|
On October 10 2014 12:48 TheFish7 wrote:
Seems like a catch-22 to me; if you modify the behavior then the map becomes custom, but I don't know of a way to get rid of that without changing the behavior. Has this been done before? How did Crevasse for example get away with changing the hp values on rocks, or was that also considered a custom map?
It has been done before. Plus there are plenty of maps with two close rock towers that are without the conjoined behaviour
|
It's strange to me that it seems to simply work in that example ... I must be doing something wrong.
Here's exactly what I'm doing, in two screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2v2v7oh.png) Remove the conjoined behavior, as described... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NmSmaGJ.png) Custom map type
???
|
Hmm I don't have SC2 where I am right now but I'll look into it this afternoon/tomorrow
|
|
|
On October 10 2014 15:41 Xenotolerance wrote:It's strange to me that it seems to simply work in that example ... I must be doing something wrong. Here's exactly what I'm doing, in two screenshots: + Show Spoiler +Remove the conjoined behavior, as described... Custom map type ???
Ok so I found the solution (or the lack of). When you modify any data value of any unit, the map gets described as custom, so it seems inevitable with un-conjoined rock towers. However, once the map is published, even as a "custom" type, you can still play it normally as a melee map (I mean in the lobby you can select "Melee" type of game).
|
Is it at all possible to modify/mix "texture props" of terrain types, so I can have e.g. destructible rocks from Agria and geysers from Zerus?
Edit since I'm at it: I'm currently considering replacing the unbuildable rocks at the bottom of the main ramp of one of my WIP maps with permanent "no building" pathing. This would not affect walling at all since it is not where you would wall off anyway. Is there a reason why this is never done?
|
On October 11 2014 21:02 And G wrote:
Is it at all possible to modify/mix "texture props" of terrain types, so I can have e.g. destructible rocks from Agria and geysers from Zerus?
Edit since I'm at it: I'm currently considering replacing the unbuildable rocks at the bottom of the main ramp of one of my WIP maps with permanent "no building" pathing. This would not affect walling at all since it is not where you would wall off anyway. Is there a reason why this is never done?
To the second question:
In general, "no building"-doodads are rarely used at all. It is just weird to see an empty space that you cannot build upon. I would at least consider to make that 2x2 area visually very different in a way that suggest that you cannot build there.
Obviously the other option - completely blocking the area with a doodad - doesn't work, because then you can use that doodad as part of your bunker/pylon wall at the bottom of the ramp.
I do consider the rock plate solution quite a nice one, since it is visually/mechanically clear that something is blocking the spot.
|
On TPNT I just used to pathing tool and then added some cracks for visual indication. I've just uploaded a new version with unbuildable rocks instead, but it looked like this:
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/terrain0683wr3d.png)
(Green rectangle shows where you can't build.)
I'd say it's one of those things that might throw you off the first time but to which you would get used quickly. As you know, on the same map vision blockers double as creep blockers which is quite unusual, but no one has complained about that yet and you even thought it was a great idea. In fact I also considered using vision blockers at the bottom of the main ramp since you can't build on them either, but it would have been too weird.
I think the unbuildable rocks (or depots back in WoL) aren't such a good solution since you can accidentally target them in a fight. In fact I think that's the main reason why many progamers kill them. It just seems kind of unnecessary to me.
|
Yeah, Creep blockers aren't used too much either. Personally I'm not really against just blocking Terrain and making it visible as you did here. As you say, it's something that you may find weird for a moment, and then just accept and remember.
Hm, another idea: What if you put a single vision blocker there on top of of the unbuildable area? Not sure how it would look like with the particular larva doodad, but I think it could work out.
Or maybe you could use one of those crystal doodads you have on the map, disable the footprint and play around with sinking it into the ground just enough that it becomes apparent that something is blocking the ground, yet it is still walkable. 
|
I think the "Agria Debris" and "Agria Debris Large" doodads are the best for marking out unbuildable areas: they are visually bumpy and resemble the rocky terrain in broodwar, naturally are pathable but block buildings, and also are visually distinct from the destructable plates/bricks/rocks.
I don't think the crack doodad alone is a very good solution, they are used in many other maps as pure decoration. Though of course, as both of you say, it is something that is easy to remember after the first few games on the map.
@Hot_Ice
On October 11 2014 02:21 Hot_Ice wrote:+ Show Spoiler [snip] +
Hello my question is, can you create a Discussion Thread for an Existing Map?
