCII map you better have a damn good reason.
|
On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong with any one of the design decisions made here, but when added together things don't add up. The first obvious feature is that the third bases are actually really close together (relative to other maps) which isn't a bad thing; this is something that needs to be explored still so it's a good idea. The blue base in the center (which could be seen as a fourth) reinforces the idea that this map is all about contested expansions and lots of conflict.
In this light, what on earth is the gold base doing on this map? It's a 'safe' base (relative to other bases) and it's high yield making it more attractive as an expansion option. It's completely in tension with the design decisions regarding the third. You could build the map around the gold; but I think the number of interesting strategic decisions to be made with this kind of gold base are less than the interesting strategic decisions about a map with lots of contested expansions. In either case, a design decision needs to be made and the rest of the map built to support that theme.
Now look at the bottom left/top right. The intention here is that one player gets a natural stronghold over one of the corners while the other player can control the other. In other games you can have contested expansions, but realistically one race will elect to take a base in one of the corners and the other race will take a base in the opposite corner for safety. How well does that work with the rest of the map? The corners diffuse the tension around the third-fourth blue bases by offering safer alternatives and that's why they feel out of place.
Each of the three major design decisions (gold base, corners, close thirds) is independently a fine idea. But when combined they fail to add up to a cohesive concept for the map. This kind of conceptual/critical eye is something that everyone should strive for imo.
This is alot of stuff. I was never told before the conclusion of the contest. Let me quote from a piece of a PM I had received on the 15th.
We are currently in the middle of a grueling process to narrow down 23 maps to 15 finalists. However, we expect that we'll need to make some changes to many of your maps before they're ready for public display if we deem them finalist worthy. Thus, I'll need to be able to easily contact you during this week, specifically between Tuesday and Thursday of this week to make edits.
I received no such contact in regards to map feedback in that time-frame, although I am sure there are things that could have been said to improve my map before conclusion, whether deemed finalist worthy at the time or not. I am kind of disappointed with the lack of communication, but at least you guys are communicating about map feedback now, and I can always try again next time.
And allow me to make myself clear. I am not sad or mad my map did not make the finals, I am simply sad this feedback wasn't really provided before it really came down to it.
|
Thank you for the transparency.
I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced?
Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen?
Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave?
Lastly I'd really like some feedback on Cassiopeia in particular, and also DWR. Can you tell me which map I had in the top 23?
DWR + Show Spoiler +
Cassiopeia + Show Spoiler +
|
|
Italy12246 Posts
All the changes we did to the maps were minor tweaks tied to potential balance issues; for example, Galactic Process was deemed too blink-friendly so we added the chasm behind the third's minerals. Most maps weren't changed at all. Plexa's (as well as other judges') criticism of Assiduous Expanse would require much bigger changes, and ties in to the overall map design rather than small potential issues.
The true iteration phase hasn't happened yet (per the TLMC7 announcement thread), and will be after the BTV tournament, so we have a good amount of games to base decisions on.
edit: and yeah, adding on to what Barrin says, not all judges have the same opinion of every map of course.
second edit: It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen?
Not at all. We literally just sat on skype for hours and discussed every map submitted as we selected which to keep and which to not keep. That was it.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 02:32 Solstice245 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:10 Plexa wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong with any one of the design decisions made here, but when added together things don't add up. The first obvious feature is that the third bases are actually really close together (relative to other maps) which isn't a bad thing; this is something that needs to be explored still so it's a good idea. The blue base in the center (which could be seen as a fourth) reinforces the idea that this map is all about contested expansions and lots of conflict.
In this light, what on earth is the gold base doing on this map? It's a 'safe' base (relative to other bases) and it's high yield making it more attractive as an expansion option. It's completely in tension with the design decisions regarding the third. You could build the map around the gold; but I think the number of interesting strategic decisions to be made with this kind of gold base are less than the interesting strategic decisions about a map with lots of contested expansions. In either case, a design decision needs to be made and the rest of the map built to support that theme.
Now look at the bottom left/top right. The intention here is that one player gets a natural stronghold over one of the corners while the other player can control the other. In other games you can have contested expansions, but realistically one race will elect to take a base in one of the corners and the other race will take a base in the opposite corner for safety. How well does that work with the rest of the map? The corners diffuse the tension around the third-fourth blue bases by offering safer alternatives and that's why they feel out of place.
Each of the three major design decisions (gold base, corners, close thirds) is independently a fine idea. But when combined they fail to add up to a cohesive concept for the map. This kind of conceptual/critical eye is something that everyone should strive for imo. This is alot of stuff. I was never told before the conclusion of the contest. Let me quote from a piece of a PM I had received on the 15th. Show nested quote +We are currently in the middle of a grueling process to narrow down 23 maps to 15 finalists. However, we expect that we'll need to make some changes to many of your maps before they're ready for public display if we deem them finalist worthy. Thus, I'll need to be able to easily contact you during this week, specifically between Tuesday and Thursday of this week to make edits. I received no such contact in regards to map feedback in that time-frame, although I am sure there are things that could have been said to improve my map before conclusion, whether deemed finalist worthy at the time or not. I am kind of disappointed with the lack of communication, but at least you guys are communicating about map feedback now, and I can always try again next time. And allow me to make myself clear. I am not sad or mad my map did not make the finals, I am simply sad this feedback wasn't really provided before it really came down to it. You were one of four mapmakers who was asked to make small changes during the judging process. This is because your map was one of the final 23 that had potential, but we couldn't see it going through on the iteration you submitted. Your change helped, but it was not enough to push it through. All four changes consisted of a short "Most of the judges think changing X would improve your map".
We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps and give detailed feedback on each map during the contest as Plexa just did due to the sheer volume of work involved. I would actually say that you got more feedback during the contest than any other mapper. The stage where we'll try to provide as much feedback as possible is during the Iteration Phase AFTER the 15 finalists have been picked.
In addition, Plexa was not a first round judge this time. He was only brought in to help cut down maps from 23 to 15. This judging occurred after I sent you the PM. If Plexa were judging the first round, your map probably would have been cut much earlier due to the sweeping changes it would require (in his opinion).
I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced?
Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen? There was a fair amount of communication to the map cave during the judging process. Leak is probably the wrong word as I simply just wrote it out. However, communication from the map cave to judges in no way affected the results of this contest.
Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave? This was just a courtesy PM to inform you that we MIGHT need to contact you in the coming days. If I needed to find you, I would have found a way.
|
So, Ok, I'm really running out of time here, I should showering already, but can it be expanded as to why Laniakea was considered "imbalanced"? Which features on specific did the judges considered were detrimental to the balance of the map?
Other infos and such:
https://ktvmaps.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/ktv-laniakea/
Also, if you have the time, what do you guys think was the nail in the coffin for Tramontane?
