|
Noon Hill 1.8
+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +
126 x 124
Agria Title Set
Replays
Download ZvT, TvT, PvZ (4 Gate), PvZ, PvZ Cross Spawns
I highly recommend watching the TvT replay.
I'm probably going to submit this map for the next MotM instead of Freerunner because this map is frankly a lot more balanced and more fun.
My Philosophy on Good Maps: + Show Spoiler +I strongly believe that a good map doesn't force/heavily influence macro-oriented games or cheese or fast air builds or whatever. A good map has rush distances that make it possible to fast expand and to rush. Naturals that can be harassed, and defended (Lost Temple's cliff is too hard to defend). Maps should also be racially balanced. That one is more obvious of course. Another important thing is risk vs reward (RvR). Certain positions on the map should have advantages and disadvantages. Like on Blistering Sands, there is a low ground path, which is the fastest route between bases, but is vulnerable and overlooked by two Xel'naga Watchtowers. That's an ok example of RvR. There should also be points of interest (POIs). These can be created by expansions, map flow, and elevation. On Noon Hill, the high ground plateaus are considered POIs because they grant Terran and Protoss advantages and Zerg needs to control it for the opposite reason that Terran and Protoss do. Zerg needs to control it so that their enemy doesn't control it. POIs are mainly created by expansions, especially gold expansions, but it's always nice to have a map that has other POIs than expansions.
There isn't really any hill I guess, but the map is named after this place where my friends and I love to ride our bikes.
This is my first rotationally symmetric map and the expansion pattern is dictated by the spawns. The natural's choke is 9 units wide and can be walled off for a fast expand build easier than most ladder maps. Almost all of the replays that I have with Protoss show a Forge fast expand. The positioning and map flow around the different high ground and low ground areas make the map very interesting. This map is also more normally sized than my other large, macro-oriented maps. Cross positions on this map are much shorter than any other four player map that I have made, but expanding is still relatively easy.
Given the map's small size, I knew that expansions would have to be easy to expand to or the map will turn out to be a massive cheese/rush fest. Expansions are therefore difficult to scout because all of them beyond the natural are out of your way when you're traveling to your enemy's base. The natural is also easy to take, but I didn't want the map to become a turtle fest either, so I made the natural harassable from the adjacent thirds. Read the "Natural Harassment Viability and Defense from Harassment" spoiler for more information on this.
Natural Harassment Viability and Defense from Harassment: + Show Spoiler +Natural Advantages:
-Easy to fast expand.
-Easy to build static defense behind the mineral line.
Disadvantages:
-Can be sieged from the adjacent third.
Zerg:
-Can spread Creep through the trees and creep into the adjacent third, but more importantly prevents proxy pylons from being able to warp units into your natural.
-Roaches can attack a siege tank or proxy pylon without going around if it is close enough to the trees (four units).
-If u don't have ranged units, you can always go around with Zerglings, but in Lost Temple you can't, and Roaches cannot attack the tank if it is in the back of the cliff. You also need line of sight, but in this scenario, you do not.
Protoss:
-Can build a proxy Pylon and warp units into the enemy's natural.
Terran:
-Siege Tanks, if positioned as close as possible to the trees, can hit workers and one of the geysers.
-If given line of sight from a unit (a viking or floating barracks) it can also hit the Hatchery/Command Center/Nexus.
Racial Balance: + Show Spoiler +Terran:
-The high ground plateaus are definitely the place to be. If you're not in control of at least yours, Zerg will surround you easier and keep you on two bases and Protoss will take control of them and own you with Force Fields.
-Cliffing the mains is possible, so if your enemy builds there structures too close to the edge, fell free to siege up. This feature is like that on Lost Temple, how the mains extend into the battlefield.
-Siege the natural hehehe. Read the "Natural Harassment Viability and Defense from Harassment" spoiler for more information.
-You can fast expand.
Protoss:
-The high ground plateaus favor Protoss with their Force Fields. Sentries are a must for ZvP on this map and are extremely powerful.
