At last, the finalists for the sixth TeamLiquid map contest can be revealed! We are once again fortunate to be able to work with Blizzard on this contest and they will be considering the finalists for use in the ladder and future WCS seasons. This season was one of the most difficult to judge which is indicative of the quality of the submissions we had this season. This season there are seven finalists.
We strongly encourage everyone to look at the larger overviews of the maps before casting their vote, simply click on the map image to be taken to a high resolution version of the map. We've also made some comments on each of the maps, giving you some insight as to what we see in the maps selected. But before we give you the results, we would like to explain the judging process that the maps went through this season.
Judging Process
The judging of the maps this season was done in conjunction with Blizzard for the first time ever. As TLMC's ultimate goal is to get maps into the ladder and be played in professional competitions such as WCS, when we were looking over the maps we were looking for maps that would best complement the maps that would likely be in the map pool next season. Those maps will likely be standard maps, so for this TLMC season non-standard maps which challenged our conventional wisdom in clever ways were favoured in judging.
We think that the seven finalists chosen all achieve this aim.
As always, map were initially screened to see if they were appropriate for the contest. This reduced the number of maps from around 100 to a little over 30. These maps were analyzed by Blizzard and TL Strategy and those which we felt to best fit the aims of the contest were eventually chosen. Throughout this process many games were played to get a better feel for balance on the maps. The maps selected are maps we feel are interesting and, at times, strategically demanding but also maps which have acceptable balance.
Prizes
Blizzard have one-upped themselves from last season and for the first time ever we're able to offer a cash prize for the top three entries. In addition to this, all finalists will receive Beta access (if they do not already have access) in addition to a Community Commander portrait. The prize breakdown is as follows:
$1,000.00
FIRST PLACE
$500.00
SECOND PLACE
$250.00
THIRD PLACE
Provided by Blizzard.
Finalists
Below are the finalists for TLMC6. You can view them all conveniently in this imgur album. We strongly recommend using this because it allows you to view the maps in high resolution very easily. You can also find these maps uploaded on Battle.net using the [TLMC] tag.
Bridgehead | Semmo
Bridgehead is a map that makes a statement. The map throws out the conventional main-nat setup in favor of a setup where the main and natural effectively become one continuous base. This setup is very clearly inspired by the BW map 'Katrina'. The BW inspiration doesn't stop there, as the aesthetics are the Jungle tileset from BW reconstructed in SC2. Measures have been taken to limit the vulnerability of the backdoor into the natural to certain cheese strategies. Beyond the main-nat players must make careful decisions about how they expand. There is no clearly preferred third base nor is there a clearly prefered fourth. These decisions will depend on the race and the strategies that the player is using.
Dash and Terminal | SeinGalton
Dash and Terminal is one of the most aesthetically striking maps submitted this season. While it's the aesthetics that draw you in, it's the Main-Nat-Third area that keeps you hooked. Dash and Terminal has one of the most dangerous naturals we've seen in TLMC. The natural has two smaller than average chokes on opposite sides to defend, that can make expanding somewhat tricky and players will need to carefully plan their sim cities as a result. Additionally there are rocks which can be destroyed opening up a third route into the natural. To compensate for the difficult natural, the third base is extremely close and easy to hold. The rest of the map provides an interesting battleground and offers players a difficult to defend gold base, if they are willing to take the risk.
Ecosphere | Enekh [Team Yeoul]
This map is cross-spawn only, it is also the only four player map amongst the finalists. The two spawn configurations are quite similar, but there are important differences. The main feature of the map is the backdoor into the main base. This backdoor is more vulnerable than Expedition Lost and we anticipate players crafting strategies to exploit this. Once both players have progressed from early game they can collapse rocks in the middle of the map to manipulate the terrain to their advantage. One possible use for this is to make it easier to defend the gold bases at the top and bottom of the center of the map. The backdoor of the unused mains can be opened to improve map flow once the game gets to the 4+ base stage.
Moonlight Madness | SidianTheBard
Moonlight Madness takes the concept of a backdoor natural to the next level. There are two rocks which can be taken down to open the backdoor natural up to the rest of the map. You can take down these rocks to open up a "backdoor" third base or your opponent may take these down to launch a surprise attack. We anticipate that players will favor expanding along this backdoor path as opposed to taking the 'conventional' bases. We think that these features introduce interesting tactics to the map. Since there is a large area to cover in the backdoor area we think that drops and nydus strategies will be particularly strong on this map.
Mutiny | Timetwister22
Probably the most aggressive map out of all the finalists, Neo Mutiny features a third expansion that pushes players towards their opponents and five possible pathways for the opponent to send an attack. Furthermore, the main features a tiny choke covered by destructible rocks which opens up a secondary attack path into the main, without empowering all-in builds in a significant way. There are four gold bases in the center of the map to reward any player willing to expand to an exposed location. With so many attack paths and opportunities for players to take game deciding risks, we think this map will lead to very scrappy games.
Noah's Ark | Superouman
The other finalists in this contest use unconventional map features to spice up the game, but all the basic understanding about the game stays the same. Noah's Ark is the only map in this contest to push players away from traditional compositions, throw out everything we understand about the game and force players to come up with something new. It does this by placing heavy restrictions oh how large armies move around the map. The center of the map can only be entered/left through extremely small chokes which gives the defender a huge advantage. To avoid this, players must send large armies around the sides of the map which has it's own drawbacks. Because conventional armies will struggle to do battle on this map, we anticipate that players will adopt more air and harass oriented strategies, and possibly even mech. Players willing to learn this map will have a huge advantage of those who don't, and we think that means this map can make for some very interesting games.
