[M] (2) Cruel Sire, Crossfire + Dual Site

On July 25 2013 20:21 EatThePath wrote:
Ha this is pretty cool. I feel like the 3rd base should have a wider neck to the tower area though, since with the rocks it's like a two 3x3 walloff.

On July 25 2013 20:18 []Phase[] wrote:
Fusion ha!

ok, im done.

On July 26 2013 08:24 Qikz wrote:


I don't think that's really true at all, zerg have overlords/single, terrans have floating buildings as mech or single marines as bio and protoss have pylons/observers for spotting.

On July 26 2013 07:37 SiskosGoatee wrote:
For people wanting to play it, you can thank Blizzard's 20 map limit for that it isn't published.

On July 26 2013 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:

I notice this about the tileset description too. How about, instead of complaining about the editor's limitations, try to actually work around them. Can't publish a new map? Unpublish an old one, surely there's at least one map you can part with by this point.

On July 26 2013 13:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Well, that's not really working around a limitation is it? That's just being limited by it in the exact way I was complaining about.

Working around a limitation would be like. 'You can't have the char/belshir rocks in one map, so what I did was making a model variation which sends an actor message to change the texture set apply group to hack around this.'.

On July 26 2013 14:21 NewSunshine wrote:

Saying the textures you use can't look good because of 'limitations in the editor' is a weak excuse, and you're not about to lecture me of all people on constraints and limitations. Testbug managed to look good, despite splitting its textures 3 ways

It all comes down to the textures you choose, and how you use them. If the result is bad, then it's more on you than the editor. Pick better textures, or just get better. There I said it.

And seriously, 20 maps isn't enough? By the time you get to the point where 20 isn't enough, there's almost certainly a few maps that you want to get rid of anyway, unless you just aren't improving, and despite how much your arguments irritate me, I'd venture to say you've improved substantially. Pick a bad map to nuke and move on, so that people who like your new map, can actually play it. Don't blame Blizzard for that one.

The textures of testbug look awful man. And this is in no way something you can blame the artist of, he did the best with the tools he had at hand but ultimately you can't make etcetera-grade texture blends working with only 2 textures per quadrant.

Of course it doesn't 'all' come down to that, if you only have 3 textures to work with it's just not going to look amazing no matter the skill of the texturer, let's face it.

It's not about improving, it's about that some people still have replays on those maps which they might want to watch and they can't any more if the map gets removed, or play on it.

On July 26 2013 15:26 NewSunshine wrote:

I wasn't aware we were talking about a quad-themed map here.

Of course it doesn't 'all' come down to that, if you only have 3 textures to work with it's just not going to look amazing no matter the skill of the texturer, let's face it.

I'm fairly certain you just made this one up. And even if it's true, oh well? I'm sure the people who played your old maps won't lose any sleep or hair over it. Old maps get unpublished, it happens. In fact, this is perhaps the weakest excuse I've ever seen, try harder.

Overall I just get the feeling you made this map explicitly so you could complain about everything the editor does. Textures look like shit? Blame Blizzard for that, the editor doesn't let me use 20 textures at once. Can't play the map? I couldn't publish, blame Blizzard for that.

I will also say that although I like certain aspects of the map, mostly because it lifts things straight out of Crossfire, your two signature touches are still somehow present, and I don't see why. The main bases are the only part of the edges that don't touch the playable borders

and every mineral is annoyingly close to the edge, making air harass even stronger than it already is. Totally unnecessary in my opinion. Also, the "Icarus" bases you've become so fond of. If it was a natural expansion, I might concede that they have a noticeable impact in certain scenarios, since early boosts in income can snowball later in the game, or accelerate specific timings done in the early game. Here, when all 4 of these expansions are 4th bases at the earliest, what impact is it going to have? Probably none. Neither of the two things I've pointed out seem to add anything to the map, and seem to be there only for the sake of being there.

On July 26 2013 15:38 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Obviously the reason for making air space and putting mineral lines close to the edge is exactly what you said, it's to make air harass and drops stronger, play I like to see instead of people turtling and death balling. I've actually grown more fond of Icarus bases as aggressive thirds than as naturals currently. You can take a forward icarus base and use it as a staging point for a push, they need less workers to saturate and don't provide as much income as a normal base but it can be used for an aggressive staging point which I like, the ratio is just right, 6 patches providing 7 patches worth of income.

It's not about improving, it's about that some people still have replays on those maps which they might want to watch and they can't any more if the map gets removed, or play on it.

I'm sure old maps get unpublished, but as it stands, I like each of the 20 maps and mods I have published now more than this one so I'm not going to trade this one for any of them, that's all.

On July 26 2013 17:58 RFDaemoniac wrote:



I think putting mineral lines closer to airspace edges helps air unit harass more than it helps drops, though both are easier because it's harder to punish with ranged units. A cleanup crew of zerglings and banelings still works just as effectively, but the queen anti-air is less threatening, and if you place static defense it'll disrupt mining.

Are you expecting a player to take one of the Icarus bases as an aggressive 3rd? Like a zerg that has map control gearing up for a 2 base push, building a macro hatchery in a place where it will also provide a slightly stronger income. Or a 160 supply pushing mech terran? I'm having trouble seeing a real use for them, given how much of a risk they are, and how easy they are to scout, unless people are placated so terribly by the watch towers that they don't scout additionally.

If you chose a black/very dark rock/shale texture instead of the cracked char dirt (or something like that?) you could probably overlay it onto some of the small bel'shir tiles in order to support the man made cliffs on the burned side.

So... it is about improving?