Custom Map #80: Ongtupqa. By: ThirdParty

[AutoPost]

This topic is for discussion of map #80: Ongtupqa


Author: ThirdParty
Size: 135x46

Desc:
Build bridges across the Grand Canyon! Space is at a premium in this vertical landscape. #CRPL: Nothing earth-shattering, but there's an offscreen runner nest, a bunch of tiny emitters that don't leave power zones when destroyed, and a spore tower that becomes gradually more powerful as you advance. Creeper flows faster than usual. #TechLimits: #NoTerps, #NoGuppies; Relays are more expensive than usual. #Spores #Runners #Wind #RealWorld #Earth #USA #Arizona #3P

[Clean0nion]

This topic is for discussion of map #80: Ongtupqa


Author: ThirdParty
Size: 135x46

Desc:
Build bridges across the Grand Canyon! Space is at a premium in this vertical landscape. #CRPL: Nothing earth-shattering, but there's an offscreen runner nest, a bunch of tiny emitters that don't leave power zones when destroyed, and a spore tower that becomes gradually more powerful as you advance. Creeper flows faster than usual. #TechLimits: #NoTerps, #NoGuppies; Relays are more expensive than usual. #Spores #Runners #Wind #RealWorld #Earth #USA #Arizona #3P

Map looks excellent! But that name...

[knucracker]

Google the name and you'll get it...

Now, I am having a really hard time getting a good start on this map.  The wind, the tight energy contraints... the spikes when you take out a mini emitter combined with the wind... tough.

[Karsten75]

I eke out a living spot and then I look around and ask myself "where to next?" and I don't see it. Frustrating. And I really don't think I'm going back and trying to finish it. Sorry, because I"m sure from my own experiments in map making that it's really hard to make a map like this and play it and test it over a number of iterations. It's just too hard and frustrating.

As for the name - nice one, I love it when I learn new things.

[knucracker]

Wow, finally beat it.  It was tough, I'll grant you that.  My time is the worst one as well (currently) I think.  It was difficult to move forward almost to the end.  Once I took out the emitter at the top of the map and got a PZ things got easier, but I still had to be very careful where things were placed.

[Cavemaniac]

Trivial question - is this an actual representation of (or a portion of) the Grand Canyon?

Or 'just' a generic canyon map?

Either way, it's an awesome looking map - I look forward to playing it!

[ThirdParty]

Trivial question - is this an actual representation of (or a portion of) the Grand Canyon?

Or 'just' a generic canyon map?

All of my maps (except Reticle and Racquet) are representations of the actual places indicated by their names.  I'm terrible at drawing terrain freehand, and I don't like the DMD, so my method of terrain creation is to choose an interesting location, find a topographic/relief/bathymetric map of that location, and then trace it.  (If anyone else cares to join me with this method, use the hashtag #RealWorld.)

In this case, the map encompasses a large portion (roughly the central half) of Grand Canyon National Park.  Your landing pad is the park headquarters: Grand Canyon Village, AZ, population 2000.

Of course, I made no particular effort to be accurate; once I'd traced my reference map, I closed it and started making whatever changes looked good or played well.  Most notably, I added fictional terrain to the tops of the in-reality-very-flat mesas: elevations 7 thru 10 on the map all correspond to the same elevation in reality.  I also eliminated some minor crevasses, widened a couple of spires and ridges to make assaults easier, did a bunch of smoothing, and fixed a few spots where reality was unrealistic.

[Grauniad]

Trivial question - is this an actual representation of (or a portion of) the Grand Canyon?

Or 'just' a generic canyon map?

Either way, it's an awesome looking map - I look forward to playing it!

Compare for yourself. https://goo.gl/maps/neswb

[Helper]

I gave up after almost an hour of game time.
Great concept, but why give 2xCN's - with no place to drop the second one...and no Terps?
Things do get a lot better after taking out the true Emitter, but fighting that terrain made think I was back in the Hindu Kush.
A Terp, a Terp, my kingdom for a Terp!

[eduran]

Love the map. Making real terrain into a CW3 map that is fun to play is not easy and you succeeded (again). Also, I don't understand why your maps don't receive higher ratings.

[ThirdParty]

Great concept, but why give 2xCN's - with no place to drop the second one...and no Terps?

I gave the second CN because, if something destroys the first one, the player is probably in plenty of trouble even without having to wait 30 seconds to re-land.

I didn't give Terps because, honestly, they're much too powerful.  The player would be able to build a tall fortress, gradually expand its walls, and basically ignore the beautiful terrain he was annihilating.  It'd make the map monotonous and unchallenging.  I did give shields and AC, so it's not like the player has to do hard-core CW1-style assaults.

I don't understand why your maps don't receive higher ratings.

I don't either.  My guess is that people downrate them for being hard; I noticed that this map got a couple of very low ratings before anyone completed it, and then its rating started climbing rapidly as scores started being posted.  (I wish there were a way to see a histogram of scores, so I could tell whether a given map was loved by some and hated by others, or viewed as mediocre by everyone.)

[Helper]

I gave the second CN because, if something destroys the first one, the player is probably in plenty of trouble even without having to wait 30 seconds to re-land.

And then the land the second CN into the same puddle of Creeper that killed the first one? It seems kinder to just force them to re-start from scratch, or the last save.

I didn't give Terps because, honestly, they're much too powerful.  

The offer was my kingdom for a Terp (singular).
:)
Restricting game options/forcing everyone to play the way you want them to play will tend to result in lower ratings. I mention that because of your extended comments about the ratings of your games.

[J]

In CW2, harder maps got lower ratings, this might also be true for CW3.

[Grauniad]

I'm about to move the meta-discussion on map ratings out of this thread to a more generally accessible location.

[Helper]

In CW2, harder maps got lower ratings, this might also be true for CW3.

I've seen a lot of that. My ratings are always based on the 'fun quotient'. If I'm having a good time, I don't care about the difficulty...I just want to kill some Creeper.
:)