Terraform | -NegativeZero-
Affectionately known as 'The Spiral Map', Terraform merges eye pleasing geometry with sound map architecture to create a truly special map. Players have two options for third bases, with the 3/9 o'clock bases in a more defensive position, and the 4/10 o'clock "spiral" bases allowing for stronger pushes towards an opponent's third or fourth. The pathways around the map allow for both flanks and counter attacks and navigating the spiral effectively will be key to winning games. The presence of gold bases that are reasonably close to the main, but easily harassed adds to the map's strategic variety.
We're really excited to see how these maps will play out. You'll have the opportunity to play these maps in the upcoming TL Open happening this Sunday (see the link for details). The winner of the contest will be determined by public and progamer vote. The voting will open once the TL Open has concluded.
i already feel like bridgehead is playing with a trap card here, because i'm not even a BW>SC2 elitist and seeing that tileset makes me want to cry with joy
On May 09 2015 08:32 Caevrane wrote: We weren't told they wanted non-standard maps... sigh, i sent hyper standard maps.
The beauty of these maps is that they are profoundly not standard while at the same time keeping many beneficial aspects of current 'standard' maps. They seem to be all thematic, in that they choose one element of standard-ness to break and run with that thematic throughline. For instance, the continued backdoor theme on Moonlight Madness, versus damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't approach to map architecture on Noah's Ark. They all don't play with the mineral/gas counts, give you adequate base-building space, and never sacrifice everything on the altar of early-game all-ins, yet abuse the one chosen characteristic to near-unrecognizability. Love all of the entries here. I'll be playing them all this weekend to experience some excellent Starcraft.
My thoughts (Have yet to play them all but from checking out the overview)
BridgeHead: Has quite the Broodwar feel to it, the base setup, the aesthetics, the overall feel of the map definitely brings back brood war. Early game pressure seems like it will be very strong on this map, either attacking up the double wide ramp or taking out the backdoor. I feel bad for terran players especially because that main size seems like a bitch for building management. I think if this map can get off 2 base it'll be a blast to play.
Dash & Terminal: Main/Nat/3rd setup is awesome (shoutout to scorp for that one). It's got the whole deus ex feeling to it. My biggest concerns on this map is why woiuldn't terran gangnam style every single time? You thought it was bad on Habitation Station while this map looks like 1/2 the distance of that and with the way you rally your army you could eventually just take the enemy gold pretty easily if yours starts to mine out. Protoss & Zerg look fun on this map though, especially after the 3rds as it expands closer and closer to your opponent.
Ecosphere: Sick aesthetics, where did you get those from lol =P. I'm not the biggest fan of the main/nat/3rd of this map but I absolutely love the middle with all the different double rock towers to open and block paths. Also finally another map to use the rocks blocking the minerals but not the gas so you can build there then start breaking them down.
Moonlight Madness: Best map of this list ezpz. *cough* hahaha
Mutiny: The changes you did to this map compared to what we all saw during the community spotlight is awesome. Safe nat yet exposed "backdoor". Love that you either keep the backdoor rocks closed and take the forward aggressive 3rd or you knock them down and take the corner base as your 3rd. The middle lowground section is amazing and I hope to see some cool gameplay with it. Parade push could be strong (or 2 base protoss pushes...) but at least the defender has some nice advantages if they defend up by the ramp. I don't feel the rocks blocking the two of the gold bases are needed though.
Noah's Ark: It ain't no cloud kingdom that's for sure <3 but it still offers some interesting game play. This map is very deceiving imo, it looks like it's very open but there are so many tight choke points that will be key locations to fight over. Much like Mutiny I'm very interested in seeing the middle path get used.
Terraform: Fun map. Love the layout. It's funny to think that this might be one of the more "standard" maps of the list. I'd personally get rid of the gold base and just make it a normal base but the changes that you did on this map are some even I suggested! w00t. This is probably my favorite map of the list, although I might be biased towards Negative because I think I have a hard on for almost every map he makes...
I am actually really really really hype that blizzard is working with TLMC even further than they used to. It make me think, even if it's just an illusion, blizzard is putting real work and thought into the game moving forward.
Also, I found me a typo!
from Noah's Ark:
It does this by placing heavy restrictions oh how large armies move around the map
Bridgehead looks like a supercool innovative map, but I feel like this one is going to be a pain in the ass to play on. I think it has too many experimental features at once. In particular those are the backdoor rocks, the double wide ramp, the backwards natural base and the frontal 3rd that can be abused from the highground. Also some of the areas look overly tight but I'd have to play a few games to see if that's true or not.
Dash & Terminal looks amazing aesthetically and strategically. Easily my favorite map. The natural/third setup is so cool, without looking impossible to overcome. Very innovative, but some more calculated risks here. Could obviously end up broken but I give it a good chance it won't be.
Ecosphere is looks like a nice map with some interesting stuff going on. Would have to play quite some games on it to see how I feel on all the rocks and how the backdoor is set up to be honest. Could be very good, could be very mediocre.
Moonlight Madness' expansion pattern looks impossible to pull of, to be quite frank. The third base behind the collapsible rocks is weird in itself, but on top of that there is no reasonable 4th base to take.