-You can place a proxy pylon by the third to warp units into the enemy's natural.
-You can cliff with your Colossi.
-You can Forge Fast expand easily.
Zerg:
-There are a lot of open areas for surrounds, and now that the plateaus have an extra ramp, Zerg will be able to deal with proxies much easier.
-Can spread Creep from the natural to the adjacent third through the tree wall.
-Roaches can attack proxy Pylons and Siege Tanks that try to attack your natural from the adjacent third. Zerglings have to go around of course.
-Fast expanding is easy.
-Central Xel'naga Watchtower in the middle of the map favors Zerg because they can mass units there the easiest because of how open it is. The tower also reveals some of all of the high ground plateaus.
-Expansions past your natural are easy to take and more difficult for your enemy to scout because you can expand away from them and no Xel'naga Watchtowers overlook any expansions.
One interesting feature of this map is that a Siege Tank can hit workers and one vespene geyser of the natural over the gap, but the natural extends right up to the third, so close that if roaches were nearby, the Siege Tank would be in trouble.
Version 1.7 is now up. No promises about the lighting, but there are islands in the water for aesthetics (not shown in overview). I also added sun rays in the thirds and the XWT.
~Search "Noon Hill" to play!~
~Feedback is greatly appreciated!~
~My Map Thread~
|
Wow.. when I first looked at the map I thought "is this byzantium?"
Well anyways I think this is a great map, but the thing is what do those xel naga watchtowers do at the ledges near the middle? I mean if you put your army there wouldn't they be able to see exactly what the tower sees?
Nice map overall, looks good :D
|
On January 16 2011 14:22 No0n wrote:
Wow.. when I first looked at the map I thought "is this byzantium?"
Well anyways I think this is a great map, but the thing is what do those xel naga watchtowers do at the ledges near the middle? I mean if you put your army there wouldn't they be able to see exactly what the tower sees?
Nice map overall, looks good :D
Yeah, I know what you mean. This map is smaller than my other map, I guess putting four XWTs was a mistake.
Didn't Byzantium have a low ground main and high ground natural though?
|
I really like the layout. seems like it would lead to a dynamic game with all of the ramps and different routes around the edges. i agree with NoOn about the Xel'Naga Watch Towers though. i think they would force fights over them more so than on other maps because if you get contained at your tower it would be very difficult to break.
|
Have you uploaded on NA server? I cannot seem to find it.
|
Version 1.1 is now on B.net.
@Epsilon - 1.0 was released privately, that was my mistake. Version 1.1 is public though, so if you want to go and check it out now, feel free to do so.
The XWTs have been removed and the map has been redesigned. The size of the mains has increased and a lot of the lower ground areas have been removed.
|
Okay, thanks man. Way to go for all the nice work. They're some really nice maps : ).
|
On January 16 2011 17:46 Epsilon8 wrote:
Okay, thanks man. Way to go for all the nice work. They're some really nice maps : ).
Glad you like it!
<3
|
Is it possible to siege the third/natural from the third/natural?
Otherwise, the expansion patterns look pretty much ok.
|
On January 17 2011 00:34 NullCurrent wrote:
Is it possible to siege the third/natural from the third/natural?
Otherwise, the expansion patterns look pretty much ok.
I'll have to check if it's possible to siege the actual hatch/cc/nexus, but it is possible to siege one of the geysers and some of the mineral line.
EDIT: If the Siege Tank gets a helping hand from a floating Barracks or air unit it can hit the Hatch/CC/Nexus. Otherwise, it can only hit drones and one geyser. Check out the topic for more information.
V1.2 is now up and on B.net. This version was purely for aesthetics.
+ Show Spoiler [Overview of 1.2] +
|
Version 1.3 is now on B.net.
+ Show Spoiler [Overview of 1.3] +
I modified lighting and made it so that a Siege Tank from the third can hit the main structure of the nearby natural expansion with line of sight. I also connected the natural and third but put doodads there to block the path. This in theory is supposed to let creep grow out in that direction without letting units pass from the third into the natural. I haven't tested it yet, but am going to.