Also nº2, what do you consider are things that could be improved upon in the 1st judging phase? More of a Post Mortem kind of thing.
Much fun, gotta go, I'll try to write more when/if I come back XOXO ♥
|
lolol, I just came up with a strange idea. I will even go as far as saying it is probably a stupid idea, but I wanted to show it non the less. What if I moved those rocks at 3rds opening to the rest of the map, to the larger opening in the just above base? And the collapsible rocks at nat to the other ramp instead?
I based it on the alternate version I showed a picture of in my first post in this thread, tho I can always apply it to TLMC version if ya guys want to see. + Show Spoiler +
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 00:39 algue wrote:I hope to learn from the judges infinite wisdom Here are the maps I submitted : Dead Man's Bridge in the macro category : + Show Spoiler +Aemon's Wrath in the rush category : + Show Spoiler +Black Water Mesa in the macro category : + Show Spoiler + A glaring problem with all three maps is that they're all variations of each other and that they're all specifically Whirlwind clones. Another factor you're really up against is that four player maps with all spawns enabled are really hard to execute well for a variety of reasons. First of all, players are always going to hate it for scouting RNG positional imbalance is always a factor. Finally, it's really hard to make sure all spawns are balanced. It's a huge hurdle to overcome which makes four-player maps sort of start with a disadvantage in the TLMC. Thinking back to well-liked four-player maps with all spawns enabled in the history of Starcraft that were well-liked, you basically have Whirldwind and Frost (maybe Entombed Valley). And that's it. You can see it from the TLMC7 finalists as well: all 15 finalists are two-player maps or pretty much two-player maps.
Dead Man's Bridge is almost an exact Whirlwind clone. Aemon's Wrath in particular isn't really a rush map, especially in Cross positions.
In addition, all three maps also share another problem in the sense that you seem to designing them in two separate parts: the first three bases and the rest of the map. I could mix and match these two components on each of your maps and still get similar results.
In general, none of the maps were special enough to warrant a high placement.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Adding on to what monk said, it doesn't mean they are bad maps per se, just that they had really strong competition and didn't manage to come out on top.
|
Hey all. I know I managed to sneak a map into the finals in so I can't complain, but I was just curious what the judges thought of Revanscar Relay and what they felt its major (or minor too) issues were. Any non judges feel free to thrash it too, lol. I'm very fond of the concept so if I can iterate it to something worthwhile in the future I'd love to do so.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay
|
On May 21 2016 04:44 Fatam wrote:Hey all. I know I managed to sneak a map into the finals in so I can't complain, but I was just curious what the judges thought of Revanscar Relay and what they felt its major (or minor too) issues were. Any non judges feel free to thrash it too, lol. I'm very fond of the concept so if I can iterate it to something worthwhile in the future I'd love to do so. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay
I'd imagine balance concerns. Using the other side of those minerals right in front of the natural as a forward position and dropping marines and marauders to attack the natural/third/fourth, with more marine and marauders and tanks behind the minerals to act as support would be nasty and near unstoppable. In general dropping on one side of the minerals then picking up and dropping on the other side would be incredibly frustrating to deal with especially for zerg.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 00:47 ZigguratOfUr wrote:I'd like to know what feedback my map got. Nazca + Show Spoiler +And as for questions, I'd like to know if the aesthetics were too distracting, if the middle of the map was too restrictive, and if the fourth base was too distant, and if the watchtowers are a mistake. Also I'd like to know when my map dropped out. Thank you very much for doing this. This map unfortunately dropped out in the first wave, though I will say it was one of the best maps that didn't survive the first cut. The main issue here is that it really isn't new enough. I read your description of the map again and I still can't see anything particularly new about it.
- Aesthetics too distracting? Slightly, but i wouldn't worry too much about that.
- Middle too restrictive? Yes. The issue is that there's only three ground paths of attack and they happen to be as far apart from each other as possible. This makes attack too easily predictable and doesn't allow for as dynamic games.
- Watchtower? Yea, I don't know why that's there. With only three paths of attack, a defensive tower shouldn't be able to completely cover one of them. In general, I don't like defensive watch towers unless they're executed extremely well.
- Fourth too far? Yes? Maybe? There are some strategies that require a fast fourth base like Dark's Ling/Bling style against Protoss (which takes a fourth around 5:00. I don't see that being viable on this map.
Another issue might be the lack of air space. I like maps that really pay attention to where Zergs would typically place their Overlords.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote:Thank you for the transparency. I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced? Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen? Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave? Lastly I'd really like some feedback on Cassiopeia in particular, and also DWR. Can you tell me which map I had in the top 23? DWR + Show Spoiler +Cassiopeia + Show Spoiler + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three.
DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map.
Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 21 2016 04:21 monk wrote:A glaring problem with all three maps is that they're all variations of each other and that they're all specifically Whirlwind clones. Another factor you're really up against is that four player maps with all spawns enabled are really hard to execute well for a variety of reasons. First of all, players are always going to hate it for scouting RNG positional imbalance is always a factor. Finally, it's really hard to make sure all spawns are balanced. It's a huge hurdle to overcome which makes four-player maps sort of start with a disadvantage in the TLMC. Thinking back to well-liked four-player maps with all spawns enabled in the history of Starcraft that were well-liked, you basically have Whirldwind and Frost (maybe Entombed Valley). And that's it. You can see it from the TLMC7 finalists as well: all 15 finalists are two-player maps or pretty much two-player maps. Dead Man's Bridge is almost an exact Whirlwind clone. Aemon's Wrath in particular isn't really a rush map, especially in Cross positions. In addition, all three maps also share another problem in the sense that you seem to designing them in two separate parts: the first three bases and the rest of the map. I could mix and match these two components on each of your maps and still get similar results. In general, none of the maps were special enough to warrant a high placement. Fair enough! Thx for the heads up!
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 04:00 Uvantak wrote:So, Ok, I'm really running out of time here, I should showering already, but can it be expanded as to why Laniakea was considered " imbalanced"? Which features on specific did the judges considered were detrimental to the balance of the map? Other infos and such: https://ktvmaps.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/ktv-laniakea/Also, if you have the time, what do you guys think was the nail in the coffin for Tramontane? Also nº2, what do you consider are things that could be improved upon in the 1st judging phase? More of a Post Mortem kind of thing. Much fun, gotta go, I'll try to write more when/if I come back XOXO ♥ The main issue identified in terms of balance is natural, which has two entrances. This is especially a problem for Protoss specifically ZvP. In all Protoss matchups, you start with only two pylons in the first few minutes of the game. Your expansion nexus provides a ton of supply, so you don't get your third pylon generally for a very long time. These two pylons have to work overtime powering basic buildings, defending pushes, and powering tech. Add to the fact that you can't wall off both entrances in the early game means that Lings will dominate early-game ZvP. I recently had a conversation with Mana about how this would all play out.
