Map Collaboration Thread - Page 3
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On December 26 2010 07:51 Barrin wrote: Reposting with rough textures to show areas. I see what u meant about too much choking I considered it some and this is what I came up with. I think I like it a lot more now tbh. Oh and don't worry about straight lines that'll change This is just the basic idea. I am looking for help with layout and balance please. + Show Spoiler + Same as before: just looking for things I should look out for. A 2 player map with 16 bases is simply too many. The map has a lot of wasted space and is simply too big. If you were to cut out 6 to 8 bases, and compress the map so a lot of the paths were narrower and the whole map more compact in general you might be on the right track. I'd do away with the Islands and the corner expansions since they're so tucked away the only way they're getting attacked is with something like a drop, and by the time you have any hope to defend the expansion is completely dead. I'll give a few tips to you personally as it seems to be sort of a recurring theme amongst your maps that I've seen recently: One of the hardest things to do in the editor is to properly estimate scale. Things in the editor seem a lot smaller than they actually are in-game. This is a bit of a double-edged sword though, you have to be careful not to overestimate and make the map too small 8) The other thing that I wanted to mention is the simplicity of your maps. This map's expansion path is simply too complex and a lot of your maps seem like they've got a lot of really fantastic ideas, but they're being masked by the fact that you're trying to blend them all into a single map. Save some for later! If you work around the constraint that a 2 player map should have no less than 8 maps and no more than 10 (12 is sometimes okay but your design really has to work with it). I hope this helps 8) | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
EDIT (to prevent double post): I'm starting a new UMS project, and I need someone who is comfortable with the data editor. You should be able to create new units and spells, add custom models. I'll be helping to do all this, but its too huge for me to do by my self. | ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
I'm actually coming here for a bit of assistance this time! I need help testing the map to anwer one very simple question: Does the rotational symmetry of this map combined with it's features create the necessity to force cross positions? (ie: Do cross positions generate a better enough experience to merit negating horizontal and vertical positions, or does leaving it make the map interesting in that one player has to expand away for a third). I'm not looking to discuss the layout, just to answer that one question (but if you show me replays of something else being fundamentally broken I'll be sure to check it out, as usual.) Here's the map ~~~~ + Show Spoiler + Neo Enigma BETA - Shrank down! Less open! Still a big macro map! :D! I'd post a bigger pic, but my "export map image" button doesn't want to render terrain anymore (yes, I have the box checked.) - If you know why this is please please please tell me! NOTE: Black texturing is unpathable. The lowground center is unbuildable (checkerboarded for creep tumors). Search Neo Enigma BETA to play and then tell me what you think! (Only up on US.) Right now, I'm leaning towards not changing it as it creates some tension based on the spawns without completely shafting the player who's worse off out of an expansion. If testing proves this to not be the case then I will force cross positions only. Thanks in advance~ | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On December 27 2010 16:53 Barrin wrote: ...Hey that looks like Enigma!!! ...Oh! Just like Enigma, I think close positions here are just fine (Actually that 4th is a little funky... in ZvT if the Z spawns clockwise close position then when the T takes the 4th he can too easily siege Z's 3rd). But if you were to force cross positions, is there really any point in having 4 spawning positions? Perhaps this is not one of them, but in most such cases I would expect that having just 2 spawning locations would make more sense. The point is that the highground third harasses the lowground third (specifically the gas) without interfering with the center, and still leaves your natural entrance wide open to be punished if you overcommit. | ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + If anyone would be kind enough to help that would be great! | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
Lioness
Canada35 Posts
| ||
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On December 27 2010 16:42 prodiG wrote: I'm leaning towards not changing it as it creates some tension based on the spawns without completely shafting the player who's worse off out of an expansion... So positional imbalances are OK as long as they don't completely shaft one of the players? Seems like a bad approach to me. | ||
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On December 28 2010 23:26 iGrok wrote: Yeah sure, email igrok.motm@gmail.com Thanks a bunch man, I just the email. | ||
EffectS
Belgium795 Posts
Anywho, I'll post top-down view + analyzer? Top-down: + Show Spoiler + Analyzer: + Show Spoiler + | ||
Zero.Tha.Hero
Canada155 Posts
| ||
Cave
Sweden18 Posts
I'll in the future upload some of my work on youtube for a showcase of what music I've made. | ||
| ||