So I started this map way back at the beginning of September, but I've had basically zero motivation to work on maps for the past month or so. It just feels like a massive waste of time when your maps are getting no exposure, and it's hard for me to convince myself to spend realistically more time making the map than people will spend playing on it.
As such, this may well be the last map I make, depending on how well this one is received.
Also, Osiris is only on EU right now, so if anyone in the US (or other regions) is interested in uploading the map please let me know.
Players spawn at opposite sides of the map. Nearby is a natural expansion that leads to the centre of the map which is split by a large chasm, the narrow path that extends across it houses a Xel'Naga Watchtower. Players can expand in different directions and can guard their flanks using two more watchtowers. There are gold expansions towards the centre of the map and islands in the north-east and south-west corners. LOS blockers are used in interesting places throughout the map, and there are no destructible rocks.
This map went through many significant changes during its creation. I had always wanted to make a map that looked vastly different on both sides, yet maintained symmetry and this is the result. I experimented with a variety of different texture sets before I finally settled on Xil.
What changed the most was the placement of watchtowers around the middle of the map. Originally there were two towers on the small platforms outside of each players natural expansion. However, after some discussion with dimfish (<3) I concluded that they were potentially too powerful and it was too easy for players to just rally all their stuff to the tower and sit there comfortably.
Instead, there is now a single watchtower that lies on a very narrow platform right in the middle. Hopefully this will lead to interesting small-scale battles for control of the tower while manoeuvring larger armies around the outside.
The map may seem quite large, but the distances between the main bases are almost 100% average in comparison to the current Blizzard maps.
Looks very nice from the screenshots! If you would like, I could upload it to the North American servers for you. Just PM me.
One thing that I'm not so sure about is the Xel Naga's on the sides, that can view the Gold Expands. Pretty much, that says it. I don't think it's good to have a Gold Expand that can be viewed by your enemy just by him/her snagging a Xel Naga for 2 seconds.
I like it!, but i agree with the guy above me on the side xel nagas, also, it seems pretty easy for banshees/void rays to hit the gas in main, maybe put some non-flyable cliff in that little crack between the 4 expo and 5 main, and the 10 expo and 11 main just my 2 cents...
So I started this map way back at the beginning of September, but I've had basically zero motivation to work on maps for the past month or so. It just feels like a massive waste of time when your maps are getting no exposure, and it's hard for me to convince myself to spend realistically more time making the map than people will spend playing on it.
As such, this may well be the last map I make, depending on how well this one is received.
Hi Funcmode,
i saw some of your maps and saw your message "It just feels like a massive waste of time when your maps are getting no exposure, and it's hard for me to convince myself to spend realistically more time making the map than people will spend playing on it." in this Osiris thread.
We were wondering if you would be interested to feature your maps in our tournaments?
I'm the organizer from facebook.com/sc.malaysia. Our tournament thread is here:
I do not like the texturing at all. the stone/sand parts feel random and not very considered, e.g. the gravel/stones are scattered equally everywhere. there is no change in density etc. the black tiles are just...well, black - which creates a lot of contrast. in the overview pictures you cannot see anything at all. i like the shapes and your use of doodads though.
hidden in the spoiler you can find a few images of one of my maps with some texturing i consider well done, displaying some effort in blending textures and using them in specific ways to create the illusion of depth, highlights, etc without using any terrain modifing.the textures used are very dark, so there are similar problems here like in your map.i do not intend to put someone off by featuring one of my maps, but i think it is a legitimate example.
Regarding the side watchtowers; they're quite out of the way, and are pretty neutral. I think genuinely good players could check to see if the enemy was controlling them before taking the nearby gold expansion. Metalopolis also has watchtowers that spot the gold expo's, and this hasn't dissuaded players from taking them from time to time. I'd like to see how some games play out on the map before I make any significant changes but thanks for bringing it to my attention - I honestly didn't think anywhere near as much about the side towers as I did the centre tower.
As for OP air harassment, I think having some space for moving air units around the map is essential for air units to even be viable. There is space behind all of the mineral patches to allow for turrets, etc. But, having looked at the specific part of the map mentioned (the gap between the 4 and 5/10 and 11) I think you might be right. So, I think I'm going to make a few changes that should reduce the size of the gap a little. Expect an update shortly.
I do not like the texturing at all. the stone/sand parts feel random and not very considered, e.g. the gravel/stones are scattered equally everywhere. there is no change in density etc. the black tiles are just...well, black - which creates a lot of contrast. in the overview pictures you cannot see anything at all. i like the shapes and your use of doodads though.
hidden in the spoiler you can find a few images of one of my maps with some texturing i consider well done, displaying some effort in blending textures and using them in specific ways to create the illusion of depth, highlights, etc without using any terrain modifing.the textures used are very dark, so there are similar problems here like in your map.i do not intend to put someone off by featuring one of my maps, but i think it is a legitimate example.