Tramontane was a top 23 map and a top 10 map in the Macro category. It finished 8th out of 10th. For the most part, it lost to better maps. A few criticisms brought up in judging thought:
- It's a 2-in-1 map but both of these maps individually aren't great.
- You have a hard time responding to all-ins when you're on three bases particularly in the TR/BL spawns. Pulling workers from your third to your natural just seems impossible.
- Tanks are also a potential issue in all spawns.
Judging for the most part went fairly smoothly. The only issue we identified was with the 1-10 scoring system in the final round. Some judges voted from 5-10 while others voted the entire spectrum from 1-10. This essentially gave the 1-10 judges double the voting power in some circumstances..
|
On May 21 2016 05:31 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 00:47 ZigguratOfUr wrote:I'd like to know what feedback my map got. Nazca + Show Spoiler +And as for questions, I'd like to know if the aesthetics were too distracting, if the middle of the map was too restrictive, and if the fourth base was too distant, and if the watchtowers are a mistake. Also I'd like to know when my map dropped out. Thank you very much for doing this. This map unfortunately dropped out in the first wave, though I will say it was one of the best maps that didn't survive the first cut. The main issue here is that it really isn't new enough. I read your description of the map again and I still can't see anything particularly new about it. - Aesthetics too distracting? Slightly, but i wouldn't worry too much about that.
- Middle too restrictive? Yes. The issue is that there's only three ground paths of attack and they happen to be as far apart from each other as possible. This makes attack too easily predictable and doesn't allow for as dynamic games.
- Watchtower? Yea, I don't know why that's there. With only three paths of attack, a defensive tower shouldn't be able to completely cover one of them. In general, I don't like defensive watch towers unless they're executed extremely well.
- Fourth too far? Yes? Maybe? There are some strategies that require a fast fourth base like Dark's Ling/Bling style against Protoss (which takes a fourth around 5:00. I don't see that being viable on this map.
Another issue might be the lack of air space. I like maps that really pay attention to where Zergs would typically place their Overlords.
Hmm... okay. I don't completely agree that it isn't "new" enough since those high ground "battlements" around the natural and third while not "new" looking do result in play that I feel is every new and different from what we normally see on maps. In any case your comments about the execution flaws are certainly spot on. I will bear them in mind for the future.
Thank you very much for the feedback.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 04:44 Fatam wrote:Hey all. I know I managed to sneak a map into the finals in so I can't complain, but I was just curious what the judges thought of Revanscar Relay and what they felt its major (or minor too) issues were. Any non judges feel free to thrash it too, lol. I'm very fond of the concept so if I can iterate it to something worthwhile in the future I'd love to do so. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay This map fell in the third round along with 12 other maps. While the concept was cool, we weren't sure if it was executed to its maximum potential. However, the thing that really weighed the map down was that most of your work seems to be concentrated on your first five bases and everything else just seems to be thrown in to complete the map. Specifically, I have no idea what either of the two golds or the watch tower are there for. Also, why is the middle so wide and open? This seems more like a proof of concept map rather than a finished product. Nothing about the actual layout really impresses me.
Also, like I mentioned to Uvantak, unless you have a really good reason for having two entrances to your natural, don't do it. It causes more problems than it's worth.
Finally Tanks. In the end, even though we initially thought this was close to a finalist map, upon closer inspection, it was actually quite far away.
|
haha rekt! Thanks + I'll see if I can rework it for future contests and such.
|
On May 21 2016 06:16 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote:Thank you for the transparency. I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced? Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen? Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave? Lastly I'd really like some feedback on Cassiopeia in particular, and also DWR. Can you tell me which map I had in the top 23? DWR + Show Spoiler +Cassiopeia + Show Spoiler + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three. DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map. Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here.
Thanks Monk, I really appreciate the feedback.
Can you explain why it wasn't considered in the gold base category, since that was my suggested 2nd category? You make it sound like I was just wrong about the category, since it's so clearly not a rush map, so how did it fare as a gold map? I ask this because, if I'm being frank, I think it's better than the finalists in that category as far as gold bases go, and I'm a little salty because apparently Avex did not submit Gojira under gold base at all, but there it is.
and man if the judges think the central path being key to that map is a downside, I just wish it could have been a finalist so I could prove you all wrong
and PS guys thanks for being clear about the Skype thing, mostly I was afraid of potential backdoor communication and just wanted to hear some reassurance
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 12:31 Xenotolerance wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 06:16 monk wrote:On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote:Thank you for the transparency. I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced? Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen? Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave? Lastly I'd really like some feedback on Cassiopeia in particular, and also DWR. Can you tell me which map I had in the top 23? DWR + Show Spoiler +Cassiopeia + Show Spoiler + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three. DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map. Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here. Thanks Monk, I really appreciate the feedback. Can you explain why it wasn't considered in the gold base category, since that was my suggested 2nd category? You make it sound like I was just wrong about the category, since it's so clearly not a rush map, so how did it fare as a gold map? I ask this because, if I'm being frank, I think it's better than the finalists in that category as far as gold bases go, and I'm a little salty because apparently Avex did not submit Gojira under gold base at all, but there it is. and man if the judges think the central path being key to that map is a downside, I just wish it could have been a finalist so I could prove you all wrong and PS guys thanks for being clear about the Skype thing, mostly I was afraid of potential backdoor communication and just wanted to hear some reassurance All maps were considered for all categories. However, none of the judges really thought that DWR really belonged in the Gold category especially. The Gold bases on DWR just simply do not play as much of a central role to the map as the Golds on Gojira.
Also, Blizzard had the final say on which maps belonged in which categories. In the end, it was determined that DWR belonged in New over anything else (which I can get behind). Both the judges and Blizzard agreed that Gojira fit Gold more than Macro. In the end, it probably didn't matter for any of the maps which category you submitted your map in. If it makes you feel better, it would not have placed no matter what category it was in as it scored 6.8. The lowest scoring maps out of the finalists scored 7.0.
