Introduction: Okay, I know what you're thinking, the name is really stupid(*cougharcticravencough*). However, there is something to it. First, the planet Braxis, in the SC2 lore, is a big ball of super-thick ice. And science fiction does that cliche with naming planets with numbers all the time, so, to continue my tirade against Niflheim I dove back in, to create another snow map. I don't hate Niflheim as a tileset, but I find myself against the idea of reworking the dependencies of the map to enable the use of Niflheim. I want to keep the aesthetics purely confined to what can be easily accessed for the average user(the lighting is heavily tweaked, but that's a slightly different story).
Oh yeah, the name is also a subtle reference to this song -
For the layout itself, I wanted to keep it simple, but with a handful of simple, cool features. The aesthetics mirror this - simple in the way it conforms to the layout, but very clean and attractive in its execution.
My 1st concern after having looked over this map is that it may be to easy to secure 4 bases for following reasons. 1) 4ths very close to 3rd - 3rd is farther from nat than from 4th, albeit barely 2) ramps leading into 4th are smaller than they could be
Other than that, 14 bases is a bit extreme, 12 is perfectly fine for 2 player map. The 4/10 o'clocks could use a layout rework. They look out of place almost as if they were after thoughts.
Tileset is pretty sweet, it looks much brighter in screenshots than overview though - is this accurate to in-game also? If so it could be a bit of a literal eye-sore.
On June 05 2012 16:00 lost_artz wrote: My 1st concern after having looked over this map is that it may be to easy to secure 4 bases for following reasons. 1) 4ths very close to 3rd - 3rd is farther from nat than from 4th, albeit barely 2) ramps leading into 4th are smaller than they could be
Other than that, 14 bases is a bit extreme, 12 is perfectly fine for 2 player map. The 4/10 o'clocks could use a layout rework. They look out of place almost as if they were after thoughts.
Tileset is pretty sweet, it looks much brighter in screenshots than overview though - is this accurate to in-game also? If so it could be a bit of a literal eye-sore.
1) I was thinking about pushing the 4th up a little bit, so the transition from base to base is a little better, I might also open things up a little bit too in that area.
2) I don't think 14 is extreme at all. 4 player maps generally have 14-16 bases, yet are used for 1v1's. 2 of the expo's here are also half bases. I see what you're saying, that 14 is more than usual, but it's fine.
The screenshots show what it's like in-game, because the overview ignores the lighting and gives an inaccurate image, aesthetically speaking. As for being an eyesore, well, I guess I'll wait for the map's debut on the ladder before I tackle that :p Thanks for the feedback though, it sort of goes along with what I'm thinking to improve it. I also encourage anyone who can play on NA to test the map out, if the lighting is too strong I wanna know. Also, an in-game experience can give much better knowledge than an overview, so I encourage you to experience the map for what it is. GLHF
On June 05 2012 16:00 lost_artz wrote: My 1st concern after having looked over this map is that it may be to easy to secure 4 bases for following reasons. 1) 4ths very close to 3rd - 3rd is farther from nat than from 4th, albeit barely 2) ramps leading into 4th are smaller than they could be
Other than that, 14 bases is a bit extreme, 12 is perfectly fine for 2 player map. The 4/10 o'clocks could use a layout rework. They look out of place almost as if they were after thoughts.
Tileset is pretty sweet, it looks much brighter in screenshots than overview though - is this accurate to in-game also? If so it could be a bit of a literal eye-sore.
1) I was thinking about pushing the 4th up a little bit, so the transition from base to base is a little better, I might also open things up a little bit too in that area.
2) I don't think 14 is extreme at all. 4 player maps generally have 14-16 bases, yet are used for 1v1's. 2 of the expo's here are also half bases. I see what you're saying, that 14 is more than usual, but it's fine.
The screenshots show what it's like in-game, because the overview ignores the lighting and gives an inaccurate image, aesthetically speaking. As for being an eyesore, well, I guess I'll wait for the map's debut on the ladder before I tackle that :p Thanks for the feedback though, it sort of goes along with what I'm thinking to improve it.
No problem On a final note I like the XNT placement a lot. They're just far enough out of the way to the point where they're not vital to winning the game but still very important to knowing whats going on around the map. Plus they're so far apart from each other that you simply can't hold both because you hold one.
On June 05 2012 16:28 lost_artz wrote: No problem On a final note I like the XNT placement a lot. They're just far enough out of the way to the point where they're not vital to winning the game but still very important to knowing whats going on around the map. Plus they're so far apart from each other that you simply can't hold both because you hold one.
Thanks :D If you can, try to play a test game some time, and lemme know if the lighting is too harsh. I know not everyone has the same gamma setting, so although I think it's fine, someone else might be having a small seizure. The original goal with the lighting was to bend the color of the textures towards the pristine white of snow, as most of the textures are sort of yellow-ish by default.
Maybe I could use the beta's sweet new copy features to make a quick and easy revision, hmmm. I might have some changes ready before long.
On June 05 2012 16:28 lost_artz wrote: No problem On a final note I like the XNT placement a lot. They're just far enough out of the way to the point where they're not vital to winning the game but still very important to knowing whats going on around the map. Plus they're so far apart from each other that you simply can't hold both because you hold one.
