|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On November 08 2018 02:13 KillerSmile wrote:Molten Vortex 140x132 + Show Spoiler +Just getting started doing this mapping thing, as you can probably tell. It's very rough around the edges, but maybe someone can give me pointers on where to maybe put destructable rocks or whether I should throw the whole thing away and start all over. As I said, first map, but please don't be gentle.
- Naturals with multiple openings are almost always problematic even when there are rocks blocking the other side.
- Having the main ramp positioned like this can cause problems since the attacker can separate the defending player's natural from the main. Having a backdoor to the natural compounds this problem a little.
- The third is overly open
- Most of the rest of the map is made of too narrow corridors. This is due to poor space usage. Empty gaps (like the area in front of the natural, and the lava pit) should generally be avoided for this reason.
- I don't get the raison d'être of the 12 min/3 gas corner bases or the watchtower. They just seem to be there.
The space usage is the most important issue. I'd recommend to start a new map (while keeping everything you've learned from making this one in your mind of course), start with a normal main and natural, and then create the layout you want while avoiding "wasted space" as much as possible. Stuff like a sense of distances, or how closed or how open areas should be will come with experience.
And welcome to mapmaking.
|
First let me introduce myself, have been a SC player since 1996 and took up map making again after retiring a year ago. Prior to that had only used the original SC map editor, so SC2 map editor is a learning curve right now. I'm committing to this daily, fulltime and want to dig into the deeper details, so any support and guidance is appreciated. I've published 9 melee maps on battle.net under my handle SirReal, this map is named Oasis of Pain and is a melee map. Please review and comment as all are an evolution in learning.
The images below are my first map with SC2 editor, map layout as you can tell is in a style reminiscent of the original SC maps, not designed to be a competition map. My goal was to design a map that would frustrate the AI and challenge an experienced gamer when playing at Very Hard or higher levels. There's no scripting in the map, minimal use of sight blockers and pathing. Tried to add something for all races, such as large open spaces for Zerg and multiple choke points for Terrans, plus abundant resources to support extended game play. Map supports 6 players using default melee team settings. I want to continue improving the map but will need feedback to do so, so thanks in advance to those who support my efforts.
Having been away from map making for more than a decade, I'm looking forward to getting back into it and learning the finer points on the newer tools, from experienced map makers. And being new to this site and thread, any suggestion on how and where to post is appreciated.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wlaCtuo.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QuPEsR3.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oryVT5d.jpg)
|
Thanks for the warm welcome.
I'm still lacking a sense for many aspects that go into a working layout, so stuff I put in often times doesn't really have a raison d'être, as you so eloquently put it. I just try to be creative, which often times turns into unbalanced randomness, so I decided to turn Molten Vortex into a 2v2. More players equals more randomness, so the map induced randomness should weigh less. Even an asymetric first attempt at mapmaking might lend itself to fun times in pub games. Who knows?
I stuck to the same visual layout for now, because I like working around limitations. I hope the nice Liquid people here can tell me if this is worth decorating or what to maybe change first.
Here the changes since last time:
+ Show Spoiler +- expanded map to 140x148
- Top vs Bottom
- widened ring path around lava pit
- made lava traversable
- moved gold bases inside
- more bases around the perimeter
- double layered rocks between 2 and 3/ 8 and 9 o'clock mains/thirds
- ally supply bridge in the north/south
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/OjMRLfK.jpg)
Also, if I were to turn it back into a 1v1, which diagonal is preferable, / or \?