|
On May 21 2016 12:42 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 12:31 Xenotolerance wrote:On May 21 2016 06:16 monk wrote:On May 21 2016 02:38 Xenotolerance wrote:Thank you for the transparency. I have a major concern about communication during the judging process - how much back and forth was there with the map cave before finalists were announced? Templar commented that it was leaked on the cave that at one point, 12 of the 18 maps left were shown in the TLMC7 thread, suggesting that privileged information was shared with a pretty exclusive group on skype. It seems possible that this went two ways, with communication on the map cave getting back to the judges, skewing the results. Did this happen? Monk PM'd me on the 15th asking for a way of communication in case changes were needed - not knowing this was a possibility, I didn't even sign in to TL and see the message until the 18th, responding likely after my map was cut. This gap in communication could have contributed to the map getting cut, and I probably wasn't the only one who didn't get back quickly. Were I on the map cave, this wouldn't have been an issue, and I might have had direct communication with the judges where other mapmakers did not. How will you address communication gaps in the future? Are there finalists that got changed and let through following communication on the map cave? Lastly I'd really like some feedback on Cassiopeia in particular, and also DWR. Can you tell me which map I had in the top 23? DWR + Show Spoiler +Cassiopeia + Show Spoiler + DWR was the map in the top 23. Cassiopeia and Beyond the Great Sky were two of the thirteen maps cut in round three. DWR had a few things going against it. First, it wasn't a true rush map with a relatively high n2n distance of 37. Also, it seemed too standard and straightforward a map with the sole exception of the Gold base sticking out of the main. The first four bases in particular are too easy to take and defend, especially for a rush map. Also, a concern was brought up that the central path is too key to the map; there is literally only one path you can take to get from one side to the other. Overall, it felt like a turtle macro map with a slightly shortened rush distance and a gimmicky gold base rather than a rush map. Cassiopeia...again macro was just a really tough category. Maybe one of the other judges could give some insight here. Thanks Monk, I really appreciate the feedback. Can you explain why it wasn't considered in the gold base category, since that was my suggested 2nd category? You make it sound like I was just wrong about the category, since it's so clearly not a rush map, so how did it fare as a gold map? I ask this because, if I'm being frank, I think it's better than the finalists in that category as far as gold bases go, and I'm a little salty because apparently Avex did not submit Gojira under gold base at all, but there it is. and man if the judges think the central path being key to that map is a downside, I just wish it could have been a finalist so I could prove you all wrong and PS guys thanks for being clear about the Skype thing, mostly I was afraid of potential backdoor communication and just wanted to hear some reassurance All maps were considered for all categories. However, none of the judges really thought that Dasan really belonged in the Gold category especially. The Gold bases on Dasan just simply do not play as much of a central role to the map as the Golds on Gojira. Also, Blizzard had the final say on which maps belonged in which categories. In the end, it was determined that Dasan belonged in New over anything else (which I can get behind). If it makes you feel better, it would not have placed no matter what category it was in as it scored 6.8. The lowest scoring maps out of the finalists scored 7.0.
I'm now super confused about how the categories worked - you gave me great and detailed feedback on it directly relating to the category I (erroneously) submitted it under, but all maps were considered in all categories, but then the finalists were basically picked on a point system, and Blizzard sorted them into categories?
|
and we are still talking about DWR right I don't know what dasan is
plus like, if you want to tell me the golds on DWR aren't as central to the map as the golds on gojira, I don't know what to think. I mean they are literally more off to one side I guess
|
sorry I'm tired and getting whiny, I'll sign off for tonight. thanks for the communication, it's more than you owe anyone who didn't place. and thank you for running the contest, it needed to happen
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Maps were evaluated for how well we thought they fit the category. Maps were sorted into the category(ies) that it fit the best. Most maps fit one category, others straddled two (e.g. Dasan Station was considered as both a rush and a new map, Gojira was a macro and a gold map). Maps were judged within those categories. Blizzard had the final say on which category a map should be in after the judging had taken place.
|
United States8476 Posts
Sorry, I meant DWR instead of Dasan, fixed all instances of that.
Blizzard had the final approve on the categorization of maps. We simply did our best to sort the maps into the correct categories beforehand. We looked at every map to determine which categories they could potentially belong in. I believe there were four maps that were specifically considered for multiple categories: Apotheosis, Dasan Station, Gojira Greenhouse, and Honorgrounds. Except for Apotheosis, Blizzard approved the maps for the secondary category that we assigned instead of the primary one they were submitted under. Again, DWR wasn't considered Gold enough by either the Judges or Blizzard..
A separate problem came in with the rush maps; a lot of Rush maps, however, including DWR, were deemed not true Rush maps and thus didn't fit the category. Together, we collaboratively decided to just advance the top four Rush maps that were considered under Rush even though many didn't fit the category.
|
Out of curiosity how far did these two make it, if at all:
Edit: Mind the path, i'll leave it there lol.
|
I'm really interesting about why not 'Zerus one project', 'Erebus Mt.', 'Korhal highstreet' and why 'Dasan Station' ranked top 15. so many korean community predict map like my think. but that think is really missed. plz tell me my other map's rank and opinion.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 18:13 eTcetRa wrote:Out of curiosity how far did these two make it, if at all: Edit: Mind the path, i'll leave it there lol. Both maps (Obelisk and Refuge) got cut in Round 2. Refuge in particular was cut for the biggest pitfall of being an "island map" similar to that of Arkanoid. It's way too hard to scout so you'll run into a lot of build order wins.
|
Eye of Shakuras + Show Spoiler +
I have noticed some weak points myself already, enough to warrant a rework. But I'd like to know what other people (dis)liked before I start reworking it.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 21 2016 18:21 Enekh wrote: I'm really interesting about why not 'Zerus one project', 'Erebus Mt.', 'Korhal highstreet' and why 'Dasan Station' ranked top 15. so many korean community predict map like my think. but that think is really missed. plz tell me my other map's rank and opinion.
Zerus One Project: Got cut in the second round. Not bad but the double backdoor has the potential to cause a lot of balance concerns and the concept didn't seem cool enough compared to other concepts presented. One of the best maps that was cut in the second round. Erebus Mt.: Finished fourth in the Gold category. The gold was seen as maybe too hard to take and the natural might have been a bit too wide. Korhal Highstreet: Got cut in the first round. Free three bases = not fun. Dasan Station: Just crazy enough to work. We all had major potential balance concerns about it but this was a map everyone wanted to see pro players play on.
|
Dahlgur Oasis + Show Spoiler +
The Dragon Awakes/Leang + Show Spoiler +
Solaris Temple + Show Spoiler +
Annihilation Station + Show Spoiler + last one is mostly for the correction period, I've got some thing in mind I wanted to change but those are pretty big changes to the point where it might not feel as the same map that got finalist anymore, so would like some smaller detailed point.
Also, is there anywhere we can view pictures of the judging/formating and how maps scored, or lists of what made it past each cut?
|
I'm not a judge so take with a grain of salt. The only minor issue I have with annihilation is the top left bottom right bases seem unnecessarily huge for no apparent reason other than to fill out the map in order to achieve the square look.
|
On May 21 2016 20:04 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 18:21 Enekh wrote: I'm really interesting about why not 'Zerus one project', 'Erebus Mt.', 'Korhal highstreet' and why 'Dasan Station' ranked top 15. so many korean community predict map like my think. but that think is really missed. plz tell me my other map's rank and opinion. Zerus One Project: Got cut in the second round. Not bad but the double backdoor has the potential to cause a lot of balance concerns and the concept didn't seem cool enough compared to other concepts presented. One of the best maps that was cut in the second round. Erebus Mt.: Finished fourth in the Gold category. The gold was seen as maybe too hard to take and the natural might have been a bit too wide. Korhal Highstreet: Got cut in the first round. Free three bases = not fun. Dasan Station: Just crazy enough to work. We all had major potential balance concerns about it but this was a map everyone wanted to see pro players play on.