Mutiny is way too chokey for my taste. And the distance between natural and backdoor main looks uncoverable. And then the third is also miles away from the first two bases. Very hard to defend a lot of things on this map.
Noah's Ark's has no third base. And the sentry teleporter through the middle will probably make for some shit games.
Terraform's expansion possibilities looksvery interesting. And this could be a sick map to maneuver on. Somehow innovative, but somehow not. I like it.
-first four were fine -ecosphere was buggy: misplaced town halls, 3 mothership cores on the south spawn?? -Mutiny had weird tech. Reaper required tech lab? -haven't tried terraform yet.
Some odd choices (especially a couple where I think they actually chose the weakest of that mapmaker's submissions) but I like most of them. Grats + hope the TL Open is entertaining (don't see how it couldn't be since they chose pretty much all experimental maps)
Noahs' Ark is probably the best map here (or at least, the one I'm most interested to see games on. There could definitely be balance issues), although the middle aesthetics make the overview a bit hard to read where cliffs are and such. Probably not a big deal but something to mention. Bridgehead is probably my other contender for best, but does have a few awkward wrinkles that should be ironed out imo. (mainly that a lot of the minerals/geysers are needlessly weird.. blocking paths/defender's arcs which could end up being "interesting" but might end up just being annoying)
edit: also really surprised etcetra didn't get in at all. Of the submissions we saw (granted there were a couple mapmakers that didn't post theirs publicly) I thought he had the strongest 3-map-punch of all the submitters. I'd definitely argue a couple of his are better than 2 or 3 of the finalists, but ah well. Opinions
No voting Bummer, or can we vote after the tourney? These are my favorite in order by a "high" diamond zerg's POV: 1. Bridgehead by Semmo 2. Mutiny by Timetwister22 3. Ecosphere by Enekh 4. Dash and Terminal by SeinGalton 5. Noah's Ark by Superouman 6. Moonlight Madness by SidianTheBard 7.Terraform by -NegativeZero-
Oh my fucking god BRIDGEHEAD IS IN I'M SO HAPPY Seriously I thought we'd never see this awesome map in competitive play, but TLMC saves the day :D Noah's Ark looks so sick too, and Terraform too. Others are pretty decent.
Really really interesting lot of maps this time. From Bridgehead the two player Katrina, Dash and Terminal with the beautiful tileset, and Ecosphere's third positioning, Moonlight Madness' backdoor area to Terraform's fascinating centre layout, it'll be a very difficult choice to choose between them.
So i was messing around on the maps and tried out Noah's Ark and there was no Oracle on the Stargate when I went to go build one. It just was not a unit option >.>
Edit: Saw Plexa's post that he was on it after I posted. You're the best man :D
Quite happy with the results eventhough I didn't win. I guess i'll have to work harder.
Too bad Iezael who made Azura got screwed by the lack of informations we had about what kind of map blizzard was looking for. It would be nice if we could have more informations about that next time.
On May 09 2015 16:36 algue wrote: Quite happy with the results eventhough I didn't win. I guess i'll have to work harder.
Too bad Iezael who made Azura got screwed by the lack of informations we had about what kind of map blizzard was looking for. It would be nice if we could have more informations about that next time.
I think he was more screwed up by the asymetry of the 3rd's ramps making some position clearly advantaged compared to others (plus the center was not that great really) Sure, it was an eye-catching map, but 3 players maps have the inherrent "rotational" symetry flaw, if you can't correct it, the map can't be good in the end...
ok makes sense now. I too thought at first it was terribly imbalanced, but it may not be that bad, need to see a lot of games on it to see how the concept is actually working, I think you were right to put it in the finalists... Too bad it gets such a strong reaction.
For Dash and Terminal, I do appreciate the idea of an aerial close position. It will favor heavily drop play and air compositions forcing players to scout better or get destroyed. You can't juste plant an observer/overlord/... to see what's coming. You'll need to proactively scout your opponent more than ever. If you see the mutas, it's already too late. However, the gold right next to the main seems extremely strong for Terran the straight up "fly to the gold and take it" strategy may be a little bit too strong.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
it's a textbook example of mech being new levels of broken
I only would like to play on 2 of these maps, and they pretty much look the same as older maps and the new ones, some of these look unplayable :D I dont get the hype on terraform, it looks nice, but these open min lines have to be unplaybale, but well see in tl open, also i would like a feat about all maps that participated, just a picture. we only hat community created posts about this
On May 09 2015 16:36 algue wrote: Quite happy with the results eventhough I didn't win. I guess i'll have to work harder.
Too bad Iezael who made Azura got screwed by the lack of informations we had about what kind of map blizzard was looking for. It would be nice if we could have more informations about that next time.
I think he was more screwed up by the asymetry of the 3rd's ramps making some position clearly advantaged compared to others (plus the center was not that great really) Sure, it was an eye-catching map, but 3 players maps have the inherrent "rotational" symetry flaw, if you can't correct it, the map can't be good in the end...
Blizzard doesn't mind asymmetries, we've had 3p maps in the past, 2p maps with minor asymmetries and a lot of 4p maps with rotational imbalances. If I had to guess why azura didn't make it in the top seven I would say that the map is, asymmetry aside, way too standard. Look at the four first bases layout, it's just a remake of cactus valley. This base layout is heavily inspired by WhirlWind's base layout and having cactus valley + azura on the ladder would have been boring.
