| Excalibur | | |
| Serious potential. |
| Freakling | | |
Assuming this is Excalibur's.
Nice. If you make the middle a bit less plain this could be a nice map, I think. Maybe add some ridges, reaching from between the tight gap and the minonly to where now there is the basilica in the middle... Could even make those basilica rifges, for a change. Not too "blue-stormy", just each one reaching about halfway across to the middle, with a central gap just as it is now...
And then put some icing nice deco on the cake map.
modified by Freakling |
| Excalibur | | |
| I could never make anything this good Freaky. :c |
| NegativeZero | | |
Not really sure what you meant with the ridges, but this seems close. The main concern is that T can just park tanks on the ridges and have too much of a defensive advantage, since there's really only those 2 paths through the center. If necessary I can open up the center gap so harassment units can have an extra path between the ridges.
Changed the center to high dirt since I suck at tile/terrain blending. |
| traceurling | | |
One of your ridges spazzed out and has a hole in it
Was this also SC2 map inspired? xD |
| NegativeZero | | |
Lol yes, actually - the base layout is partially based on an inverted Cloud Kingdom. (It's more obvious if you imagine the min only on the high-ground pod where it originally was located.) But I thought it was different enough that I could consider it an original map and not a remake or edit.
Edit: ramp fixed
modified by NegativeZero |
| Freakling | | |
Almost exactly what I meant.
But can you make the ridges curve the other way? So units taking the "shortcut" go by, and not onto, them? |
| CrystalDrag | | |
^
kind of similar problem i had with KAMIJO, where units would wander up the ramps and give vision..
But this one will be easier to correct; just copy and paste they two ramps switching positions.
Check protoss FFE |
| NegativeZero | | |
I'll try, but they could get in the way of the min onlies.
Edit: I just tested the pathing. Strangely, when a probe goes in either direction through the middle, as it passes the upper ridge it stays along the lower edge and doesn't gain high ground vision, but when it passes the lower ridge it veers to the left and passes entirely along the top portion of the ridge. I'll see if I can make some sort of change - based on a quick test, if I simply switch the upper and lower ramps the townhall placement at the min only is rather awkward.
Edit2: FFE should be fine, the nats have a standard 7 tile choke (wallable with 1 rax/2 depots vertically)
modified by NegativeZero |
| Freakling | | |
| Move the ridge as close to the mineral only as you can. As long as T can build a comasat, It'll be just fine. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
Oh is 7 tiles standard?.... i thought it was 6 for gateway+forge...
and nothing is wrong with a nuke silo :)
modified by CrystalDrag |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| This post is not displayed due to its content |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Tried just narrowing the center ridges instead of reversing the curvature. Surprisingly it worked - units don't gain high ground vision, though they come extremely close. Larger groups of units ordered through the center would almost certainly cause a couple to wander up to the high ground. I haven't yet decided whether this is good enough, I still might reverse the ramps. |
| Freakling | | |
You can just copy the raps over as they are, crosswise...
And you should just move them as close to the mineral only as possible.
If you make them too narrow, they won't be very useful, because you cannot really position your units on them comfortably. |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Ridges reversed. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| I think the overlord spots will not work efficiently in the middle... Simply put something on the high ground to scout for it and kill it. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| I think the overlord spots will not work efficiently in the middle... Simply put something on the high ground to scout for it and kill it. |
| Freakling | | |
| You don't need a good ovi spot there anyway, there are already enough good spots to hide an ovi. |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Do you think I should leave a small buildable area in front of the small choke by the nat so it can be walled with 3 pylons, or is it ok to make that entire area between the nat and 3rd unbuildable? |
| Freakling | | |
I think that choke should not be wallable.
I would just make the area from the nat choke to the low ground 3rds and the area around the shortcut path unbuildable.
modified by Freakling |
| NegativeZero | | |
Version 0.5 changes:
-Min onlies moved slightly back into the cliff to make more room
-Unbuildable terrain added along all the low-ground corridors
-Started a little bit on decoration |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
Cool map. I think that the 3/9 expos shouldn't be that safe though, given how relatively easy all the other expansions are to take as is. I think I'd give the 4th gas expos a larger ramp as well.
Aren't the min onlys a little useless? |
| traceurling | | |
| I think the corner expos should have larger ramps... |
| NegativeZero | | |
| I can see enlarging the ramps at the 3/9 bases, and I'll probably change that, but isn't it pretty standard to have a gas base with a single-width ramp for zergs to secure with lurkers as their 3rd? |
| Freakling | | |
Lurkers can easily hold wider ramps with high ground advantage (like on Melting Pot, Gemlong, Resonance II), so I agree with wider ramps.
