Curse Blizzard for making you do this, such backwards compatibility, much wow

WolfFarkas said:

I am copy pasting what I wrote in Ruins of Azshara LV.


View attachment 343740




Ruins of Azshara LV

Click to expand...

I think do due lacking backwards compatibility (technically and visually) this doesn'T break the rule

You can't current play maps saved with the reforged world editor on a patch 1.31.X client or earlier!

Jackyy.BaDitO2 said:

I think do due lacking backwards compatibility (technically and visually) this doesn'T break the rule

You can't current play maps saved with the reforged world editor on a patch 1.31.X client or earlier!

Click to expand...

thats nothing new.

-incompatibility always existed between versions in triggers, with the 1.21 I could not play a 1.26 custom campaign.
-when 1.29 went out, you couldnt play it with a 1.28 .
-Also with the 1.29 many 1.26 custom maps went incompatible to play in the 1.29 (triggers, jass stuff).
-when 1.30 went out, you couldnt play it with a 1.29 v. (you get the missing level info, wich you cant open the map or play it)
-the only difference now is that graphics are a lot more improved, but the incompatibility issue existed since always, and mappers didnt duplicate their maps,

the rule is there for a reason, to avoid have the same maps as copies (duplicated thread) like epic war, wich ends in a huge mountain of pages with duplicated maps
have in the same thread the 2 versions of the map is not much asking. in fact also it will be more usefull if both maps are in the same thread.
(like swamped temple example, the 4 versions of Swamped temple are in the same thread)

and also no single mapper has their maps duplicated because of the rule I mentioned, (I think is a very solid rule actually), mappers update the original thread instead.

but well I am just pointing the rule and my interpretation of it, is up to @mafe to decide what to do. so wait his moderation,

So, I finally got around to have a closer look at this map.
There seems to be a few minor issues.
-According to the object manager, therer seems to be a skeleton archer missing somewhere, and a giant skeleton warrior seems to drop a powerup instead of a permanent item (or vice versa). Unfortunately, I wasnt able the exact locations of either creep.
-Some ramps have a few bugged tiles which are unpathable. Most of them are covered by trees though. Also the cliff-ramps at a ramp south of the tavern are sharp instead of smooth.
-Generally I think that many creepcamps will be annoying to creep for melee units due to doodads in front of the camps or the creeps being located in really narrow areas. IN particular the merc camps. Not sure if this was also the case on the reforged-version, or if I just didnt pay attention back then.
-Non-sleeping creeps at shops, well for a 1v1 map I would complain, but here it's ok.
-Forests are still non-dense.

For positives:
-The itemdrops seem good. I like the creeps too.
-Nice idea to have the non-occupied player spawns being guarded by different creeps depending on which spawn it is exactly. Maybe some symmetry-enthusiasts will complain, but it should be no big deal, unless you play 2v2 or 1v1, for which the map is not intended anyway.
-Unfortunately my computer isnt good enough to handle max settings reforged graphics. I still think the map looks good.

After talking to some other reviewers, the conclusion is that at least for now "reforged" versions of existing maps can be uploaded as a separate resources.

Still, I'd like you to fix the missing creep and the (probably) asymmetric itemdrop. Until then, map set to Awaiting Update. If you also want to consider the other "issues", I won't mind.

Updated the missing skeleton archer, and change the drop of the giant skeleton warrior to a power up.

mafe said:

So, I finally got around to have a closer look at this map.
mputer isnt good enough to handle max settings reforged graphics. I still think the map looks good.

After talking to some other reviewers, the conclusion is that at least for now "reforged" versions of existing maps can be uploaded as a separate resources.

Still, I'd like you to fix the missing creep and the (probably) asymmetric itemdrop. Until then, map set to Awaiting Update. If you also want to consider the other "issues", I won't mind.

Click to expand...

Is good to know.

Does anyone know what the #Reforged tag in the hiveworkshop map section indicates?

I thought it was supposed to be if a map used certain models, etc. that did not have an equivalent in classic Warcraft 3. A good example of such a resource would be some of the new city Doodads. This is the correct use of the tag in my opinion.

From what I can see though, the #Reforged tag is just being used on hive to describe maps which are being designed aesthetically for Reforged. I.e, not using any custom imports and certain resizing of models (though Bliz may end up fixing this anyway).

I don't think maps like this one should be posted as separate resources, but rather just added into the resource of the original map, or the map section will become unnecessarily cluttered.

Also, people are wrongly equating 1.32 with Reforged--- that is incorrect, 1.32 supports the classic version and it is still the same game. Making a map on 1.32 should not automatically warrant the use of #Reforged tag.

tulee said:

Does anyone know what the #Reforged tag in the hiveworkshop map section indicates?

Click to expand...

It's a newly added tag. We're putting it on Reforged (currently beta) maps, those saved with that editor version. It will remain on Reforged maps which won't be compatible with Classic (that includes aesthetics "bugs").

tulee said:

Also, people are wrongly equating 1.32 with Reforged--- that is incorrect, 1.32 supports the classic version and it is still the same game. Making a map on 1.32 should not automatically warrant the use of #Reforged tag.

Click to expand...

Please open up a thread in Site Discussion about this.

Changes made. I'm not noticing any asymmetries anymore.

Map approved.