After posting 5 layout designs over the last few days, I thought I'd get a comment on one of them by now. Do they all suck? Tell me what I'm doing wrong here.

With Dune Sea, Wretched Hive and Phalanx, I experimented with doing non-square maps (meaning playable width is not equal to playable height). I've been tending towards equal width/height maps until now.

I've also been trying to play around with chokes and changing cliff height and seeing how they affect attack paths. I'm finding it very interesting and I'm liking the way the layouts turned out. Though, the lack of feedback makes me feel I'm going in the wrong direction.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

October 25 2010 21:31 GMT

#26

I love all of your WIPs, there are so creative!

One thing about Phalanx is its XWT placement. They allow for the high-yield expansions to be defended relatively easy in their current position.

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

October 25 2010 21:33 GMT

#27

I like Mount Ida and Phalanx. They offer a good amount of attack paths and expansion route. I would like to see those finished. The other maps all have minor problems (only 1 real path or an not that nice layout).

//edit
Overall all your new designs look way way way better then your first attempts :D

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

October 25 2010 22:08 GMT

#28

*phew* Thank you. I was worried there for a while.

I'll probably work on Phalanx tonight then.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

October 26 2010 05:44 GMT

#29

@Antares777, How do you feel about this Xel'Naga Watchtower placement for Phalanx?
+ Show Spoiler [Phalanx Summary] +

FlopTurnReaver

Switzerland1980 Posts

October 26 2010 06:51 GMT

#30

Wow there's a lot of great stuff coming here. Your WIP maps look very interesting. If your work on details and looks is as good as the designing, those are gonna be awesome.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

October 26 2010 07:22 GMT

#31

Providence and Dunde Sea would be better if the pathes towards center would give more space

i'd test out how Dune Sea works with a connection in the north and south behind the watchtowers. as the space is not use very effective I also suggest to compress the map just a little bit and move the gold expansions a few units towards outer edge and put small holes to give them more security. another problem I see at the choke into Nat, directly behind the choke are two ramps, it is just very difficult to move a bigger force towards the nat.
conclusion: interesting ideas, quite some problems

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

October 26 2010 18:55 GMT

#32

On October 26 2010 16:22 Samro225am wrote:
Providence and Dunde Sea would be better if the pathes towards center would give more space

i'd test out how Dune Sea works with a connection in the north and south behind the watchtowers. as the space is not use very effective I also suggest to compress the map just a little bit and move the gold expansions a few units towards outer edge and put small holes to give them more security. another problem I see at the choke into Nat, directly behind the choke are two ramps, it is just very difficult to move a bigger force towards the nat.
conclusion: interesting ideas, quite some problems

What you're saying is exactly correct and this is what I've been trying to experiment with. The idea behind Providence and Dune Sea was that the short attack paths were direct, but they are much tighter. They would serve well in the early game, but once a large army moves onto the field, the routes on the sides would provide more room to maneuver. I was trying to position the expansions so that an army should position itself on the sides and use the center attack path less. If the experiment doesn't work then at least I know more for trying.

Also, with Dune Sea, the nat-to-nat distance feels short so I felt the chokes into them should be small. They can be widened if you feel that they are too tight.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 03 2010 08:36 GMT

#33

Updated OP with another WIP: Perdition.

My first attempt at a 2 player reflection symmetric map design. And for some reason the editor doesn't like taking pictures on Char. Anyway, tell me what you think.

Also, made a change to the layout of Providence.

I'm having difficulty finding the time and motivation to actually finish a map.

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

November 03 2010 08:48 GMT

#34

Looks like your take on scrap station (and actually a good one). I've the same problem finishing a map currently. Got to much ideas and lately often end up making them to big.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 03 2010 18:59 GMT

#35

On November 03 2010 17:48 dezi wrote:
Looks like your take on scrap station (and actually a good one). I've the same problem finishing a map currently. Got to much ideas and lately often end up making them to big.

I find it difficult to do a 2 player reflection symmetric map with a decent expansion pattern and useful attack paths that doesn't turn out like Scrap Station. I tried quite a few designs before settling on this one. I definitely like rotationally symmetric 2 player maps more.

If you're making maps that are too big, then I recommend just restricting yourself. When you create the map, make it around 124x124 (Playable) and force yourself to work within those bounds.

On a side note, I'm thinking about trying to make a dedicated 2v2 map. There seems to be a void in that area of map design. Though, there are also fewer people who seem to know what makes a 2v2 map better or worse.

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

November 03 2010 19:47 GMT

#36

That's what i did with a map lately (restricted myself). But i don't want to post it right now ^^

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 04 2010 03:03 GMT

#37

On November 04 2010 04:47 dezi wrote:
That's what i did with a map lately (restricted myself). But i don't want to post it right now ^^

I hope you post it soon!

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2010 23:13 GMT

#38

Mount Ida and Providence! My head is spinning with ideas but they won't be pinned down. Are these awaiting polishing or do you have large layout changes in mind?

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 09 2010 02:20 GMT

#39

On November 09 2010 08:13 EatThePath wrote:
Mount Ida and Providence! My head is spinning with ideas but they won't be pinned down. Are these awaiting polishing or do you have large layout changes in mind?

Do you like Mount Ida and Providence? Are they filling your head with ideas or do you have ideas for them? I don't think the layouts will change much unless you point out something to make them better. I've done some finishing work on Providence and Mount Ida, but they aren't complete yet. I usually work on several things at once. So I'll do a little work on one map, then switch to another, and go back and forth a lot.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 09 2010 04:10 GMT

#40

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 09 2010 11:20 BoomStevo wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yeah, I'm the same way. And I haven't finished anything yet.

I really like Mount Ida and Providence intrigues me. I was wondering how open to changes you are. I was toying with ideas for both but I'm not sure what needs improving. Providence seems to have a lot of space that you could call "wasted" as people like to say, but I also really like every individual spot on the map, and the way they work together. Mount Ida just looks really neat; the flow is familiar but unique. I was trying to think of a way to add an "automatic" third base without cramming things or having it too far from opponent. Figured I would send some encouragement after the ambiguous criticism over Perdition.