|
your Country52798 Posts
barrin or someone can remove the WIP in the title if they want. 
Current Version: 1.0.
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IGhyF.jpg)
Aesthetics completed thanks to RFDaemoniac!
+ Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.0.1: + Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.0.2: + Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.1.0: + Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.2.0: + Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.2.1: + Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.2.2: + Show Spoiler +
Overview 0.2.3: + Show Spoiler +
Aesthetics: + Show Spoiler +Nothing yet.. TT Need to access map in-game.
Bounds: 140x148
Changelog:
0.0.2:
+ Show Spoiler +
-Re-arranged mineral line of third.
0.1.0:
+ Show Spoiler +
-Made choke into third smaller
-Pushed center bases back
-Made middle more chokey
-Removed high ground 6th
-Added an island.
-Added LoS blockers to choke into third
-Narrowed choke into natural, natural is still walled off the same.
-Added watchtowers.
-Added small cliff above 4th base.
0.2.0:
+ Show Spoiler + -Narrowed choke into vertical fourth base
-Added lots of high ground into center
-Added second choke into third blocked by rocks
-Moved watchtowers
0.2.1:
+ Show Spoiler +[Experimental] -Added backdoor passage behind fourth base -Cleared up center a bit -Did not remove island.
0.2.2:
+ Show Spoiler +-Touched up a few areas
-Removed mineral field blockers from center, narrowed entire passage slightly to compensate.
0.2.3:
+ Show Spoiler +-Fixed destructible rocks at third so that small units can not pass them (will require more testing?)
-Fixed mineral fields at 4th and island bases so that a town hall can be placed optimally
|
Lots of open space in the center. I think it could use a little more chokieness around what I assume is the third base. On a different note, I like how you made the header with terrain. Cool idea, I might try it for one of my threads.
|
Perhaps when you get around to textures and doodads, you could make little doodad clumps to make the center feel less open as on Ohana. Also if I was you I would rotate the minerals at the third so their back was to the map boundary. It isn't that having a siegable third min line is a bad thing in every situation, but also considering how far away that third is and also how in, say, a tvt a terran can push down from the top right and siege the mineral line almost as an afterthought, I would prefer to move the minerals a bit. Also it would decrease the distance workers have to go before they start mining so that it would be more similar to daybreak at an eyeball.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:32 Coppermantis wrote:
Lots of open space in the center. I think it could use a little more chokieness around what I assume is the third base.
The third is on the left?
On August 18 2012 13:47 Insomni7 wrote:
Perhaps when you get around to textures and doodads, you could make little doodad clumps to make the center feel less open as on Ohana. Also if I was you I would rotate the minerals at the third so their back was to the map boundary. It isn't that having a siegable third min line is a bad thing in every situation, but also considering how far away that third is and also how in, say, a tvt a terran can push down from the top right and siege the mineral line almost as an afterthought, I would prefer to move the minerals a bit. Also it would decrease the distance workers have to go before they start mining so that it would be more similar to daybreak at an eyeball.
Thank you for the feedback, I will change that very soom™.
|
your Country52798 Posts
|
feels super open 
|
I actually really like it. You should delete the highground 6th and tuck the half base a bit backwards, closer to the main.
If you do that, I would be honored to do some aesthetics. ^_^
|
In TvZ if T manages to siege up on that ridge between the nat and third it will be rather difficult for Z to break. Not sure if this is a problem that needs to be fixed or if it's just something that zergs will have to take into consideration and try to defend before terrans get to that spot.
|
On August 19 2012 03:16 -NegativeZero- wrote:
In TvZ if T manages to siege up on that ridge between the nat and third it will be rather difficult for Z to break. Not sure if this is a problem that needs to be fixed or if it's just something that zergs will have to take into consideration and try to defend before terrans get to that spot.
If the zerg doesn´t have a ton of creep all over that he deserves to lose. And if a terran manages to siege there anyway he has already won.
