|
On January 16 2011 10:08 Samro225am wrote:
so much empry space in the corners between mains.
no need for islands. you can use the space much better with islands between mains. and fourth a bit to outside.
What do you mean with "and fourth a bit to outside"?
Also, if I move the islands, wouldn't that make them easy to fast expand to as terran?
|
sorry for being unclear.
I think there is no real need for islands. if you really want to have islands I would put them between mains, because then you can further compress the overall size and there is less empty space. you can block the islands with DRs.
as the islands are then out of the corners you can use the now available space to make the fourths a bit bigger. also the entry next to the XNWT can need some bigger openings.
my impression is, that you do not need islands at all.
also i do not like the positioning of the XNWT. kind of afraif of terran siege tank spam here.
my suggestion is
1. to delete the islands / move fourth a bit to SW/NE corners
2. move the area behind thirds (where there is a pair of LoSB fields) a bit to the outside, too, make spave bigger
AND add ramp between natural and third (going down, leading out) and up again into the bigger third
AND rotate XNWT 90° so that they help attack/defend thirds and space in centre is more open. you might have to enlarge hole a little bit.
3. you could add a HY in centre if you feel you need one more expansion instead of islands
fear my mad paint skills!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
So, I've tried a few things with the map, and I've ended up with two alternatives for the middle.
Not sure which one I should pick, as both has their merits.
So what I have here is essentially two versions of the middle, one in the top left and the other in bottom right (symmetry line goes through the watchtowers):
Editor Screenshot
I am not sure which one to pick:
The gold makes for additional paths but decreases the importance of the watchtowers and also the size of the natural choke. It also makes it easy for terrans to bunker up with siege tanks on the gold, which can be horrible when spawning on the same side of the watchtowers (not sure if the backdoor to the natural compensates for this this though).
The other variant is more standard, the big ramp makes it hard to hold, but the watchtowers cover this (except for lines of zerglings/marines/stalkers) which makes it a bit easier to hold but requires moving your army from your comfort zone).
(I will have a hole in the middle to decrease open space between the ramps if this variant is used.)
What do you think?
|
blue one. looks nicer 
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Yap, top left version looks better
|
Hey guys,
So I started this map nearly 3 weeks ago but I haven't touched it for nearly 2, as I can't quite decide what I want to do with the centre of the map.
Here's two (of many) versions. I'm curious which you think is the better of the two, or if you have a completely different idea or a suggestion regarding a different part of the map I'd love to hear it.
+ Show Spoiler [Version 1] +
+ Show Spoiler [Version 2] +
Personally, I think version 2 is superior. But I've spent so much time thinking about it, I'm not even sure what to think anymore.
Also, another quick question... Let's say you started work on a jungle map a few weeks ago, and since then a flood of jungle maps had been released. Would you be tempted to change the texture set for the sake of making the map stand out? Even if you were confident you could make your jungle map look nicer than most if not all of the others?
|
On January 25 2011 22:32 funcmode wrote:
Also, another quick question... Let's say you started work on a jungle map a few weeks ago, and since then a flood of jungle maps had been released. Would you be tempted to change the texture set for the sake of making the map stand out? Even if you were confident you could make your jungle map look nicer than most if not all of the others?
Definitely go for the texture set you feel most comfortable with in my opinion, especially if you are so confident about making it look nicer than all the others
Also the normal base on the high ground and the high yield harrassable from the cliff seems way more intuitive , so I would go for version 2.
|
i'ld like people view on this edited version of blizzards Elysium, i changed it so it was easier to render for my freinds crap pc and realised that it was basically only the doodad that was causing the issue rest can be pritty :D
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5505/seanvsalexvsgeorge22bas.png) the map has extra bases easier to defend nat, extensiveley tested, LOW res, the more, main base has 8 patches, nat 7, 3rd is highley constested gold (pritty darn hard to mine from) the other gold is 10patches but only at 500minerals (massive income booste but is depeated quickley, nice for timed pushes), goes for gameplay that each base has advatange/disavnatge for taking
currentley called ; seanvsalexvsgeroge2 as i want to play test it before actally thinking about realising as elysium2 or something unigative
|
@funcmode: version 2 ist more interestin with more open and demanding gold expansion and more elegant 'third'.
questions:
1.can the nat be siegetankked from the fourth-cliff?
2.when you playtested, how was the gold attacked? just wondring because there is this small opening at the front. mabe you want to rotate the small cliff and close the gap and by that also open gold more to centre.
looks like a very solid layout!
|
On January 25 2011 22:45 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 22:32 funcmode wrote:
Also, another quick question... Let's say you started work on a jungle map a few weeks ago, and since then a flood of jungle maps had been released. Would you be tempted to change the texture set for the sake of making the map stand out? Even if you were confident you could make your jungle map look nicer than most if not all of the others? Definitely go for the texture set you feel most comfortable with in my opinion, especially if you are so confident about making it look nicer than all the others Also the normal base on the high ground and the high yield harrassable from the cliff seems way more intuitive , so I would go for version 2.
Well it's not a matter of comfort. I've purposefully stayed away from the jungle tilesets up till now as a matter of principle because I find they're the easiest to use, so I wanted to challenge myself. Then I finally decide, hey, I'll make a jungle map, and about 20 others show up simultaneously. That's life I guess
On January 25 2011 23:33 Samro225am wrote:
@funcmode: version 2 ist more interestin with more open and demanding gold expansion and more elegant 'third'.
questions:
1.can the nat be siegetankked from the fourth-cliff?