This is obviously completely subjective, but I totally disagree. 95% of the maps I see are, in my opinion, textured incredibly poorly. Your work isn't bad, but I see lots of areas where two textures meet and there is literally no blending what-so-ever (most obvious example, the darker texture you used around the mineral patches). The other textures just look blended cause they're all basically the same colour.
When ever I see a map that has "natural" textures (grass, rocks, dirt, etc - basically anything but urban paving or metal flooring) that are "blended" but still very distinguishable from one another, I think it looks terrible. Most maps have this syndrome, including lots of Blizzard ones. Go take a look at the rocky parts of Delta Quadrant and tell me that doesn't look terrible .
Personally I strive to make my maps look as realistic as possible. In this case, the rock texture is the same colour as the cliffs, which you would expect. There is then sand built up in corners, against cliff edges, around mineral patches, etc, again - in places you would expect. Whereas locations that are higher up or more open remain rocky, because the sand would get blown away. The textures are most definitely not "scattered equally everywhere". I suggest you should take a closer look.
Also, if the tiles truly appear black and you can't see anything in the overview - I suggest adjusting your brightness/gamma settings, because I can make everything out perfectly.
I'm sorry for this small rant. I mean no offence, but I feel like I have to defend myself regarding this subject because it irks me when I see poorly blended textures (or textures that just don't make logical sense) on other people's maps, and also, because I literally spend hours and hours working over my whole map multiple times before I personally feel it looks right. Like I said, it's subjective, I think this looks good, you think otherwise, and that's fine.
Anyway, I'll make a couple of tiny changes to the areas behind mineral lines, and then I'll republish and contact someone about getting this uploaded in the US.
And ricky88, I'll get in touch with you shortly =).
Thanks again for the replies everyone, your feedback really means a lot!
looks like its alright for some xel naga + tank + enemy gold play, (which is fine because the xelnaga to do it is in a very open and neutral spot the whole point in golds is extra danger for extra reward anyway, ignore the people who say its bad the xel naga tower can see it
in my opinion in this pic http://imgur.com/wSw3t sand -> the small hexagons -> the large hexagons would be a perfect transition along the middle; that said, i dont make maps so im not 100%
I do not like the texturing at all. the stone/sand parts feel random and not very considered, e.g. the gravel/stones are scattered equally everywhere. there is no change in density etc. the black tiles are just...well, black - which creates a lot of contrast. in the overview pictures you cannot see anything at all. i like the shapes and your use of doodads though.
hidden in the spoiler you can find a few images of one of my maps with some texturing i consider well done, displaying some effort in blending textures and using them in specific ways to create the illusion of depth, highlights, etc without using any terrain modifing.the textures used are very dark, so there are similar problems here like in your map.i do not intend to put someone off by featuring one of my maps, but i think it is a legitimate example.
This is obviously completely subjective, but I totally disagree. 95% of the maps I see are, in my opinion, textured incredibly poorly. Your work isn't bad, but I see lots of areas where two textures meet and there is literally no blending what-so-ever (most obvious example, the darker texture you used around the mineral patches). The other textures just look blended cause they're all basically the same colour.
When ever I see a map that has "natural" textures (grass, rocks, dirt, etc - basically anything but urban paving or metal flooring) that are "blended" but still very distinguishable from one another, I think it looks terrible. Most maps have this syndrome, including lots of Blizzard ones. Go take a look at the rocky parts of Delta Quadrant and tell me that doesn't look terrible .
Personally I strive to make my maps look as realistic as possible. In this case, the rock texture is the same colour as the cliffs, which you would expect. There is then sand built up in corners, against cliff edges, around mineral patches, etc, again - in places you would expect. Whereas locations that are higher up or more open remain rocky, because the sand would get blown away. The textures are most definitely not "scattered equally everywhere". I suggest you should take a closer look.
Also, if the tiles truly appear black and you can't see anything in the overview - I suggest adjusting your brightness/gamma settings, because I can make everything out perfectly.