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 03:45 Terranlover wrote:
your getting better
I agree!
The 4th/5th base need work to make them more stable, less base-tradey. Right now they are open and towards the opponent, so it's easier to counter than defend.
No towers?
The 3rd base is too open and far away to be a viable PvZ 3rd. There is plenty of space to attack it via the high ground alone. I would shrink the outer low ground path down to a very narrow choke that has LosB to prevent walling it with a single 3x3. This would make the high ground the powerful defensive position it should be without sacrificing some 2prong/runby potential -- the concept of the 3rd is very cool and the distance is just right I think, it's just a little too hard right now (mostly from openness and wide entrances).
The open space can be dotted with clumps to micro around, or maybe you can add some more high ground structure or additional large negative space elements. It will depend on what you do with the corners. The 4th especially should be tucked further back, or it should be much more protected from a direct route from the enemy natural and center 4th.
Good concept keep working on it. ^^
|
Oh, so the open base was the fourth. I was just guessing based on proximity. Still, it needs to be less open. Far too exposed.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On August 19 2012 02:24 KapsyL wrote:feels super open
On August 19 2012 06:04 Coppermantis wrote:
Oh, so the open base was the fourth. I was just guessing based on proximity. Still, it needs to be less open. Far too exposed.
How should I go about doing this?
edit: Heh, it was answered later on.
I actually really like it. You should delete the highground 6th and tuck the half base a bit backwards, closer to the main.
If you do that, I would be honored to do some aesthetics. ^_^
Will do, thanks!
On August 19 2012 03:17 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 03:16 -NegativeZero- wrote:
In TvZ if T manages to siege up on that ridge between the nat and third it will be rather difficult for Z to break. Not sure if this is a problem that needs to be fixed or if it's just something that zergs will have to take into consideration and try to defend before terrans get to that spot. If the zerg doesn´t have a ton of creep all over that he deserves to lose. And if a terran manages to siege there anyway he has already won.
Pretty much, and if a terran does that before zerg can get creep there he can't have enough to hold it.
On August 19 2012 03:45 Terranlover wrote:
your getting better
<3
On August 19 2012 05:15 EatThePath wrote:I agree! The 4th/5th base need work to make them more stable, less base-tradey. Right now they are open and towards the opponent, so it's easier to counter than defend.
I suppose they are pretty exposed.
No towers?
Where should I put some? The center?
The 3rd base is too open and far away to be a viable PvZ 3rd. There is plenty of space to attack it via the high ground alone. I would shrink the outer low ground path down to a very narrow choke that has LosB to prevent walling it with a single 3x3. This would make the high ground the powerful defensive position it should be without sacrificing some 2prong/runby potential -- the concept of the 3rd is very cool and the distance is just right I think, it's just a little too hard right now (mostly from openness and wide entrances).
That is a very good idea. Will do.
The open space can be dotted with clumps to micro around, or maybe you can add some more high ground structure or additional large negative space elements. It will depend on what you do with the corners. The 4th especially should be tucked further back, or it should be much more protected from a direct route from the enemy natural and center 4th.
Not sure how I'll fix the center base (that is what you are referring to right). I'll add some clumps.
Thank you everyone! :D
|
your Country52798 Posts
Updated, but I'm not so sure about all the changes.
|
On August 19 2012 06:14 TehTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +The open space can be dotted with clumps to micro around, or maybe you can add some more high ground structure or additional large negative space elements. It will depend on what you do with the corners. The 4th especially should be tucked further back, or it should be much more protected from a direct route from the enemy natural and center 4th. Not sure how I'll fix the center base (that is what you are referring to right). I'll add some clumps.
Actually I meant the vertical 4th. What I mean is that if you take the 4th along the edge from your 3rd, if you want to defend it with your army, you are now completely across the map from your natural. The distance is about the same between the enemy's natural and your 4th as your own natural and your 4th. Along with the openness, it means that you have to have perfect scouting to ever have a hope of keeping your 4th base, unless you're really far ahead anyway.