I increased the non-playable map bounds so that you can't see any black areas on the map, just more water.
I'm also going to check out the lighting in game to make sure that it isn't too bright.
Tell me what you guys think.
|
On January 17 2011 04:10 Antares777 wrote:
made it so that a Siege Tank from the third can hit the main structure of the nearby natural expansion with line of sight. I also connected the natural and third but put doodads there to block the path. This in theory is supposed to let creep grow out in that direction without letting units pass from the third into the natural. I haven't tested it yet, but am going to.
Is that really a good idea? With siege-tanks from the third it is too easy to lock down a zerg as you can take out their hatchery. The rotational symmetry of this map makes it easy for terran if they spawn so that their third is close to the zerg/toss natural (PF + a few turrets can make it hard to counter the siege tanks).
Siegeing of the gas is somewhat ok IMHO, but I'd prefer if the natural is safe from harass which is hard to counter (ie. siege tanks on another cliff).
|
Yeah, Byzantium had low ground mains but your older version looked like it with a high ground main. I dunno, I dont really think that the tanks from the third should be able to attack the natural of the enemy, since its quite easy to defend and its quite some distance to attack the tank there. It could even just be one tank there and the rest of your army is defending your 3 bases that you got while also taking out their nat. I do not think that its a good idea to be able to hit the natural from the 3rd.
|
United States10184 Posts
it would be awesome of you put a gold at the high grounds bordering the center. 5 patches and 1 gas. i thi9nk you should move the natural a bit closer to the main, thus eliminating the tanks from shelling your natural... or you can move the edge gas to the other side.
why is everyone saying this is byzantium... to me, it... ooohhhhhh.... i see... lol, different tileset, and no mineral only that's close to the center... it kinda does look like byzantium...
|
On January 17 2011 04:39 No0n wrote:
Yeah, Byzantium had low ground mains but your older version looked like it with a high ground main. I dunno, I dont really think that the tanks from the third should be able to attack the natural of the enemy, since its quite easy to defend and its quite some distance to attack the tank there. It could even just be one tank there and the rest of your army is defending your 3 bases that you got while also taking out their nat. I do not think that its a good idea to be able to hit the natural from the 3rd.
Natural Advantages:
-easy to fast expand.
-easy to build static defense behind the mineral line.
Disadvantages:
-can be sieged from the adjacent third.
Zerg:
-can spread creep through the trees and creep into the adjacent third, but more importantly prevents proxy pylons from being able to warp units into your natural.
-roaches can attack a siege tank or proxy pylon without going around if it is close enough to the trees (four units).
-if u don't have ranged units, you can always go around with zerglings, but in Lost Temple you can't, and roaches cannot attack the tank if it is in the back.
Protoss:
-proxy pylon can warp units into the natural.
Terran:
-tanks, if positioned as close as possible to the trees, can hit workers and one of the geysers.
-if given line of sight from a unit (a viking or floating barracks) it can also hit the hatch/cc/nexus.
Notes:
-the trees act as LoSBs, so u'll have to have your tank positioned slightly to one side so that it can see.
-same goes with a proxy pylon.
It's balanced all right.
In 1.4 I'll be fixing the lighting, right now it's too bright.
@Flash - I'm not going to add gold expansions there. There's already enough expansions on the map and those plateaus are already vital positions to control. I'm going to upload a lot of replays soon, so be sure to check those out when I do.
|
The topic has been updated with intricate descriptions of racial balance and other strategic elements of Noon Hill. It will be continued to be updated with more strategic depth as I think of new strategies.
Wow.. when I first looked at the map I thought "is this byzantium?"
No... This is better than Byzantium. 
|
Version 1.4 is now on B.net.
I fixed the lighting and swapped out the trees between the natural and the third to four pieces of foliage instead. The only difference is that foliage won't act as LoSBs.
~Enjoy~
EDIT: Going to play some games right now (8:30 EST). Join channel "obs" or message me if you wanna play or spectate. Antares.811.
|
1.5 is now up, but the image is not updated.