Now look at the top 7, it's full of non-standard maps, Blizzard clearly wanted non-standard maps. Azura is standard and already has a 4 players version on the ladder, it didn't stand a chance from the get go.
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
The various chokes are all much more important than the ramps and will probably indeed "influence balance, playstyles and compositions".
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
The various chokes are all much more important than the ramps and will probably indeed "influence balance, playstyles and compositions".
I'm afraid it'll end up in mass air in every Zerg MU.
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
The various chokes are all much more important than the ramps and will probably indeed "influence balance, playstyles and compositions".
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
The various chokes are all much more important than the ramps and will probably indeed "influence balance, playstyles and compositions".
The ramps are still pretty useless anyway.
Yeah, I put them just to give more color diversity to the map. I could have made a flat map except for the main.
On May 09 2015 16:36 algue wrote: Quite happy with the results eventhough I didn't win. I guess i'll have to work harder.
Too bad Iezael who made Azura got screwed by the lack of informations we had about what kind of map blizzard was looking for. It would be nice if we could have more informations about that next time.
I think he was more screwed up by the asymetry of the 3rd's ramps making some position clearly advantaged compared to others (plus the center was not that great really) Sure, it was an eye-catching map, but 3 players maps have the inherrent "rotational" symetry flaw, if you can't correct it, the map can't be good in the end...
Blizzard doesn't mind asymmetries, we've had 3p maps in the past, 2p maps with minor asymmetries and a lot of 4p maps with rotational imbalances. If I had to guess why azura didn't make it in the top seven I would say that the map is, asymmetry aside, way too standard. Look at the four first bases layout, it's just a remake of cactus valley. This base layout is heavily inspired by WhirlWind's base layout and having cactus valley + azura on the ladder would have been boring.
Now look at the top 7, it's full of non-standard maps, Blizzard clearly wanted non-standard maps. Azura is standard and already has a 4 players version on the ladder, it didn't stand a chance from the get go.
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
Unless I missed an update, the asymetry between 2 o'clock and 6 o'clock postion was just too big to be playable, both in reagard of distance to 3rd/4th and orientation of the ramps...
On May 09 2015 16:36 algue wrote: Quite happy with the results eventhough I didn't win. I guess i'll have to work harder.
Too bad Iezael who made Azura got screwed by the lack of informations we had about what kind of map blizzard was looking for. It would be nice if we could have more informations about that next time.
I think he was more screwed up by the asymetry of the 3rd's ramps making some position clearly advantaged compared to others (plus the center was not that great really) Sure, it was an eye-catching map, but 3 players maps have the inherrent "rotational" symetry flaw, if you can't correct it, the map can't be good in the end...
Blizzard doesn't mind asymmetries, we've had 3p maps in the past, 2p maps with minor asymmetries and a lot of 4p maps with rotational imbalances. If I had to guess why azura didn't make it in the top seven I would say that the map is, asymmetry aside, way too standard. Look at the four first bases layout, it's just a remake of cactus valley. This base layout is heavily inspired by WhirlWind's base layout and having cactus valley + azura on the ladder would have been boring.
Now look at the top 7, it's full of non-standard maps, Blizzard clearly wanted non-standard maps. Azura is standard and already has a 4 players version on the ladder, it didn't stand a chance from the get go.
On May 09 2015 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how maps can influence balance, playstyles and compositions, better than any other maps w.r.t. that.
I believe Noah's Ark will be a textbook example of how ramps are useless and boring in this game.
Unless I missed an update, the asymetry between 2 o'clock and 6 o'clock postion was just too big to be playable, both in reagard of distance to 3rd/4th and orientation of the ramps...
Well yeah but heavy asymetry didn't stop Nimbus close-spawns from being on ladder, so I think Blizzard don't give a damn about asymetry, even if it's big
Bridgehead Are the highgrounds on side of main-nat droppapble or unpathable? If the former then i cant wait for the zerg tears. Even if the latter its just a cheese map.
Dash and Terminal Seems fun. Island expansions always give extra points (why arent they on every map?) I dont agree at all that the natural would be hard to hold thou since its so close to the main ramp. Well against mech as protoss or zerg, or against "sick forcefields" as zerg itmight be, depends how well creep is spreaded.
Ecosphere So many chokes and the when taking expansions, the chokes you need to defend are very near to each other. Which ever spwan locations, its still a turtle map.
Moonlight Madness "How do I take 4 bases?"-The map. Also the middle area seems too open and too boring.
Mutinity Otherwise seems really well done, exept maybe a bit zerg unfavored. Since zergs really dont like expanding towards the enemy, so there really isnt a 4th base option for them.
Noah's ark I dont know why OPs writer thinks that the gimmicks of the map would make people change up their strategies. The only things the gimmicks should achieve is make early rush distance shorter, and "lol OP zergling runbys." Otherwise past midgame people would just treat it as unpassable ground for their main armies, making them go around it. Just like in almost every mirror symmetrical map, the air attack distance being shorter. Add some mineable bases on the middle area and there you go, actually an interesting map. Just like magic.
TERRAFORM The best map. Please win.
I sounded pretty critical in those reviews but thats just because i like to focus on the negatives more. Overall i like the maps. Also props for blizzard for the HUEG pricepool. Actually makes it feel like you won something, not just being payed for your time, atleast for first place. Cant wait to see -NegativeZero- take home 1grand.