It is really shame happen but I'm content my rank.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 21 2016 22:34 Enekh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 20:04 monk wrote:On May 21 2016 18:21 Enekh wrote: I'm really interesting about why not 'Zerus one project', 'Erebus Mt.', 'Korhal highstreet' and why 'Dasan Station' ranked top 15. so many korean community predict map like my think. but that think is really missed. plz tell me my other map's rank and opinion. Zerus One Project: Got cut in the second round. Not bad but the double backdoor has the potential to cause a lot of balance concerns and the concept didn't seem cool enough compared to other concepts presented. One of the best maps that was cut in the second round. Erebus Mt.: Finished fourth in the Gold category. The gold was seen as maybe too hard to take and the natural might have been a bit too wide. Korhal Highstreet: Got cut in the first round. Free three bases = not fun. Dasan Station: Just crazy enough to work. We all had major potential balance concerns about it but this was a map everyone wanted to see pro players play on. It is really shame happen but I'm content my rank. I liked Zerus/Erebus for what it's worth D:
|
I was really glad to know my map's rank, thanks. And I'm here to bother you a little.. Please tell me the short points of my map, the one on top 23. I can't tell you the title of the map since I don't know which one had advanced.. Your kind explanation can help a newbie map maker. :D
|
Italy12246 Posts
General feedback for every map maker i personally have: 1) Two open entrances to the natural are the spawn of Satan. Please don't do it. Ever. 2) Backdoors to your main may work but they are risky and people are more likely to dislike your map. Better be careful. 3) Gold bases are really tricky. Generally they are interesting when you can choose to take them as your natural or third. In the lategame they tend to matter far less as every race tends to be limited by gas or time to tech, rather than mineral income. Golds in the center of a map like on Antiga which most of the time can only be taken once you have won. Don't add golds (or any base really) for the sake of it.
On May 21 2016 19:29 Sanglune wrote:Eye of Shakuras+ Show Spoiler +I have noticed some weak points myself already, enough to warrant a rework. But I'd like to know what other people (dis)liked before I start reworking it.
This was cut in the third round. The main issue we had with this map is (if i recall correctly) that we didn't much like the center design, the golds don't really add much to the map and they feel like the typical base you can only take and hold if you've already won the game. It's a good map, just not an outstanding map which is what TLMC finalists really need to be.
Also as usual, the macro category always has really tough competition.
On May 21 2016 22:04 Meavis wrote:Dahlgur Oasis + Show Spoiler +The Dragon Awakes/Leang + Show Spoiler +Solaris Temple + Show Spoiler +Annihilation Station + Show Spoiler +last one is mostly for the correction period, I've got some thing in mind I wanted to change but those are pretty big changes to the point where it might not feel as the same map that got finalist anymore, so would like some smaller detailed point.
Dahlgur was cut in the first round.Mainly we felt all the chokes would make army movement very restricting for players. The Dragon Awakens was cut in the second round. Like other rush maps submitted, it suffers the problem of being kind of a macro map with slightly shorter rush distances than normal, and it features too few bases for a lotv macro map. Solaris Temple was also cut in the second round. We felt like the golds in the center didn't add much to the map (this is unfortunately fairly common with "lategame golds"), and the expansion pattern was too predictable (there is never really any choice in your expansion progression).
Also, is there anywhere we can view pictures of the judging/formating and how maps scored, or lists of what made it past each cut?
We'd rather not fully release that, but feel free to keep asking about specific maps.
On May 21 2016 23:40 RQM wrote: I was really glad to know my map's rank, thanks. And I'm here to bother you a little.. Please tell me the short points of my map, the one on top 23. I can't tell you the title of the map since I don't know which one had advanced.. Your kind explanation can help a newbie map maker. :D
Your top 23 map was Judgement. The main concern we had were that rotational symmetry can be problematic; if spawning clockwise taking any base past the 3rd is very tough. Legacy is also not very 4-p map friendly because of scout timings. Finally, the center area feels fairly forgotten if not spawning cross.
|
On May 21 2016 22:17 Fatam wrote: I'm not a judge so take with a grain of salt. The only minor issue I have with annihilation is the top left bottom right bases seem unnecessarily huge for no apparent reason other than to fill out the map in order to achieve the square look.
late game tank harass, terran imba
|
On May 22 2016 00:04 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +Also, is there anywhere we can view pictures of the judging/formating and how maps scored, or lists of what made it past each cut? We'd rather not fully release that, but feel free to keep asking about specific maps.
Why not? What potential downside is there to releasing the list of cuts and ratings by judge? this ain't the CIA
|
final salt deposit
On May 21 2016 07:54 Semmo wrote:
The idea of gold minerals blocking paths is a good one, but it'd be better suited for more closed off map.
hence the single main path in DWR, and the gold mining out quickly being huge for how it plays. how's that for a gold base being there for a reason and taking said base being an important strategic consideration
y'all missed the boat on this one, DWR should have been a finalist. can't say it enough
/salt
|
United States8476 Posts
|
If you're still doing this, might I ask what the problems were with Lightning Eater: + Show Spoiler +
I assume - pretty safely I think - that there's a balance issue that got it cut, but I would like to know exactly, what was the nail in its coffin, so to speak.
|
I would also like to hear about my map if it is still going on. I have had in the past feedback it being too big and currently working on a scale down of the map.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 23 2016 05:47 Youngrustler wrote:I would also like to hear about my map if it is still going on. I have had in the past feedback it being too big and currently working on a scale down of the map. + Show Spoiler +
Are the mains the two o'clock and 8 o'clock bases? Or the 10:30 and 4:30 bases? Also you need to add '.jpg' at the end of the link for you image to display.
|
On May 23 2016 05:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 05:47 Youngrustler wrote:I would also like to hear about my map if it is still going on. I have had in the past feedback it being too big and currently working on a scale down of the map. + Show Spoiler + Are the mains the two o'clock and 8 o'clock bases? Or the 10:30 and 4:30 bases? Also you need to add '.jpg' at the end of the link for you image to display.
Sorry I was thinking of another map the spawns are top left and bottom right bases. *Edit*
|
On May 22 2016 19:07 monk wrote: ok
thanks for running the contest, putting up with the salt, and remaining halfway civil in the face of the tide of BS you've received. good luck with the tournament and the second half of the contest.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 22 2016 23:31 NewSunshine wrote:If you're still doing this, might I ask what the problems were with Lightning Eater: + Show Spoiler +I assume - pretty safely I think - that there's a balance issue that got it cut, but I would like to know exactly, what was the nail in its coffin, so to speak. I remember we had a really long discussion about this one, but can't remember what it was about specifically. It was one of the last cut maps before the final 23. I'll ask someone else to respond to this.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 23 2016 05:47 Youngrustler wrote:I would also like to hear about my map if it is still going on. I have had in the past feedback it being too big and currently working on a scale down of the map. + Show Spoiler + Another map cut in round 3 before top 23.