Lighting is fixed. And this time I mean it.
1.6 is up.
This time I mean it. Also, the middle and plateaus have been slightly redesigned to help nerf Terran Siege Tanks and Sentry Force Fields, which were too difficult to deal with before.
+ Show Spoiler [1.6 Overview] +
EDIT: I am a liar the lighting isn't fixed. D:
|
Finished 1.7.
+ Show Spoiler [1.7 Overview] +
I added some cool doodads where the forests were, and some mini islands not shown in the overview. The lighting should be fixed, but no promises.
EDIT: OMG the image isn't flipped! I wonder if Blizzard fixed that bug on Macs...
|
I added a download link to a folder containing five replays.
Download ZvT, TvT, PvZ (4 Gate), PvZ, PvZ Cross Spawns
I highly recommend watching the TvT replay, it demonstrates the map's potential for rushes and macro games along with how important it is to control the plateaus. It was on Noon Hill 1.5, when the middle ground was lowered, so it is slightly out of date, but it's a really good game.
|
So... has anyone seen any of the replays yet? I'm just really curious on what people think about this map and the gameplay.
|
Bump.
Final version is up and will be submitted for MotM #2 shortly!
^_^
|
I don't remember it exactly, but when I looked at the first version I knew you'd be able to make big improvements here and there so I didn't post any feedback. Now I have to say, this is definitely the most solid map of yours I've seen. It hits that money spot where no frills is golden and captivating. glhf motm! ;0
I'm going to watch that tvt and report back when I have the chance.
|
On February 03 2011 09:23 EatThePath wrote:
I don't remember it exactly, but when I looked at the first version I knew you'd be able to make big improvements here and there so I didn't post any feedback. Now I have to say, this is definitely the most solid map of yours I've seen. It hits that money spot where no frills is golden and captivating. glhf motm! ;0
I'm going to watch that tvt and report back when I have the chance.
Thanks! I'm glad you like it!
The version that the TvT took place on is outdated, the only difference is the extra ramp to each of the plateaus and the middle is raised up a level, but it should still convey the feeling of how a TvT would unfold on it.
|
Simplicity is this maps strong suit. It has a good flow leading to the center and I like the high ground cliffs surrounding it. Nice work. I can't see any glaring imbalances. In fact, I would argue the map is very well balanced. Neat!
|
On February 03 2011 10:55 lovablemikey wrote:
Simplicity is this maps strong suit. It has a good flow leading to the center and I like the high ground cliffs surrounding it. Nice work. I can't see any glaring imbalances. In fact, I would argue the map is very well balanced. Neat!
Thanks, I agree, it is ridiculously simple. The first version I had was insane and looked like Byzantium with high ground mains crammed into a 126x124 map. So the versions that I've released have been making the map more and more simple, and with it came balance.
The only imbalance that I've encountered is that the high ground plateaus have been favoring Terran and Protoss. The last two or three versions served the sole purpose of balancing them out by raising the middle ground and adding another 3x ramp that leads into the middle.
I haven't run a lot of test games on the last two versions, so the plateaus may or may not be racially balanced, but they appear more balanced towards Zerg since the extra ramp has been added.
|
On February 03 2011 11:34 Antares777 wrote:
Thanks, I agree, it is ridiculously simple. The first version I had was insane and looked like Byzantium with high ground mains crammed into a 126x124 map. So the versions that I've released have been making the map more and more simple, and with it came balance.
The only imbalance that I've encountered is that the high ground plateaus have been favoring Terran and Protoss. The last two or three versions served the sole purpose of balancing them out by raising the middle ground and adding another 3x ramp that leads into the middle.
I haven't run a lot of test games on the last two versions, so the plateaus may or may not be racially balanced, but they appear more balanced towards Zerg since the extra ramp has been added.