On top of that, the enemy can expand towards your 4th by taking the middle base. That's really bad if you're zerg and your 4th and 5th are both "countered" by one enemy position. Now you have an island, which sort of mitigates the extent of the problem but the 4th is still as bad if not worse because it's even more open. I'd like to see some kind of intervening terrain between the edge 4th and the center of the map. And I'd like the distance increased between the edge 4th and the enemy's side.
About towers, I was just curious if you left them out for a reason, since such an open map (originally) seemed like the kind that needs towers to make the space manageable. If you put them close on either side of the rocks, I think it makes center control too strong since you could easily hold both towers and see most of all the routes across the map. Maybe they can be pulled further away from the rocks? Or even go on the outside of the high ground, giving a sort of Belshir Beach effect.
This is all my opinion, if you have contrary thoughts I am more voicing this for discussion as much as "do this to fix it". ^^
|
I came up with a couple of ideas for the center to reduce the extreame openness.
The first is more conservative, with a simple high dividing up the map with a few ramps. Drocks remain to open up the map in the mid game.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0UJfB.jpg)
This second one is a bit of a stretch but it's basically the first idea but the center high ground connects from the third bases. The thirds may also need to be raised to high ground to avoid shenanigans with blink stalkers before the obs gets out. The purple area I'm not to sure about. Maybe a lowground area like in the previous image. Or two ramps on either side of the high ground blocked by rocks.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BXFuk.jpg)
|
IF you make highgrounds in the center please make sure they are not too chokey. The way DigitalD suggests them to be is way too choked. I think an Antiga-style highground could be good. Just make sure that the ramps leading to that highground are at least 3x you main ramps size.
|
If I was a zerg I use a Roach/Bling/Ling style as I would love to draw the Terran out to his third, get a great concave while possibly dropping the main
|
your Country52798 Posts
Actually I meant the vertical 4th. What I mean is that if you take the 4th along the edge from your 3rd, if you want to defend it with your army, you are now completely across the map from your natural. The distance is about the same between the enemy's natural and your 4th as your own natural and your 4th. Along with the openness, it means that you have to have perfect scouting to ever have a hope of keeping your 4th base, unless you're really far ahead anyway.
I'm currently making it easier to get and defend the fourth base, hopefully it will be enough.
On top of that, the enemy can expand towards your 4th by taking the middle base. That's really bad if you're zerg and your 4th and 5th are both "countered" by one enemy position. Now you have an island, which sort of mitigates the extent of the problem but the 4th is still as bad if not worse because it's even more open. I'd like to see some kind of intervening terrain between the edge 4th and the center of the map. And I'd like the distance increased between the edge 4th and the enemy's side.
If the terran is threatening the fourth through the center base, the zerg has the option to draw forces away by backstabbing the natural, or (s)he can easily get a huge concave on the center base.
About towers, I was just curious if you left them out for a reason, since such an open map (originally) seemed like the kind that needs towers to make the space manageable. If you put them close on either side of the rocks, I think it makes center control too strong since you could easily hold both towers and see most of all the routes across the map. Maybe they can be pulled further away from the rocks? Or even go on the outside of the high ground, giving a sort of Belshir Beach effect.
I agree that having them in the center is a bit too powerful once both are controlled by one player.
I am currently trying to find a good location, but they are all really weird or useless spots, or too close to the main.
On August 19 2012 11:15 DigitalD[562] wrote:I came up with a couple of ideas for the center to reduce the extreame openness. The first is more conservative, with a simple high dividing up the map with a few ramps. Drocks remain to open up the map in the mid game. This second one is a bit of a stretch but it's basically the first idea but the center high ground connects from the third bases. The thirds may also need to be raised to high ground to avoid shenanigans with blink stalkers before the obs gets out. The purple area I'm not to sure about. Maybe a lowground area like in the previous image. Or two ramps on either side of the high ground blocked by rocks.