The minonlies arenot useless. Grented, they will probably be the last expos to be taken in most games, but it gives players something to fight for in late game, and the additional minerals can become really important, when other expos are close to mined out. |
| NegativeZero | | |
Yes, that's basically why I had the min onlies - they were intended to be either late-game bases or bases for terrans to secure while slow-pushing through the middle (in which case the advantage of the forward position should be cancelled by the lack of gas).
I'll change the corner bases to double ramps, not sure yet whether I'll use double or triple ramps (or one of each) for the 3/9 bases. |
| NegativeZero | | |
Version 0.6 changes:
-Enlarged ramps at 1/7 and 3/9 expos
-Minor terrain adjustments
-Continued decoration (hardly any doodads yet)
idk what to do yet (regarding decoration) with the wide open middle areas |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| This post is not displayed due to its content |
| CardinalAllin | | |
| One minor thing Id like to suggest is putting space for 3 or 4 turrets on the path to the 3rds. This is for TvP balance. |
| JungleTerrain | | |
| No that area is already super tight and easily defendable i think |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Yeah I agree actually. I think I would snip the terrain to make those paths just a tiny bit wider. Then allow just a single turret on the path to the 3rds.
In the mains, I would possibly try to make them slightly more square shaped too (aiming for larger overall).
I would possibly alter the 12 and 6 o clock low ground paths to the 3rds. I think the choke is too small. You could snip away a bit of cliff there. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
Made the paths 12 and 6 wider; you have the unused terrain to do so..
Add more area to the paths to the 3rds, but dont allow any turrets.
I would not allow a single turret. Protoss can only build a pylon there and no cannon, so imbalanced.
Mains are fine as they are i think. Blues just appears smaller because of the gas placement.
|
| Freakling | | |
Since when does Protoss push out with Cannons anyway?
But, yeah, that area could actually be wider... I am more thinking about how absolutely dominating Dark Swarms are in tight passages like that...
I'll play around with GMCS a bit. |
| traceurling | | |
| Placing watchtower pylons helps to spot for drops.., |
| NegativeZero | | |
I tested it in game and the paths to the 3rds seem wide enough (almost the full screen width) with maybe just a couple edits to cut down the cliff edges, although you guys' opinions are probably more knowledgeable lol.
Don't know how long it will be until the next update since I'm going to be very busy with finals the next couple of weeks. |
| traceurling | | |
| NegativeZero and I played a couple games on this map yesterday..really bad games we kept on screwing up but if you want some lols its good we'll upload later.. |
| NegativeZero | | |
please don't, I don't want the rest of the world to know just how terrible I am at BW lol...
modified by NegativeZero |
| Freakling | | |
| I would like to point out that not finishing this and submitting it for the iCCup/defiler competition would be a terrible waste! |
| NegativeZero | | |
| I'm working on it right now, currently trying to see if there's a way to make the close 3rd less open and vulnerable from the high-ground pod (maybe shifting the ramps slightly away from the 3rds and towards the naturals). Might end up just finishing the decoration and submitting it as is. |
| Freakling | | |
| Haven't you seen my gmcs? That should take care of that problem as well. |
| Excalibur | | |
| This map is turning out really well, I really hope you finish it and submit it for the competition! |
| NegativeZero | | |
| I saw the GMCS, the question is how moving the ramp away from the 3rd will make it less open - that's what I am trying to figure out. |
| traceurling | | |
| Spam doodads/neutral buildings :) or add in a small wall or pond...idk... |
| CrystalDrag | | |
^^
Only i can spam buildings, i licensed that like a year ago. CRBP, (Crystal Random Building Spam) or something like that.
modified by CrystalDrag |
| Freakling | | |
Why would you want the 3rd to be less open, anyways?
|
| NegativeZero | | |
It just seems like there's currently no defender's advantage when defending the 3rd - maybe even an attacker's advantage since they probably have the high ground. Either moving the high ground away from the 3rd, as you suggested, or narrowing the entrance to the 3rd would both solve this problem (or a combination of both).
Also vulture harass could be an issue, though I guess it's not a bad thing to force players to maintain control and awareness of the high-ground pod to intercept incoming vultures. |
| Freakling | | |
| It's all about high ground control. |
| traceurling | | |
| But in all MUs, T P and Z can take the corner expo safely right? So then that middlish base would be more of a fourth than a third, so not as crucial... |
| Freakling | | |
| P/T would likely pick it as a 3rd anyways, just like they take the minonly on (2)Matchpoint. |
| traceurling | | |
Needs more muta vs marine harrassable areas...
Also if you need ideas just look at Polaris Rhapsody or something for deco ideas...
modified by traceurling |
| NegativeZero | | |
Version 0.7 changes:
-First attempt at finishing up the aesthetics (minus doodads), I'm not really satisfied with how it turned out. I might replace the flagstone part with something else, maybe bridge tiles. Alternatively I'm thinking of trying a version where all of the connected center high dirt terrain, including the high-ground pod and all of the curved ramps, is replaced with basilica.