- The thirds are too far away.
- The golds are confusing to me. Usually, taking a gold means some kind of trade-off in safety. However, your current Golds are in a position that is either equally attractive or more attractive than the blue alternative.
- You get too many free bases in the back behind the Gold, which leads to boring interactions in the late game. This might be what people mean when they say the map is too big.
|
Not salty at all about none of mine getting picked, really like the ones that did get picked. Would appreciate feedback and info about what phase mine were kicked out, though. :-)
Pinwheel Pasture + Show Spoiler + Limited bases just don't work in LotV? Would a middle base help? Attack paths too stale?
Xel'Naga Vespene Matrix + Show Spoiler + Just not good enough? Problems with the middle? Something else?
Violet Honor + Show Spoiler + Too far with "new"? Too purple/too bright?
Again, all feedback appreciated in advance! :-)
|
On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps...
If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away.
|
On May 23 2016 15:34 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away.
Firstly, I didn't say nor mean to imply that you are sexist and I am aiming to be more inclusive of all sexes with that tiny post. Secondly, saying "they" instead of only "he" or only "she" isn't a "confusing grammar issue" whatsoever. Period. You just tried to make it complicated in an incredibly rude way. I'm not going to post in another forum asking you there to be less naive, that would most likely never get your attention and be a waste of everyone's time. You're making it an issue when you didn't need to. I tried to be nice and short about it, but again: Not everyone on TL is a male. It would be really nice if you, an admin, could please respect that better.
|
First time at TLMC. Great finalist maps overall. I didn't get much feedback on my map and would love to get some.
Frostwing: + Show Spoiler +
Thanks in advance
|
On May 23 2016 16:50 Pasketi wrote:First time at TLMC. Great finalist maps overall. I didn't get much feedback and would love to get some. Frostwing: + Show Spoiler +Thanks in advance Reminds me a bit of Newkirk Precinct (District? City?), pretty fond of that one. Which categories did you submit this for? Edit: First time for me submitting to TLMC as well, best of luck in the next one!
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 23 2016 16:47 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 15:34 monk wrote:On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away. Firstly, I didn't say nor mean to imply that you are sexist and I am aiming to be more inclusive of all sexes with that tiny post. Secondly, saying "they" instead of only "he" or only "she" isn't a "confusing grammar issue" whatsoever. Period. You just tried to make it complicated in an incredibly rude way. I'm not going to post in another forum asking you there to be less naive, that would most likely never get your attention and be a waste of everyone's time. You're making it an issue when you didn't need to. I tried to be nice and short about it, but again: Not everyone on TL is a male. It would be really nice if you, an admin, could please respect that better. Relax person. We're all friends here.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 23 2016 11:57 NinjaDuckBob wrote:Not salty at all about none of mine getting picked, really like the ones that did get picked. Would appreciate feedback and info about what phase mine were kicked out, though. :-) Pinwheel Pasture + Show Spoiler +Limited bases just don't work in LotV? Would a middle base help? Attack paths too stale? Xel'Naga Vespene Matrix + Show Spoiler +Just not good enough? Problems with the middle? Something else? Violet Honor + Show Spoiler +Too far with "new"? Too purple/too bright? Again, all feedback appreciated in advance! :-) Pinwheel Pasture: Again, like I mentioned before, two entrances to the natural will generally cause balance issues and you should only do it if you have a really good reason. I can't recall a single map in the last 2 years that had two entrances to the natural with the exception of Lerilak Crest, which was patched. Besides that, the map is extremely one note with with exactly only two ways to walk from one side of the map to the other. The middle space will seldom be used.
Xel'Naga Vespene Matrix: To some extent, same thing with the natural. There's a lot of surface area to cover here on two bases. There's also a lot of surface area to cover on three bases as a Protoss in TvP. The left half of the map seems to be underutilized and won't see much action. When you're making a mirrored map like Habitation Station/Newkirk Precinct, a common mistake is not utilizing the entire map and many maps in this contest fell into that trap, the biggest offender being Namaste actually. In addition, the middle has too many bases that are too central and too hard to take. One or two central bases are great for creating tension (especially in the LotV meta where it goes split map more often), but too many, again, causes underutilized features.
Violet Honor: Mark your starting locations better. We had to read the description to figure out the starting locations. Interesting ideas, but again there are tons of balance concerns. Two entrances to the main is a problem, even more entrances when you take a natural causes even more problems. The central concept of having close mains is cool, it's a concept that already invites balance issues in the early/mid-game, so you don't need to add even more experimental concepts to the map like multiple entrances to your first two bases (which I'm not sure you were aware are experimental based on your other submitted maps). Because of the many entrances to the main/natural, this central concept won't be as seen as often as you'd like.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 23 2016 16:50 Pasketi wrote:First time at TLMC. Great finalist maps overall. I didn't get much feedback on my map and would love to get some. Frostwing: + Show Spoiler +Thanks in advance I actually liked this one way more than the other judges did. Someone else should respond to this. However, one major flaw I saw is that the top right and bottom right both have a chunk of three bases that are two easy to defend by holding one position.
|
Well I'm no judge but there's something I don't love about Frostwing. There's close to no choice when thinking what third to take, unless something went terribly wrong in the early game and you really don't want to expand towards your opponent (and even then maybe still) the gold should always be the right choice.
The back of the gold third is defended by your main high ground, has only 2 ramps leading to it (one near your nat) and the one ramp that is risky has destructible rocks that help defend it. The blue third is about the same walking distance from the main but further away by air. The back is open space and really close to the nat minerals too (air units love harrassing those). It has a total of three wide ramps leading to it, so it's much harder to defend against drops and in general imo.
So in short, all this makes me think that the gold third should be blue. Other than that it looks like an ok macro map with a central part that is not usual at all
|
despite my displeasure about the outcome of this TLMC I'd like to hear your reasons why my map was sorted out.
|
Thanks a lot for the feedback, monk!
I do have a question about the 2-entrance issue. I read in a previous post that a concern you had before was that it's more difficult to wall two entrances. Do rocks/neutral depots have any effect on this? (examples: Pinwheel Pasture naturals can be walled with 4 buildings, as can the Xel'Naga Vespene Matrix naturals and the left-most naturals on Violet Honor). Is the issue mainly also about making another Pylon as Protoss or is there also something else?
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 23 2016 20:02 IIEclipseII wrote:despite my displeasure about the outcome of this TLMC I'd like to hear your reasons why my map was sorted out.
