|
On April 07 2012 03:10 monitor wrote:?? The only similarity I see that ties Afterglow to daybreak is the 1gas; you're right in that regard. But Afterglow is reflection symmetry, requires lots of highground map control to expand, has one tower seeing the attack paths, has a wide open middle, etc.
I suppose it would be a pretty good idea at this point to sticky some sort of message, like a treatise on the similarity and structure of maps(or something along those lines), which stems from the necessary achievement of balance in a map. Something you learn as you get better as a mapper is that you can only really experiment in so many ways, much like when playing SC2 at a high level. Putting out a message like this, to act as a sort of announcement, could curtail this type of post, as well as enlighten some posters who don't quite understand the way things work yet. Having received these posts myself as well, I know it's a frustrating thing to experience.
On a side note, why does every map have to resemble daybreak? Goodness.
|
On April 06 2012 13:07 monitor wrote:
I am still concerned that there may be too few bases. I'm looking for solutions.
http://postimage.org/image/uk4by3v4t/
Would that work at all? The base between the ramps would have the gas in the middle to protect them a little. It does force you to keep your army in the middle though. The one at 12 o'clock meh...I don't like it at the bottom of the ramps, but it does make it a little more like your natural.
I dunno...just a thought.
|
I feel like the top of the map will be underused, because the attack paths are so far apart from the top.
|
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are.
|
On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are.
Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated.
I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth.
I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that.
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that.
Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool?
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool?
True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though 
|
On April 09 2012 02:59 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool? True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though
Please don't raise/lower the central ground, I like the way it plays at the moment. It just needs more bases- from a Zerg perspective, you can never really get a true 'fifth', unless you have a massive lead.
|
On April 09 2012 04:16 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 02:59 monitor wrote:On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool? True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though Please don't raise/lower the central ground, I like the way it plays at the moment. It just needs more bases- from a Zerg perspective, you can never really get a true 'fifth', unless you have a massive lead.
I'm currently working on a bid update (and must say, I'm redoing the aesthetics because I'm changing so much) that will encorporate central highground that isn't too powerful, an extra expansion per player, and a non-lowground natural.
|
On April 09 2012 04:38 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:16 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 09 2012 02:59 monitor wrote:On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool? True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though Please don't raise/lower the central ground, I like the way it plays at the moment. It just needs more bases- from a Zerg perspective, you can never really get a true 'fifth', unless you have a massive lead. I'm currently working on a bid update (and must say, I'm redoing the aesthetics because I'm changing so much) that will encorporate central highground that isn't too powerful, an extra expansion per player, and a non-lowground natural.
Yay! I despised the aesthetics- but that's just cause I like clean and nice, but Timetwister seems to adore the smattered terran
|
wow, ZvT will be so 1 sided here, just think of a contain on the high ground near the nat, a few bunkers and a couple of tanks and there will be needed ALOT to break it, all this while the terran can expo freely and harras some.
you should really think of maybe giving a back door to the main or moving the high ground further away to make contains just slightly less powerful.
|
I love the trees in this map, gives a Jap feel to it 
|
Okay I've worked up 3 different versions. Please leave comments and vote in the poll which is your favorite version! If you don't like any or want a mix between two versions, explain it!
Version a: One bottom base, full middle expansions, lowground middle, no rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Version b: One bottom base, half middle expansions, highground middle, no rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Version c: Two bottom bases, half middle expansions, lowground middle, rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Poll: Which is your favorite version?c (10) 71% a (2) 14% b (2) 14% 14 total votes Your vote: Which is your favorite version? (Vote): a
(Vote): b
(Vote): c
|
C, but widen the ramps into the middle lowground all the way to 5.
I actually realy like that layout.
|
On April 10 2012 01:48 wrl wrote:
C, but widen the ramps into the middle lowground all the way to 5.
I actually realy like that layout.
Hmm.. I am strongly leading towards A because I think it makes better use of the space and expansions. I also like being able to have full middle expos. On C, I sort of thought that considering how many expos there are in a small space, I should keep the middle expos half.
Part of my idea with the 2x ramps leading into the middle lowground was to force players to go around and use other parts of the map. I can certainly widen the ramps, but 5x would be everywhere else almost useless to engage imo.
|
I like B. I like the contested base...give something to fight over instead of splitting the map down the middle (like what would happen in C). I don't like A because cutting across the middle puts you at a disadvantage (you have low ground) so someone turtling up on their side of the map has a little more of a defenders advantage (which I don't like).
|
United States1971 Posts
Of the versions you suggested, I would say C is the best. However, I feel that there are very few maps with a natural expansion that is on low ground. The first version of Afterglow was unique in that sense. If you do decide to change it, then I seriously hope that you make another map with that type of natural. It is something that hasn't been done that often before, but definitely deserves more attention.
|
On April 10 2012 10:09 Antares777 wrote:
Of the versions you suggested, I would say C is the best. However, I feel that there are very few maps with a natural expansion that is on low ground. The first version of Afterglow was unique in that sense. If you do decide to change it, then I seriously hope that you make another map with that type of natural. It is something that hasn't been done that often before, but definitely deserves more attention.
Good point. I was actually just thinking about that (I've been working on the map almost all day...). I might include the lowground natural on this map to reinforce the "control highground" concept. Also the middle is going to be highground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/83GUa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gtDya.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FRjOX.jpg)