I agree with aunvilgod on this one, those ramps are too narrow. I do like the idea though :D
I'm currently considering a couple of options but I'll probably work on making the center highground later.
On August 19 2012 21:04 PiPoGevy wrote:
If I was a zerg I use a Roach/Bling/Ling style as I would love to draw the Terran out to his third, get a great concave while possibly dropping the main
It isn't that easy..
|
your Country52798 Posts
|
The islands can be removed i think, the map doesnt need them
|
your Country52798 Posts
On August 20 2012 01:58 ihasaKAROT wrote:
The islands can be removed i think, the map doesnt need them
They're there so I have 12 bases :p
yay second page
|
your Country52798 Posts
|
Really love the layout of the current version. The base flow is really good, imo. Gives you decent options, doesn't suffer too much from circle syndrome.
Arguably, the plains on either side of the center rocks are a little too open, perhaps a bit of a non-traversible cliff at either one.
As far as other balance quirks I have with it, the rocks near the islands overlooking the base, maybe add a small ramp leading to them.
And drop either some rocks or a neutral creep tumor on the island bases, I think Metropolis sets a pretty strong precedent regarding island bases in competitive play. But w/e, that can be added later, along with the depot, don't worry about it now.
Once you are finished withe the aesthetics, I think it could be a really, really solid map, imho. It for sure has come 1000 miles since version 0.0 so I'm looking forward to the finished product. Good luck.
|
your Country52798 Posts
@shizaep:
Really love the layout of the current version. The base flow is really good, imo. Gives you decent options, doesn't suffer too much from circle syndrome.
Good, they plaguued my previous maps.
Arguably, the plains on either side of the center rocks are a little too open, perhaps a bit of a non-traversible cliff at either one.
You're right. I had that mostly under control in 0.2 but the tweaking I did made it quite a bit more open than I expected. Will fix.
As far as other balance quirks I have with it, the rocks near the islands overlooking the base, maybe add a small ramp leading to them.
I don't really see how that's necessary. The bases on each side of the rocks are on the same level. To do that would require massive reworking. If you can explain how that helps the map I will definitely give it a shot.
And drop either some rocks or a neutral creep tumor on the island bases, I think Metropolis sets a pretty strong precedent regarding island bases in competitive play. But w/e, that can be added later, along with the depot, don't worry about it now.
Hmm. Okay.
Once you are finished withe the aesthetics, I think it could be a really, really solid map, imho. It for sure has come 1000 miles since version 0.0 so I'm looking forward to the finished product. Good luck.
I can't do aesthetics
Thank you!
|
What I meant when I said "the rocks" was the high ground areas overlooking the bases that are near the islands but part of the mainland. I understand it is for harassment purposes but with no way to access it, it's somewhat Terran favoured. (think LT TvZ)
It's on the 5th/6th base so I don't think it will make too much of a difference but if you want to achieve the best possible balance, it's definitely something to think about.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 03 2012 12:17 shizaep wrote:
What I meant when I said "the rocks" was the high ground areas overlooking the bases that are near the islands but part of the mainland. I understand it is for harassment purposes but with no way to access it, it's somewhat Terran favoured. (think LT TvZ)
It's on the 5th/6th base so I don't think it will make too much of a difference but if you want to achieve the best possible balance, it's definitely something to think about.
Oh, I see.
I'm trying to encourage more strategical and positional play, and I'm hoping that highground may help a bit in promoting it. If it turns out to be a problem I'll remove it.
|
Yeah, theory is one thing but only the play testing will show what is imbalanced and what is not. As a zerg player, it definitely worries me a little bit but perhaps it can work out as a "tactical feature". That base prolly won't be taken until late game so perhaps the later tech like infestors/mutas will make the high ground negligible. But, like you said, everything will float up in playtesting. Anyways, gogo good luck with finishing the map.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 03 2012 12:51 shizaep wrote:
Yeah, theory is one thing but only the play testing will show what is imbalanced and what is not. As a zerg player, it definitely worries me a little bit but perhaps it can work out as a "tactical feature". That base prolly won't be taken until late game so perhaps the later tech like infestors/mutas will make the high ground negligible. But, like you said, everything will float up in playtesting. Anyways, gogo good luck with finishing the map.
