Team Liquid Map Contest #10 Finalists
Forum Index > SC2 General |
-NegativeZero-
United States2136 Posts
| ||
Zygno
Austria276 Posts
| ||
Timmay
United States111 Posts
On February 18 2018 23:54 Zygno wrote: Also, how did Dreamcatcher get into the finalists? Would you like to explain what is wrong with the map? | ||
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On February 18 2018 15:18 Avexyli wrote: This little pathway is really only there for scouting early on and serves like a catalyst-center. It's narrowness *should* be forcing players up to the highground to engage with the main features of the map. Sounds like this is successful, so far. I agree that it should be forcing players on the high ground, but the force on Travincal is too strong in my opinion, and it's not too strong on Catalyst. There is a small difference between the center of Catalyst and of Travincal that I'm gonna point out. You can see that on Catalyst, the commitment between choosing paths is higher: on Travincal, you have three ramps on each of the high grounds that exist near the center, while on Catalyst there are only two. Moving around and choosing between faster-but-more-dangerous and longer-but-safer means nothing if you're actually choosing between tiny-bit-faster-and-dangerous and tiny-bit-longer-and-safe; the payoffs from choosing the high ground relative to the low ground are too high. Catalyst differentiates the paths more so than Travincal does, in my opinion. EDIT: My bad, I was looking at Catalyst and not Neo Catalyst. Neo Catalyst WITHOUT the rocks at the center ramps has basically the same issue as Travincal, but in my opinion, the rocks blocking the center ramps really change the map. I think using rocks to block one of the ramps on Travincal may fix the issue, but at the same time, I think that solution may cause more problems than it fixes because the use of rocks on Travincal is already unique and adding more rocks may mess everything up. I really love the use of the destructible and collapsible rocks outside the thirds on Travincal because it's something that I haven't really seen before. | ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On February 18 2018 21:15 Durnuu wrote: Most of the standard maps look like they belong in the macro category. They're all so big. Tbh this category has hugely improved size wise compared to previous TLMCs. Last TLMC the 'standard' maps were Catalyst which is legitimately standard and the absolutely enormous Eastwatch, Grime and Acid Plant. This TLMC we have Fracture and Blueshift which are standard (with Fracture even being on the small side for standard), Artana and Cerulean Fall(s?) which are too big for standard, and Digital Frontier and Lost and Found which are borderline. Though all these terms are lines in the sand. Makes me wonder how they can try to encourage more Fracture sized maps and get rid of Rush as a category (which has been a failure every TLMC), since the borders between categories are confused enough as is. Maybe they should just have Small, Medium and Large with Small going from true rush maps to slightly bigger than Fracture, Medium going from there to slightly smaller than the current standard category allows, and Large going from there on. The only way to truly get consistent categories would be to have the judges re-categorize every single map that made it past the initial cut, but that would be a lot of work. | ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Specifically I fed in the "Area", the "Short Side Length", the "Long Side Length", "Main to main distance by air", "Base count", "Main to main distance by ground", "Two base to two base distance by ground", "Three base to three base distance by ground". When there are multiple possible thirds I chose the one farther away, and to measure the "two base to two base" and "three base to three base" I chose the closest point along the path ground units would travel between the main/nat/third. For example for the "Three base to three base distance" for Catalyst I measured the distance between the two following points: + Show Spoiler + . For the training data I used the following maps and classifications: Abiogenesis: Rush Acid Plant: Macro Backwater: Macro Blackpink: Macro Catalyst: Standard Eastwatch: Macro Neon Violet Square: Macro Battle on the Boardwalk: Rush Ascension to Aiur: Macro Odyssey: Macro Abyssal Reef: Standard Acolyte: Macro Interloper: Rush Mech Depot: Macro Sequencer: Macro Blood Boil: Macro Defender’s Landing: Rush Proxima Station: Macro Bel’Shir Vestige: Standard Paladino Terminal: Rush Newkirk Precinct: Standard Daybreak: Standard Habitation Station: Standard Overgrowth: Standard Vaani Research Station: Macro Apotheosis: Macro Frozen Temple: Standard Galactic Process: Macro King Sejong Station: Standard New Gettysburg: Macro It gave me the following results: Treachery: Macro 16-bit: Macro Kherrisan Rift: Macro Para Site: Macro Blueshift: Standard Fracture: Rush Cerulean Falls: Standard Artana: Macro Lost and Found: Standard Digital Frontier: Standard Arashi: Rush Cybros Relay Station: Rush Dreamcatcher: Rush System Shock: Rush Backpfeifengesicht: Standard Travincal: Standard Which doesn't seem too bad size-wise, though there's still a few problems. For example it does classify Frozen Temple as a Rush Map which seems a bit off. Any suggestions about map features I should have included, or the categories or values I chose? (adding more size categories than just "rush", "standard", "macro" would be interesting, but I didn't feel confident in my ability to accurately differentiate between "medium" maps and "medium-large" maps). | ||
Ectar
54 Posts
| ||
Ej_
47656 Posts
On February 19 2018 10:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Which doesn't seem too bad size-wise, though there's still a few problems. For example it does classify Frozen Temple as a Rush Map which seems a bit off. Was the map where every PvZ was cyber block into immortal all-in (or queen ravager all-in if P didn't all-in) and every TvZ 3rax reaper vs ravager all-in not a rush map? | ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On February 20 2018 16:39 Ej_ wrote: Was the map where every PvZ was cyber block into immortal all-in (or queen ravager all-in if P didn't all-in) and every TvZ 3rax reaper vs ravager all-in not a rush map? It wasn't quite that bad. PvZs sometimes went long on Frozen Temple. Though maybe this machine learning classifier is just smarter than I am by calling it 'Rush'. | ||