2.when you playtested, how was the gold attacked? just wondring because there is this small opening at the front. mabe you want to rotate the small cliff and close the gap and by that also open gold more to centre.
looks like a very solid layout!
1. It can. But the nearby rocks can be destroyed to allow access to that area (and then the true third expo). The distance to that area from the other base means zergs can in most circumstances kill the rocks before it becomes a problem.
2. The gold is really what irked me about the middle so much to begin with. As it is in V2, the small gap isn't really big enough to mount a full-on attack(though it's doable), it's better for things like hellions which makes it feel really cheap. Actually fighting big battles through it just feels awkward.
Right now I'm thinking of closing it off a bit more, leaving a tiny gap for harass only. Or I could close it off entirely, I'm not really sure. Thoughts?
|
I have a question about a map i'm making, 1v1 melee map called Bel'Shir Walkway.
It concerns with the blocked off naturals at each main base.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/bwv33.jpg
Why it is the way it is:
1) It isn't Jungle Basin or Blistering Sands. It offers two doors to get into the main, allowing players (if properly scouting) to reinforce himself. It also allows additional attack paths that don't get involved with Xel'naga Watch Towers.
2) It gives players a choice to take that base as a 3rd. They know the risks involved with it. If they complain that they always lose that third to hit-and-run tactics, then they didn't utilize the proper static defenses to take care of it. While the natural poses its threat, the narrow choke point leading into the blocked natural can prove useful for terran and protoss.
3) While terran proxy might happen (happened to me once already while i was zerg), we realize that zerg tends to send their overlords to that base, and protoss observers are cheaper so toss players are getting more observers. Terran will scan either way. These methods of common-sense scouting would most likely catch that proxy in a reasonable time for any player to react to it.
Anyway, what do you think? I think the blocked off natural is fair for both players. It gives them a choice, and it offers two back doors to ensure a little more safety for players such as T/P.
|
@funcmode (question 2  ):
I say go for a different texture set. We´ve seen enough earth-like pretty maps. You have the skills to come up with a unique look. If you mess around with different cliffs, textures & doodads you can create a tileset we haven´t seen before. I´d like to see that.
Suggestions:
1. Shakuras Plateau: + Show Spoiler +2. Custom (Port Zion/Char swamp style): + Show Spoiler +
@ everybody: I too am working on a layout, and I´d like some balance/gameplay advice:
Analyzer summary: + Show Spoiler +Rush distances:+ Show Spoiler +
I´m looking for trouble areas where it´s too cramped for Zerg. I have put a bunch of bases close together so an un-harasses Zerg can get to 6 bases really fast. This should be balanced out by the general narrowness without becoming too annoying for ZvP.
Also ideas for LoS blockers and destructibles are welcome.
|
United States145 Posts
I would love to offer some collaboration. My primary interest lies in Layout. I rather lack the attention span for doodads. Terrain would be secondary.
I would also like some help on a map that has yet to be approved for testing.
Image
+ Show Spoiler +
I created it with the very popular idea from XNC, namely being the opportunity for a meaningful decision between which 3rd to take. What I don't like is how there are only 2 major attack paths, the open area in the mid feels a bit too large. I'm wondering if there is a clever way to open it up yet leave the overall feeling intact.
|
On January 26 2011 05:12 Doz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I would love to offer some collaboration. My primary interest lies in Layout. I rather lack the attention span for doodads. Terrain would be secondary. I would also like some help on a map that has yet to be approved for testing. Image + Show Spoiler +I created it with the very popular idea from XNC, namely being the opportunity for a meaningful decision between which 3rd to take. What I don't like is how there are only 2 major attack paths, the open area in the mid feels a bit too large. I'm wondering if there is a clever way to open it up yet leave the overall feeling intact.
I think it reminds people of Scrap Station because of the big A-shaped layout. I think the layout would be better if you shrink the map and maybe fill in some of the big gaps in the center. Also, as someone suggested, 3 gold bases might be too many for a 1v1 map. You could elevate everything 1 level and thus free up an extra level for low ground in the current empty spaces.
Edit: example pic: + Show Spoiler +
|
@Johanaz: You map seems pretty good, but there are two things that stand out as far as changes go.
#1, this map is very choked up. Most areas could use being wider, but then you'll run into the problem of the natural being too open. there's a couple ways to fix that, just play with it.
#2, there're a lot of neutral bases. I don't feel strongly about macro on here.
|
What about my post? =( tear
|
You have a map thread. You don't need to also post here
|
|
|
Too many golds. Remember that almost all 3-base maps are going to be played 1v1. 6 golds on a 1v1 map is a Lot.
|
Hey guys, I've got a question for you. I've been working on a new map, and I really like most things I've done with it, but theres one teensy layout issue that I can't decide on.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bRw70.jpg)
On the left is the current way, thats been tested a lot. The issue is backdoor to front door time for attacker vs. defender. The right side is how I want to change the map, but the issue there is will it create too much of an open space in the center :/.
Which do you like more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/V6HF0.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Ec7ZP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HzC0y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img256.imageshack.us/i/seanvsalexvsgeorge22bas.png/)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RDDdE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NLBKn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/EbTcX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ulnAk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/D6qG7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rkX98.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/FmTzi.jpg)
