I changed the title set because... well I wasn't really satisfied with the Agria one. The rush distances are unknown for nat to nat and main to main on this version.

@monitor - I'd have to raise the entire map to be able to make the third low ground, but if it will help the map I'll do it. I'm glad you like it.

EDIT: @Samro225am - I haven't added lighting doodads yet, so I'm going to see how it looks after I do that, and then decide if I want to modify more of the textures.

EDIT #2: I was thinking about placing inaccessible XWTs on the manmade cliffs on the bounds of the map just for kicks. Thoughts?

lovablemikey

264 Posts

February 05 2011 17:54 GMT

#42

I like the new tileset. It looks nicer now.

I'm noticing people are suggesting giving different cliff levels their own theme. This is something I do in my maps and I think it makes the map easier to navigate in game and on the minimap. For example, I'll dedicate 3 textures to the low ground, 3 textures to the middle ground, and 2 textures to the high ground. You can mix it up any way you like, but the concept keeps things organized and I think it's a good idea.

Well done!

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 05 2011 17:59 GMT

#43

On February 06 2011 02:54 lovablemikey wrote:
I like the new tileset. It looks nicer now.

I'm noticing people are suggesting giving different cliff levels their own theme. This is something I do in my maps and I think it makes the map easier to navigate in game and on the minimap. For example, I'll dedicate 3 textures to the low ground, 3 textures to the middle ground, and 2 textures to the high ground. You can mix it up any way you like, but the concept keeps things organized and I think it's a good idea.

Well done!

I've tried that for each of the levels, but I guess I'm not doing a good job. The mains are bordered with grunge, and have dirt and stone. The naturals are bordered by dirt and have pebbles, rocky ground, and dirt. The thirds are bordered by rock, and have pebbles, dirt, and cracked dirt. The middle has stone, rock, grunge, and dirt. The plateaus are bordered by rock and have dirt and rocky ground.

Right now everything seems to look the same to some people, so I'll have to add lights sometime soon and maybe retexture the areas that need more individuality.

Glad you like the title set! It's the same as XC, but it feels like a different title set because of the different textures I used.

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

February 05 2011 20:53 GMT

#44

Personally I'm sceptical about the low ground third. The idea is fine, but I'm having a hard time picturing where you would put the ramp to access it without messing up the area outside the main or the little 3-ramp piece of high ground while also giving the third enough space. Also, given the orientation of the map, the ramp would likely have to be vertical/horizontal which in most cases I think just don't look right/nice. I might be wrong though, it's probably worth a try.

As for the texturing, I can see what people are saying (everything does kind of look the same) but I don't think it's because you did a bad job or anything. Rather, the 3 most prominent textures that you've used (dirt, cracked dirt and the lighter rocks) are basically the same colour, so don't look very well differentiated from a distance. Up close however the map looks a lot nicer. The only thing that doesn't look right to me is the prominent and obscurely shaped dark patch in the very middle - I'd try and blend it in a bit better so it doesn't stand out so much.

Also, there was a piece of advice (I think it was in this thread but I'm not 100% sure) about being more "heavy-handed" when it comes to applying textures, which I think is something people should listen to, but I'll elaborate. If you try too hard to make everything look super-nice and blended up close, often when you take your overview shot it can make the map look very bland and boring, even if the texture work itself is very high quality. It's a hard balance, but being heavy enough to make the map "pop" when viewing from a distance, but blended well enough to be easy on the eyes is a skill very few mappers have come close to perfecting yet.

All that aside, I think I prefer this version over the original.

lovablemikey

264 Posts

February 05 2011 21:42 GMT

#45

On February 06 2011 02:59 Antares777 wrote:
I've tried that for each of the levels, but I guess I'm not doing a good job. The mains are bordered with grunge, and have dirt and stone. The naturals are bordered by dirt and have pebbles, rocky ground, and dirt. The thirds are bordered by rock, and have pebbles, dirt, and cracked dirt. The middle has stone, rock, grunge, and dirt. The plateaus are bordered by rock and have dirt and rocky ground.

Right now everything seems to look the same to some people, so I'll have to add lights sometime soon and maybe retexture the areas that need more individuality.

Glad you like the title set! It's the same as XC, but it feels like a different title set because of the different textures I used.

The Ulaan tileset doesn't have as much variation as most of the other tilesets. It's hard to distinguish all the different textures from each other from a distance. They mix together and you end up with an overall gray color, which is why the variations don't show up well in your picture. It will look fine in-game though. From what you described you did with the textures, it sounds like you went about it the right way, but the tileset itself is limiting. So, kudos on a job well done!

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 06 2011 00:15 GMT

#46

Ok I've decided that I'm not going to lower the thirds because I can't without screwing the map. If I raise the entire map up a level to do that, the high ground with the marine statues will be the same level as the plateaus, ruining the ability to place an Overlord looking over the plateaus, one of the things that I added to help Zerg on this map a bit.

I'll try to blend the middle better, but I wanted to be different than the natural and third so I added the rocks, but I'll see what comes up when I mess around with the editor again.

EffectS

Belgium795 Posts

February 06 2011 12:17 GMT

#47

Put the main mineral lines a bit more towards the inside. They're really on the edge of the main which is kinda bad. If you put them more towards the center you have less creeptumors required for zerg and everyone has space to build things behind the mineral line, such as turrets.

And maybe switch the natural gasses to double gas towards the side of the main. After which you can place rocks between natural and enemy third. Seems like a fun, interesting change to me. ^^

I would really change the main mineral lay out and the double gas, you shouldn't change the rocks if you don't feel like ofcourse. :D

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 06 2011 15:17 GMT

#48

On February 06 2011 21:17 EffectS wrote:
Put the main mineral lines a bit more towards the inside. They're really on the edge of the main which is kinda bad. If you put them more towards the center you have less creeptumors required for zerg and everyone has space to build things behind the mineral line, such as turrets.

And maybe switch the natural gasses to double gas towards the side of the main. After which you can place rocks between natural and enemy third. Seems like a fun, interesting change to me. ^^

I would really change the main mineral lay out and the double gas, you shouldn't change the rocks if you don't feel like ofcourse. :D

I have been considering adding rocks since Noon Hill 1.6. I might do it, I'm still considering it.

Only one creep tumor is required to connect the main to the natural at its current location, and there is plenty of room to build turrets. You could even build Barracks if you felt like it, there is so much space. By placing the main's mineral line further back to the side away from the third/middle is to encourage building placement in that direction, which indirectly influences cliffing, which is always fun to see happen.

When I feel satisfied with the Ulaan version I'm going to create a new thread and publish it.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 10 2011 00:48 GMT

#49

MotM #2 Score:

6.7 / 5.2 / 6.2 / 4.2
Balance/Originality/Fun/Aesthetics

I was hoping to score better in the balance section. I don't see any substantial racial imbalances, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

I'm not surprised this map flunked aesthetically, it is rather ugly. I couldn't finish the other version on time though, but it will be finished for MotM #3. I'm going to make a new thread when I finish that version.

Big shout out to all of this month's judges! <3

EDIT: Are remakes of maps that have been submitted allowed in future MotM competitions?

iGrok

United States5142 Posts

February 10 2011 01:23 GMT

#50

Not without major gameplay changes