35 replies to this topic

[ShinSven]

Strobe (2)

 

I've made a new map and would like to get your opinions on it.

The map is aprox. 50x50 so pretty small, though I think it's interesting and you could get some gg's on it.

 

Strobe 1.0

 

*EDIT*

 

I have changed a bit of the heights because it was quite hard to build in general, which is not something you want...

It's also easier and/or possible to build up/down now here and there.

Also made some other minor changes and added some lighting to start with.

 

Strobe 1.1

 

*EDIT*

Some more minor changes after playing a few games; bridge on bottom is fixed, to make things more interesting (from start).

Added some sound effects and some more lighting and added 2 more huts.

 

Strobe 1.2

 

For people who wanna try the map: click

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Strobe 2.0

 

Download / Preview / Gameplay (Edds stream)

 

Not sure why lighting on br looks the way it does on this preview, in game it looks perfect/just like other patches.

Edited by ShinSven, 17 March 2015 - 11:11 PM.

[hardman]

Looks good. I'll test it over weekend

[JonasAKAFaze]

Beautiful map!

 

In my opinion, you should add some details to shine it up.

 

1. Some cows and monkeys to make it more alive.

2. Small bunkers to capture.

3. More light at the ore fields.

[ShinSven]

Thanks number 1 and 2 are still a possibility and I will probably still add some things.

Number 2 has been taken care of, though they're hidden. Secret!

[Mikoz]

1. Some cows and monkeys to make it more alive.

 

 You for real bro ? lets make it a zoo instead -.-

[JonasAKAFaze]

 You for real bro ? lets make it a zoo instead -.-

Just a thought bra. But consider it. What map is more zoo-a-like than wild animal park?

[NSanityHD]

Just a thought bra. But consider it. What map is more zoo-a-like than wild animal park?

A map full of animals.

 

Map looks interesting though.

Edited by NSanityHD, 11 March 2015 - 06:13 PM.

[NSanityHD]

My sincere apologies for a double post, however I am just posting back on an update of tryout of the map. Trying it by TeamViewering to your PC from a Macbook is quite a difficult experience.

[Seke]

TL spot is much easier to build to top bridge for fortification.

 

Why is it red?

[hardman]

I did wonder that. Sunset maybe?

[NSanityHD]

There wasn't much space to build out-wide due to the rocky/lumpy parts in the ground but I do like the "feel" of it. Perhaps we could have a larger version of the map as well with a little more things added??

[ShinSven]

TL spot is much easier to build to top bridge for fortification.

 

Why is it red?

 

But bottom has easier build towards gems on bl

It takes the same amount of buildings to get to top for both sides after the update btw...

[hardman]

I know some people feel differently but i think its OK to have some maps that aren't exactly 50/50/ mirror images on both sides.

 

Unless the benefits of being able to stretch to bridge heavily outweigh the easier stretch to gems i dont see it as being a problem. I dont think many would use the bridge either when you can just as easily cut across the top with probably less risk as well.

Edited by hardman, 11 March 2015 - 10:46 PM.

[ShinSven]

As long as it's fair, it deffinately makes things more interesting I believe this map (as little as the sides are different) is pretty fair.

Also seems pretty interesting to see allies vs sovs.

[NSanityHD]

I know some people feel differently but i think its OK to have some maps that aren't exactly 50/50/ mirror images on both sides.

 

Unless the benefits of being able to stretch to bridge heavily outweigh the easier stretch to gems i dont see it as being a problem. I dont think many would use the bridge either when you can just as easily cut across the top with probably less risk as well.

Although the bridge can be used as a distraction from top and bottom units such as desos/dogs etc while tanks can surround the opponent both sides.

[Seke]

I know some people feel differently but i think its OK to have some maps that aren't exactly 50/50/ mirror images on both sides.

 

Unless the benefits of being able to stretch to bridge heavily outweigh the easier stretch to gems i dont see it as being a problem. I dont think many would use the bridge either when you can just as easily cut across the top with probably less risk as well.

 

It would be a huge advantage. But, he said he fixed it so whatever.

[ShinSven]

Some minor changes again.

[DrVanNostrand]

br looks quite op since if u move to gems and have radar, tl cant attack there.
unless its fixed ? idk just judging by the pic on ur original post.

[Mikoz]

br looks quite op since if u move to gems and have radar, tl cant attack there.
unless its fixed ? idk just judging by the pic on ur original post.

agreed. br also provides faster mining of gold/gems and better ref placement

( also on most of the current maps, bottom is better for this reason )

Top should have a small benefit for this reason, which is exactly the opposite on this map cause br also has advantage @ TR gems.

Edited by Mikoz, 12 March 2015 - 07:43 PM.

[rumblesom]

Sven I think the map looks cool, and I can't say how it will play- but I do suspect soviets will have a distinct advantage. The map seems very small and with enough resources to rush effectively. Shouldn't soviets just walk over allieds here?

 

@mikoz, drvan: it doesn't appear to me that either position is really able to "move" to any of the gem patches. The map is small enough that if it were flat you could quickly stretch in either direction, but the uneven ground makes it so you'll likely have to distance mine a fair bit. Moving the mcv seems either difficult (both to find a level spot and to expand afterward) or impossible (there may be no level ground 5x5cells).

[ShinSven]

Sven I think the map looks cool, and I can't say how it will play- but I do suspect soviets will have a distinct advantage. The map seems very small and with enough resources to rush effectively. Shouldn't soviets just walk over allieds here?

 

@mikoz, drvan: it doesn't appear to me that either position is really able to "move" to any of the gem patches. The map is small enough that if it were flat you could quickly stretch in either direction, but the uneven ground makes it so you'll likely have to distance mine a fair bit. Moving the mcv seems either difficult (both to find a level spot and to expand afterward) or impossible (there may be no level ground 5x5cells).

 

Might be, I haven't been able to try it yet. Does have some campish areas aswell though so I am still curious to see how it will turn out to be.

[Edd]

Sven I think the map looks cool, and I can't say how it will play- but I do suspect soviets will have a distinct advantage. The map seems very small and with enough resources to rush effectively. Shouldn't soviets just walk over allieds here?

 

@mikoz, drvan: it doesn't appear to me that either position is really able to "move" to any of the gem patches. The map is small enough that if it were flat you could quickly stretch in either direction, but the uneven ground makes it so you'll likely have to distance mine a fair bit. Moving the mcv seems either difficult (both to find a level spot and to expand afterward) or impossible (there may be no level ground 5x5cells).

 

Then the allied player should go soviet. 

 

Imo, not all maps should be "ok" with both sides and mirrored. 

 

 

Map looks good. 

 

You guys are coming out with some good maps man, great job. 

Edited by Edd, 13 March 2015 - 12:08 AM.

[DylHole]

looks good, now just make it twice as big

[ShinSven]

After a few games I realized the map really was too small.

Therefor I have rebuild it, and here's the result: Image

 

Lemme know what you think!

[DylHole]

i'd suggest removing/moving some ore/gems away from common paths where tanks will go to avoid congestion

perhaps think about moving the derricks to avoid engi eating too