I'm sorry for this small rant. I mean no offence, but I feel like I have to defend myself regarding this subject because it irks me when I see poorly blended textures (or textures that just don't make logical sense) on other people's maps, and also, because I literally spend hours and hours working over my whole map multiple times before I personally feel it looks right. Like I said, it's subjective, I think this looks good, you think otherwise, and that's fine.
i did not mean to sound harsh or offend you in any way and while I understand that this might be a subjective thing I really do not understand your argumentation on blending or not blending.
probably texturing is not that important to be discussed that much, but now we have that little missunderstanding we could try to make it productive - maybe for other people, too. I like to add that there are maps with really simplistic texturing and I would have never criticized such a map. With a map that already has good looking texturing with -this is subjective- some texturing issues I feel more comfortable to be open and probably harsh with my critic.
but let me cover another point first. I am totally with you on your idea of how to use sand or rock textures. sand is more likely to be found in a basin, rock textures should be next to cliffs. but - and this is where it becomes interesting - one should not be too restrictive. icy blue textures can be used to create the illusion of highlights, dark textures next to it to 'paint' a cavity etc. then there are textures that are full of strong structures. such a textures is e.g. used at the mineral line in my image example. there is no blending at all - totally correct. but is that wrong? - not all all in my opinion as the dark and deep crack is used as a connection to another rocky texture. this also takes some time and effort to paint onto a map.
Also I understand that the stones are not really scattered equally everwhere. but let's take a look at the screenshot:
the stones are lying on the ramp (almost 30° steep), very close to the edge of the cliff, ontop, below..in my humble opinion this just does not look good. it would rather make sense to have them close at the cliff on the low ground and a more flat texture on the main path. I think this is something you described to wanted to achive so I want to point this out again. stones everywhere do not make too much sense to me
generally I think textures that are repetitive with distinctive structures are better used on specific points. on the one hand you sure have nearly perfect blending, but on the other hand how do you blend stones in and out? are they half-way in the sand? also below minerals it is nice to have another texture as i set concerning my own image.
oh, and thanks for the ironic advice on getting my monitor working properly, I think it is fine. I can actually see the textures quite well. the point I wanted to emphasize is that themewise I did not think it makes sense to paint one half of the map black and the other grey while structurally both sides are the same. let's take alook at BoomStevo's map Rendevous
here the rocky texture is used appropriatly instead of just' painting one side with one texture' (not really, only one, but you get the idea).
although I understand you put a lot of work into it, I hope you are open to critic. if you think my texturing is worse than yours you should still listen to ideas and advice. doing something better than somebody else shouldn't make you imune to different opinion. that being said I think your points on my texturing 'skill' are not valid (see my earlier point on blending or not blending)
while I know that my post was a bit offensive probably, I do not understand the way you commented on my work 'not being bad'. no reason to judge anything just because you might feel attacked let's stay focused and try to be objective.
On October 20 2010 06:01 Samro225am wrote: I am totally with you on your idea of how to use sand or rock textures. sand is more likely to be found in a basin, rock textures should be next to cliffs.
the stones are lying on the ramp (almost 30° steep), very close to the edge of the cliff, ontop, below..in my humble opinion this just does not look good.
???
the point I wanted to emphasize is that themewise I did not think it makes sense to paint one half of the map black and the other grey while structurally both sides are the same. let's take alook at BoomStevo's map Rendevous - here the rocky texture is used appropriatly instead of just' painting one side with one texture' (not really, only one, but you get the idea).
Why does it not make sense? Is there some rule that both sides of a map have to symmetrically look the same? I just wanted to do something a bit different, and make a visually more interesting map. BoomStevo's use of textures is no more appropriate than my own. Both of our maps contain industrial areas next to rocky areas, it just so happens on his map it's symmetrical and on mine it isn't. You can't argue one is appropriate and one isn't when they're basically the same but just on a different scale.
That aside, version 1.1 is now finished.
The area between the mains and the 4 and 10 expansions has been slightly reworked. There is now more space behind the gas/minerals for defence vs air, and siege tanks positioned on the low ground can not shoot as far into the main base.
Here is a screenshot for reference:
Does anyone think this is too powerful? I think there's enough space to attack siege tanks that are positioned there, and the tanks themselves can only range the one geyser and maybe one patch, it's not like they can actually decimate your workers. More opinions on this would be appreciated.
Also, it seems there is an issue with some of my other maps not being hosted (or possibly just not showing up) on the US region. So if anyone would be so kind as to help me investigate the issue, a quick search for my other maps (which can be found in my map thread here) would be awesome.
This map should be up on US very soon, will update accordingly.
The map looks very well balanced. The only thing I can fine is that the middle will favor terran quite a bit. The small chokes and narrow space around the xel naga tower really favor tanks. Zerg and protoss would not be able to get in and kill off a mass amount of tanks i feel. The large gaps around it also favor tanks because nothing else can shoot that far. I may be wrong but just giving my opinion. But to be positive it really looks like a good map.
