EPTBoomStevo's Map Thread - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
Check out Wretched Hive. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
Added Phalanx to Work in Progress section of OP. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
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
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
//edit Overall all your new designs look way way way better then your first attempts :D | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
I'll probably work on Phalanx tonight then. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [Phalanx Summary] + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/oBRcp.jpg) | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
| ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
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
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
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
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
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
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
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
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
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
On November 09 2010 11:20 BoomStevo wrote: 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. 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. | ||
| ||