Ideas for the future:
- make the lava a weak DoT
- turn zones above dividing stone pillars N/E/S/W of the pit no fly zones
|
On November 10 2018 06:49 KillerSmile wrote:Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm still lacking a sense for many aspects that go into a working layout, so stuff I put in often times doesn't really have a raison d'être, as you so eloquently put it. I just try to be creative, which often times turns into unbalanced randomness, so I decided to turn Molten Vortex into a 2v2. More players equals more randomness, so the map induced randomness should weigh less. Even an asymetric first attempt at mapmaking might lend itself to fun times in pub games. Who knows? I stuck to the same visual layout for now, because I like working around limitations. I hope the nice Liquid people here can tell me if this is worth decorating or what to maybe change first. Here the changes since last time: + Show Spoiler +- expanded map to 140x148
- Top vs Bottom
- widened ring path around lava pit
- made lava traversable
- moved gold bases inside
- more bases around the perimeter
- double layered rocks between 2 and 3/ 8 and 9 o'clock mains/thirds
- ally supply bridge in the north/south
Also, if I were to turn it back into a 1v1, which diagonal is preferable, / or \? Ideas for the future: - make the lava a weak DoT - turn zones above dividing stone pillars N/E/S/W of the pit no fly zones
The main problem is these narrow paths and restrictions on army movement in general. The dead space in front of the bases doesn’t need to be there. Also, if you are going to make it a 1v1 map, and you use top left vs bottom right, you just made Fighting Spirit minus the bridges, plus some really easy to take expansions. The map is quite small, and is made smaller by the amount of expansions and non-pathable space. It would definitely benefit from being a 1v1, because right now the rotational flow is pretty bad.
If you are just learning how to make a playable map, it would be fine to just make this more like fighting spirit, but in 1v1 format so you can use the extra space towards making room for army movement.
|
On November 10 2018 08:42 SwedenTheKid wrote:
The main problem is these narrow paths and restrictions on army movement in general. The dead space in front of the bases doesn’t need to be there. Also, if you are going to make it a 1v1 map, and you use top left vs bottom right, you just made Fighting Spirit minus the bridges, plus some really easy to take expansions. The map is quite small, and is made smaller by the amount of expansions and non-pathable space. It would definitely benefit from being a 1v1, because right now the rotational flow is pretty bad.
If you are just learning how to make a playable map, it would be fine to just make this more like fighting spirit, but in 1v1 format so you can use the extra space towards making room for army movement.
Thank you for the great advice, just the mention of a similar style map helped me out a ton. I switched things around and made the paths wider for big armies, as suggested.
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/8uJApMG.jpg)
Changes:
+ Show Spoiler +
- less bases around the perimeter
- two sets of main bases, one fighting spirit style and one with in-base natural
- both flow into the same third to break the rotational flow
- blocked off backdoor natural expansion serves as both barrier and turtle option
- outside pit gold next to the thirds
I'm really unsure of what to do with the middle of the map, a) keep as is now, b) rotate 90° or c) back to old 2 base layout.
Also I'm on the fence on how wide the ramps should be. Maybe widen the ramp from the third to fighting spirit style base and block partially with rocks instead of fixed small ramp all game long.
Both diagonals seem viable for 1v1, but which one is preferable now?
|
On November 10 2018 18:19 KillerSmile wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 08:42 SwedenTheKid wrote:
The main problem is these narrow paths and restrictions on army movement in general. The dead space in front of the bases doesn’t need to be there. Also, if you are going to make it a 1v1 map, and you use top left vs bottom right, you just made Fighting Spirit minus the bridges, plus some really easy to take expansions. The map is quite small, and is made smaller by the amount of expansions and non-pathable space. It would definitely benefit from being a 1v1, because right now the rotational flow is pretty bad.
If you are just learning how to make a playable map, it would be fine to just make this more like fighting spirit, but in 1v1 format so you can use the extra space towards making room for army movement.
Thank you for the great advice, just the mention of a similar style map helped me out a ton. I switched things around and made the paths wider for big armies, as suggested. + Show Spoiler +Changes: + Show Spoiler +
- less bases around the perimeter
- two sets of main bases, one fighting spirit style and one with in-base natural
- both flow into the same third to break the rotational flow
- blocked off backdoor natural expansion serves as both barrier and turtle option
- outside pit gold next to the thirds
I'm really unsure of what to do with the middle of the map, a) keep as is now, b) rotate 90° or c) back to old 2 base layout. Also I'm on the fence on how wide the ramps should be. Maybe widen the ramp from the third to fighting spirit style base and block partially with rocks instead of fixed small ramp all game long. Both diagonals seem viable for 1v1, but which one is preferable now?
Bottom right is still preferable due to the base flow and the fact that backdoors with rocks have been out of style for years now. However, I’m just going to give you some more general advice for all maps, as the contextual questions could be answered differently depending on the goal.