On April 22 2015 22:03 Meavis wrote: might be cool in lotv, but in hots its a balance disaster.
if this gets finalist you can perm me.
but for real, perm me, TLMC is still treated as a joke apparently.
User was banned for this post.
Pretty epic 1000th post. But why so salty? You have a mech terran guide in your sig, atleast that strategy should not have any problems in this map as far as i can tell. Anyway some people might be wrong about this, but it actually is a very non standard map. That means that not me, not you, not any progamer on earth can really tell is it balanced or not. Just FYI it takes about 50 000 high level games, or in other words 4 months for things to get "figured out." Thats why balance patches are usually given good time to settle down before the game is repatched.
On May 09 2015 18:25 Pyloss wrote: And finaly some more green maps <3
You said green maps? This is a green map. To call these maps green would be an insult to the colour and all those that worship it.
@the finalists: Congratulations! As others have already observed there are indeed a lot of backdoors and it will be interesting to see how that pans out. And yes it would have been nice to know that we should be pushing for more non-standard maps. Next TLMC I suppose.
Some intereresting maps though. Because of the non-standardness I have some trouble evaluating some of the maps. Lots of weird dynamics going on but I'm thrilled to see how they pan out in the TL OPEN.
There are a lot of questions I have regarding how some of the maps work. Including how the collapsable rock towers work in ecosphere, are some of them linked (their HP), and if so which ones? And is the highground around the main in bridgehead pathable? I assume not, because that would seem quite broken. I should probably fire up these maps to check, but I think I'll tune in to some of the TL OPEN action tomorrow to check instead.
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
On April 22 2015 22:03 Meavis wrote: might be cool in lotv, but in hots its a balance disaster.
if this gets finalist you can perm me.
but for real, perm me, TLMC is still treated as a joke apparently.
User was banned for this post.
Pretty epic 1000th post. But why so salty? You have a mech terran guide in your sig, atleast that strategy should not have any problems in this map as far as i can tell. Anyway some people might be wrong about this, but it actually is a very non standard map. That means that not me, not you, not any progamer on earth can really tell is it balanced or not. Just FYI it takes about 50 000 high level games, or in other words 4 months for things to get "figured out." Thats why balance patches are usually given good time to settle down before the game is repatched.
This is about Terraform, right? Could you elaborate what you think is so non-standard about this map? I feel like this one is the most standard in the whole contest. Only this one and Ecosphere seem to allow for standard 3-4 base setups without much shennanigans. Besides the middle and the sizes of its paths/chokes, I don't even see much that could fundamentally break the map.
On April 22 2015 22:03 Meavis wrote: might be cool in lotv, but in hots its a balance disaster.
if this gets finalist you can perm me.
but for real, perm me, TLMC is still treated as a joke apparently.
User was banned for this post.
Pretty epic 1000th post. But why so salty? You have a mech terran guide in your sig, atleast that strategy should not have any problems in this map as far as i can tell. Anyway some people might be wrong about this, but it actually is a very non standard map. That means that not me, not you, not any progamer on earth can really tell is it balanced or not. Just FYI it takes about 50 000 high level games, or in other words 4 months for things to get "figured out." Thats why balance patches are usually given good time to settle down before the game is repatched.
This is about Terraform, right? Could you elaborate what you think is so non-standard about this map? I feel like this one is the most standard in the whole contest. Only this one and Ecosphere seem to allow for standard 3-4 base setups without much shennanigans. Besides the middle and the sizes of its paths/chokes, I don't even see much that could fundamentally break the map.
Like you said, the middle. Also from attackers point of view, enemy on 3 bases is not typical at all (see attack paths, and the distance you must go between different entrances.) But the gimmick of the map (making pathways by mining out bases) changes the pretty drasticly. And for terrans atleast, I see that mining the gold base from the wrong side might be a viable option, making it an option for 4th base.
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
Too bad Iezael who made Azura got screwed by the lack of informations we had about what kind of map blizzard was looking for. It would be nice if we could have more informations about that next time.
I am mostly ok with what maps won, but I too am a touch salty (admittedly) about the lack of information.
Had I (and likely many other mappers) known they were looking for exclusively weird maps (which is fine! I am probably the biggest supporter of weird maps since day 1 - see my countless posts in the past supporting their inclusion) we would have certainly sent in different maps than we did. If you look at the last TLMC one would have thought somewhat standard maps with minor twists are what they are looking for. I only wasted 1 of my submissions on a standard-ish map (my other 2 were definitely weird) so I don't know how it would have really affected my chances but some very good/notable mappers (better than me) sent in 2 or even 3 standard-ish maps and probably got screwed out of a spot because of it. A little transparency.. perhaps a theme or thing(s) blizzard/judges are looking for, stated on the TLMC contest rules page, would be excellent in future contests. Cheers!
On April 22 2015 22:03 Meavis wrote: might be cool in lotv, but in hots its a balance disaster.
if this gets finalist you can perm me.
but for real, perm me, TLMC is still treated as a joke apparently.
User was banned for this post.
Pretty epic 1000th post. But why so salty? You have a mech terran guide in your sig, atleast that strategy should not have any problems in this map as far as i can tell. Anyway some people might be wrong about this, but it actually is a very non standard map. That means that not me, not you, not any progamer on earth can really tell is it balanced or not. Just FYI it takes about 50 000 high level games, or in other words 4 months for things to get "figured out." Thats why balance patches are usually given good time to settle down before the game is repatched.
