EPT
[M] (4) Spaced - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Moody
United States750 Posts
| ||
|
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On December 15 2010 04:52 WniO wrote: Everything looks superb. Thanks WniO On December 15 2010 05:07 Koagel wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 15 2010 04:25 funcmode wrote: If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome Hm, I wouldn't try to honestly. My style with these metal plates reminds more of a jigsaw puzzle, I usually wouldn't use this many of these straight white intersection lines here. Albeit more detailed, I believe my style would look much less elegant, and as elegance is the strongest point of your design, it wouldn't be a good idea to ruin it. What bothers me the most is the green lighting on the cliffs. Usually, green is rather associated with flora, while your map is a cold space station. I mostly use red and blue on space tilesets. Red wouldn't fit here. Blue would be what I'd try first, but it might end up looking boring. I think I'd experiment a bit more on this. I used your "jigsaw" method within the metal areas themselves, it's a combination of mostly two interlocking textures with others mixed in here and there. I have to say I was somewhat inspired by your post in that other thread, so thanks I tried doing the same thing where the metal meets the rock, but regardless it never looked quite right. The white lines looked better so I went with them instead.As for the cliff lighting, I experimented with practically every cliff and light set, and while it was a tough decision between blue and green I eventually chose green, there wasn't a lot between them but the green seemed to give the map a better atmosphere. On December 15 2010 05:55 neobowman wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 15 2010 04:25 funcmode wrote: I appreciate the criticism, but; 1. Can you explain why rotational symmetry = much more fun games? You can't really argue that the differences allow for more variations in strategy depending on the spawn, cause if that's the case then the map simply isn't balanced. I personally just don't like rotational symmetry because while the imbalances can be almost nullified, they still exist - and the fact that people have to remake blizzard maps because of minute differences between the two sides goes to show that even the smallest difference can have significant consequences. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on some crusade against rotational symmetry. It has it's place, and can certainly be used to great effect, but personally I'm just not a fan. 2. Again, can you explain why it's too big rather than just blindly stating it to be the case? I'm all ears if you can justify what you're saying, but why is it being larger than average a bad thing and not a good thing? I think limiting ourselves to such strict guidelines this early in the game's lifecycle isn't a wise decision when we should be more open to experimentation. I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I disregarding your valued opinion, I do however think it's wrong for anyone to think they have the authority to simply state "this map's too big" or "this map's too small" - at least yet. 3. Do any maps look as good on low quality? Is anyone who plays on low settings in a position to complain about how a map looks? Do they even care? The answer to most of these questions is probably no. If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome Siege tanks are a big concern for any mapmaker, absolutely, but no matter what there will always be parts of a map where they're strong and where they're not. That's just the way the unit works. On this map, tanks on the highground near the natural are without a doubt a formidable defence, but it won't win you the game unless your opponent is an idiot  I'm really happy with the positive response so far, so thank you. I'll look in to the main ramp since people keep bringing it up, but I'm pretty sure the distance from the starting position is quite standard. 1. It's a lot harder to make good maps with non-rotational symmetry. The variety simply isn't there. It's hard to explain with words honestly but if you like non-rotational, then there's nothing wrong with it. 2. Too big means Zerg has an advantage. It's been this way since Brood War. You know why Zergs complain about Steppes being too small right? Goes the same way in reverse. The longer the rush distance, the more Zerg can drone up without having to worry about having to make units to defend against a push. The Python remake I did was on 144x144 and it felt HUGE. Far too Zerg favoured. This map is designed differently but 160x160 is still too big. 3. It's good mapping style. I could just be ranting since good decoing was one of the hallmarks of good mapping in Brood War. I'd still prefer better texturing with more work put in. 1. I'd actually argue the opposite, most rotational symmetry maps I see tend to be very similar and have the same kind of features and problems. Really though, with 4P maps, the spawns are almost always going to be in roughly a square shape, and regardless of the symmetry there's only so much you can do with the space in between. At the end of the day, I prefer standard lines of symmetry because it means, no matter what, both players are always in identical circumstances and there are zero positional advantages or disadvantages. The playing field is 100% even and I can't understand why if that's an option people would choose to make maps that aren't. But whatever, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree 2. While I agree with you that large maps almost always favour zerg (obviously), I don't think zerg on this map specifically are OP, so the size itself is largely irrelevant. I think people put too much weight on the specific dimensions of maps and tend to think anything bigger than a particular size is too big regardless of the maps design. If what you're trying to say isn't that this map is too big but instead that it is zerg favoured, then I'd argue that you're putting too much emphasis on the size of the map and are ignoring many of it's other features. 3. Well the offer from my previous post still stands. In truth, I spent a ridiculous amount of time texturing this map. None of it is copy/pasted and each part of the map is completely unique. A lot of the details are very subtle, but the detail is still very much there. It may not look astounding in low quality, but like I said, what map does? On December 15 2010 06:09 Retgery wrote: Very nice Easily defended natural, very nice s[acing of the bases, I like the fact that it's so open Cheers! On December 15 2010 07:28 Moody wrote: As a Terran player I approve of this map Just waiting on that protoss and zerg approval then On December 15 2010 05:46 SirDuke wrote: so has anybody put this on the US server? i wanna play this sheet nao!! If anyone reading this thread right now is interested in uploading the map to US, send me a PM Thank you everyone for all the feedback so far. | ||
