|
I've been playing about with creating melee maps and I am curious what;s communitys thoughts on various map designs small specific things like
- Having less mineral nodes for an expansion - Mixing high yields with normal mineral nodes - Mineral only expansions with no gas - I was considering aoe dmg effects in areas of map clearly visable (f.e. like over heating generator i would put maybe high templar psi storm effects around the generator make it dmg units near it. Another example could be larva lakes could walk through but dmg units)
anything ive not put on list that definitely shouldn't be in melee map?
|
It's a new game, experiment.
|
Hey guys,
I'm new here, and have a question about melee maps :
I've made one, filling the requirements to be a melee map (as map status tells me), I published it, but when I host it, I can't select "melee" style to play it ...
So it force me to create teams myself (just boring), and I can't open it to public (I don't even know if this could be possible anyway...).
Any solution ?
PS: sorry about posting it in here, but I've been searching for a whole day before coming here, and can't create a topci yet ...
|
As a map maker, I have to say it's way too early to make any general do's and don't. Creativity should be encouraged, though of course there should always be reasoning behind every action. I've seen a few maps have random or unexplained aspects.
When in doubt, ask yourself "why is that the way it is?" If you can't come up with a suitable answer, it's time to rethink whether that unique aspect is really needed, or if there were a different way it could be incorporated.
On a general note I would like to see more original maps and less BW maps. There's nothing wrong with BW maps of course, but I think Blizzard maps have made people think that anything other than the original BW maps are inferior. No, only Blizz maps are inferior Don't be afraid to try something new imo
|
On May 23 2010 08:05 monkh wrote: I've been playing about with creating melee maps and I am curious what;s communitys thoughts on various map designs small specific things like
- Having less mineral nodes for an expansion - Mixing high yields with normal mineral nodes - Mineral only expansions with no gas - I was considering aoe dmg effects in areas of map clearly visable (f.e. like over heating generator i would put maybe high templar psi storm effects around the generator make it dmg units near it. Another example could be larva lakes could walk through but dmg units)
anything ive not put on list that definitely shouldn't be in melee map?
-less mineral nodes in an expansion seems not so good would make you think twice about expanding there, it would take less workers but u'll get a lot less out of it unlike high yield. -mixing them seems interesting give it a try I guess -no gas is also interesting but I'd do that on high yield to make it worth it -last point seems a bit unfair for zerg. terran bringing medivacs+scv's and protoss only taking shield dmg. Zerg would have more of a disadvantage imo
|
Making the farthest minerals in a formation high-yield would be pretty neat.
I don't think mineral only bases will work well in this game, but I definitely could be wrong. I just feel like gas is too precious in sc2.
|
Canada10927 Posts
Have people been experimenting with those wide borders Blizzard put on all their maps? (The feature that allows Terrans to force a stale-mate by running away from the battle field, float indefinitely in a map corner and leave the computer for a day.) Does no border affect the gameplay in other ways significantly? Because if not, this might be a significant don't.
|
I think there is a bad point about narrow borders : It prevents drops and air-harass too easily, for no reason ... If you are on an island and can't be attacked from north because it's the border of the map, it's kind of weird ...
|
How about making a high yield mineral field directly between the players in a 1v1 that they have to fight over.
|
On May 30 2010 19:21 Bswhunter wrote: How about making a high yield mineral field directly between the players in a 1v1 that they have to fight over. We kind of have that in scrap station and incineration zone. The former is used more as a hidden expo and the latter taken only when you have the game won anyway. The viability of such a thing really depends, but if it is right on the path, then it'll be taken only when you have the game won for all practical purposes...except for maybe TvT.
|
Rising and falling lava like we have seen in the solo mission. This is kinda like your AOE damage, but different visual effect.
Having "true bridges" where you can go under the bridge too.
|
You can't make "true bridges" ... The game doesn't handle multi Z-level platforms ...
|
On May 30 2010 21:39 tompliss wrote: You can't make "true bridges" ... The game doesn't handle multy Z-level platforms ... There is something the map editor can't do? *gasp*
|
I've made a map, filling the requirements to be a melee map (as map status tells me), I published it, but when I host it, I can't select "melee" style to play it ... so, no answers ?
|
|
How do you guys feel about High Yield Gas?
|
If you want it to be a generally accepted map, don't get too crazy. Just stick with the tried-and-true methodology of existing maps (8 blue mineral piles, 6 gold mineral piles, no rich vespene, no quirky environmental stuff etc.) and just concern yourself with good design.
* Expanding more requires more map control and opens up new directions of attack, making it harder to defend. * No ridiculously tight choke-points in the middle of the map (that at the very least can't be circumvented by rocks) that would just screw up some matchups (too Protoss-friendly) * No naturals that are ridiculously easy to defend (too Zerg-friendly) * Not too many high-ground death zones, or very close, easily-defended gold minerals to starting locations (too Terran-friendly)
You want a nice mix of things that are friendly, and unfriendly, to each race.
|
Personally I don't think all maps need a gold expansion or maybe maps with just high geysers. They don't necessarily need both or any at all.
I also think all maps don't need to have high ground advantage at their main. Kulas is a good example of open ramp (no ramp) except the natural is hard to secure. Maybe more maps with safer naturals, harder to secure thirds.