Common beginner mistake 1: When it comes to 3rd and 4th bases that you want your players to take, the way a base is made defendable in primarily not about high ground advantage or even distance from the natural. A base is made defendable when the distance between the natural to the 3rd or the 3rd to the 4th is easier and faster to navigate for the defender than an attacker switching between attacking the said 2 bases. If someone spawns bottom right, they are going to have a harder time taking the upper 3rd than the horizontal 3rd, ignoring the rocks. Compare the areas of unpathable space in front of the main bases on this map to other maps that are used in competitive play. Also, yes, the ramp to the 3rd should be larger. This is another example of punishing the defender. Essentially, make sure that an attacking army has to cross more ground to switch from attacking one base to another than the defender does to defend his bases. Otherwise, the defender won’t be able to successfully expand.
Common beginner mistake 2: Making terrain just for the sake of having terrain is a common feature in maps by new mapmakers. Here, the center of the map doesn’t serve much of a purpose to the flow or theme of the map other than just attempting to resemble what someone would expect a map to look like at its center. Having the center be low ground makes sense, at it serves the purpose of challenging an attacking army while giving an advantage to a defending force. However, the symmetry itself isn’t necessary and doesn’t fit the flow of the rest of the map. My best advice for the center of the map is to not have a real center at all, in the sense that one should not be able to tell where the map center begins, and, well, where the actual creative elements of the map end. Map centers don’t need to be complex, here I would just have a few pillars and holes that restrict movement but don’t make the center a chore to navigate.
Common beginner mistake 3: You don’t need gold bases in the center. Especially not 4. Gold bases belong in spots that are tactically difficult to secure, but not in places that only the leading player can hold. Think an open area in the corner of a map, or on a semi-island overlooked by a ledge. Maps should always aim to aid the player that is behind, to create better games.
As for what can be done here, continue to make those dead space areas smaller in order to make the map effectively larger. Position those free in-base-nats away from the center so tanks can’t siege the gas. Also, consider adding a forward 3rd with its back to the dead space areas, and design your map center around those bases. Make sure to give the defender better ability to move between his bases.
|
Oh yeah, here’s a map I made a long time ago which this reminded me of. It’s not a good map by any means, the 3rds are to difficult to take and the small middle makes Terran really powerful, but it does somewhat resemble what you came up with.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/n7h1BbT.jpg)
|
Molten Vortex v0.10
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/w9lIyyM.jpg)
Changes:
+ Show Spoiler +
- shrunk the lava pit down
- moved everything closer to the centre
- added a forward third to the outside of the pit, has 1 high yield geysir
- xelnaga towers to monitor them
- gold bases denied by 4 pathable rock plates
- the double back natural is now lowground
- destructable 2x6 rocks funnel troops into the pit
- pit has a big doodad to make it less open
Wow, thanks to the great advice in here it almost looks like a real map now! =D
I still have ideas and questions tho.
I wonder if I should make the ledges behind the naturals pathable/dropable or not.
Furthermore I plan to add some no fly zones to the middle to balance flying unit a little. Is that a smart idea?
Should I mirror the xelnaga towers to the gold bases too?
Is the map cramped now?
Should I add smoke units can hide in around the xelnaga towers? If yes, how?
Many of these can probably be answered based on preference, but I still appreciate any insightfull input.
(That aside, I looked into creating a massive super-xelnaga obelisk that is basically a watchtower with max range(32 instead of 22), but with shredder like increasing AoE DoT cloak as a centrepiece for the pit. That would make it light out the entire middle and give the lava the illusion of damage. I fiddled around with the editor, but I find it exasperating honestly. Maybe someone can point me in the direction of a good tutorial or something. It would disqualify it from being a melee map, but that would be fine with me.)