I'm not sure I like the bottom right and top left expansions. I don't mind the positions of the expansions, but instead I'm having a hard time seeing how I would defend them with a large army. I feel as if, I would like it better if the gold bases were on high ground and the side ramps were either wider or the ramps were in different positions. I would have an easier time setting up a defensive position on a high ground gold in order to defend my third and bottom right/top left base. A little difficult to explain so tell me if that didn't make any sense.
Also, it could be that you want that base to be more difficult to defend, therefore creating more conflict as the late game approaches. That works too.
As for the texturing, it's not my style (as someone else pointed out), but I like it. It looks like you spent a good amount of time breaking up the repetitiveness of the textures and adding detail, which is good and what I look at.
I like your style and hope this isn't the last we see from you.
The map looks very well balanced. The only thing I can fine is that the middle will favor terran quite a bit. The small chokes and narrow space around the xel naga tower really favor tanks. Zerg and protoss would not be able to get in and kill off a mass amount of tanks i feel. The large gaps around it also favor tanks because nothing else can shoot that far. I may be wrong but just giving my opinion. But to be positive it really looks like a good map.
I'm not sure I like the bottom right and top left expansions. I don't mind the positions of the expansions, but instead I'm having a hard time seeing how I would defend them with a large army. I feel as if, I would like it better if the gold bases were on high ground and the side ramps were either wider or the ramps were in different positions. I would have an easier time setting up a defensive position on a high ground gold in order to defend my third and bottom right/top left base. A little difficult to explain so tell me if that didn't make any sense.
Also, it could be that you want that base to be more difficult to defend, therefore creating more conflict as the late game approaches. That works too.
As for the texturing, it's not my style (as someone else pointed out), but I like it. It looks like you spent a good amount of time breaking up the repetitiveness of the textures and adding detail, which is good and what I look at.
I like your style and hope this isn't the last we see from you.
First of all thanks for the comments
Regarding map balance in the centre, I thought about this a lot while designing the map. I was inspired a lot by the middle of Xel'Naga Caverns, and the army movement the big hole in the centre provokes. A terran player realistically can only completely control one of the two central paths, and the ramps through the golds combined with the paths around the outside of the map mean there will almost always be opportunities to flank a player controlling the middle. The width of the paths is also quite similar to XNC, if anything slightly wider. So, while I understand why you might get that impression, I'm inclined to say terran shouldn't have any truly significant advantage here.
BoomStevo, about the bottom right/top left expo's - I understand your point. I wanted players to have lots of options when it comes to expanding on this map. So, after your natural, you could take the next clockwise expansion (top right/bottom left) as these are the most convenient to defend with a single large force. But, depending on the situation, you could expand aggressively and take a gold, or defensively and take the island. With the top left/bottom right, I think it's the best option for a player to expand secretly while under pressure, as theoretically this base could not be scouted for some time as it's quite out of the way. The watchtowers on the left and right sides also allow you to defend these bases more easily. If you have map control (a zerg with mutas, for example) then I don't think this expansion should be that hard to defend.
And thanks for the positive comments on the textures. I think the single biggest factor regarding how a maps textures look is the texture set itself. Which is why pretty much every Bel'Shir map looks really nice and it's a very popular set, because all of the textures just work so well with each other regardless of how good you are at blending them together. Some of the other texture sets require a lot more work to get the most out of, and this is in my opinion a good example. I just always feel compelled to try and do something a bit different with my maps in an effort to make them stand out a bit.
I'd like to note, BoomStevo, that I think the textures on Rendezvous are really nice, well done
Just one last thing, I'm sorry this map isn't available yet in the US - I'm still trying to determine the status of my other maps on that region. So if anyone that reads this is feeling kind, I'd really appreciate people having a quick search for my other maps (map thread here) and let me know if they show up. Thanks in advance!
Haha this is Desert Oasis just everything but the Mains are turned 90° Well kinda^^
As Boom already mentioned I'm not sure how you'd defend more than 3 bases. I gotta say I'm not a big fan of the close starting positions/far expos in general. Your effort really shows, a lot of nice details and cool decoration. Textures are very well done too.
Some stuff I'm not so sure about: Those tiny high grounds with ramp in top right/bottom left look a bit odd. Sure you wanted to kill some too open space there but it just looks like an open invitation to siege up which helps you to defend about 3 chokes that lead to your main. I'm pretty sure it's not but just for confirmation, is it possible to siege top right/bottom left expo from the island?^^
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RGpcT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CGWhK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qxdMF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PNB51.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6SYm6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/EZQLw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/VMHw9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2UvTj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/dBJA8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/w9NZK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sL3pB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6zW2o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0YTdj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vxdGb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/haL3t.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ylbqk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/LIrBv.jpg)
. 
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/e8b9e.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iuW7T.jpg)
