EPT[M] (4) iCCup Neo Enigma by prodiG - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
| ||
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
Both are good though  | ||
|
DomiNater
United States527 Posts
| ||
|
Whiplash
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
On January 18 2011 04:01 NullCurrent wrote: How do you do pathing? I mean, I don't use doodads for it at all. Otherwise; a really awesome map with stunning visuals! Ok, 2500 is not so much, it must be the effects on some of the doodads making it lag (like particle spawners). I just added over 4000 trees to the map I'm currently making and no lag! | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
Is there any lag? BTW I'm on a Mac, so... | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
| ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
1 question - why you always place those movement blocking doodads. Isn't the movement layer itself not enough to accomplish this? //has been answered on the stream | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:45 dezi wrote: Ha, nice to see you working in the editor live on the stream ^^ 1 question - why you always place those movement blocking doodads. Isn't the movement layer itself not enough to accomplish this? //has been answered on the stream Just to re-post here for context, the reason I don't use the movement layer is because it is straight up broken,. and I don't trust it at all. I've ran into multiple times where players have dropped units or walked up cliffs that they shouldn't have been able to, and the doodad blockers are foolproof in that regard. I also use 1x1 building blocker doodads to create a checkerboard for unbuildable terrain: This allows zerg players to still create creep tumors with ease but prevents things like pylons, turrets or proxy. I use 1x1 doodads because I can select a group and copy/paste rather than spend hours clicking the tiles with the pathing layer. I got the map down from, 2900 doodads to 1900, 350 of which are pathing blockers. Let me know how it runs now! | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
 . also i dont really like the broken edges around the map. they look slick but its hard to see where you can actually go, especially if your harassing with hellions or w/e. | ||
|
Tiazi
Netherlands761 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On January 18 2011 09:19 WniO wrote: Yeah, it plays a bit smoother, still 80< fps on low for me . also i dont really like the broken edges around the map. they look slick but its hard to see where you can actually go, especially if your harassing with hellions or w/e.interesting point, ill be sure to keep this in mind (and I may change it yet) | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
| ||
|
Nifel
706 Posts
| ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
7 nodes on thirds and 5 on gold bases? What's with mappers liking to remove 1 node from an expansion? It's like that on shakuras for ALL expansions except mains, but that maps too awesome to discard it for that reason. I see no point at all to it. Not a fan of gimmick expansions. This map also looks awfully small besides cross-positions and looks really cramp. On January 17 2011 23:31 Samro225am wrote: this game performs so bad performancewise. concerning the map: i really like how everything is so compressed, no useless space. think it is more interesting than the original with its rather linear expansions (1-3). looking forward to play it. Is that why a lot of these maps are nothing but narrow funnels? | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On January 18 2011 13:26 Ownos wrote: I like the center xelnaga. Watches the primary path between bases. It does however become useless when the rocks go down, then you never ever have to pass the center if it isn't cross-positions. Bad. 7 nodes on thirds and 5 on gold bases? What's with mappers liking to remove 1 node from an expansion? It's like that on shakuras for ALL expansions except mains, but that maps too awesome to discard it for that reason. I see no point at all to it. Not a fan of gimmick expansions. This map also looks awfully small besides cross-positions and looks really cramp. Is that why a lot of these maps are nothing but narrow funnels? *Ahem* You described exactly how the center tower is supposed to work. It sees all of one of two major possible routes of attack. There is a reason why the third and gold have less minerals. With 8 and 6, both expansions become more valuable than their intention is. The concept is to leave a choice between taking the gold or the highground as your third expansion depending on the orientation of the spawns. If the gold had six patches, then you'd be at a relative disadvantage when your opponent can attack into the gold easier than you can attack into his (because with 6 patches at full saturation the expansion is too valuable to accomplish what I wanted here). This is not a gimmick expansion, the choice was made with precision and thought. The map is 128x128, rush distances horizontal and vertical distances are equal to LT Cross positions; cross positions here are about five seconds longer. Maps that are too open give Zerg too many options to flank (See: God's Garden). Maps that are too cramped give Protoss free wins with force fields (See: Crossfire). Finding balance between the two is a challenge but you can't have a wide open map and expect it to work. Finally, I'd like to point out that this is the kind of feedback that I have no interest in reading. I will acknowledge that it is your opinion and you have every right to post it, but there are some things that I'd like to point out. The first of which is that your post seems to be almost entirely theorycraft/speculation which is fine and is how this forum generally operates, but you move on to say things like "Bad" as if I've never done this before and I had no idea what placing a tower in the center would accomplish. If you are willing to provide to me some evidence that your claims have some weight and are legitimate issues, I am willing to consider them. Until then, I will disregard your entire post. Moving on! The map appears to have little to no framerate issues. I played a 26 minute game on it about an hour ago and I didn't run into any significant frame loss. I also had to remove most of the wicked awesome fire. Damn. iCCup Neo Enigma will be tested once again in tomorrow's iCCup Map Series and pending bug feedback will be up in EU (and as many other servers as possible) shortly after! The event starts at 8pm EST, be sure to tune in! | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
Is that why a lot of these maps are nothing but narrow funnels? These maps are not narrow funnels in the slightest. If you compare them to standard Blizzard maps, they have more open spaces. The chokes that are existent are placed for specific balance, concept, and expo pattern reasons. If there is a specific map example that you could point out with distinct imbalance by "narrow funnels" please tell, we will take it into consideration. 7 nodes on thirds and 5 on gold bases? What's with mappers liking to remove 1 node from an expansion? It's like that on shakuras for ALL expansions except mains, but that maps too awesome to discard it for that reason. I see no point at all to it. Not a fan of gimmick expansions. Adding on to what prodiG said (which is right too): On Neo Enigma, expansions are very compact around the main. You can very easily secure a natural, a 3rd, and a 4th following. The current expansions have less mineral patches to balance the tightness. If expansions had main: 8 nat: 8 HY: 6 4th: 8 Then it would likely be too easy to turtle. It is standard for 3rd/5ths to have 7 minerals. The high yield is not standard, but with 6 nodes it'd be too easy to saturate in certain spawn postions. If there is any question, we will know it from top-level player feedback in tomorrow's IMS. | ||
| ||