Wardi
England890 Posts
16 - System Shock The map just doesn't really make sense - the watch towers give you very minimal information vs Terran/Protoss (I suppose you can watch for when the Natural is taken? Otherwise you just build everything outside of watch tower view.) For Zerg however if you spawn top side your Larva can be seen from the watchtower which is so insanely broken because people can see what is being built. No balance here and it naturally lead to very quick games. 15 - Backpfeifengesicht I'm always down for the cool ideas of giving players a choice of bases and their being a high risk vs high reward feature of a Natural gold, but I think the games really just showed us that holding a mineral line which is so open and easily attacked from the other side just doesn't work. I enjoy the idea of the map and if I was judging this was definitely a great idea, but it just doesn't work well in practice sadly. 14 - Kherrisan Rift This map saw its best showing in the finals with a long game of INnoVation vs soO, but I think this is more because INno chose to just sit, wall off and do nothing. Obviously it is a macro map and the idea is to create a map which allows for long games and makes it harder to attack on, but compared to the other macro maps this map really felt like it was just way too difficult to attack in mid-late, which is why a lot of players looked to end games early instead of letting it go on. Way too choke heavy, force field/zone control friendly. 13 - Travincal I don't think this map really made much of an impression on me. The "new" feature of the LOS blockers was tough to see in so few games and so it just felt like an ordinary map with a super defensive four bases. Maybe it didn't get the games it deserved, but just felt uninteresting when we saw it. 12 - Fracture I wanted to enjoy Fracture more, but I was pretty neutral about this map. I'm putting it low down because I feel for a "standard" map there were just better options (I would probably prefer to play this map more than others I rate higher honestly, but that's not how I'm doing my ranking :D). Three bases on high ground and easy to defend feels standard, but it's so quick to push across and I really felt this limited the games we saw. Also it feels difficult to find an open space to attack, with the choked center / rocks which allow you to play the choke points all the way until you reach your opponents base. 11 - Lost and Found The faded colour scheme / lighting on this map made it very difficult to watch games. Whatever setting it was that's been changed affected health bars, writing and all sorts. Multiple players complained that their units just looked different because of it and sometimes it was hard to see units too. I think the lighting has hurt this map more than anything else. It showed us a fun ZvZ between Bly and Solar, which showcased the heavy amount of ramps, but I felt there was also good amounts of space to fight on too. 10 - Cybros Relay Station A rush map that didn't really get me too excited, but still provided some fun games. I feel MMA vs Nerchio really showcased the weakness of this map later game, which is going past a fourth can be very difficult for a non-Zerg with so many pathways to attack on and the size of the map allowing rotations of fast moving runbys to take advantage. I feel the top right/bottom left of the map rarely got used and I'm still unsure about that big rock on the third. Wouldn't say I disliked the map, but the other rush maps definitely gave me more of a buzz. 9 - Dreamcatcher This map feels huge for a rush map! I originally rated this one higher in my list, because we didn't see bad games on it, but the more I think about it the less I like it. Drops feel maybe a bit too good and it can be very easy to hold a lot of bases. I think the map lacks some structure in general, because when we never really saw a lot of interesting occurrences in the center of the map and there were limited reasons to go anywhere other than through the shorter rush distance. 8 - Cerulean Falls The size of this map really surprised me when I got in-game! I don't have a lot to say about this one sadly, I feel a lot of the games on this map were alright but nothing spectacular. We saw very standard three bases, which it does well, but it's hard to know how the rest of it's architecture really plays out. I think the combination of choking the open areas while also having ramps leading into them can be interesting, but not sure how well it plays out. 7 - Treachery A more well-executed macro map which I feel I only rate so low because it kind of does its job so well : it creates macro games with not a lot happening. Easy map to split and take multiple bases on early, while creating scrappier games in the later stages because beyond 6 bases you really have to extend out to expand further. I'm personally not a fan of the 'macro category' in general, I feel like having one macro map in a map pool is fine, but they aren't the maps that get me the most excited. I can't fault this map though, it definitely does its job. 6 - 16 Bit This map does a pocket expansion well. I love it and I love the simple and clean decoration too (something which for me who looks at the maps a lot while casting is a big part of how much I like some of them ;D but not the only thing!!) I really wonder if there is a way to make this map just a tiny bit smaller, because I feel its only flaw is that it is slightly too large. An in-base expansion is always a fun way to have one map be different to others on the map pool and I was pleasantly surprised that more of the macro maps didn't use it as a way to simply be "macro". It never felt like the bases were being taken for free (something I felt on Treachery/Kherrisan for example), but it still had the macro feel. Multiple pathways, different expansion patterns, I was genuinely surprised the players vetoed this map so often. 