I did think the cliffs might be a little too siege friendly, but with the wide ramp I decided not to mention it, but now that you mention it; I think if the ramps closest to the naturals were all rotated 45 degrees clockwise, so that they are either vertical or horizontal instead of diagonal, it would make things better for the defending player. Right now they create a funnel because units need to run at the ramp and then turn 90 degrees to get up the ramp. That can be a problem for melee units. I drew a picture to give you a better idea of what I mean.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a5egp.jpg)
|
D: This map doesnt look like Byzantium anymore. Hmm I think that being able to tank the natural still isn't that good an idea. Imagine if a terran spawns at 10.5 and a zerg spawns at 7.5. If you use any sort of bio mech strategy you can take 3 bases very easily, put a hellion at the watchtower to watch for flanks, AND make the zerg not mine the much needed gas in this MU. Also I think there could be a problem with warp ins there without having any risk of the pylon getting killed.
|
@mikey - I might experiment with different ramp orientation there, good call. I just want to firsthand witness a few ZvT games before I might any decision like that.
@No0n - Roaches can more often than not attack Siege Tanks if they are too close to the foliage, and flanking them is also easy. A Hellion at the XWT isn't going to do much, the Zerg player will just move up through his adjacent plateau and avoid being seen. The XWT only gives sight up to a small portion of each of the plateaus. You can always go around and attack with roaches.
Zerg can place a creep tumor by the foliage and the creep will spread through it, preventing the building of a proxy pylon close enough to warp units into the main.
|
I can see great games happening on this map
Texture work is very ugly though
|
On February 03 2011 21:15 sob3k wrote:
I can see great games happening on this map
Texture work is very ugly though
Particularly, what areas need better texturing? I gave the middle and the plateaus a sort of overgrown feel and as it moved out towards the naturals a more rusted/overgrown metal area and gave the mains a natural feel but not as overgrown as the center. I'm not the best at texturing and always felt very weak in aesthetics. Is it my blending that needs work?
|
On February 04 2011 05:16 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 21:15 sob3k wrote:
I can see great games happening on this map
Particularly, what areas need better texturing? I gave the middle and the plateaus a sort of overgrown feel and as it moved out towards the naturals a more rusted/overgrown metal area and gave the mains a natural feel but not as overgrown as the center. I'm not the best at texturing and always felt very weak in aesthetics. Is it my blending that needs work?
Here is the problem:
You went about texturing starting with a base texture that was applied over the entire map and then sprayed additional textures around on top of it. This isn't how well textured maps are made because the results almost always look spotty and messy.
The odd blue spots are particularly....prominent. Why are they there? Why do they just look like a dude with a can of spraypaint spritzed them there.
+ Show Spoiler +
You need to texture with a different mindset. Start with laying down a a few different base textures for some different "zones" of the map. Maybe one base texture for the main and nat, one for the center and third, and maybe another for the raised areas in the center, its your decision. Lay these down thick, then after the map has been "zoned", concentrate on blending the areas and adding accents. You need to use a heavier hand (I recommend using a less light opacity and flow) and make conscious decisions about why these details are where you place them. What you really don't want to do is go around sprinkling a bit of this and a bit of that to taste. Use edges a lot more as well and look at some of the Iccup maps as an inspiration (Sungsu Crossing and Rhinelands are great maps for a more natural look, and they have some other good examples of more techy maps like Pawn).
|
On February 04 2011 16:03 sob3k wrote:Here is the problem: You went about texturing starting with a base texture that was applied over the entire map and then sprayed additional textures around on top of it. This isn't how well textured maps are made because the results almost always look spotty and messy. The odd blue spots are particularly....prominent. Why are they there? Why do they just look like a dude with a can of spraypaint spritzed them there. + Show Spoiler +You need to texture with a different mindset. Start with laying down a a few different base textures for some different "zones" of the map. Maybe one base texture for the main and nat, one for the center and third, and maybe another for the raised areas in the center, its your decision. Lay these down thick, then after the map has been "zoned", concentrate on blending the areas and adding accents. You need to use a heavier hand (I recommend using a less light opacity and flow) and make conscious decisions about why these details are where you place them. What you really don't want to do is go around sprinkling a bit of this and a bit of that to taste. Use edges a lot more as well and look at some of the Iccup maps as an inspiration (Sungsu Crossing and Rhinelands are great maps for a more natural look, and they have some other good examples of more techy maps like Pawn).
