|
I have to agree with you dezi, it gets too hard to hold that expansion and 2 base play is usually not so interesting to watch.
So that idea is now scrapped (even though it would have been interesting with the sight blockers).
Updated the version on the battle net:
1.1 Changes:
- Added a few doodads
- Added two critters
- Texture work
- Added water which I had forgot to add
Updated OP with new overview images.
EDIT: The changes does NOT include the changes I posted a few posts earlier, I will probably never implement them in the published map.
Have anyone tested the map (except for me) ? If so, what did you think? Anything which didn't feel right?
|
I've made some testing with the trees, and as soon as I add enough trees to make it look like a forest, I see a frame-rate drop (not so huge, when on medium I see ~30->22, otherwise 60->50) when looking at the forest 
So I guess there is no choice but to live with it, because otherwise it will ruin the look of the map (most of all trees are just outside map bounds, I guess that at most 2000 of the 5000 trees are on the playable map itself).
I have no idea why other doodads does not cause these frame-rate drops (maybe just because we don't use as many as we do trees when making a forest).
Btw, didn't Neo Enigma have framerate problems? Were those resolved? If so, how?
|
I really love the design! Looks like great game-play, nice job overall. I only see two issues that are minor, and could be fixed easily (if at all)-
a) The main seems a bit small. You could increase the back of it a tiny bit, and then move minerals back appropriately. It would put more space between the ramp, but you want more space to build. Keep in mind, I just think it should be increased a tiny bit because its slightly awkward right now.
b) The 3rd's ramp seems to stick out a lot. Maybe consider moving it back a tad to make it more viable in cross positions? Right now you have to keep complete map control to take it.
Btw, didn't Neo Enigma have framerate problems? Were those resolved? If so, how?
edit: Neo Enigma's FPS issues were fixed by removing fire from various places.
|
Updated to: 1.2!
Changes:
- Changed the ramp to the middle thirds: moved it towards the third and made it a bit more narrow
- Doodads
- Texturing
Updated images in OP according to changes.
(Take a look at the HQ overview, it is really beautiful  )
On January 24 2011 07:53 monitor wrote:
I really love the design! Looks like great game-play, nice job overall. I only see two issues that are minor, and could be fixed easily (if at all)-
a) The main seems a bit small. You could increase the back of it a tiny bit, and then move minerals back appropriately. It would put more space between the ramp, but you want more space to build. Keep in mind, I just think it should be increased a tiny bit because its slightly awkward right now.
It is 32 CommandCenters big, I've added a picture of an example terran main below. If you still think it is too small, I will consider making it larger.
+ Show Spoiler [Example terran main] +
On January 24 2011 07:53 monitor wrote:
b) The 3rd's ramp seems to stick out a lot. Maybe consider moving it back a tad to make it more viable in cross positions? Right now you have to keep complete map control to take it.
Moved them a bit, just one tile. But that also made the ramp narrower, which hopefully will help defending it. I cannot move the ramp farther back, as then I will have to move the minerals too, which will pose some problems because they will be too close to the mains.
+ Show Spoiler [Watchtower coverage and 3rds] +
On January 24 2011 07:53 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +Btw, didn't Neo Enigma have framerate problems? Were those resolved? If so, how? edit: Neo Enigma's FPS issues were fixed by removing fire from various places.
I don't have many particle effects on my map, so that was not so much help then
Must be something in how the trees are made as a model (I guess they are simple polys with alpha, which can be hard to compute when they are layered as they are in a forest).
|
you killed by idea for third again!  anyway, rightly so. third would work better/saver with ramp at back end though. I am just happy you used my feedback in the collaboration thread for some good and some bad experimental changes.. it turned out quite nice.
although visuals are not very special, they look interesting enough, it's a clean design and everything works really nicely.
very, very solid layout. probably one of the best mirrorsymmetry4player maps I think.
|
Is it possible for tanks to go in the area for the third and shoot over the 'forrest' into the your natural? If so it could be problematic
|
On January 24 2011 22:01 Samro225am wrote:you killed by idea for third again! anyway, rightly so. third would work better/saver with ramp at back end though. I am just happy you used my feedback in the collaboration thread for some good and some bad experimental changes.. it turned out quite nice.
Hehe, seems like that idea just won't work on this particular layout. The reasoning is that it will be too hard to take when spawning close positions, as you have two lanes to attack with and both are short and starts just outside your natural. Plus it would probably favor terran because of the LoS blockers combined with high-ground for tanks.
What I wanted was to make the 3rd behind the rocks somewhat equally safe when spawning in the 6 vs 9 locations as the 3rd on high-ground is when spawning 6 vs 3. So you always will have a nice expansion pattern, no matter where your opponent is.
