Hmm... okay thanks guys. I'm working on the aesthetics. I think this revamped version is WAAAAY better, because it makes the 9 and 3 bases worth taking (and easier to take), as well as having multiple ways in and out of there. The golds are also on lower ground, but still are vulnerable. Oooooh I can't wait to re-post it!

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

May 28 2011 00:18 GMT

#83

I'm very much looking forward to the new version... It's sort of like what I suggested before, but I think it will be better. Can't wait to see it to see exactly how it turns out.

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

May 28 2011 00:37 GMT

#84

Glad it seems you like my ideas. :D Hopefully it turns out nicely and can't wait to see what you end up doing to it. Best case is it makes it a lot more enjoyable to play, worst case you just revert back to how you had it since it seemed to be just as good of a map that way.

Updated Screenshots, now!

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 28 2011 00:40 GMT

#85

Lol it won't be up till late tonight or tomorrow... I have to leave for work in 10 minutes. I'm using your idea #2 and to be honest, it has turned out to be sexier than I thought. There were 2 main complaints concerning bases that I got from players:

1) The gold shouldn't be on high ground.

and

2) The 9 and 3 bases only had 1 entrance, which was bad in their mind.

With your second Idea, both of these problems are fixed. The corner bases, as well as the 9 and 3 bases are on high ground, and the gold is on low ground. The 9 and 3 bases have two entrances now (it's also much easier to expand to from the center base). The gold has good positioning but is still vulnerable to the high ground behind it (but, all in all, think realistically... are all players really going to siege a gold expo from up there on a path that's in the corner of the map? probably not).

I have the other version of the original map saved as a different file, but to be honest I think this revamped version 2 will be much, much better.

Sidian, I like you because your idea rocks and it put my original version to shame (seriously), but I dislike you because it required me to do so much work xD

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

May 28 2011 01:01 GMT

#86

<3!

Looking forward to it bud. Maybe when you post that version I'll throw out some more ideas for you to hate me for! ^_^

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

May 28 2011 05:09 GMT

#87

I'm glad you're willing to do all the work to improve it so much. Very much appreciated.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 28 2011 20:34 GMT

#88

Version 2 is now posted on the front page of this thread! I have added a brand new poll as well, seeing what the community likes more; version 1 or version 2 (screenshots for both so you can compare). Enjoy! All aesthetics will be updated soon.

Want to play version 2? Search 'Razgem 2.0'

FoxyMayhem

624 Posts

May 28 2011 21:04 GMT

#89

Wow, version 2 looks so distinct! And, the map has a more open and dynamic feel, which I like. Very nice, this looks pro.

Razgem? I'm curious the history behind that name.

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

May 28 2011 21:06 GMT

#90

Version two looks great. Nice job.

Looking forward to analyzer pics and closeups for it.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 28 2011 21:28 GMT

#91

Razgem was the original name. I didn't want to re-publish as 'Scars 2.0' because the original map version is Scars 1.6, so it wouldn't make sense. It's like overwriting it then.

FoxyMayhem

624 Posts

May 28 2011 22:40 GMT

#92

More names:

The Lost Sanctuairy
The Lost Island
Forsaken Temple
Tal'Darim Island
Dark Sanctuary (Not fitting the style of the map, but a cool name none the less)

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 28 2011 22:51 GMT

#93

I plan to re-name it once it's entirely finished. I'm thinking about the architexture... I don't know how to block certain paths with rocks that can change the metagame. Any feedback is appreciated. So far it looks like version 2 is in favor of taking over.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 29 2011 00:25 GMT

#94

Version 2 will probably be the one that takes it anyway because in version 1, all bases except the main and golds are on low ground, which makes it boring and bland. In Version 2, more bases are on higher ground all over, so it makes it more interesting for base setups. On top of all that, people disliked the golds on the high ground, and wanted bases with more than one entrance. Both of these were addressed, which makes version 2 (in my mind) ideal and more interesting overall. I can't wait to beta test it

I also plan to do more aesthetic work to it in the near future.

lefix

Germany1082 Posts

May 29 2011 01:21 GMT

#95

i like the word "architexture" :D

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

May 29 2011 01:55 GMT

#96

Looking good IronMan, from first glance I like version 2 better. I think you should make the cliffs by the golds organic instead of manmade because I think the manmade cliffs over there look a little out of place. I won't be able to get on sc2 and play tonight but hopefully tomorrow I can hop on and mess around with it and see how I like it.

Also, of course if I think of anything else I'll be sure to let you know.

FoxyMayhem

624 Posts

May 29 2011 03:21 GMT

#97

I disagree with changing the cliffs to manmade. To me it feels distinct and prominent, and a bit like the area's from which you extract terrazine gas in the campaign. Which is good, considering how important those came to feel, what with the Tal'Darim going all viscous on you.

Why do you feel you need to make something unpathable? (Using the pathing brush is a better way of making sure units don't get stuck. Combining the pathing brush and doodads look and perform the best, in case you didn't know, though I doubt you didn't.)

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 29 2011 06:18 GMT

#98

Okay, concerning the man-made walls at the gold expansions, I experimented with the walls and how they interconnect and whatnot, and came up with the following:

[image loading]

Does this fix seem more reasonable for the gold expansions?

I'm also fixing the corner base minerals, because they look really funky in revamped overview picture. And you can expect more doodads and aesthetics soon.

@Foxy:
I feel I need to somehow give the meta-game a chance to change and adapt depending on key points on this map. Some maps, like GSL Crevasse, have rocks in various places. If you destroy those rocks, shorter rush distances are available, and more paths become useful. If you avoid the rocks, the rush distance and attack paths is long and limited. I feel that I need to somehow do something like that to this map, although i'm just not sure how or where or what to do.

FoxyMayhem

624 Posts

May 29 2011 16:03 GMT

#99

Hm, an interesting thought. However, I'll meet your "other maps" and raise you one: Xel'Naga Caverns, the highest praised and most played map, does not have a shorter attack path opened by destroying rocks. I don't think every map needs a shorter path like that, and your map has plenty of dynamic features already.

As for the cliffs, I'm not trying to force my preference on you. I would like to know you're reasoning behind adjusting them to natural though, because I feel like it looses the distinction and significance I mentioned in my previous post (features that will help people remember your map after first glance).

EDIT: Oh, that's mist and not water around the map? More names! The Sacred Plateau, Temple Apex, Apex Shrine,

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 29 2011 18:24 GMT

#100

Foxy, if I remember in your last post, you said "I disagree with changing the cliffs to manmade" as if you were agreeing with Sidian, who said the upper cliffs around the gold should be made to organic. That is what I did. They felt out of place. In fact, it was hard to adjust to them because the trees in the screenshot had to cover up the 'end pieces' to those walls because I couldn't make it look good.

With the updated SS above, the gold expansion looks a little more distinct I think. It makes it feel like a built-platform (in a sense).

As for the mist question: Around the edges of the map is water. All the holes within the land mass is mist and fog. It didn't make enough sense why there would be random pockets of water all over the map (besides assuming the builders poured buckets of water in there). I just want to make it look unique and real. The pockets in the center, however, will continue to have water, as I think that it just works with the center platform look.

Right now i'm working on some more aesthetics to give it a more destructive, yet 'homey' feel to it.

I have one question for the community. If you notice at the corner bases, it's all rugged, burned up, and destroyed. Should I change the water to lava in those areas to make it look better? Or should I leave it as water with fog?