Exactly my thoughts, thank you.
Just out of curiousity, why are you the only other person posting in this thread? :0
|
Dunno, the "custom maps" section of TL isn't exactly the most populated place. Many threads here, especially lesser known/amateur mapmakers only get a few comments. I think people here have dropped a decent amount of feedback. Just keep updating the map, bit by bit and and people will say something if they feel it needs to be said.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 03 2012 13:16 shizaep wrote:
Dunno, the "custom maps" section of TL isn't exactly the most populated place. Many threads here, especially lesser known/amateur mapmakers only get a few comments. I think people here have dropped a decent amount of feedback. Just keep updating the map, bit by bit and and people will say something if they feel it needs to be said.
Yeah, I know, but eventually I run out of things to fix :D
|
United States10545 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:32 Coppermantis wrote:
Lots of open space in the center. I think it could use a little more chokieness around what I assume is the third base. On a different note, I like how you made the header with terrain. Cool idea, I might try it for one of my threads.
HEY THATS MY JOB!
really good map! i didn't help you on this one
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 04 2012 00:01 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 13:32 Coppermantis wrote:
Lots of open space in the center. I think it could use a little more chokieness around what I assume is the third base. On a different note, I like how you made the header with terrain. Cool idea, I might try it for one of my threads. HEY THATS MY JOB!
XD
really good map! i didn't help you on this one
Sorry, there are a lot of really, really good mappers here :o
|
your Country52798 Posts
Small update.
Is anyone willing to do (decent) aesthetics for this map?
|
your Country52798 Posts
|
This has really turned into an awesome map ^_^
I would be willing to do some texturing and cliffing work on it. How would you feel about me changing slight things in the outline of cliffs?
|
On September 09 2012 03:41 RFDaemoniac wrote:
This has really turned into an awesome map ^_^
I would be willing to do some texturing and cliffing work on it. How would you feel about me changing slight things in the outline of cliffs?
I agree it looks good. =]
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 09 2012 03:41 RFDaemoniac wrote:
This has really turned into an awesome map ^_^
I would be willing to do some texturing and cliffing work on it. How would you feel about me changing slight things in the outline of cliffs?
I would be perfectly fine with that :D
On September 09 2012 06:15 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 03:41 RFDaemoniac wrote:
This has really turned into an awesome map ^_^
I would be willing to do some texturing and cliffing work on it. How would you feel about me changing slight things in the outline of cliffs? I agree it looks good. =]
Thanks :D
|
no doodads?
|
Doodads are for weaklings.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 09 2012 14:04 Areith wrote:no doodads?
me suck at aesthetics
On September 09 2012 18:15 ArcticRaven wrote:
Doodads are for weaklings.
Or this :D
|
You should not have connected the highground at the third with the highground in the center. Now you can push with tanks while being on that highground which makes it imba. What made the first versions great was the fact that in order to siege up on that highground you had to push far into the nat/third which made you very vulnerable.
You should cut that connection to the center highground imo.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 09 2012 23:57 Aunvilgod wrote:
You should not have connected the highground at the third with the highground in the center. Now you can push with tanks while being on that highground which makes it imba. What made the first versions great was the fact that in order to siege up on that highground you had to push far into the nat/third which made you very vulnerable.
You should cut that connection to the center highground imo.
I will consider that in future versions.. I'm not entirely sure that it's that bad though.
