(3 ratings)
You should give the middle players an advantage because it's quite unfair to be surrounded by enemies
Maybe give them some height advantage
I agree, I had to make a compromise here. I dont have enough time to get a map to the visual level that is expected of a melee map. However, the PTR is out now, players are excited and want to see how warcraft with 24 players works. Why should they have to wait because I believe the map doesnt look good yet, when it has all that it necessary for gameplay? Adding thousand of doodads, variating the tiles etc barely affects the gameplay. I would not publish this map as it is in a few months from now, but given the hype surrounding the PTR and the potential for (further) revival of wc3, I think that letting people wait would be a missed chance. After all, noone has to play a map if he doesnt like it for whatever reason.I honestly think its kinda rushed when I opened it, it needs more love towards the terrain and doodads.
You should give the middle players an advantage because it's quite unfair to be surrounded by enemies
Maybe give them some height advantage
I beileve both of you have a point here. However, I thought that the players in the middle also have the advantage of being able to reach multiple locations much faster (in particular the only central marketplace) than the players on the sides of the map. I tried to make the distances between middle and side players large enough so that in the initialy stages of the game, everyone should mostly have to direct neighbors to fight with (in an FFA) situation.Maybe for a balanced map, 224x224 should contain less amount of players
Esmerald Gardens ( 12 player Blizzard map) was designed in 192x192
So maybe 224x224 it would be for 16 player melee map. (the players in the edges)
Sugestion: remove inner players (between balance and being greedy, what does the competitive melee user choose: balance (chorus). In that way you will have a 16 player melee map, but with more balance.
Maybe 24 player maps are ment for a much larger size such 480x480 or maybe less but clarly 224x224 wich is and old size layout doesn´t seems to be for 24 players.
mine is just a sugestion, do as you wish.
I agree, I had to make a compromise here. I dont have enough time to get a map to the visual level that is expected of a melee map. However, the PTR is out now, players are excited and want to see how warcraft with 24 players works. Why should they have to wait because I believe the map doesnt look good yet, when it has all that it necessary for gameplay? Adding thousand of doodads, variating the tiles etc barely affects the gameplay. I would not publish this map as it is in a few months from now, but given the hype surrounding the PTR and the potential for (further) revival of wc3, I think that letting people wait would be a missed chance. After all, noone has to play a map if he doesnt like it for whatever reason.
I beileve both of you have a point here. However, I thought that the players in the middle also have the advantage of being able to reach multiple locations much faster (in particular the only central marketplace) than the players on the sides of the map. I tried to make the distances between middle and side players large enough so that in the initialy stages of the game, everyone should mostly have to direct neighbors to fight with (in an FFA) situation.
However, as I did mostly intend this map for team games, the positions of the teams overall should be equal. Look at the comon battle.net 4v4 maps like Cherryville or Deadland or Deathknell: It is the same, there are also players who are more exposed than other, but if you look at it from a team perspective, both teams still have equal starting positions overall.
You mean spawns or drops? Anyway, I thought i had fixed it and as I stated in description, there seemed to a general bug with player spawns for 24 players on all maps, not just this one. Due to reallife, I currently cannot invest much time into mapping, but i hope to be able to fix it at some point.Please, please fix the drops.... i did 12v12 with computer, i put T1 all 12 Orcs and all 12 Undeads, everything was mixed up, it would be impossible to play with real players 12v12, only maybe FFA..........
This seems to be a general bug which is not specific to this map. At least thats how it was at the time when I made and tested this map.Did a 1v23 Insane AIs FFA on this map, seemed to work well. Took 2 hours to beat. Pretty straightforward, decent 24p map. I did have an issue observing a 7v8v8 insane AIs, two of them spawned in the rightside uppermost spawn for some reason, diasdvantaged one team a bunch.
Thanks, I will have a look at the video later on.I find some of the creeps odd, especially the gold mine creeps. Having 1 weak 2 powerful is not a common thing in my opinion. Not a big deal though.
I also made a FFA play with AI, maybe you can get something out of it.
The creeps at the gold mine is the main concern here. There's 2 level 6 wendigo (was it right?) and one level 3 wendigo. Why not make 2 level 3 and 1 level 6 wendigo OR just have 3 six wendigo altogether or some way to have it not more the biggies and less the small ones.Thanks, I will have a look at the video later on.
Some of the creeps are indeed weird. The reason here is that when 24 player maps where made first possible, there was still a limit on the number of total creep, which I reached here. So I had to use higher level creeps than usual, where I indeed would probably have 4-5 creeps for a spot with a combined level of 15. Here I had to make a compromise and went with 3 creeps.
Ok you have a point. However imho with 3x6 is equally unusual, and with 6+2x3 I feel that the camp might be almost too weak. And I also like a few small unusual gameplay details in my maps that (hopefully) dont influence balanceThe creeps at the gold mine is the main concern here. There's 2 level 6 wendigo (was it right?) and one level 3 wendigo. Why not make 2 level 3 and 1 level 6 wendigo OR just have 3 six wendigo altogether or some way to have it not more the biggies and less the small ones.