-High ground pod hasn't been changed yet |
| Freakling | | |
| I think you can get a better look by using more extensive deco structures; i.e. not just small patches to fill the open spaces here and there but bigger connected regions of some common deco "theme". |
| NegativeZero | | |
Version 0.8 changes:
-More deco (still 2 big areas I'm figuring out what to do with)
-Shifted the high ground pod away from the 3rd, widened passage from nat to 3rd (finally)
-Changed chokes in front of nat to bridges
Concerns:
-Bridges might be too narrow (would be easy to widen)
modified by NegativeZero |
| greatn00b | | |
Me like it for the terran match-ups.
But how is pvz going to be played on this map? |
| Freakling | | |
| I don't see a problem PvZ. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
I like where the deco is going. :)
The bridge is fine i think(assuming you wanted something like polaris rhapsody) |
| traceurling | | |
modified by traceurling |
| traceurling | | |
| Use this as deco in the waterrr :D http://i.imgur.com/Liaupa7.png |
| NegativeZero | | |
http://img.pandawhale.com/39215-grumpy-cat-no-Vyfj.jpeg
Edit: Version 0.8.1 changes:
-Moar aesthetics
Wanted to add more bridge stuff to the top left/bottom right open parts but I was concerned there might not be enough buildable room. Might remove the little pillars in the middle of those areas if it chokes them up too much.
modified by NegativeZero |
| Freakling | | |
Looks great.
I like your doodad placement.
modified by Freakling |
| NegativeZero | | |
| :D |
| CrystalDrag | | |
hmm ^^
I dont like the little pillars; they are not overlord spots and they cramp up those middles. |
| NegativeZero | | |
Removed pillars.
Edit: Fixed a mistake where I had some low ground flagstone tiles on the high ground
modified by NegativeZero |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Lovely stuff, nice one.
(now just add space for 2 turrets on the path from nat to 3rd)
;) |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Let's see what the rest of the hivemind thinks on that one - should I add spots for a couple turrets? |
| CrystalDrag | | |
No. terran already have advantage with multiple choke (kinda wide as well) with tanks. dont favor them more
modified by CrystalDrag |
| traceurling | | |
| Add space for one turret, FS has a random spot between the nat and the third that allows you to build a pylong/turret |
| Freakling | | |
| Can you build on those big, wide ramped plateaus in front of the close 3rds? If yes, then I don't think that you need additional turret space, because terran can probably very easily siege up on there with turrets and and have 3 safe bases. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Thats why I put the wink smiley in because I know you guys dont want to hehe.
Hmm, compare Bloody Ridge and New Bloody Ridge. You see one of the changes made was space for a couple of turrets?
|
| NegativeZero | | |
| Actually the high ground pods are unbuildable right now |
| CrystalDrag | | |
I think it is okay as it is pretaining to buildable space.
Mineral-only is such a good spot to proxy :) |
| Freakling | | |
| There should definitely be turret space somewhere to help terran take the 3rd, I think. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| F terran, they have comsat stations :) |
| Freakling | | |
| But Z has more lurks than t has scans! |
| Freakling | | |
Added obs version by CardinalAllin.
Also, just so you know, I host a bunch of submissions on MediaFire for easier updating. Tell me if you want me to include this one, too. I think I can even set the folder to allow others to upload there, too... Have to yet figure that out, though...
I think I figured it out!
modified by Freakling |
| Freakling | | |
Also congratulations, you did a really fantastic and beautiful job with this one, and TLers seem to really like it too!
One more thing: I am just admiring your work in the editor, and there are some minerals placed on unwalkable cliff edges at the close 3rds. You should either move them a tile away from the cliffs or make the tiles below the mineral fully walkable by manual editing.
modified by Freakling |
| NegativeZero | | |
| I'm thinking of making the high ground ridges buildable, just to have some more somewhat-protected buildable space on the map, but I'm just concerned about the advantage for T in a sieged up position with turrets there. |
| traceurling | | |
| Make the back third of it buildable, so you can put turrets but you can't put them at the front of the ridge to simcity too hard... |
| NegativeZero | | |
Made the high ground pods buildable (for now, can always change later).
Updated to version 1.0 (awwwww yeah finally) and submitted to ICCup mapmaking contest.
Edit: High ground pods are unbuildable again
modified by NegativeZero |
| Freakling | | |
| I could make you an observer version matching the ones of the other submissions, plus a training version and a BWMN tagged picture. Would only take me about 5 minutes, I think. |
| NegativeZero | | |
Please do, I'd appreciate that.