Edit: No, actually, I agree, it does look pretty difficult to cope with that (can't get a decent flank unless you use drops/nydus to get to other side)
|
1 by 1 pixel cliffs? I think they look quite awkward. I agree that it is a good place for them but they definitely should be a little bit bigger, imo. Otherwise, they don't really accomplish their role of choking up the middle a tiny bit and they look a tad unnatural.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 10 2012 00:23 shizaep wrote:
1 by 1 pixel cliffs? I think they look quite awkward. I agree that it is a good place for them but they definitely should be a little bit bigger, imo. Otherwise, they don't really accomplish their role of choking up the middle a tiny bit and they look a tad unnatural.
Will fix imminently.
I had originally considered them to be sufficient for the task, but I guess not?
|
|
|
And you can always make them look interesting with doodads 
|
Map obviously needs someone to save it from its ugliness, but strategy-wise it seems like a great map.
Those little nubs in the middle that some people are complaining about - I'm guessing those are overlord spots? If so, I don't know if theyre 100% effective as that since if you have 1 of the XNTs you will have vision of that highground and a marine or something could pick off the overlord.
This is super nitpicky but I think the outside edges of the main (facing the edges of the map) could probably be brought in a little bit, [it's hard to tell for sure w/out opening it in the map editor but] those mains seem overly large.
|
your Country52798 Posts
@Fatam
On September 10 2012 10:26 Fatam wrote:
Map obviously needs someone to save it from its ugliness, but strategy-wise it seems like a great map.
On September 09 2012 22:55 The_Templar wrote:me suck at aesthetics
Those little nubs in the middle that some people are complaining about - I'm guessing those are overlord spots? If so, I don't know if theyre 100% effective as that since if you have 1 of the XNTs you will have vision of that highground and a marine or something could pick off the overlord.
Those are to break up space in the center of the map. They are not incredibly effective but they.. work well enough.
This is super nitpicky but I think the outside edges of the main (facing the edges of the map) could probably be brought in a little bit, [it's hard to tell for sure w/out opening it in the map editor but] those mains seem overly large.
They are a pretty standard size; anyway, the mineral line positioning diminishes the amount of buildings that are actually placable in the main.
|
Those are to break up space in the center of the map. They are not incredibly effective but they.. work well enough.
Oh ok. Maybe it would look better as a chasm instead of a nubby highground? And if you don't think theyre effective why not increase their size by a square or two?
They are a pretty standard size; anyway, the mineral line positioning diminishes the amount of buildings that are actually placable in the main.
Fair enough. They probably looked big to me because the last few weeks I was staring at a main that was purposely undersized.
|
On September 10 2012 00:23 shizaep wrote:
1 by 1 pixel cliffs? I think they look quite awkward. I agree that it is a good place for them but they definitely should be a little bit bigger, imo. Otherwise, they don't really accomplish their role of choking up the middle a tiny bit and they look a tad unnatural.
They'd probably look better if they were artificial cliffs, like small structures or exhaust vents or something.
|
I did some work on the aesthetics today. Here's an update
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d2VVi.jpg)
The idea is that each of you has a water hole that you're trying to protect/take from the other person behind your mains. The trees near the waterhole are more alive, and as you get towards the center of the map things become more barren and dead.
I'd also sort of like to do different aesthetics on each side, but haven't though of a good deal to go with this dead sort of brink of life look. Something lush and wonderful could be cool, but I'm not sure...
Any ideas?
EDIT: I was also going to play around with lighting. I recently discovered how to do some subtle powerful things while working on one of my own maps.
EDIT 2: This screenshot is of the corner of the main/natural in the lower right.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 16 2012 03:52 RFDaemoniac wrote:I did some work on the aesthetics today. Here's an update The idea is that each of you has a water hole that you're trying to protect/take from the other person behind your mains. The trees near the waterhole are more alive, and as you get towards the center of the map things become more barren and dead. I'd also sort of like to do different aesthetics on each side, but haven't though of a good deal to go with this dead sort of brink of life look. Something lush and wonderful could be cool, but I'm not sure... Any ideas?
