[T:V] Post pics of the maps you are working on...

pyrot3chnic said:
Can we get a beta version or something? please? :)
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I just put in the base objects and I have to adjust the back inv so you can't disc spam it from way off.

I put a burner turret on it. I figure chain is weak and mortar would be a little nuts. AA is well for aa. But I'm open to suggestions/reasoning.

I also have to assign teams. I think I'm gonna keep the old heavy stone look and make the bridge simple so you can ski across it easily and grapple it.
 
MikSchultzy said:
Only one complaint, you're combinging the imperial (square) and the BE design together....
Click to expand...

good point actually, originally i was going to have the base in the main upper area, but i decided that was too small so i went underground, now that im underground, that space in the upper area isnt needed....

But at the same time, i would like some standing room up top... sort of like the original one, it is kind of hard to see, but it has some pyramid start to it, its not perfectly square...

ill definitley keep that in mind, and work with some things...

thanks
 
Santa said:
Thanks.

I just put in the base objects and I have to adjust the back inv so you can't disc spam it from way off.

I put a burner turret on it. I figure chain is weak and mortar would be a little nuts. AA is well for aa. But I'm open to suggestions/reasoning.

I also have to assign teams. I think I'm gonna keep the old heavy stone look and make the bridge simple so you can ski across it easily and grapple it.
Click to expand...

I dont know about the burner man, im not a big fan of it, its just too easy to kill your team, and its all over the place, id like the chain turret personally...
 
Destroyer: Maybe if you put traingler "pods" sticking out of it. You don't have to work with what little building space you have there, move it out if you need to.

Alot of it's a matter of playability and getting it to feel original, but with the definate building differences between the teams now, some "Creative Adjustments" shouldn't be shunned. :)

I'm -loving- how it's looking though. :)

Santa: Burner? That's probly the closest thing to a plasma turret, which is what the oldschool was. Though I could see the arguements about AA being like the plasma too...
 
I really don't mind it. I mean it looks BE to me. It doesn't have to be a pyramid or anything. I find in most of the retail maps, the BE bases are far more crammed and tiny compared to the Phoenix and Imperial. The way it looks now is ok in my book.

Santa said:
Thanks.

I just put in the base objects and I have to adjust the back inv so you can't disc spam it from way off.

I put a burner turret on it. I figure chain is weak and mortar would be a little nuts. AA is well for aa. But I'm open to suggestions/reasoning.

I also have to assign teams. I think I'm gonna keep the old heavy stone look and make the bridge simple so you can ski across it easily and grapple it.
Click to expand...
I think the chain turret might prove more useful, while also giving HO another target instead of just going after the invs. I mean you don't have the in-door turrets anymore, so the chain turret might compensate for it, if a team can keep it up.
 
I forget, are there Invy's on DC? Either way good point yet I find the AA turret pretty useful even against players. Chain turrets seem a little to weak for my liking and like others said burner turret will just promote TKing in a way. I think AA turrets are the best, but if they are too overpowering then def. chain.
 
if you're gonna put a turret on DX put it ontop where the plasma was in T1 that way u cant effing spam the shazbot outta the flag with the burner and kill your team.
 
pyrot3chnic said:
I really don't mind it. I mean it looks BE to me. It doesn't have to be a pyramid or anything. I find in most of the retail maps, the BE bases are far more crammed and tiny compared to the Phoenix and Imperial. The way it looks now is ok in my book.
Click to expand...

I hear you there, but they've got the same space as the others. The main reason is because the ceiling cuts so low compared to the others.
 
Just want to say these maps are looking awesome... and don't be afraid to release beta's as soon as they are fully playable... everyone's aching for some more classical gameplay :D
 
Remakes are like covers, you should have to earn the right to perform them. There are a lot of bands that do covers to get started--noobs, but then there's Rush performing Eric Clapton, where both are rightly honored.

Remaking DOX's CCD is blasphemy. CCD tops a short list in the pantheon of Tribes maps. If you're going to remake the greats, I think you have to earn the right to do so by doing what DOX did when he made CCD in the first place: make something new.

:p
 
I agree with Rilk. Make your own maps before you remake someone else's. If anything, the original author should have first crack at remaking his map.

Like I said somewhere else in this thread. If you like Canyon Crusade or DX then make a map similar in style to them, don't just do a straight up remake.

And yes, I know that some folks are posting here saying "wtfs someone remake DX already!!" But, wouldn't you get more out of it if you came up with a map of your own that people really came to enjoy on the same level as DX, and Rollercoaster, and Stonehenge?
 
rilkean panther said:
Remakes are like covers, you should have to earn the right to perform them. There are a lot of bands that do covers to get started--noobs, but then there's Rush performing Eric Clapton, where both are rightly honored.

Remaking DOX's CCD is blasphemy. CCD tops a short list in the pantheon of Tribes maps. If you're going to remake the greats, I think you have to earn the right to do so by doing what DOX did when he made CCD in the first place: make something new.

:p
Click to expand...

too late now :p
 
Back
Top