This is about Terraform, right? Could you elaborate what you think is so non-standard about this map? I feel like this one is the most standard in the whole contest. Only this one and Ecosphere seem to allow for standard 3-4 base setups without much shennanigans. Besides the middle and the sizes of its paths/chokes, I don't even see much that could fundamentally break the map.
Like you said, the middle. Also from attackers point of view, enemy on 3 bases is not typical at all (see attack paths, and the distance you must go between different entrances.) But the gimmick of the map (making pathways by mining out bases) changes the pretty drasticly. And for terrans atleast, I see that mining the gold base from the wrong side might be a viable option, making it an option for 4th base.
I think the main problem with the unusual main attack paths is for zerg, no? The other races probably have less problems using those chokes to their advantage. Also I think we have had maps with much more defensive set ups too, Echo comes to mind where there really is just one area to attack into a 3basing oppponent and it isn't open either. Then of course real turtle-maps like Vaani or Deadwing also don't give you any choices were to attack from ground. Regardless, here is a picture how I think the (red) attacker could maneuver to create a somewhat normal aggressive setup into natural, 3rd and 4th.
Also, the mining out bases towards the middle seem to be a rare scenario, no? Most of the time you are going to take the other bases because of harass from the other side. Maybe if you are Terran against Zerg and possibly Protoss pushing the way I describe could reduce the counterattack abilities from the (blue) defender. But for most matchups, you are going to set up normally with the bases on the edges of the map and the middle bases only start to come into play when games get really long. Thus, most games should just be rather normal unless the middle maneuvering really gets into the way of standard play.
On May 09 2015 23:32 SoulmaN__ wrote: I actually don't like any of the maps. 4th bases aren't good on any of the maps, sometimes even naturals and 3rd bases are risky...
This is Starcraft 2, not Ressource Mining Simulator 2015. Risky bases are a good thing
On May 09 2015 23:32 SoulmaN__ wrote: I actually don't like any of the maps. 4th bases aren't good on any of the maps, sometimes even naturals and 3rd bases are risky...
This is Starcraft 2, not Ressource Mining Simulator 2015. Risky bases are a good thing
There's a reason we went away from Xel Naga caverns and such.
On April 22 2015 22:03 Meavis wrote: might be cool in lotv, but in hots its a balance disaster.
if this gets finalist you can perm me.
but for real, perm me, TLMC is still treated as a joke apparently.
User was banned for this post.
Pretty epic 1000th post. But why so salty? You have a mech terran guide in your sig, atleast that strategy should not have any problems in this map as far as i can tell. Anyway some people might be wrong about this, but it actually is a very non standard map. That means that not me, not you, not any progamer on earth can really tell is it balanced or not. Just FYI it takes about 50 000 high level games, or in other words 4 months for things to get "figured out." Thats why balance patches are usually given good time to settle down before the game is repatched.
This is about Terraform, right? Could you elaborate what you think is so non-standard about this map? I feel like this one is the most standard in the whole contest. Only this one and Ecosphere seem to allow for standard 3-4 base setups without much shennanigans. Besides the middle and the sizes of its paths/chokes, I don't even see much that could fundamentally break the map.
Like you said, the middle. Also from attackers point of view, enemy on 3 bases is not typical at all (see attack paths, and the distance you must go between different entrances.) But the gimmick of the map (making pathways by mining out bases) changes the pretty drasticly. And for terrans atleast, I see that mining the gold base from the wrong side might be a viable option, making it an option for 4th base.
I think the main problem with the unusual main attack paths is for zerg, no? The other races probably have less problems using those chokes to their advantage. Also I think we have had maps with much more defensive set ups too, Echo comes to mind where there really is just one area to attack into a 3basing oppponent and it isn't open either. Then of course real turtle-maps like Vaani or Deadwing also don't give you any choices were to attack from ground. Regardless, here is a picture how I think the (red) attacker could maneuver to create a somewhat normal aggressive setup into natural, 3rd and 4th.
Also, the mining out bases towards the middle seem to be a rare scenario, no? Most of the time you are going to take the other bases because of harass from the other side. Maybe if you are Terran against Zerg and possibly Protoss pushing the way I describe could reduce the counterattack abilities from the (blue) defender. But for most matchups, you are going to set up normally with the bases on the edges of the map and the middle bases only start to come into play when games get really long. Thus, most games should just be rather normal unless the middle maneuvering really gets into the way of standard play.
Im not saying that the 3 bases on the map are exeptionally easy to defend. I just say that they are pretty easy to defend, and the defense mechanisms get changed pretty hard if center bases get mined out.
Anyway you had your picture which i quite dont understand so here is mine. Okay so both attacker and defender are on 3 bases, there is no question which are the first 3 bases for either player. And the game tends to work in a way that players generally keep their main army between their 2nd and 3rd base, or near enemy choke when attacking. This is a very common scenario you should see in quite alot of games.
Now attacker has few theoretically possible attack paths. A. Quite long, and leads into a pretty harsh choke (2gates+1pylon wide) B. The shortest attack path, but the tightest choke. C. Quite short attack path, but barely has any choke for the defender to make advantage of (4gateways as tightest spot) D. Longest attack path, must attack upramp in semi wide ramps, but a somewhat viable flank option.