On January 24 2011 22:01 Samro225am wrote:
although visuals are not very special, they look interesting enough, it's a clean design and everything works really nicely.
very, very solid layout. probably one of the best mirrorsymmetry4player maps I think.
Well, the thing is that the visuals of this map is to be very glum, and I cannot really just put a Xel'Naga statue there, it just wouldn't match the feeling.
I try to add more and more doodads incrementally (mainly smaller details which doesn't really show up on the HQ overview as they are small), but I have to be careful so I don't ruin that feel by making the map a pile of mismatched stuff.
(Also, the fog and rain contribute greatly to the look-and-feel of this map.)
As for the layout: I first started with ideas from Metalopolis (the basic 4 player mirror setup and expansion pattern, which makes for good macro games when not starting close positions), Scrap station (the path between expansions which are shortened when rocks are destroyed) and Xel'Naga Caverns (the 3rd with short path blocked by rocks).
I think I managed to take good stuff from all of those maps an create the layout, and I'm happy that you think it is so good! 
EDIT:
On January 24 2011 22:59 Tiazi wrote:
Is it possible for tanks to go in the area for the third and shoot over the 'forrest' into the your natural? If so it could be problematic
No, it is impossible by design. But they might be able to shell at a turret behind the mineral line, depending on where it is placed.
|
Fixed a problem with mineral placement on the 3rds between the rocks.
1.3 uploaded.
|
Very cool looking map, I would love to play it. One little balance issue though is that there seems to be a lot less flying space behind the 4 o'clock main compared to any of the others, with muta or banshee harrass that's a pretty big deal.
|
From the picture you posted, I'd say the mains are fine. I was just confused because of the large map picture, sorry!
|
I just started learning to make maps, and I came upon this, and It makes me want to be better. Keep up the good work man!
|
On January 25 2011 07:57 Tizoc wrote:
Very cool looking map, I would love to play it. One little balance issue though is that there seems to be a lot less flying space behind the 4 o'clock main compared to any of the others, with muta or banshee harrass that's a pretty big deal.
That is not the case, the overview is not rendered from directly above, so it will look like some expansions have more space than the others, but I've made sure so that they all have equal amounts of space for air units (the map bounding line is equidistant from the edges of the mains on all positions).
The map is published on the US server, so go ahead, try it
On January 25 2011 08:14 monitor wrote:
From the picture you posted, I'd say the mains are fine. I was just confused because of the large map picture, sorry!
People usually are, I've started to only look at the map analyzer summary when it comes to main size, as that is usually more accurate
(no worries, the concern is justified as if it is too small it will be a pain to play on, same goes for the shape)
On January 25 2011 18:15 thurst0n wrote:
I just started learning to make maps, and I came upon this, and It makes me want to be better. Keep up the good work man!
Thanks!
(Don't give up on your mapmaking!)
|
1.4 Released!
Changes:
- Reshaped 3rds in the middle and also changed the single ramp to two ramps which are closer to the natural ramps
- Textures and doodads changed to accommodate ramp changes
Images in OP updated, look at them for details.
The reasoning behind this is as Samro255am has said earlier, to make the center 3rd easier to hold. After some discussion with a friend he suggested to keep the general shape on the 3rds, but to split the ramp into two and move them towards the gas geysers.
(So no ramp from the back as you wanted Samro255am, but something similar)
This makes it easier to hold when playing mid-distance positions (not close air), as the opponent has to move his army a lot to get to the ramp farthest from your natural ramp. But it also opens up another path to you, one which isn't covered by a watchtower.
What do you all think?
|
Brilliant, sexy lookin map.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Nat 2 Nat close now much more closer :/
|
blizzard needs to add this map to the pool
|
On January 28 2011 07:52 dezi wrote:
Nat 2 Nat close now much more closer :/
Only by the length of a *single* Supply Depot (ie. 2 units of length on the map analyzer). So the difference is not large at all.
I think I can make it longer by extending the cliff from the 3rd into the center, or add a chasm/pool of water from that cliff into the middle.
Will experiment a bit and see if it is necessary.
@dezi: Do you think the general layout is an improvement, if you ignore the shortening of the rush distance?
@NastyMarine & Snake_Doc: Thanks for the compliments!
|
I really, really love this map. Been playing a lot against the computer on it; I have a feeling this will be one of my go-to maps when playing custom 1v1s with friends!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
In general it's an improvement.
|
Published 1.5
(on EU, US will be up soon)
Change Log:
- Added "lakes" next to high-ground thirds, to narrow the two "lanes" a bit in the middle and also make the rush distance a tiny bit longer when going in the open area
- Minor doodads and texturing
Now I will submit this to MotM #2, let us hope it scores better than my last map!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2mo9D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jZxD4.jpg)