- The first three bases represent a fairly boring layout. There's not really many choices you can make in the early game.
- The natural is a bit out of proportion, a bit large. There's also a large space above the bottom natural and below the top natural. This leads me to believe you could be using that space better.
- The collapsible rocks in the middle don't seem to have a purpose. The entire design of the middle blockers is actually pretty confusing to me.
- The fourth is extremely difficult to take. For strategies like ling/bling, you NEED to be able to take a fourth at 5 mins, which is impossible on this map.
- This map was submitted into the Gold category, but I don't really see a creative use of Golds here. As a general rule of thumb, Gold bases only really make a big impact if they're one of the first three possible bases you could take. Any later on and the impact is greatly diminished. As one of the criteria for this category was use of Golds, this map falls short there.
- The top right two bases and the bottom left two bases are extremely out of the way and not easily accessible at all.
- The middle Golds also seem hard to take, which makes in total six questionable bases on the map.
|
On May 22 2016 23:31 NewSunshine wrote:If you're still doing this, might I ask what the problems were with Lightning Eater: + Show Spoiler +I assume - pretty safely I think - that there's a balance issue that got it cut, but I would like to know exactly, what was the nail in its coffin, so to speak.
Hello!
This map had really good intentions, so like monk said, it was really close to the finish to actually make it through.
While possible balance issues were one thing, like for example we discussed the potential of sieging behind 3rd base and gold base, and perhaps terran expanding aggressively towards the gold base versus zerg. I specifically remember a discussion about protoss and terran exploiting the narrow path around the rear gold bases for forcefields and aggressive pushes plus terran doing aggressive expands there as well. This surely had an impact on our final voting for this map. Another problem was that the map seemed to not quite fit into one of the 4 categories. For the main category, new, we see the unique features based around utilizing aggressive gold bases while keeping the first 3 bases relatively secure, while also having a short rush distance. There was a very narrow internal disagreement to what extent these features were actually new, and as a result it made the cut.
For the other categories we felt the map was not strong enough to make a replacement there, but it did go quite close for the gold category as well.
In the end, we felt that the map had too many features at once like 4 player map with close positions and many gold bases with potentially imbalanced backdoors. This overall design left us with a sense of unpredictability when it came to how this map was going to play out. For us to make a potentially imbalanced map go through it would require strikingly interesting features and very unique design. With that being said, it was a thought out map and on a different day it may have gone through.
|
On May 23 2016 16:47 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 15:34 monk wrote:On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away. Firstly, I didn't say nor mean to imply that you are sexist and I am aiming to be more inclusive of all sexes with that tiny post. Secondly, saying "they" instead of only "he" or only "she" isn't a "confusing grammar issue" whatsoever. Period. You just tried to make it complicated in an incredibly rude way. I'm not going to post in another forum asking you there to be less naive, that would most likely never get your attention and be a waste of everyone's time. You're making it an issue when you didn't need to. I tried to be nice and short about it, but again: Not everyone on TL is a male. It would be really nice if you, an admin, could please respect that better.
Really? Do you have proof?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 23 2016 22:50 NinjaDuckBob wrote: Thanks a lot for the feedback, monk!
I do have a question about the 2-entrance issue. I read in a previous post that a concern you had before was that it's more difficult to wall two entrances. Do rocks/neutral depots have any effect on this? (examples: Pinwheel Pasture naturals can be walled with 4 buildings, as can the Xel'Naga Vespene Matrix naturals and the left-most naturals on Violet Honor). Is the issue mainly also about making another Pylon as Protoss or is there also something else? I really didn't mean for this question to sound condescending, I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or anything, I just want to better understand the issue so I don't make the mistake in future maps. Sorry if I made you think I was arguing, monk.
|
On May 24 2016 08:59 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 16:47 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 23 2016 15:34 monk wrote:On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away. Firstly, I didn't say nor mean to imply that you are sexist and I am aiming to be more inclusive of all sexes with that tiny post. Secondly, saying "they" instead of only "he" or only "she" isn't a "confusing grammar issue" whatsoever. Period. You just tried to make it complicated in an incredibly rude way. I'm not going to post in another forum asking you there to be less naive, that would most likely never get your attention and be a waste of everyone's time. You're making it an issue when you didn't need to. I tried to be nice and short about it, but again: Not everyone on TL is a male. It would be really nice if you, an admin, could please respect that better. Really? Do you have proof? I know this might seem like a crazy thing to try wrapping your brain around Uvantak, but as a matter of fact not every person on the internet is a guy. It's probably confusing and you have lots of questions, but I'm sure if you ask about this crazy phenomenon in another thread or do some researching of your own you will get some answers.
|
On May 24 2016 08:59 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 16:47 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 23 2016 15:34 monk wrote:On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away. Firstly, I didn't say nor mean to imply that you are sexist and I am aiming to be more inclusive of all sexes with that tiny post. Secondly, saying "they" instead of only "he" or only "she" isn't a "confusing grammar issue" whatsoever. Period. You just tried to make it complicated in an incredibly rude way. I'm not going to post in another forum asking you there to be less naive, that would most likely never get your attention and be a waste of everyone's time. You're making it an issue when you didn't need to. I tried to be nice and short about it, but again: Not everyone on TL is a male. It would be really nice if you, an admin, could please respect that better. Really? Do you have proof? Wow so much good intentions.. wow so much edgy..
sorry about team liquid general machismo, that little kid is in need of a hug.. he is like that to anyone, don't take it personally.. he has no idea what a girl is.
Also .. he should be warned about his demeanor but..
On May 23 2016 17:25 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 16:47 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 23 2016 15:34 monk wrote:On May 23 2016 15:04 blunderfulguy wrote:On May 21 2016 03:21 monk wrote: We simply cannot communicate with every mapmaker on the progress of his maps... If you could avoid referring to everyone here as if they are all male, that would be pretty cool. Thanks. Oh come on. No one ever writes that because he's/her or she/they're sexist. It's just a confusing grammar issue that doesn't have a 100% correct answer. If you're not going to actually talk about maps in here, my feedback for you is to go away. Firstly, I didn't say nor mean to imply that you are sexist and I am aiming to be more inclusive of all sexes with that tiny post. Secondly, saying "they" instead of only "he" or only "she" isn't a "confusing grammar issue" whatsoever. Period. You just tried to make it complicated in an incredibly rude way. I'm not going to post in another forum asking you there to be less naive, that would most likely never get your attention and be a waste of everyone's time. You're making it an issue when you didn't need to. I tried to be nice and short about it, but again: Not everyone on TL is a male. It would be really nice if you, an admin, could please respect that better. Relax person. We're all friends here. .. this is the moderator's stance.. perfectly pc if you ask me.. not!
|
Italy12246 Posts
Please stop derailing the thread; i will action any post past this that keeps doing it. If you have any problems take it to website feedback.
|
On May 24 2016 01:19 monk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 20:02 IIEclipseII wrote:despite my displeasure about the outcome of this TLMC I'd like to hear your reasons why my map was sorted out. - The first three bases represent a fairly boring layout. There's not really many choices you can make in the early game.