5 - Arashi So this map has be super torn. We didn't get to see any super long games on this map (which I suppose is what is meant to happen on a rush map?), but I have to say I think the idea of it was really nice. It sticks to it's nature of being a rush map in so many ways. While it gives you a high ground third, there is a lot of space on the high ground so it is still difficult to hold. Later there are also rocks that can go down to open it up even further. It really is a rush map from the start of the game until the later stages, which is why I rated it so highly, I think it does its job in a unique way. I like how the rocks going down on the third actually create the fourth base too. Really fun map in its concept, which is why it is this high in my rankings. 4 - Artana It's getting difficult to split up my rankings for the last few maps because I like #2-#4 about the same amount I feel for different reasons. Artana gave us some fantastic games, it has a unique third being on the low ground but accessible from multiple directions and can even lead into a choice of expansions. The map is maybe a bit too choked on the right and left hand side (feels very difficult to attack into the fourth above/below the main?) but has some good open spaces as well. This map pleasantly surprised me in how it played out, which is why it is #4 in my ranking. It's standard in a fun way! 3 - Digital Frontier Okay I really didn't know whether to put this map at #3 or #2, but I put it at #3 because I think it is slightly less interesting at what it does than #2. It has some fun sets of rocks which change the map as it goes on as well as a third base that you can hold but not without some defensive units. This is definitely the definition of "clean, simple and fun to look at" when it comes to maps for me and I just enjoyed watching all the games on this one. Fun pathway options throughout the map as well mixes it up and allows each game to feel different with how players choose to move their units. 2 - Para Site Ahh! I didn't think I liked this map so much but the more I thought about it I really think it's a macro map I can get behind. It doesn't feel stupidly large, it gives you a fairly easy three and four base set-up (with a choice of fourth bases depending on how you want to expand). A fifth base comes down in a more forward location, allowing for engagements to be created towards your opponents base. And while these bases are easy to defend, the choices on how you can move your army stop it from feeling too split-map friendly. soO vs INno in the finals showed what this map can allow for, fun back and forth games with a lot of engagements, positions you can fall back to defensively but also locations you can push more easily. This map just felt right. 1 - Blueshift If this map isn't in the next ladder map pool I'm going to be heartbroken. First up it's straight up beautiful to look at (some players said it was a bit dark, but I've never had this issue of maps being too dark so it may be dependent on settings.) Secondly I love the way that you can almost tell how this map was made, it's taken aspects of maps that have worked so well in the past and adapted them to make it different enough, but still great to play. For me it reminds me the most of Catalyst, with a similar base structure but different high/low ground options. Obviously the pathway through the center has a lot to do with that, which is made interesting as the game continues due to the rocks which give the map more complexity as the game goes on. What I love about this map is it takes away some of the split map presence Catalyst has, by not having the forward base, which creates a more spread defense for armies later in the game. I really feel it creates fun macro games that promote moving around the map rather than sitting back doing nothing. Everything on this map works for me, which is why it's my number 1. Was awesome to get to run this tournament again! Apologies for the Group D cast where I was on a bit of a life tilt, as well as for the issues we had with some of the players (not much I can do here apart from not invite them back in the future.) If any of the map makers have any feedback on how the tournament phase went I would love to hear it so that I can improve on it if I get the chance to run the tournament phase again in the future. Thanks! | ||
algue
France1436 Posts
On February 21 2018 00:50 Wardi wrote: An in-base expansion is always a fun way to have one map be different to others on the map pool and I was pleasantly surprised that more of the macro maps didn't use it as a way to simply be "macro". Feel free to join in on the fun over at : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/531349-mandatory-protected-natural-for-every-map | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36598 Posts
| ||
Avexyli
United States688 Posts
On February 20 2018 16:01 Ectar wrote: AVEX I can't help noticing that Arashi looks like a certain Vanguard map... Not sure what this is supposed to be suggesting, but this is based off the purifier campaign mission where you rescue Fenix. | ||
Ectar
54 Posts
| ||
Avexyli
United States688 Posts
| ||
revolt77
7 Posts
Can somebody share the links with me? | ||
KrulAsfaltuf
Zimbabwe70 Posts
In the meantime, twitch vods: https://www.twitch.tv/wardiii/videos/all | ||
themusic246
United States201 Posts
On February 18 2018 23:01 -NegativeZero- wrote: it would be a huge pain in the ass, but i guess the finalists do have the option to shrink their maps during the revision process lol Im going for it with 16bit. May take 300 hours or so. | ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On February 22 2018 02:08 themusic246 wrote: Im going for it with 16bit. May take 300 hours or so. 300 hours?! Wow and I thought I was slow at making maps. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52793 Posts
On February 22 2018 02:39 ZigguratOfUr wrote: 300 hours?! Wow and I thought I was slow at making maps. Iteration period is ~480 hours so I would be very impressed if he spent that much time. | ||
| ||