Jip wrote:I can't find the replay where you played on the map against other players. In my own test sessions people enjoyed the map a lot because it seems at first that the middle is important, but the sides of the map turn out to be a lot more critical not just because of the mass but also because of the hill behind the base.
Even with a cadre of 1500s and up players, we wouldn't be able to play enough to form a decent opinion and get the results out in a timeframe, so we make very reasonable assumptions that likely wouldnt change after a few games anyway.
I took a second look and it seems you are trying to push players in this direction, perhaps?
If true, you need more incentive for players to go there. I feel like once the 2 mex expansions are given PD's and such, there isnt really much point to fight over them instead of just trying to brutalise the base.
About the hills / mountains, I'd love to know how to do them right. I found that to be quite difficult. In a map such as Flaming Saddle (that I expected to be here too) they are done beautifully and I would love to know how. Anyone has tips / tutorials about how this can be achieved?
Flaming Saddle and Highway to Hell were made by the same author.
You're probably talking about erosion, and most people use worldmachine, or import pre-existing heightmaps from google into their maps to make that. I paint mine by hand because i'm lazy.
And I'd love to know what the other testers though (you mention a pool of people in your first post). I'm trying to improve and it seems my idea of what makes a map good differs from yours ^^.
I don't see what you find different about what makes a good map.
They can talk here if they choose to do so.