|
Moody
United States750 Posts
 | ||
|
monitor
United States2402 Posts
Rush distance Right now, the rush distance has got to be pretty long. 45-50 seconds maybe? By the time someone does early aggression, the Zerg player will have droned at an expo already, and fortified defenses or built up a huge army. This completely nullifies early pressure. Harass Third and fourths have no harass. Now the zerg player can take an early third without having to worry about harass. The game has turned into a turtle fest. This puts macro at a huge advantage, too much almost. Open Middle The middle is completely open. This means Zerg can maneuver so easily, he needs not worry about positioning, surrounds, flanks, etc. LoS blockers work to his advantage too, because tanks are worse, while surrounds are better. Zerg can move freely and not in danger. Combining these three together is deadly. I suggest remaking it to 140x140, and adding harass to 3rd (yes, you will have to space it out a bit). | ||
|
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On December 15 2010 12:26 monitor wrote: funcmode. this map is well designed. but its too big. Rush distance Right now, the rush distance has got to be pretty long. 45-50 seconds maybe? By the time someone does early aggression, the Zerg player will have droned at an expo already, and fortified defenses or built up a huge army. This completely nullifies early pressure. Harass Third and fourths have no harass. Now the zerg player can take an early third without having to worry about harass. The game has turned into a turtle fest. This puts macro at a huge advantage, too much almost. Open Middle The middle is completely open. This means Zerg can maneuver so easily, he needs not worry about positioning, surrounds, flanks, etc. LoS blockers work to his advantage too, because tanks are worse, while surrounds are better. Zerg can move freely and not in danger. Combining these three together is deadly. I suggest remaking it to 140x140, and adding harass to 3rd (yes, you will have to space it out a bit). The rush distances at their largest are very comparable to Shakuras Plateau. The same map MarineKing won a two Rax all-in against NesTea. My personal testing also concluded that early aggression is still very much a possibility. I really wish people would play the map before making such accusations. I don't understand your second point at all. How are the thirds any less harassable than say, the third on Metalopolis, or the gold on LT? It's such a common criticism people make on these forums when maps don't have an "easy to take third" - seems there's no winning either way. The middle isn't completely open. I'm not even going to respond to such hyperbole. While I appreciate your concerns, the sheer amount of exaggeration in your post makes it hard for me to take all that seriously. And I'm sorry for the delay, as there was a minor hiccup in getting this map on the US region - should happen later today. Thanks for waiting. | ||
|
SirDuke
United States239 Posts
| ||
|
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On December 17 2010 03:30 SirDuke wrote: so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao. Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience. Enjoy the map! | ||
|
SirDuke
United States239 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On December 18 2010 01:59 funcmode wrote: Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience. Enjoy the map! I cant seem to find it on the US server. Its not under "spaced" or "space" blar maybe im just retarded. | ||
|
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On December 18 2010 02:39 WniO wrote: I cant seem to find it on the US server. Its not under "spaced" or "space" blar maybe im just retarded. Hmm.. that's not good news. If anyone else has the time to check quickly I'd really appreciate it as I can't verify it myself. Apparently the name "Spaced" was taken already so it should be called "Spaced by funcmode". Will try and get this resolved ASAP. | ||
|
Penke
Sweden346 Posts
Feels pretty balanced, there are ways that each race can spread their wings. Really like it! | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
On December 18 2010 02:49 funcmode wrote: Hmm.. that's not good news. If anyone else has the time to check quickly I'd really appreciate it as I can't verify it myself. Apparently the name "Spaced" was taken already so it should be called "Spaced by funcmode". Will try and get this resolved ASAP. Just tried searching. Couldn't find it. Perhaps it was published as private? | ||
|
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On December 18 2010 03:27 BoomStevo wrote: Just tried searching. Couldn't find it. Perhaps it was published as private? I hadn't actually thought of that, seems like the most likely scenario. I'll get in touch with my collaborator and see if that's the problem. Thanks for the help | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
I case you missed this map, I just want you to appreciate the purity of the design. A lot of us mappers have messy cliffing and texturing and we tend to plaster our maps with decals. This shows that less is more IMO. Also, I´d like to see some replays. There´s some stuff I need to learn about the placement of nat & 3rd. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
lovablemikey
264 Posts
| ||
| ||