|
On November 12 2018 05:55 KillerSmile wrote:Molten Vortex v0.10 + Show Spoiler +Changes: + Show Spoiler +
- shrunk the lava pit down
- moved everything closer to the centre
- added a forward third to the outside of the pit, has 1 high yield geysir
- xelnaga towers to monitor them
- gold bases denied by 4 pathable rock plates
- the double back natural is now lowground
- destructable 2x6 rocks funnel troops into the pit
- pit has a big doodad to make it less open
Wow, thanks to the great advice in here it almost looks like a real map now! =D I still have ideas and questions tho. I wonder if I should make the ledges behind the naturals pathable/dropable or not. Furthermore I plan to add some no fly zones to the middle to balance flying unit a little. Is that a smart idea? Should I mirror the xelnaga towers to the gold bases too? Is the map cramped now? Should I add smoke units can hide in around the xelnaga towers? If yes, how? Many of these can probably be answered based on preference, but I still appreciate any insightfull input. (That aside, I looked into creating a massive super-xelnaga obelisk that is basically a watchtower with max range(32 instead of 22), but with shredder like increasing AoE DoT cloak as a centrepiece for the pit. That would make it light out the entire middle and give the lava the illusion of damage. I fiddled around with the editor, but I find it exasperating honestly. Maybe someone can point me in the direction of a good tutorial or something. It would disqualify it from being a melee map, but that would be fine with me.)
Droppable/pathable ledges are incredibly abusive, and for that reason no map since WoL has had them (Lost Temple had them, and siege tanks being dropped on the ledge was a huge pain).
No fly zones should generally be avoided since they're really buggy and units get stuck in them.
The game is more interesting when you can't see everything imo, so I don't think you need more Xel'naga Towers (not sure if the existing ones are necessary even).
The map would still be considered quite cramped due to the large holes.
If you want to add smoke around the Xel'naga towers you can add LOS (line of sight) blockers found in the doodad tab.
As a side note, warping the terrain like what you've done in the lava isn't too recommended in general (and it also looks weird when you try to build buildings on that). In maps that have done that (Odyssey comes to mind), the warped area was made unbuildable and unburrowable.
|
On November 12 2018 05:55 KillerSmile wrote:
Molten Vortex v0.10
Wow, thanks to the great advice in here it almost looks like a real map now! =D
I still have ideas and questions tho.
I wonder if I should make the ledges behind the naturals pathable/dropable or not.
Furthermore I plan to add some no fly zones to the middle to balance flying unit a little. Is that a smart idea?
Should I mirror the xelnaga towers to the gold bases too?
Is the map cramped now?
Should I add smoke units can hide in around the xelnaga towers? If yes, how?
Many of these can probably be answered based on preference, but I still appreciate any insightfull input.
(That aside, I looked into creating a massive super-xelnaga obelisk that is basically a watchtower with max range(32 instead of 22), but with shredder like increasing AoE DoT cloak as a centrepiece for the pit. That would make it light out the entire middle and give the lava the illusion of damage. I fiddled around with the editor, but I find it exasperating honestly. Maybe someone can point me in the direction of a good tutorial or something. It would disqualify it from being a melee map, but that would be fine with me.)
Ledges can’t be pathable, even ledges that overlook 3rd and 4th bases are way to easy to abuse in most cases. Avoid no-fly zones unless it’s important to the gimmick of the map, which usually is a bad idea anyways. No fly zones are useful with 3 spawn maps, bot not much else. You don’t need towers on this map, but if you really want the golds that’s fine. The map is still a little messy in terms of flow, just make those dead space holes smaller. Holes in the map don’t need to be wide unless they serve the purpose of protecting a defender from ranged units like tanks. Just a thin hill or hole is preferable, and looks more appealing than a giant unpathable blob. I would personally add a very narrow bridge to in front of the passage from the natural to the horizontal 3rd. Keep the inside area large enough for a defender to position his army there, though. LoSB are not necessary for a map, either. They can add some tactical opportunities like hiding units sometimes. It doesn’t matter much.
For the data editor, I haven’t opened it up in over a year, but I think just going under the unit tab and searching xel’naga tower should get you there. On the side there should be a value for sight range that you can just change to whatever you want, although the maximum sight range for any unit was less than 40, I think.
|
Molten Vortex v15
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/XlLLina.jpg)
I couldn't have chosen a better name for it. The map just sucks. Hard.
This will be the last update, I'm just posting it for conclusion's sake. I learned a lot, so it wasn't all in vain.