I have one in mind that is only available on the korean server, it's in the top 10 and played alot. I play it for 2 years occasionally and you always find people who join at any time. Since the map is so great but I don't know many english speaking people there I wish to open a discussion- or fan-thread of that map, to discuss that map and its changes and strategies in english, because everything is in korean by default (like forums i found); There is just no discussion thread T_T so what better chance or place was there but Teamliquid? Thanks for tips
You should probably PM a moderator and ask.
My gut instinct is that yeah, it is probably ok to create that thread.
|
On October 15 2014 00:59 Namrufus wrote:
I don't think the crack doodad alone is a very good solution, they are used in many other maps as pure decoration.
That's actually a really good point and one I hadn't thought of. As you said, Agria Debris seems suited best for this. I had experimented with smaller/lowered crystals like Big J suggested, but I just couldn't get it to not look out of place. Lowering the terrain and placing some sort of mesh or glass layer over it would probably also look great, but I'm not sure how you would go about getting units to walk over there properly. Kind of like the unpathable area at the mid ground near the gold on Overgrowth, only pathable.
The visuals aside though, as discussed in the TPNT thread the only gameplay reason that speaks for using unbuildable rocks over unbuildable pathing seems to be that it allows for certain kinds of cheese that you might see once in a blue moon. It doesn't seem very convincing, but I guess now that there is a standard it's best to follow it. Still, I don't place unbuildable rocks where there are in-base expansions and I think they don't belong on Nimbus or Alterzim. They seem to have become this thing that you just do without stopping to think about why you're actually doing it.
|
On October 11 2014 20:42 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2014 15:41 Xenotolerance wrote:It's strange to me that it seems to simply work in that example ... I must be doing something wrong. Here's exactly what I'm doing, in two screenshots: + Show Spoiler +Remove the conjoined behavior, as described... Custom map type ??? Ok so I found the solution (or the lack of). When you modify any data value of any unit, the map gets described as custom, so it seems inevitable with un-conjoined rock towers. However, once the map is published, even as a "custom" type, you can still play it normally as a melee map (I mean in the lobby you can select "Melee" type of game).
True! Question answered, thank you.
|
On October 16 2014 04:05 Xenotolerance wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2014 20:42 OtherWorld wrote:On October 10 2014 15:41 Xenotolerance wrote:It's strange to me that it seems to simply work in that example ... I must be doing something wrong. Here's exactly what I'm doing, in two screenshots: + Show Spoiler +Remove the conjoined behavior, as described... Custom map type ??? Ok so I found the solution (or the lack of). When you modify any data value of any unit, the map gets described as custom, so it seems inevitable with un-conjoined rock towers. However, once the map is published, even as a "custom" type, you can still play it normally as a melee map (I mean in the lobby you can select "Melee" type of game). True! Question answered, thank you.
No problem, was a pleasure to help (:
|
anyone know how wrl did the custom skygeirr skybox in Nimbus?
|
How would I go about creating a mod that adds the medic to HotS melee? I don't even know which dependencies to use. Also, I suppose that would be an extension mod, not a dependent mod?
|
On October 22 2014 00:00 And G wrote:
How would I go about creating a mod that adds the medic to HotS melee? I don't even know which dependencies to use. Also, I suppose that would be an extension mod, not a dependent mod?
You can definitely do this with an extension mod. Easiest way to do it, IMO (I did it with the Lurker) is to generate a separate mod with campaign dependencies, then duplicate the data over to your melee extension mod. Keeps it lighter than loading up all campaign data.
|
Yes, do not load the campaign data to start with. It will cause all sorts of problems. Basically your choices are to start with melee and add everything from the campaign you want custom, or start with the campaign data which is crazy different from melee and then add back the Melee data. I'm working on a mod exactly like that now I actually chose to start from the campaign data and add back the melee stuff, but thats only because more than half of the mod is going to be custom stuff anyway and if I could do it again I'd probably go the other way around.
|
Thanks, but how do I add stuff from the campaign dependency without that dependency activated? Is there an import function somewhere that allows me to extract data from other dependencies or how does that work?
|
I have a map design question. Is a full gold base (2g 6m) on an island close to a start location viable if you make taking alternate expansions for Zerg and Protoss easier? Giving a Terran player the option to fly his/her starting CC to the island or allowing him/her to expand quickly to an island could work if you gave the other races other advantages in my opinion. Could I pull this off or am I just stupid?
|
Would there be any issues balance-wise or anything else about putting a neutral planetary fortress in a gold base rather than the usual destructible rocks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