Thank you :D
The aesthetics look very nice; I think that it would be fine to have the same aesthetics on both sides. (I still suck at aesthetics so I can't really help much  )
Also what part of the map is that? edit: nvm thats the lower right natural
|
|
|
fighting over water holes?
sounds like a good script for a prehistoric african sahara drama :-P
the aesthetics look good so far
|
More updates Sorry it's been so long since the last post, normally I'd have more time but schoolwork is starting to pick up.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Qbrng.jpg)
I'm not completely happy with the texturing yet, and while I like the trees it still feels a little barren. I'm probably going to try adding some bones and rocks.
The most out of place texture right now is the char dirt, but I really like the accent it provides. Perhaps I should use it a little more subtly.
|
Definitely coming along. I've found that noise on low is your friend. Make sure the variability is on 100% (default is 50%) if you want it to be solid yet subtle instead of spotty. Or airbrush/fractal on low might work as well.
|
your Country52798 Posts
|
I'm not completely happy with the texturing yet, and while I like the trees it still feels a little barren. I'm probably going to try adding some bones and rocks.
Putting little rocks/bones/bushes and disabling the doodad footprint so they don't mess with pathing can help fill things out if it's a barren/wastelandy landscape. imo anyway
|
|
|
Pretty cool, Grats on getting it finished
|
Wow that looks badass. Nice job guys. I will give it a try if I can find someone to play. Want to test out the 3rd for PvZ. I wish the middle was more... dynamic and useful. But that can always be worked on.
|
your Country52798 Posts
It's published now.
to clarify, the old version was uploaded.
hmmmm didn't mean to have that dash in the title. w.e. :p
|
Ok, Temp I got to do a nice slow in-game analysis against nothing so I could give you my feedback. The mains are at least 44.6 CC's big. I was able to sqeeze 97 supply depots, 19 CC's, and 28 assorted 3x3 buildings (including the refineries) and there were still a few (15-20?) buildable places where I could have squeezed sensor towers just to fill it in completely. So, I do not know what the consensus is on how big a main can be, but they feel big to me and now you have the numbers on just how big. Should we try a map with a main on the larger side? Are we ready for that kind of metagame change? I don't know. I just know that when we played it seemed to take forever for my worker to get to the ramp.
Next item, aesthetics. I realize that you have help for this but... while I think it looks very good from a birds eye view, in-game it feels a bit difficult to navigate the terrain and to tell where certain terrain features begin and end. For the purposes of immersion, say if this were an RPG UMS, I think it might be pretty cool. But for the purposes of a competitive map where clarity is very important, I think the textures around the edges of cliffs need to be more defined for the upper and lower levels, and maybe some trees need to be adjusted so they are not as obscuring as they seem to be.
Other than that and the pathing glitch you found in the northern main, I think it has got some pretty interesting features to work with. My only concern I guess is that it seems the amount of circle syndrome feels like it might be kind of big on 5 bases without going to an island. At that point you are probably sitting each at the watchtower waiting for the other to flinch toward the half base (obviously a game WE play together will never get to this stage...). Could be neat though.
|
Thanks for the feedback about the upper/lower ground cliff textures. I'll think about how to do this better. I had used some char dirt around the base of the cliffs to try and highlight, as well as using trees, but that wasn't enough, I guess.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On October 23 2012 01:35 RFDaemoniac wrote:
Thanks for the feedback about the upper/lower ground cliff textures. I'll think about how to do this better. I had used some char dirt around the base of the cliffs to try and highlight, as well as using trees, but that wasn't enough, I guess.
The glitch in the northern main he mentioned is that smaller units can somehow cliff-jump a small section of cliff between main and natural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sKHq0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bmU8T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eOMbo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Pw3o8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2Uw47.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HaDFr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DKV1u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2h74y.jpg)