Again, thanks for your patience, next map I post will hopefully be more promising.
|
Hello everyone, I'm new here : 3
Hopefully this is the right thread to post a wip-map and ask a couple of questions.
This is a map I started working.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZdYKjZO.jpg)
Yesterday I noticed that it might actually not be a good Idea to have the battlefield on a higher cliff-level than 3rd and 4th base, since it makes them rather unsafe. Could it still possibly work a as concept?
Since it is the first map I show here I'd also like to ask, does anybody notice some essential mistakes? (The main bases are to close to the edge, I just noticed )
cheers,
David
|
On December 04 2018 21:15 Musmaker wrote:Hello everyone, I'm new here : 3 Hopefully this is the right thread to post a wip-map and ask a couple of questions. This is a map I started working. Yesterday I noticed that it might actually not be a good Idea to have the battlefield on a higher cliff-level than 3rd and 4th base, since it makes them rather unsafe. Could it still possibly work a as concept? Since it is the first map I show here I'd also like to ask, does anybody notice some essential mistakes? (The main bases are to close to the edge, I just noticed ) cheers, David
Having the middle of the map be higher than the 3rd and 4th does help the aggressor, but that's not a deal-breaker on a map by any means (sometimes it's in fact desirable). In this case I think the 3rd base (3/9 o'clock) is mostly fine--maybe rotate the base so that the gas geyser is further from the cliff (and out of tank range). The 1/7 o'clock is probably too hard to defend as a fourth (you'd probably take the linear base as a fourth instead), but that's mostly due to the distance and the fact that you have to go through a narrow passage to reach, not the high ground itself per se.
The bigger issues with the map are the main and natural. A double-ramp for the main doesn't work since it's difficult to get buildings up as terran or protoss to wall-off against early zerglings. Furthermore the main is a bit too big (not a huge deal in of itself), and consequently the ramp is placed pretty far forward which increases the distance between the main and nat, which can make it hard to defend. Likewise the natural ramp is pretty far from the natural base, which can be a big problem when it comes to walling off (in ZvZ for example it's a big deal if the creep doesn't extend far enough to wall-off the natural ramp with evolution chambers). Reshaping the main and nat could also help make the 1/7 o'clock base a better fourth.
The above excepted, the map's pretty reasonable and doesn't have any major issues. What are the dimensions and rush distances (from main base to main base)? Hard to tell from the overview, but the lack of a somewhat direct path between the two players could make scouting a bit too long.
|
On December 05 2018 05:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Having the middle of the map be higher than the 3rd and 4th does help the aggressor, but that's not a deal-breaker on a map by any means (sometimes it's in fact desirable). In this case I think the 3rd base (3/9 o'clock) is mostly fine--maybe rotate the base so that the gas geyser is further from the cliff (and out of tank range). The 1/7 o'clock is probably too hard to defend as a fourth (you'd probably take the linear base as a fourth instead), but that's mostly due to the distance and the fact that you have to go through a narrow passage to reach, not the high ground itself per se.
The bigger issues with the map are the main and natural. A double-ramp for the main doesn't work since it's difficult to get buildings up as terran or protoss to wall-off against early zerglings. Furthermore the main is a bit too big (not a huge deal in of itself), and consequently the ramp is placed pretty far forward which increases the distance between the main and nat, which can make it hard to defend. Likewise the natural ramp is pretty far from the natural base, which can be a big problem when it comes to walling off (in ZvZ for example it's a big deal if the creep doesn't extend far enough to wall-off the natural ramp with evolution chambers). Reshaping the main and nat could also help make the 1/7 o'clock base a better fourth.
The above excepted, the map's pretty reasonable and doesn't have any major issues. What are the dimensions and rush distances (from main base to main base)? Hard to tell from the overview, but the lack of a somewhat direct path between the two players could make scouting a bit too long.