Those blue spots must be plants, did I placed them in random/bad locations?
Here's how I texture (after making the map's layout):
-Fill different areas i.e. the mains, the naturals, the middle, etc each with a different texture.
-Add other textures on too of them to create a unique feel.
The map does look similar in areas, but upon closer inspection it is not similar. The middle and the plateaus vary from the natural, mains, and thirds. They are all different. I'm going to use a different title set if I make a new version, I'm not really feeling it for this lighting and title set.
I feel like my blending skills are okay, but could use improvement. Fusing metal with organic textures is really hard for me to do. I use the metal like an organic texture, which obviously doesn't work.
There are not a lot of rough edges on this map, I understand what you mean by that. I can try to fix it, but right now I'm a bit discouraged with the map and may return to it later or just remake it.
|
Thats not exactly what I meant, you can easily take the watchtower, put an SCV on the plateau leading into your natural, and have your army on top of the plateau to protect the siege tanks. Since siege tanks have 13 range, roaches really dont matter with their 4(?) range. You can still hit many mineral patches and hit one of the gas geysers, which is pretty bad for a zerg.
|
I watched a couple replays and played a game. It plays out nicely as the map gets used up. 
I feel like tanks are a little too powerful around the natural, but you can fight it before they get into that position. It definitely favours terran against zerg on certain spawns though.
About the textures, they come off as willy nilly. I also suffer from too light a touch. I find it's helpful to put down an extreme version of what you're planning and then work backwards. It helps your eyes adjust to the idea. The textures here look bland and unkempt without particular attention, even though it might not have been meant that way. You might use more doodads as queues for what to expect out of a given area, it could help keep a light touch but make the whole thing appear more cohesive. Also the lighting would definitely have an effect. Overall it doesn't look bad at all in game though, it just comes off as unrefined.
|
yeah, im really digging the layout, but i think the texturing could use a bit of work. while i like the different take on it, it still needs to be grounded. for instance maybe make the ramps in the middle industrial and darken the edges of the overgrown part to really make things pop and contrast.PAINT example lolz + Show Spoiler +
keep the non standard color theme you got going on though.
|
I was working on a remake of Noon Hill using different title set, here it is:
+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +
I tried texturing differently, and it took a lot more time so I hope this version is better. It is positioned slightly differently which created more air space behind the mains (the corners) and overall increased map size. The plateaus are slightly smaller and the ramps are positioned facing towards the expansions, with the exception of the one that faces the middle. The natural choke is now 10 units wide instead of 9 units wide. Everything else remains the same.
140x140
Ulaan Title Set
Rush Distances: Unknown (larger than on Noon Hill 1.8 probably)
This isn't on B.net, but I'd still like to hear what everyone thinks, especially about the textures.
|
That looks a lot better.
In general though, its missing a dimension somehow... I think if you made the 3rd on lowground, it would help the map in general because--
-tanking the natural would be a bit harder
-make 3rds slightly harder to hold
-add dynamics to the map
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Rush Distances (Close - Nat2Nat)? Why did you change the tileset?
|
On February 06 2011 02:36 monitor wrote:
That looks a lot better.
In general though, its missing a dimension somehow... I think if you made the 3rd on lowground, it would help the map in general because--
-tanking the natural would be a bit harder
-make 3rds slightly harder to hold
-add dynamics to the map
exactly what I thought! i'd try it.
on texturing: it looks much better now. try to define different tones for different zones or levels. take a look at MudRock (very prominent design feature here) or also Shrike (violet on level3, warm grey on level2, blue, cold grey on level1)
|
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?
|
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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?
|
Not without major gameplay changes
|
On February 10 2011 10:23 iGrok wrote:
Not without major gameplay changes
Would this be ok?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/45FeH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2XFHm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RDiRF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9ZfUr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6jJdj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/FeW0o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6yR7d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jBGBO.jpg)