Thanks :D If you can, try to play a test game some time, and lemme know if the lighting is too harsh. I know not everyone has the same gamma setting, so although I think it's fine, someone else might be having a small seizure. The original goal with the lighting was to bend the color of the textures towards the pristine white of snow, as most of the textures are sort of yellow-ish by default.
Maybe I could use the beta's sweet new copy features to make a quick and easy revision, hmmm. I might have some changes ready before long.
Perhaps tomorrow or early next week (just ordered parts for new PC so I could always test out Sc2 in general at the same time). . Last time I played I was only silver though haha. I play Sc2 very rarely these days. Mostly just watch VODs/replays/tourneys. Definitely potential for this map to see ladder/tournaments once it's refined.
Layout seems cool. Perhaps the base density is a bit too high? Outer expos should perhaps be stretched towards the map edges a bit. But it's got a cool, unique shape, and I like it.
On June 05 2012 18:26 Aunvilgod wrote: ZhakulDas lightning hurts my eyes.
shhhh, nobody's supposed to know what it is! :p ZD is the base lighting, but that's not why it's as bright as it is. I got some changes incoming, for both the lighting and the layout, that should be an improvement. thanks for the feedback so far!
Are you sure that the ZD lighting is saved? The overview usually works fine for me.
If you modify the brightness of the lighting you should check how warping in buildings look like. There is not much space to modify until it looks weird afair.
BTW is it lighting or lightning? Either way a lot of people are writing it wrong and confusing the shit out of me. :p
I've already played a test game on the initial version, and the lighting is fine(as in, what you see in the screenshots). The overviews generated from my particular copy of the editor never seem to have the proper lighting, so it's something I'm sort of used to by now. Once I'm done revising I'll have some new screenshots to show what I've come up with lighting-wise, it should still work for the snow, without being too strong. Guess we'll see.
Alright, I've got an overview to show the layout changes. I've made lighting changes too, so it's a bit more like how it looks in the overview. Anyway,
The main changes regard the Clockwise 4th base, which has been pushed a slight bit away from its respective 3rd base, and opened up. It now also sits next to a 4-width ramp, instead of 3.
Hmm. It actually seems easier to me to just take the three bottom bases and not the center ones. At least the outer lowground base is the best 4th to take. Just as a note, I don´t think anything needs to be changed.
I feel like there's some proportion issues with the map. Most of the high ground areas are very choky and tight, while the low ground areas are huuuuge. Widening the central path a little (doesn't have to be much) as well as bulking out some of the ramps a tad would help, and also larger obstructions on the low ground would help too.
On June 06 2012 08:55 RumbleBadger wrote: I feel like there's some proportion issues with the map. Most of the high ground areas are very choky and tight, while the low ground areas are huuuuge. Widening the central path a little (doesn't have to be much) as well as bulking out some of the ramps a tad would help, and also larger obstructions on the low ground would help too.
I'm not sure that's so much an issue, as it is the way the map plays. I'm all for fixing something that's a problem, but I don't want to conform to what a normal map looks like just because it's the standard. I feel this map would be very different if I were to sort of homogenize the openness, and I'm not sure it's necessary(come up with a specific problem area though, and I could crank out a reasonable fix np). Keep the thoughts and feedback coming though! I do appreciate the opinions/advice so far.
On June 06 2012 08:55 RumbleBadger wrote: I feel like there's some proportion issues with the map. Most of the high ground areas are very choky and tight, while the low ground areas are huuuuge. Widening the central path a little (doesn't have to be much) as well as bulking out some of the ramps a tad would help, and also larger obstructions on the low ground would help too.
(...) I feel this map would be very different if I were to sort of homogenize the openness (...)
I agree, if a player manages to force a fight on his terms, he actually has an advantage and that's how it should be.
Any chance of seeing the map published on EU soon? :D Would really like to try it out. Are the analyzer pics showing the playable area or do they just cut off at the border of the ground? The airspace in the overview looks excessive, but I doubt that it shows the playable area.
On June 06 2012 08:55 RumbleBadger wrote: I feel like there's some proportion issues with the map. Most of the high ground areas are very choky and tight, while the low ground areas are huuuuge. Widening the central path a little (doesn't have to be much) as well as bulking out some of the ramps a tad would help, and also larger obstructions on the low ground would help too.
(...) I feel this map would be very different if I were to sort of homogenize the openness (...)
I agree, if a player manages to force a fight on his terms, he actually has an advantage and that's how it should be.
Any chance of seeing the map published on EU soon? :D Would really like to try it out. Are the analyzer pics showing the playable area or do they just cut off at the border of the ground? The airspace in the overview looks excessive, but I doubt that it shows the playable area.
You are correct, the overview shows the full bounds, the playable bounds have no excess airspace.
I can get it published on EU before too long hopefully, if Raven doesn't hate the name at least.
i like it a lot but i feel that you can't choose to engage vs your opponent in a wide area. I imagine this in a TvP where the protoss has a deathball and you must find an open area to do the engagement.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1SyCr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tpc8J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kvRvE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1G0Fg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kipyO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z6sZ7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oh7Os.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hW0VY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uWOyd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BGWKJ.jpg)
On a final note I like the XNT placement a lot. They're just far enough out of the way to the point where they're not vital to winning the game but still very important to knowing whats going on around the map. Plus they're so far apart from each other that you simply can't hold both because you hold one.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8rWAx.jpg)
