| Hyoyeon | | |
New account name I am going under!
Need to create new ramp palette, and there will be troy gates.
modified by Hyoyeon |
| Rickv100491 | | |
Well I have an ice ramp palette, that maybe looks good... for ice to ground and to high ground... but it's just well, low, I've been modifying and using them in my map Natural Rules II, that is still far from been complete.
And been honest in this map I really really like how the transition from low ground to high ground looks, it looks amazing :D
modified by Rickv100491 |
| JungleTerrain | | |
| Who is this? |
| Freakling | | |
CrystalDrag used to have a cyan-coloured account name…
I don't like in-base nats : … Right now Zerg lacks a way to properly defend early on. The main choke should be wider, or contains will become very strong because players cannot move out through that small gap. It also makes defending way too easy (Terran can just wall-in with just a rax).
modified by Freakling
modified by Freakling |
| Hyoyeon | | |
@Rickv Desert is the tile-set I don't have ramps of because I hate it :D
@Jungle It is me
@Freakling Those aren't going to be in base naturals, there are going to be ramps there. And that "main choke" is going to be troy gates so the area will be unbuildable. Also was thinking of putting a semi troy gate, with only one assimilator (Large units can never pass through, destroyed nothing.) |
| Freakling | | |
Not denying to be Crystal then?
You can hardly blame me for not seeing elementary details that aren't even there yet :P
Troy gates in those spots may pose a pathfinding nightmare, though.
Desert ramps! |
| JungleTerrain | | |
| This post is not displayed due to its content |
| Hyoyeon | | |
@Freakling I think the patterns in the top left/bottom left are fairly distinctive.
And how exactly are you supposed to use a .scmdbrh?
Another thought is to have temple blocks on the natural ramps and leave it as narrow unbuildable choke. Did HD get rid of creep extenders?
@Jungle No clue.
Ramps stolen from (3)Legionnaire.
modified by Hyoyeon |
| JungleTerrain | | |
In SCMDraft go to Windows>>Brush Palette>>Load and then pick the Brush file you want to use, like on the desktop or something.
And yes Remastered patched out creep extenders. |
| Hyoyeon | | |
Try changing it around while not stupid for ZvZ?
Putting buildings in the middle causes split pathing :D |
| Rickv100491 | | |
mmmm....
|
| JungleTerrain | | |
I’ve been feeling lately that so many map concepts would just be better on 128x112, x96 feels too small for me. I think the same for this map.
Edit: this is just imo
modified by JungleTerrain |
| Freakling | | |
IMO, too!
The trend in 2 player maps is towards plenty of expos and sophisticated terrain designs, and expansions are generally less open than on older maps, which means more space is required.
In fact, I am currently experimenting around with 128x120 maps. |
| Rickv100491 | | |
| standard 128*128 wasn't the normal??? wondering, because well one can always go for dunno 64*128 or any other size right?... just wondering and asking. |
| Jukado | | |
CrystalDrag have you seen...
ASL5 map submissions request.
thread on tl:
click here |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| Middle not final. |
| boobjob | | |
| This post is not displayed due to its content |
| Jukado | | |
Good update.
modified by Jukado |
| Freakling | | |
Given how hard inverted ramps already are for Desert, I really wouldn't mind that bit of high ground on the edge tile so much. In-game side-effects are minimal, especially compared to the bugs so many ramps still have. So unless you want to use sand-blend ramps instead, these inverted ramps are still the best solution there is both mechanically and aesthetically.
I agree with widening the bridge/opening up the middle though, as even map splits are always a problem on 2p maps.
I'd also say that the corner expos do not fully profit from having two ramps, simply because both ramps basically go down to the same strip of terrain. There is no longer way around or anything like it.
modified by Freakling |
| triller1 | | |
| love this map! should be in iccup map pack! 10/10. very fair for all matchups. Gives players freedom to play any style they like, rushing, harass, defensive, all with fair results. enough space in the mains and naturals. good mineral layouts. enough bases in good locations. 10/10. |
| Freakling | | |
| Hey Crystal, when you come by again you should really check your PMs on TL. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
I did, thanks for the poke. I should finish this map.
How are the new inverted ramps?
modified by CrystalDrag |
| Freakling | | |
Very bad :/
You'd have to heavily post-edit them because most of the cliff tiles have improperly set terrain level flags (though that is just like the old standard ramps for Desert terrain…). Aesthetics are also pretty shaky. But you can certainly cannibalize them for tiles to get smoother terrain level transitions and Dirt/High Dirt blends or some interesting looking ramps terrain for unbuildable High Dirt.
modified by Freakling |
| CrystalDrag | | |
Feedback from months ago taken. :)
Has anything changed meta-wise? Like different number of mineral patches at a base, etc?
And is 112 still a valid dimension?
modified by CrystalDrag |
| Freakling | | |
Well, the mech switch is gone, TvZ has become a whole lot more exciting, 1-1-1 being the build of the day, but Efford beat Flash in ASL finals, so that's about to topple over I guess.
Protoss use lots of speed Shuttles and Reavers now, which is also very exciting to watch. Are you up to date on my research on the Reaver jam issue?
Mineral ditribution seems fine, not sure if you really need 8 at the nat, but why not?
If I'd have to change anything about this map, I'd say it could need some more open spaces (I see you already tweaked those bridges). Mostly small incremental changes, moving some stuff around, I guess. Maybe try to make some of the pathways more defined, which is a bit of a conflicting goal , hence you might need more space, so going up to 128x120 size could be appropriate. I also think you could shrink the mains by quite a bit, they are gargantuan, not too much though, as its a 2p map and T/P need to fit all their tech there.
Maybe you could add a small side path between the 2/8 o'clock and the 3/9 o'clock expos to replace one of the ramps each.
What's the map name all about, by the way?
modified by Freakling |
| CrystalDrag | | |
So overall, rotate everything from 1-3 clockwise so it goes into the mains, and create the edge of map path. Those singular ramps in the middle platforms might be pushed towards the center/merged with the ramps into a 60 degree ramp.
I have no idea what the map name is about. |
| Freakling | | |
Maybe you have better ideas. I don't exactly know your masterplan for this map. I only have some random ideas.
My main concern is that I don't really see a clear-cut path where you intend large armies to move around, which is why I think overall a few more open areas would be a good addition. Where those areas are to be is a whole different question.
If you want to emphasize the typical 2p-map tight path/long path aspect more, I think instead of widening those bridges you should rather have two normal width or only slightly extended bridges there. You'd then rather put some open areas around the peripheral areas.
One way to help with this that seems pretty obvious is to move the 3/9 o'clock expos more towards the mains. However, I think just "squishing the mains flat" will be aesthetically unpleasant and maybe a bit uncomfortable to play, so I'd also move the nats a bit in.
The idea to connect the 3/9 and 2/8 o'clock expos with a separate path stems from the fact that currently they both have double ramps leading to the same general area, which is not a problem but a bit boring.
I am not sure that the wide low ground path around those areas is really required then. Maybe you could instead increase the sizes of some of those high ground pods to have one nice wide path to move around there. I think the middle would then completely fall apart into multiple smaller bridges, ramps and chokes, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem as all the paths will spread out nicely. What's up with the CC in the centre? It's not really supposed to be there, right?
On the other hand having those wider bridges/paths near the middle might actually be what you want, which would be fine too. Maybe you could then widen the ramps and high ground pods ion the centre… or not. Basically I can see many potential directions for this map but I am very undecided which one I'd like best O_o
Anyway, whatever you do with the bridges, maybe you can add some 0-width bridges/pipelines for flavour like I did on Légionnaire ;D Just add some of them parallel to the actual bridges wherever they fit in.
Aelia?
Aelia?
modified by Freakling |
| CrystalDrag | | |
I believe i wanted to emphasize the even number pathway map (my first comment about troy gate?) The command center splits it so there is different pathing for each player.. i think.
Looking some more, looks like the long winding pathway from Cloud Kingdom was also used. If i was going along that route connecting the high ground areas in the middle is an option, like kiseyras, but having the small pathway in the middle.
And i doubt i named it with those in mind...
modified by CrystalDrag |
| Freakling | | |
I think I would keep the row of different high ground pods along the diagonal axis. It feels like a core concept and is pretty unique.
The long Cloud-Kingdom-like winding path on the other hand does not seem to really reveal itself in gameplay because unlike on CK it is on the lower ground and restricted by the surrounding terrain in several spots, so it is the most disadvantageous route to take around for the most part. I would compare it to the Rusty Pit path on Oxide. It's a prominent aesthetic element of the map, but in gameplay it more or less acts as a row of low ground pots that players have to cross perpendicularly and I actually broke up its continuity during an early update to achieve better separation for the ramps of the corner expos.
modified by Freakling |
| Freakling | | |
| I liked the triangular high grounds :/ |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| i suppose i could still put those triangles back in.. would just need to dust off my tile editing skills a bit, if i want to keep that high compound wall. |
| Freakling | | |
Please make the small high ground pods in the centre triangular again too, I think its better for both gameplay and aesthetics.
EDIT: Have you received my message concerning Cross Game?
modified by Freakling |
(2)Aelia 0.04
