Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 100

Post a Reply

Prev 1 98 99 100 101 102 217 Next

Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 18 2014 23:48 GMT

#1981

^ Both of the above, my thoughts exactly, why not make these changes?

[image loading]

Syphon8

Canada298 Posts

February 19 2014 07:11 GMT

#1982

Those are some pretty sexy changes, EatThePath. I kinda didn't like the map, but that makes me see it in a newer light.

Also, it's only 152x152 so I'm definitely not opposed to just making it a bit larger.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 19 2014 07:19 GMT

#1983

I don't think you necessarily have to. The middle is a bit constricted by normal standards, but here it serves to make the outer paths more important with the overlapping rocks. I love overlapping rocks on ramps, btw. And I think this map is probably the best I've seen for using rocks that open up lategame pathways. The map really feels dynamic in a cool way.

Phaenoman

568 Posts

February 19 2014 12:00 GMT

#1984

Hello guys,

I'd like to have ur thoughts on the raw design of my 2v2 map before I start with the aesthetics. Any huge flaws? Also any ideas on the gold bases? Thx!
(Spawns are 11 and 5 o'clock)

[172 x 164]
[image loading]

angled view
+ Show Spoiler +

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

February 19 2014 15:16 GMT

#1985

I like it, I think there are some minor tweaks to be found concerning the overall flow of army movements around the very center of the map and around the 1/7 oclock base.

Phaenoman

568 Posts

February 19 2014 15:24 GMT

#1986

On February 20 2014 00:16 TheFish7 wrote:
I like it, I think there are some minor tweaks to be found concerning the overall flow of army movements around the very center of the map and around the 1/7 oclock base.

My idea was to prevent a 2 player army of 300 supply clumb to move freely everywhere together. The current ladder maps have mostly huge open area in the center. I tried to make 4 main paths instead of an open area to move. I am trying to avoid the design of blizzards 2v2 maps.

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

February 19 2014 17:42 GMT

#1987

Well I didn't necessarily mean bigger, I meant the flow itself is a little broken up. it's not necessarily a problem, per se. Like right now if I sent a clump of units around the map it seems like they might split up or get stuck on geometry. That could be considered a good thing because it requires more thought to go into positioning, but imo players shouldn't have to worry about their units dragoon microing themselves into a bad position unintentionally.

Phaenoman

568 Posts

February 19 2014 17:56 GMT

#1988

On February 20 2014 02:42 TheFish7 wrote:
Well I didn't necessarily mean bigger, I meant the flow itself is a little broken up. it's not necessarily a problem, per se. Like right now if I sent a clump of units around the map it seems like they might split up or get stuck on geometry. That could be considered a good thing because it requires more thought to go into positioning, but imo players shouldn't have to worry about their units dragoon microing themselves into a bad position unintentionally.

Hmm, what would u suggest? Any exact ideas? Widening the ramps a bit?

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 19 2014 18:04 GMT

#1989

@phaenoman: That's a really cool design, I am totally with you on avoiding the style we have seen so far in blizzard team maps and I think this is a great example of successfully doing that. You might need a little more space in the open areas you do provide (on the sand dune highground mainly). I am concerned that the rush distance is a bit far which neuters pressure builds -- in 2v2 it creates a situation where there is no point in early units unless you are rushing a tech harass option, OR you both hit a 7-8 minute one base all in timing. I don't see a reason to force this type of play here (which has happened on some of the ladder maps). Also, the watchtower gives you complete vision of the rush path, and avoiding it almost doubles the travel time. I think the simplest way to address this would be to replace the long rocks on the ramp by the naturals with one 6x6 rock and a rock tower. I think the gold bases are fine, what are you not liking?

Phaenoman

568 Posts

February 19 2014 18:50 GMT

#1990

On February 20 2014 03:04 EatThePath wrote:
@phaenoman: That's a really cool design, I am totally with you on avoiding the style we have seen so far in blizzard team maps and I think this is a great example of successfully doing that. You might need a little more space in the open areas you do provide (on the sand dune highground mainly). I am concerned that the rush distance is a bit far which neuters pressure builds -- in 2v2 it creates a situation where there is no point in early units unless you are rushing a tech harass option, OR you both hit a 7-8 minute one base all in timing. I don't see a reason to force this type of play here (which has happened on some of the ladder maps). Also, the watchtower gives you complete vision of the rush path, and avoiding it almost doubles the travel time. I think the simplest way to address this would be to replace the long rocks on the ramp by the naturals with one 6x6 rock and a rock tower. I think the gold bases are fine, what are you not liking?

Sounds reasonable, I think. I have taken ur advice and added rocks according to ur suggestion like in the picture.

[image loading]

"You might need a little more space in the open areas you do provide (on the sand dune highground mainly)"

Not sure what u mean? Where exactly? I know it looks very tight but when u zoom in to game view its actually ok to engage. I think this has to be tested, but I can definitly try to widen certain spots.

Concerning the gold bases, I just wanted overall opinion about the placement and if the small ramp leading to it was overkill or reasonable. There is also that wide ramp right next to it, but it takes a bit longer to reach the gold base.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 19 2014 20:40 GMT

#1991

Yes! Nice picture. :D

I think the gold bases are well designed, they can be taken by either side with benefits and drawbacks, and are adequately vulnerable for their reward. The small ramp is important to this so I think keep it.