So obviously C is the main attack you are going to see being used in vast majority of major engagements. Making a flank combining different attack paths is not really viable since you must go so long way around the map for it. Exeption is the Ds split path. Now you believe that you have map control and are the aggressive player. Which 4th base you want to take? Notice the difference of distances of sending units to defend bases if enemy tries to harass with drops/air units/runby units. Yeah maybe taking the middle 4th does not seem so bad after all. And ofc if enemy is going hardcore turtle you take the gold base. Honestly i think it should be pretty balanced for all races to defend the area behind mineral line. After all there have been tons maps with "harass areas" behind 4th bases (like tal darim altar), and all races have been able to clear them out pretty nicely.
There might be some unmentioned advantages to taking the corner 4th instead, but not going to play devils advocate here. Just going to say that if i was in charge I would make the corner bases either further away from 3rd, or an island base, to force the players even more to take the middle bases. This would mean a greater effect on the maps gimmick. And if players take middle bases then it should not play out like a standart map at all.
There is so much salt for these maps and you haven't even played them most likely. Personally If you want to voice your opinion via game play then wait for the Tournament otherwise keep to layout/aesthetics.
On May 10 2015 02:33 neteX wrote: doesn't IeaZeL or w/e creates maps?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/profile.php?user=IeZaeL you probably mean him? Your post seems a bit out of context, is it a jab at his map Azura he submitted for the contest? ^^ But to answer, yes he makes maps. But he didn't advance to the finals in this case.
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently)
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently)
Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit.
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently)
Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit.
Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off.
On May 10 2015 08:28 [Phantom] wrote: You know what dissapoints me?
Some of this maps are so full of bugs I'm starting to doubt they really tested them as well as they said they did.
If you find bugs, please list them in the thread. For instance, the high ground being pathable in bridgehead was the result of an unintended consequence of an edit done to the map.
I must be drinking sea water because I'll admit I'm a little salty about the choices for TLMC 6 as well. Seems clear there was a heavy bias towards non-standard maps, at the expense of standard, polish and aesthetics. As some one mentioned earlier perhaps a theme might go down well for future contests, or perhaps a break down of what aspects are given priority in judging.
Or maybe mappers shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. Every TLMC I do 1 standard, 1 nonstandard & 1 remake of an old map, at least that's how I always try to do it. It's not my fault you decided to do 3 super standard maps or 3 super non-standard maps, that's your choice.
What's the point of new maps even if aren't non-standard? I mean, when there are consistently bad maps in the pool (which we may still) we might bet for new maps to replace those, standard or otherwise. However, if we have good standard maps already why even bother changing to other (and potentially worse) maps that are still going to have the same gameplay?
I'd be upset if the maps were any more standard than this tbh. But there's enough here I see forward progress if not anything mindblowing... At the very least anything strange in these maps is now officially "allowed" for all map makers to try to do things with in the future. There are rules I've followed that are broken in some of these maps and freeing myself from those seems like a win for me, even if I can't win the contest. No need to be salty.
Tbh I'd rather mappers produce 1 highly polished map instead of making 3 average maps hoping that one will have that specific something the judges are looking for.
Anyway I don't want to come across as ungrateful, thanks to all the guys who make TLMC happen because I'm sure as hell it ain't no easy task.
On May 10 2015 10:46 Gfire wrote: What's the point of new maps even if aren't non-standard? I mean, when there are consistently bad maps in the pool (which we may still) we might bet for new maps to replace those, standard or otherwise. However, if we have good standard maps already why even bother changing to other (and potentially worse) maps that are still going to have the same gameplay?
I'd be upset if the maps were any more standard than this tbh. But there's enough here I see forward progress if not anything mindblowing... At the very least anything strange in these maps is now officially "allowed" for all map makers to try to do things with in the future. There are rules I've followed that are broken in some of these maps and freeing myself from those seems like a win for me, even if I can't win the contest. No need to be salty.
If blizzard wanted to get a vote on which maps to replace the first place they would take that suggestion would be the prologues.
On May 10 2015 10:58 Skobe wrote: Tbh I'd rather mappers produce 1 highly polished map instead of making 3 average maps hoping that one will have that specific something the judges are looking for.
Anyway I don't want to come across as ungrateful, thanks to all the guys who make TLMC happen because I'm sure as hell it ain't no easy task.
You have alot of time between now and the next TLMC
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently)
Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit.
Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off.
Not the walloff, just how you have minerals and a geyser sitting right in front of the ramp, getting in the way of stuff, it's unseemly. I liked most everything else about it, but I could never get behind that, it's just off.
On May 10 2015 10:13 SidianTheBard wrote: Or maybe mappers shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. Every TLMC I do 1 standard, 1 nonstandard & 1 remake of an old map, at least that's how I always try to do it. It's not my fault you decided to do 3 super standard maps or 3 super non-standard maps, that's your choice.
Hmm I agree it's usually good to diversify with things like this which is why I submitted 1 standard-ish map and 2 weird, while also being different sizes.
However, I think saying people should blindly do anything (whether it's to put eggs in one basket or diversify, or anything else) is a lame/faulty argument when talking about a contest where all rules should be explicitly stated. This TLMC there was clearly an invisible rule: "Map has to have at least one weird feature like a main backdoor, or it won't be considered." I think most people will agree that invisible rules are BS. (there was a controversy recently in a prominent hearthstone tournament regarding this very thing, and the winner actually ended up being a different guy because of a rule that no one knew about).