You could take the Gold base behind the rocks. And If you would consider it a macro map, which was the secondary category, and you apperantly had no problems to put maps into other categories, than its pretty much prefined where to expand the first 2 times.
On May 24 2016 01:19 monk wrote:- The natural is a bit out of proportion, a bit large. There's also a large space above the bottom natural and below the top natural. This leads me to believe you could be using that space better.
Ok thats true, But thats something which could be changed in an iterating process, which imo should be no reason to sort out a map. What do you mean with the space above and below the natural?
On May 24 2016 01:19 monk wrote:- The collapsible rocks in the middle don't seem to have a purpose. The entire design of the middle blockers is actually pretty confusing to me.
ehm, if you take both Xel Naga Watchtowers, the straight middle path is the only one, not controlled. If you want to Play a defensive style, you can destroy them, and you are pretty much save against ground attacks.
On May 24 2016 01:19 monk wrote:- The fourth is extremely difficult to take. For strategies like ling/bling, you NEED to be able to take a fourth at 5 mins, which is impossible on this map.
Ok this seems to be a real concern. I already thought about to change the alignment of the middle goldbase by 180degree, make it a bluebase and move away from the middle, so it becomes a safe 4th base.
On May 24 2016 01:19 monk wrote:- This map was submitted into the Gold category, but I don't really see a creative use of Golds here. As a general rule of thumb, Gold bases only really make a big impact if they're one of the first three possible bases you could take. Any later on and the impact is greatly diminished. As one of the criteria for this category was use of Golds, this map falls short there.
Its possible to take the close goldbase as a third, you only have to remove the rocks which is possible in time. But I could move this Goldbase closer to the natural.
On May 24 2016 01:19 monk wrote: [list][*]The top right two bases and the bottom left two bases are extremely out of the way and not easily accessible at all.
Why are they not easy accesible? The distance difference between the main bases to those bases is neglectable. And on which maps are the last 2 bases easy accessible? Maybe you mean the last base which is only accesible by the base infront, becouse there is only a ramp which leads to this base?
After watching the first games of the Map Test Tournament I need to mention that I watched about 200 custom games on my map of mostly High Masters and Grandmaster players and therefore continuely improved the map. There are no errors, like wrong mineral placement or pathings or any other bugs like on most maps which are Finalists, which leads me to the assumption that those maps haven't even be tested in one custom game. I still think that this map should be in the Finalists
|
Hey Would it be possible to get some extra feedback on my map?
I already know the map bounds at the bottom are too large, I have already shortened it but anything else would be greatly appreciated.
I suspect the bases are a little too spaced out.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 24 2016 11:42 NinjaDuckBob wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 23 2016 22:50 NinjaDuckBob wrote: Thanks a lot for the feedback, monk!
I do have a question about the 2-entrance issue. I read in a previous post that a concern you had before was that it's more difficult to wall two entrances. Do rocks/neutral depots have any effect on this? (examples: Pinwheel Pasture naturals can be walled with 4 buildings, as can the Xel'Naga Vespene Matrix naturals and the left-most naturals on Violet Honor). Is the issue mainly also about making another Pylon as Protoss or is there also something else? I really didn't mean for this question to sound condescending, I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or anything, I just want to better understand the issue so I don't make the mistake in future maps. Sorry if I made you think I was arguing, monk. Don't worry, I didn't take your post in a condescending way at all.
There's a few ways that two entrances makes you vulnerable to various all-ins. First, if you need four buildings to wall in, that means you need to expose two separate pylons as part of the wall, which leaves you very vulnerable to Zerg especially. Like I said before, Protoss gets stuck on 2 pylons for around a minute, so that's a minute where you can't really hide tech and don't have backup pylons to overcharge.
Terran also has issues with all-ins when they don't exactly know where to put a bunker. Some all-ins (mostly from Zerg and Protoss) require one or multiple bunkers at the choke to defend. If you have two entrances that are too far away from each other, this makes defending so much harder. This mostly applies to Pinwheel Pasture and Violet Honor.
For example, a previous version of Apotheosis had similar concerns with two entrances to the natural where each entrance could be walled with 1 pylon + 1 gateway. However, these balance concerns were raised and the map was changed to what you see today.
I'll be trying to write a short guide soon on how to avoid these balance concern pitfalls for mappers in the future.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 25 2016 08:32 Vilham wrote:Hey Would it be possible to get some extra feedback on my map? I already know the map bounds at the bottom are too large, I have already shortened it but anything else would be greatly appreciated. I suspect the bases are a little too spaced out.
- The areas in black I circled are very awkward and don't belong in a polished map.
- There's too much open area in the space between the natural and third and in general the distance is too high between thee two bases.
- The two red circles indicate a pair of free bases you can get if you just hold one position. Basically, defending one of these bases means that you defend both bases.
- There's no choices the player can make in terms of which expansion he wants to take.
- There's realistically only one path you can use to attack your opponent. Taking a detour through the top path is too unwieldy.
|
United States8476 Posts
You could take the Gold base behind the rocks. And If you would consider it a macro map, which was the secondary category, and you apperantly had no problems to put maps into other categories, than its pretty much prefined where to expand the first 2 times. It's not really reasonable to expect players to take the Gold base behind the rocks as a third base.
We defined a macro map as "a map where it's very straight forward to play and take expansions on". Your map doesn't fit that description because it's so hard to take a fourth.
Ok thats true, But thats something which could be changed in an iterating process, which imo should be no reason to sort out a map. What do you mean with the space above and below the natural? We have to judge the map as is; it's unreasonable to expect us to judge maps based on some future possible version after it goes through the iteration process. I'm talking about the chasm there.
Its possible to take the close goldbase as a third, you only have to remove the rocks which is possible in time. But I could move this Goldbase closer to the natural. Removing the rocks takes an extraordinary amount of firepower, which doesn't really exist in any popular build from any race currently. Besides that, the base is really far away and leaves you exposed to attacks on two fronts instead of one. These three things combined makes the Gold base completely not worth it imo.
Why are they not easy accesible? The distance difference between the main bases to those bases is neglectable. And on which maps are the last 2 bases easy accessible? Maybe you mean the last base which is only accesible by the base infront, becouse there is only a ramp which leads to this base? Sorry, I worded this part poorly. I mean that those bases are boring, more like an afterthought after you designed the rest of the map. They seem like they only exist because you wanted to add four more bases to your map and don't really add at all to the quality of the map. The biggest issue I have with those bases is that you can defend three of your expansions in the late game by defending a single choke.
|
|
|
|