thats a total load of bullshit, i've given you valid and usefull feedback a lot and you've always brushed me aside as a troll and i've never once seen you actually listen to negative feedback, you just jump into theatre and say the footage contradicts what is being said. theater is a good tool, if you know how to use it, if you don't know how to read the gameplay from the footage then you're not going to be getting any information and only see what you want to see and this seems to be prooving true in your case, everything negative magically gets disproven in theater which is quite phsyically impossible because every map, no matter how well designed into going to have negative points to it. please explain what usefull feedback is, if explaining problems with the map isn't usefull then what exactly is usefull?
Lol, sorry. I took a glance at the pictures and saw Narrows, and thought you just forgot the tag. I'll get rid of that additional bit on the end then since it's now tagged appropriately.
Anyhow, lets not derail this any further. I see Rorak is in here and I'm sure he's reading to crank out some infractions. BC, aside from this being Narrows, my only real critique of the map is that some of the ramps are obscenely steep. Most specifically, the ramps from bottom to top mid as Warholic already stated. The central bridge seems pretty awfully steep coming out of the bases as well. Is it possible to make the jump from the top of the mancannon to the main bridge like in H3? That'd be wicked cool if you can.
Most of the discussion here has been civil enough, and there is spam, but a lot of it is borderline. I'll delete the useless posts and give out warnings where need be, but from this point onward, every post better be constructive. Oh, and Blaq, I can really easily see where these guys are coming from since I totally mistook this map as a Narrows remake the first time I saw it, and the feedback I've been reading in between rants has been good. Most of these guys know what they're talking about, and it would be ill-advised of you not to take their criticism. What I like to do is to make new versions of a map with changes made based on feedback I've given, and if it doesn't end up working as well, I always have the older version.
In a way I can understand why you don't try to sell this as a Narrows remake because in the process of shrinking it I feel like the Narrows gameplay has been forfeited in favor copying more of the narrows structures. Despite that the structures are so similar that there's no point to denying this was meant as a narrows remake. My comments about much of this being downright ugly because of clashing textures still stands and it would not be difficult to fix by simply changing your choice of objects, and since it lacks narrows style gameplay modifying the shape of things to better use objects shouldn't be a problem. I'm especially surprised now that I look back at this to see the poor use of objects after your only criticism of my map was poor use of objects.
You actually can make that jump. In fact that is how I often run the bomb during assault. It really forces a team to maintain top control to prevent plants. Straits is a lot bigger, and reach is much faster than actual H3 narrows, so I did what I had to with the angle of the inclines, in order to make the man cannons work. Infact the man cannons are doubled because 1 single lift was too weak to make it across. After play testing with warholic where he noted that, I went ahead and changed the inclines to a softer angle, and replaced the ramp XLs with brace larges. Links are updated with the latest version. I personally forge with aesthetics taking the back seat, and focusing on game play and reducing frame rate. The very first version of this map had almost all original aesthetics but also the frame rate problems to go with it. So with the end result I'm actually ok with it not having a ton if any aesthetics pieces because the map supports 2pl. In the case of your map. I understand you want the map to be pretty but the amount of pieces you choose created significant frame rate problems. With your target audience being BTB MM I simply suggested ways you could remove, or change some pieces to accomplish the same thing and make it work. The option to actually do it completely up to you.
It's pretty obvious aesthetics are not the focus of your forging, but when you completely ignore that it can start to affect gameplay. Consistent textures help player orientation and eliminate distractions and the more effort (not budget) put into these, the more fun a map is to play. With that size map in the skybox avoiding two player splitscreen framerate lag should not be an issue. You need to learn that there is more to framerate issues than object count. I would excuse some of these issues with the map, but gameplay has been mediocre at best in my experience and I don't see much has changed since I first played it months ago. I don't see why you're bringing my map into this; I was just saying you should take some of your own advice. My maps are not made for looks beyond what can be accomplished without causing problems for anything else and definitely not targeted for matchmaking initially. I'm not sure where you got that my map had framerate issues from two minutes of flying around in forge. None of the options you suggested were viable or effective, but going through in forge did help me think of some changes.
It was originally suppose to be called Straits but for some reason my xbox Blammed it. So I added beacon to the name. But now the name is allowed again so it's weird :/