|
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayLabels.png)
Orbital Decay
Version: 1.0
Players: 4
Size (Playable): 156x156
Spawn Positions: 2, 4, 8 & 10
Features:
- Close main and natural
- Narrow natural choke
- Main back door protected by rocks
- Center can be opened up by destroying rocks.
More Images: (Click for High-Res)
+ Show Spoiler +
Notes:
This is my first 1v1 map and my first time posting a map. It could be described as a 4 player blistering sands, because the main/natural are set up similarly, though I didn't intend this initially. It just happened. I like the Main and Natural mostly, but I've been debating changing the layout of the Gold, Third, Back door and Center in my head. I'd like some input on the layout, terraining, doodads, or whatever you'd like to comment on.
My Other Maps:
Moonlit Monastery
|
Weird that no one has commented on this map yet! It looks rather decent, I just need to get me an US account first.
|
Thanks Ongweldt! I'd like to think the lack of comments is a good thing. I believe it means people are having trouble finding anything wrong with it. 
I have not actually published the map yet, but I may soon. I wanted to get a few opinions first.
|
looks absolutely awesome
but
couldn't find it on EU server 
|
Except for the backdoor entrances and for the fact that you can probably siege fire from the high ground on the third and possibly even from the natural on the HY assimilator, I like it a lot. Also I'm not sure if the tower in the middle is needed. But besides those things, looks balanced and you put some work into decoration.
Good good
|
@Ohdamn, good to hear that you like it and want to play it. I'll publish it on the US server tonight, but unfortunately, I don't know anyone on the EU server.
@FlopTurnReaver, I believe the back doors play out a little differently than on Blistering Sands because their importance changes depending on positional spawns. They do not decrease attack distance unless you spawn in close positions, but I'm planning to make a few changes to the map that may change this.
I'll check the third and gold siege distances but I would assume that choosing an expansion, the player would need to consider the spawn positions. If spawning close positions, the gold expansion makes a better third and is easier to defend from cliff sieges. In other positions, the third is would be best.
I'm beginning to agree that removing the middle tower is a good idea.
Thank you for your comments.
|
On August 31 2010 06:29 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Also I'm not sure if the tower in the middle is needed.
+1
|
I have now published the map as it currently is so that people can try it out. Just search for "Orbital Decay" on the US servers. And I am going to start working on revisions now.
|
Looks pretty nice i have to say. Only things concerning me a bit are.
The main is very huge. I mean very huge. I don´t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing ;>
the gold looks easier to defend then the "3rd" so regarding spawn positions i would rather take the gold as 3rd then your 3rd because the 2 ramps leading to it are so close together.
But overall it looks pretty decent and i hope you will release it on EU soon, =)
|
On August 31 2010 07:19 BoomStevo wrote:
@FlopTurnReaver, I believe the back doors play out a little differently than on Blistering Sands because their importance changes depending on positional spawns. They do not decrease attack distance unless you spawn in close positions, but I'm planning to make a few changes to the map that may change this.
I didn't say anything about Blistering Sands oO
I just think that back entrances are stupid. And as on Blistering Sands, If you manage to get up the ramp you're in the middle of the base.
|
United States10253 Posts
i find it favorable for terran tanks, since u can shell from nat to HY and from extreme side of the main to the 3rd. i dont play sc2, so i have no idea about how to play this. the main is HUGE!!! i dont like the fact that there is a backdoor considering that you need to go a long way to get to the meat of the base
|
nice map the only thing I would change is the angle of the 3rd ramps
|
Just to update everyone on the map:
I'm working on a new version that has the following changes:
- Remove the center tower.
- Move the north and south towers closer to the center.
- Decrease the size of the mains.
- Remove the back door to the main.
- Change the angle of the third ramps.
Rough image: + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayChanges.png) Red = remove. Green = move.
|
I like the balance changes that you are working on. Can't w8 to c the new version!
|
I agree with Antares777. Downloading now to give it a shot.
|
I made the suggested changes to the map a while ago but forgot to update this thread. Here are some images with the balance changes:
(4) Orbital Decay v1.1 + Show Spoiler +
Changelog: + Show Spoiler +
- Removed back doors
- Made mains smaller
- Removed center Xel'Naga Watch Tower
- Moved north and south Xel'Naga Watch Towers closer to Center
- Changed angle on ramps to the third
- Placed LoS Blockers in the center
- Various aesthetic changes (doodads and textures)
|
I really like this map, it has a nice feel to it. The decreased main is a great change imo.
|
I like the map a lot now. Great changes
Btw. the rocks in the middle are destructible right? Is there something under it? Or is the middle open if you destroy them? Not saying it would be something bad, just to know^^
|
On October 09 2010 08:19 FlopTurnReaver wrote:I like the map a lot now. Great changes Btw. the rocks in the middle are destructible right? Is there something under it? Or is the middle open if you destroy them? Not saying it would be something bad, just to know^^
Yes. You can destroy the rocks in the center. There is nothing below them, so once they are destroyed, the middle becomes quite open.
|
Finally, a 4 player map that isn't so ridiculously favored against Zerg on close positions!
Very good design here, though I feel the aesthetic is excessively dark. Perhaps some brighter doodads to liven things up and add a little contrast?
|
On November 27 2010 17:25 Pax wrote:
Finally, a 4 player map that isn't so ridiculously favored against Zerg on close positions!
Very good design here, though I feel the aesthetic is excessively dark. Perhaps some brighter doodads to liven things up and add a little contrast?
I haven't really taken a look at this map in a while. This was my first 1v1 map I ever made. I think all of the images in the original post are out of date and I did do some doodad work and changes when I released the newer version. Also, the images were taken from the editor and the lighting is actually different in game.
|
Looks like delta quadrent
|
On November 30 2010 01:17 Kelorienne wrote:
Looks like delta quadrent
Other than the texture set, I don't think there are any similarities. The symmetry is different. The mains and naturals are different. The expansions are different (there is no back door expansion blocked by rocks). The center is different with destructible rocks and 2 towers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayTop.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecaySide.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayMain.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayNatural.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayThird.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayGold.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayCenter.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecayRange.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecay-summary.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecay-bases.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecay-openness.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecay-shortestPaths-8-2.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecay-shortestPaths-4-2.png)
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/Orbital%20Decay/OrbitalDecay-shortestPaths-2-10.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/SgHTj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rALut.jpg)