[image loading]

1) Maybe more space where this chokepoint opens out. It's a hallway that might see a large 2v2 fight, and it will be very difficult to engage with certain compositions. It's up to judgement, but I am worried about the following situation for example: both teams have taken 4-5 bases without mishap and built up large armies. North side pushes along the red path to threaten the 5th base of south team (lowground), forcing them to place their armies there. Then north side moves to the highground to the next location indicated, where they can still attack the 5th (especially with tanks/colossus). If south doesn't back up and meet them from the other side of the hallway, north also has a clear shot at hitting the naturals. So south has to engage in the hallway to stop the siege of the 5th, or they have to go around through the middle and leave themselves vulnerable. I know this is kind of contrived but it's my thought about that area.

2) The towers are going to be fighting hotspots so it might be good to have a little more space there with the chokepoints around it.

3) I feel like this area should be available for armies that want openness to have a good spot to engage somewhere en route to the nearby bases instead of being forced to fight at the base. (Orange box showing moving the highground spit over to make room.)

These are just some ideas, take them as such.

Phaenoman

568 Posts

February 19 2014 21:12 GMT

#1992

@EatThePath: I appreciate ur help!

1) I'll try to open up that space as u made a good point. But maybe there is a possibe way to redesign the lowground base to prevent this kind of scenario.

2) After ur previous post, I was thinking about repositioning the towers to the highgrounds (brown) on the corner of the map. This way u have to be scouting more earlygame and can't siege there with overview of the center for free later on.

3) I agree with u as well as with TheFish7 about the corner bases. There needs to be more space at the double ramps.

I'll be working on this and will post my results soon. Thx alot for ur feedbacks! If there is anything else u see as flaws don't hesitate to let me know

Syphon8

Canada298 Posts

February 20 2014 09:29 GMT

#1993

Actually made the proportions on that half decent, and it came out pretty nice. The paths EatThePath suggests are added, everything rounded out.

[image loading]

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

February 20 2014 19:38 GMT

#1994

I wonder if 4 possible bases are enough, probably not, but if so, where should I put the 5th base? The currently 5th base is very contested, but has only a 1 width ramp, so it is possible to be taken as a 3rd or a 4th, although it will probably be never taken in it's current position, so it only exists as a lategame max supply situations.

MrSunny

Australia73 Posts

February 24 2014 10:45 GMT

#1995

Oh man, i need to view this thread more often; So many great ideas.
Anyway, some more wips from me.

Cross spawn only
+ Show Spoiler +

This is a tidy remake of my old concept. I hope you like rocks.
+ Show Spoiler +

And of-course, a remake of everyone favourite map; Xel'naga caverns!
+ Show Spoiler +

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

February 24 2014 11:08 GMT

#1996

On February 24 2014 19:45 MrSunny wrote:

This is a tidy remake of my old concept. I hope you like rocks.
+ Show Spoiler +

The concept behind this one is kinda sick. Maybe not the best executed, but solid ideas here. I've had similar, but not quite to this extent. Maybe I'll mess around with this idea :p

MrSunny

Australia73 Posts

February 24 2014 11:44 GMT

#1997

The concept behind this one is kinda sick. Maybe not the best executed, but solid ideas here. I've had similar, but not quite to this extent. Maybe I'll mess around with this idea :p

I implore you to give it a go, its a hard one to execute, but i'd like to see it done really well.
I'd probably make both sides low ground to avoid the high nat.
the positioning of the outer bases and the terrain between each base could probably be largely improved.

JessicaSc2

Poland123 Posts

February 27 2014 14:45 GMT

#1998

Some of my ideas:

[image loading]

I think the concepts are pretty good. I have no idea how to move forward with these concepts though. Any ideas? What do you guys think?

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

February 27 2014 22:33 GMT

#1999

On February 27 2014 23:45 JessicaSc2 wrote:
Some of my ideas:

[image loading]

I think the concepts are pretty good. I have no idea how to move forward with these concepts though. Any ideas? What do you guys think?

I really like the idea of the first one. However, the way the ramps leading to the bottom right bases meet with the point of the star seems awkward, seeming like it almost or does block off that path into the middle. Perhaps move it back to allow that route to be traveled? Maybe with some rocks to compensate for the significantly shortened rush distance that would result.

And G

Germany491 Posts

February 28 2014 22:04 GMT

#2000

I've been experimenting with a number of old and new ideas (separate natural entrances, ambiguous third and natural, backdoor main entrance, separate attacking lanes, chokepoint with strategic value) and this is one prototype that might actually turn out to be playable:

[image loading]

The idea is that the map should lead to extremely different games depending on where each player expands to. I'm not sure if the ravine in the middle really works out well, but the connection in the middle is deliberately as small as it is; it's not supposed to support large attacks (and that's kind of the whole point of the map).

I have a few questions (for any race):

Would you be particularly scared of early expanding against an aggressive opponent?
Which 1-base aggression seems very dangerous compared to other maps?
Would you consider expanding to the base at the backdoor for your third, or for an alternative natural in case of a cannon rush or similar?
As the bottom-left player, would you consider expanding straight to the top with your first three expansions?
Would you likely be going air just because of the ravine?

Answers and general comments/suggestions are very much appreciated!

Prev 1 98 99 100 101 102 217 Next

Please or register to reply.

Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 100

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming