So please tell me both what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong. Ask if you need info on something in the map.
EDIT - Adjusted brightness. Should be easier to pick out details now.
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jun 4 2010, 4:07 pm by ImagoDeo.
None.
Nat should cover main? (Not too sure though...)
Other than that, I like!
None.
Nat should cover main? (Not too sure though...)
Other than that, I like!
The shared choke is part of the concept of the map.
None.
1. Don't host on flickr.
2. Mains are large and awkward and the nats are placed in such a way that Z is going to cry themselves to sleep.
3. Paths are awkward, random, and the map in general is not very well thought out.
Suggestions:
1. Host on photobucket pl0x.
2. Look at pro league maps and try to copy their main, natural, and expo layout, because yours are really bad.
3. Draw your next map in paint or even on paper, and plan it out. Your map has a very sporadic, random look to it that just shows a lack of experience and thought on the concept. Though you're new to this so that isn't unexpected.
I'm sorry to say it but compared to your last this is almost a step backwards.
1. Don't host on flickr.
2. Mains are large and awkward and the nats are placed in such a way that Z is going to cry themselves to sleep.
3. Paths are awkward, random, and the map in general is not very well thought out.
Suggestions:
1. Host on photobucket pl0x.
2. Look at pro league maps and try to copy their main, natural, and expo layout, because yours are really bad.
3. Draw your next map in paint or even on paper, and plan it out. Your map has a very sporadic, random look to it that just shows a lack of experience and thought on the concept. Though you're new to this so that isn't unexpected.
I'm sorry to say it but compared to your last this is almost a step backwards.
Thanks for the feedback. /sigh
1. Is the map worth trying to save?
2. If so, what would you suggest I change?
3. Was working with 128x128 a bad idea? I figured if I gave myself more room to work with, I could avoid tightness.
4. So a nat/main shared choke is a bad idea?
5. Are my mineral formations bad, or were you talking about overall layout?
Can you please point out a few things that I should keep doing so I don't forget them next time?
I don't know whether or not I'll try another map. SC2 is really close and a lot's gonna change in the melee community.
None.
@ImagoDeo
1. No.
2. N/A
3. Yes, bad idea. Bigger map size =/= less tight. Start with 96x128 or 128x96.
4. The poor zerg
Other than that, I like!
As far as I can see, the recent threads in this section have a lot of comments like this. Simply put, dont say "Good map" when it clearly isnt.
None.
@ImagoDeo
1. No.
2. N/A
3. Yes, bad idea. Bigger map size =/= less tight. Start with 96x128 or 128x96.
4. The poor zerg
Well, in that case, I'll start over. I've still got some questions that Ex should answer, though.
None.
You should look a little closer, because there aren't any tank holes.
None.
Tank holes, a tank hole, same thing
But I do see ONE tank hole.
None.
I don't think there are any tank holes.
None.
It is final, there are three tankably areas all f which reside behind mineral patches.
None.
Excalibur
DarkenedFantasies -- Probably just didn't care. For example, at some point before release, they've updated the graphics of some of the Protoss buildings (Forge, CyberCore, Citadel, Observatory, Arbiter Tribunal), but instead of properly re-rendering them with edited 3D models, they did crappy copy-paste jobs on the rendered graphics.
NudeRaider -- to clarify: couldn't recall the behavior for every single Protoss building but I was aware the disparity exists.