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to write such a detailled analysis, I appreciate it very much. It's good to hear that the battleground is not the main issue. I'll try to adjust the layout of the bases according to your feedback : )
You were asking about the base-to-base distance - it's around 52 seconds for a drone to walk.(268 units measured with the editor tool). It's a bit much but should be okay i guess?
|
On December 07 2018 23:50 Musmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 05:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Having the middle of the map be higher than the 3rd and 4th does help the aggressor, but that's not a deal-breaker on a map by any means (sometimes it's in fact desirable). In this case I think the 3rd base (3/9 o'clock) is mostly fine--maybe rotate the base so that the gas geyser is further from the cliff (and out of tank range). The 1/7 o'clock is probably too hard to defend as a fourth (you'd probably take the linear base as a fourth instead), but that's mostly due to the distance and the fact that you have to go through a narrow passage to reach, not the high ground itself per se.
The bigger issues with the map are the main and natural. A double-ramp for the main doesn't work since it's difficult to get buildings up as terran or protoss to wall-off against early zerglings. Furthermore the main is a bit too big (not a huge deal in of itself), and consequently the ramp is placed pretty far forward which increases the distance between the main and nat, which can make it hard to defend. Likewise the natural ramp is pretty far from the natural base, which can be a big problem when it comes to walling off (in ZvZ for example it's a big deal if the creep doesn't extend far enough to wall-off the natural ramp with evolution chambers). Reshaping the main and nat could also help make the 1/7 o'clock base a better fourth.
The above excepted, the map's pretty reasonable and doesn't have any major issues. What are the dimensions and rush distances (from main base to main base)? Hard to tell from the overview, but the lack of a somewhat direct path between the two players could make scouting a bit too long. Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to write such a detailled analysis, I appreciate it very much. It's good to hear that the battleground is not the main issue. I'll try to adjust the layout of the bases according to your feedback : ) You were asking about the base-to-base distance - it's around 52 seconds for a drone to walk.(268 units measured with the editor tool). It's a bit much but should be okay i guess?
For context that's roughly 10% longer than Acid Plant which already has a pretty long rush distance. The only LotV ladder maps with the same rush distance would be Acolyte and Apotheosis. So it's certainly pushing the upper bound rush distance-wise. I'd be inclined to believe that this is at least a little problematic based on the fact that Acolyte and Apotheosis had some issues with rush distances, and that most maps with long distances like Acid Plant and Acolyte have rocks that shorten the rush distance later in the game.
Probably not something worth changing for this map, but to keep in mind for future maps.
|
I was looking to implement new map features and settled on teleports which is not uncommon in other games. It could add a dynamic aspect to the traditional 2D square map. But where to place them? I don't think they should be defining the map but rather add a strategic twist to the mid to late game. Therefore a corner placement seems logical where they can expand and increase player activity in that part of the map.
Is there any examples of teleports being tested? I looked at Automaton for inspiration where it might fit. Where the red hexagons would tunnel to each other back and forth. A practical question is; if you ought to help/set up camera panning?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gpb5X5V.jpg)
|
On December 19 2018 06:11 archonOOid wrote:I was looking to implement new map features and settled on teleports which is not uncommon in other games. It could add a dynamic aspect to the traditional 2D square map. But where to place them? I don't think they should be defining the map but rather add a strategic twist to the mid to late game. Therefore a corner placement seems logical where they can expand and increase player activity in that part of the map. Is there any examples of teleports being tested? I looked at Automaton for inspiration where it might fit. Where the red hexagons would tunnel to each other back and forth. A practical question is; if you ought to help/set up camera panning?
This map had portals in the main: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/511759-2-desert-portal
|
UNTITLED / Textures are just prototype
https://imgur.com/a/f6c1QnK
Map Bounds 172x135 (There is quite a bit of empty space so the map itself isnt that big.)
Need some feedback, I've spent way too long working on this layout. Any feedback will do
|
DELETE my duplicate post sorry, don't know why the image wont load.
|
You have to link to the image, not the album. Like so:
+ Show Spoiler +
As for the map, backdoor naturals aren't a particularly loved map feature, especially when there's so much available airspace for drops and harassment (which can cause balance problems too). Drops and liberators are made that much stronger by the fact that the map is quite choked up--apart from the narrow passages on the top and bottom of the map, there's only the middle choke that has to be controlled to prevent ground units from crossing over to the other side of the map. And could you post a 90 degree overview of the map? Angled images sometimes make it hard to figure out proportions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/kkxSrfE.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/a/f6c1QnK)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HOsyEUu.jpg)