Bigger is better :D
|
What does everyone think about gas-only expansions? :O
|
On June 14 2010 04:50 Crazyeyes wrote: What does everyone think about gas-only expansions? :O Man crazyeyes, you crazy. Thats just silly. Those would seem too easy to snipe, because they wouldn't be worth it to defend because of less workers and, overall, less income.
|
crazyeyes gas only expos are useful as Z for quick muta builds or fast infestor/ling. I really don't like gas only because it favors terran a bit. double gas or in sc2 quad gas could be cool
|
You should try gas only bases becasue gas is much more needed.
|
Do's and Don'ts, you say? My map is so nonstandard. Nothing wrong with that.
|
I think that there should never be mineral only expansions in SC2 melee maps. When geysers run out of gas you don't continue to get gas like in BW, this makes gas much for valuable, making mineral only expansions completely useless.
|
how about minerals and gas that are far away in the same expo so you have to choose whether to have more efficient gas miner or more efficient mineral mining based on where you build your CC?
|
On June 14 2010 04:50 Crazyeyes wrote: What does everyone think about gas-only expansions? :O
You would have to make gas high demand, maybe your starting/natural geysers wouldn't have so much in them so that a gas only expo would be worth taking
|
why are people in this thread poo-pooing ideas without even testing them? I think certain ideas the OP had are really interesting...like less mineral nodes per expansion, or gas only areas. This would almost certainly make for a different game pace, as players would be almost forced to constantly expand and fight over the expansions, instead of just attacks to the main, gg. One could even create a map with like double the expansion points with half the minerals at each one. Insanely awesome possibilities in gameplay styles imo.
Don't shoot ideas down just because they might not fit with the way game play is right now and don't base judgments on current flavor-of-the-month strategy. Open your mind; get out of the box.
|
On June 14 2010 09:51 t3tsubo wrote: how about minerals and gas that are far away in the same expo so you have to choose whether to have more efficient gas miner or more efficient mineral mining based on where you build your CC?
Ooooh I like this too. Another offshoot would be to maybe construct expansions so that players would have to place their command centers/hatcheries/nexus further away from the resources, forcing longer-range mining and more emphasis on protection of supply lines.
|
Instead of doing mineral only, just make it have only 1 gas.
|
I would love to see some maps with gas only expos. BW had plenty of those as I recall. You could have maps that start with only a single geyser in the main and like 12-14 mineral patches, and a natural with 3+ geysers and no minerals.
Okay might as well keep going and spout some random thoughts here, the ideas are flowing:
Maps with bases that have no actual chokepoints but are surrounded by an almost complete wall of destructible rocks.
Island maps with high ground plateaus and a sprawling low ground area instead of water/lava, just brimming with high yield minerals. No ramps anywhere.
Maps with extra minerals in the main locked behind destructible rocks.
Maps wracked by intermittent storms that deal damage to air units which aren't sheltered over specific areas.
A map that starts out as an island map with a sea between the two players bases, that slowly recedes over time revealing lower and lower tiers of cliff that meet in the middle at the bottom as the tide goes out.
A map completely spiderwebbed with LoS blocking doodads and a heavy amount of watchtowers. Perhaps overlap with the air-damaging storms for really intense scouting play.
Urban warfare maps with towering destructible buildings that can be knocked down to block off roads, dealing AoE damage when they collapse.
A map that starts out as open jungle with a volcano in the middle that erupts and sends lava streaming out in a few directions. Forest fires that deal AoE to ground slowly spread from the lava rivers and only stop when they reach barren/rocky ground like near the mains/expos.
Scavenger desert maps with very little resources in the bases, but have certain ruined pockets that can be "captured" to give you an immediate lump sum of minerals and gas.
Trench warfare maps with neutral "structures" of some sort, that can be loaded and fired out of like bunkers by any player. Also, mutually hostile minefields instead of destructible rocks. Cannon fodder units have to be sent through to clear them out or you can avoid them with detection and blink/drops/nydus.
LoS blockers that prevent air from seeing ground and vice versa, but not air from seeing air or ground from seeing ground.
Deep rivers that can be traversed by massive ground units, but not normal sized ones. Also, tank trap areas that only small units like marines/zealots/zerglings/workers can fit through. Patches of thick mud or quicksand that slow down any unit crossing it.
I'll come up with more, let me know what you think...
|
ne could even create a map with like double the expansion points with half the minerals at each one. Insanely awesome possibilities in gameplay styles imo.
I think that's awesome. Would love this.
I also think that having to choose between optimal gas and optimal minerals, or anything like that, could be very interesting.
and all the 'not normal' ideas that GreatestThreat posted make me super excited for future SC2 maps. Shit's going to get pretty crazy ;D
|
I'm not sure about some of those ideas, do you think there WILL ever even be tournament maps with triggers like the lava and receding water, AoE falling buildings? Those sound cool but they are too UMS-y IMO.
|
The idea I loved most in this thread was water you can walk through, but that will damage your units.
Starcraft II needs more risk/reward. Want a quick march into your opponents main, in exchange for your units losing 20% of their health to get there and 20% again if they need to retreat?
Particularly if it could be coded that units wouldn't normally choose to path through it unless told specifically.
Could be very cool aesthetically as well.
|
Lol! Gas only expansions would be crazy... Very unorthodox but possibly interesting!
I suggest making a map with a bunch of interesting ideas and labeling it "test map"
|
Gas-only expansions are not new, albeit I've only seen them in Blizzard maps from SC1.
I think that the focus on gas only expos is not a bad idea. Really, because of how important gas is with all the spell casters costing insane amounts of gas and the necessity of getting 2 geysers held with 6 workers each, have a difficult-to-hold rich geyser only expo with few or no minerals.
|
|
|
|