If you were a suspicious person you might even think the invisible rule was created to make sure someone different won this time around, since several of the finalists last time around are extremely good at making excellent maps that deviate from standard a bit but not a ton. I am not one of those mapmakers so it didn't hurt me personally, but I feel for them cuz needlessly unfair things really suck.
I say all this even though I am someone who loves unusual maps, and I certainly don't hate this map pool. I just think it should be mentioned that the invisible rule is actually a big deal and shouldn't be ignored or swept under the rug. Some mappers likely did get screwed, and then you throw a little money on the line just to rub salt in the wound, and whew. Be transparent next time, guys!
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently)
Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit.
Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off.
Not the walloff, just how you have minerals and a geyser sitting right in front of the ramp, getting in the way of stuff, it's unseemly. I liked most everything else about it, but I could never get behind that, it's just off.
also there's really not a lot of space to the sides of the town halls to place buildings. i agree that expanding the mains by a few squares to the sides would probably be a good change.
On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote: The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable.
Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be.
Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke?
EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking.
I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently)
Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit.
Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off.
Not the walloff, just how you have minerals and a geyser sitting right in front of the ramp, getting in the way of stuff, it's unseemly. I liked most everything else about it, but I could never get behind that, it's just off.
I completely agree with this. I would like to see the mains expanded 4-6 grid horizontally if nothing else.
On May 10 2015 18:39 Caihead wrote: Bridgehead looks like the best lotv siege tank drop map ever.
although it doesn't look like it, all the manmade high grounds are unpathable.
Yeah its very confusing since they really look pathable. Pretty sure the map author has played way too much BW where 3rd level isnt pathable, so he forgot that this is actually a map contest for sc2 maps. That said the lotv tank drop would be extreamly potent in dash and terminal. Bring 2tanks with medvac and siege them both on lowground. Then micro the other tank with medvac around enemy main, while other tank gives lowground suppory. Shame the tourney is played on hots.
On May 10 2015 18:39 Caihead wrote: Bridgehead looks like the best lotv siege tank drop map ever.
although it doesn't look like it, all the manmade high grounds are unpathable.
Yeah its very confusing since they really look pathable. Pretty sure the map author has played way too much BW where 3rd level isnt pathable, so he forgot that this is actually a map contest for sc2 maps. That said the lotv tank drop would be extreamly potent in dash and terminal. Bring 2tanks with medvac and siege them both on lowground. Then micro the other tank with medvac around enemy main, while other tank gives lowground suppory. Shame the tourney is played on hots.
A shame really I doubt these will ever become map pools for lotv as they both need separate maps
On May 10 2015 10:13 SidianTheBard wrote: (there was a controversy recently in a prominent hearthstone tournament regarding this very thing, and the winner actually ended up being a different guy because of a rule that no one knew about).
Can you provide a link to that? The only things I found is no women allowed, someone allegedly streamcheating and someone receiving messages.
I don't think this was the main controversy post but it happened ~ a week ago so I'd have to dig a bit to find that, but you can read the top comments and get the picture. TLDR forsen would have won the race to highest rank (which is what the tourney was) but a weird and nonsensical rule that no one knew about til near the end ended up screwing him. (savjz won instead)
@ bridgehead the main mineral line / geyser should be changed; it's just needlessly awkward, but other than that I like the map.
On May 10 2015 10:13 SidianTheBard wrote: Or maybe mappers shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. Every TLMC I do 1 standard, 1 nonstandard & 1 remake of an old map, at least that's how I always try to do it. It's not my fault you decided to do 3 super standard maps or 3 super non-standard maps, that's your choice.
Hmm I agree it's usually good to diversify with things like this which is why I submitted 1 standard-ish map and 2 weird, while also being different sizes.
However, I think saying people should blindly do anything (whether it's to put eggs in one basket or diversify, or anything else) is a lame/faulty argument when talking about a contest where all rules should be explicitly stated. This TLMC there was clearly an invisible rule: "Map has to have at least one weird feature like a main backdoor, or it won't be considered." I think most people will agree that invisible rules are BS. (there was a controversy recently in a prominent hearthstone tournament regarding this very thing, and the winner actually ended up being a different guy because of a rule that no one knew about).
If you were a suspicious person you might even think the invisible rule was created to make sure someone different won this time around, since several of the finalists last time around are extremely good at making excellent maps that deviate from standard a bit but not a ton. I am not one of those mapmakers so it didn't hurt me personally, but I feel for them cuz needlessly unfair things really suck.
I say all this even though I am someone who loves unusual maps, and I certainly don't hate this map pool. I just think it should be mentioned that the invisible rule is actually a big deal and shouldn't be ignored or swept under the rug. Some mappers likely did get screwed, and then you throw a little money on the line just to rub salt in the wound, and whew. Be transparent next time, guys!
I agree. The contest can be for any kind of maps (standard or otherwise), but, if nothing else, to provide more options for people to choose from, the criteria should be obvious. All we really knew about the TLMC is that we submit maps that we have made and liked, etc. but not what they will judged on. "Map has to have at least one weird feature like a main backdoor, or it won't be considered" - I also agree with that because I went for standard maps because my maps were rejected in the last contest for being too "non-standard' or having a main-back door.
Anyway, there are some really nice maps here, so good luck everyone!