I'm still thinking about whether I want to try adding more buildable areas, but I think I'll just leave it as is for now and wait for testing. |
| Freakling | | |
Newest version uploaded to MediaFire.
I also fixed some of the remaining mineral on cliff problems, although they did not seem to cause any problems ingame when I tested the map vs. AI. |
| NegativeZero | | |
Thanks, the lighting on the picture looks great - what program do you use?
Also I tested the obs version and the observer slots didn't show up. I tried looking through the triggers but I couldn't identify the problem.
modified by NegativeZero |
| Freakling | | |
GIMP, as always, with manual contrast adjustment via histogram curves.
It wasn't the triggers, but the missing SLs O_o |
| CardinalAllin | | |
| The start locations for the observers are still missing. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| Any update on resources? |
| Freakling | | |
| Check your skype, I already sent you the new version. |
| traceurling | | |
| This is being used in STL(Swedish Broodwar Initiative Teamleague) |
| NegativeZero | | |
| You mentioned a new version with improved resources, did you send it to SBWI? |
| Freakling | | |
| Yes I did. Here it is. |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Thanks for doing what I was too lazy to try to do, lol. But I'm surprised the main minerals weren't good enough already - I copied the configuration directly from the mains on Destination. |
| Freakling | | |
Unfortunately copying formations from another map does not even remotely guarantee that they will work like in that other map...
Else standardized formations, like gas positions, would have been being used for a long time, I guess... |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| I wonder if the minerals were to be on exact positions on different tileset maps? |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| There is a bad tile at 9 oclock. |
| Freakling | | |
"I wonder if the minerals were to be on exact positions on different tileset maps?"
Not sure what you mean, but if you have a hypothesis I suggest you test it and share your results! |
| Freakling | | |
| I cannot find any "bad tile" at 9 o'clock. |
| traceurling | | |
"I wonder if the minerals were to be on exact positions on different tileset maps?"
I think Crystal means if you made a new map the exact same shape and size as Destination in say Ash tileset, and had the same mineral formation and position as in each mineral patch was at the exact same (x,y) coordinate, what would be the effect/lack of effect...guess just a theory that maybe the (x,y) location of minerals affects mining and pathing and stuff... |
| CrystalDrag | | |
Woops. 6o'clock Base. (59,113)
And also (66,35) there is a tile missing from the curved ramp of 12o'clock.(and the same for its counterpart on the opposite side of [45,92])
And yes, traceurling is right in my pondering. Maybe ill have time to test it.
modified by CrystalDrag |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Damn, don't know how I missed that. Want me to fix it, or are you going to do it Freakling? |
| Freakling | | |
@traceurling: I would really appreciate it if you actually tried it, because it's one of the things on my "things to find out list". You could just use SCMDraft to convert a map from one tileset to another.
@Crystal/Negative: I'll have a look. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
@Freakling I have just tested it. The map tileset does not play a role in the mining. I have checked with Ash, Badlands, Desert, and the same mineral resulted in having the same bug all three times.
Map Dimensions do not matter either. I made the Ash map 96x96, and yet it resulted in the same mineral bug. |
| Freakling | | |
Have you also tried:
- Changing the terrain
- Recreating the whole map from scratch
- using the same formations on a blank map, but in the same position
- using the same formations on a blank map of different tileset/dimension, but in the same position?
|
| traceurling | | |
| Oh my so much stuff to test...when I go to college freakling you'll have to send me your list of "stuff to test" and I'll do them when I'm bored but for right now I'm just a high schooler with strict parents :( |
| Freakling | | |
add to the list:
-drones/probes mining with CC, SCVs/Drones with Nex etc. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
None of that will actually happen unless protoss. >>.
"- using the same formations on a blank map, but in the same position"
That is what i did to test the tilesets. All had the exact same mineral formations, though i didnt check the gas mining.
modified by CrystalDrag |
| Freakling | | |
| You would also not actually play on a blank map. It's all about generating theoretical knowledge to be used in more efficient map creation/debugging, not having a fun game. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| I know. -.- |
| traceurling | | |
-drones/probes mining with CC, SCVs/Drones with Nex etc.
It could happen if team melee ever becomes popular :P |
| NegativeZero | | |
| Updated uploaded maps/picture to Freakling's resource-balanced version. |
| XeLious | | |
| This post is not displayed due to its content |
| CardinalAllin | | |
7th March 2016
Version 1.02 Overwatch
This is the original version of Overwatch, version 1.X
This version is not an iCCup map. Please see 'Overwatch' for that version which is 2.X
Ive been tidying up the iCCup map pack to follow the conventions that were established there. I will write more in a forum post. |
(2)Overwatch 1.02
-
Brain[Pain] vs 
sas.v0rti(1on1, 1.15)
YSS[BoB](1on1, 1.15)
