|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
interesting concept but a few pointers,
the natural mineral layout is a bit weird and may trouble some wallins, especialy with double ramps, maybe a single ramp and connect the 2 side by low ground?
then the 2bases attached to the main are very easy to 4base turtle on, especialy with the chokyness of the map.
the offensive high ground near the 3rd is very awkward, it's not close enough to the 3rd to do anything and chokes the whole pathway up.
and on the top left theres these 2 really weird high ground paths, which seem to be more of a pathing blocker than a pathway to actualy be used.
don't let this speak into you though, maybe you're having something completely different in mind with this design.
|
I think you are definitely on to something there And G. I think the natural could be revised a bit; I like the idea with the two ramps, but it seems very situational defensively- you can't really defend it with a single bunker and it would be hard to ffe. Having some space in between the ramps would help allow the defender to maneuver to get concaves in fights. I would second Meavis' comments and add that I am concerned about the offensive high ground near the 3rd as well- perhaps simply turning the ramp around and/or making it smaller. The small chokes are interesting and perhaps add defensive options, but they are everywhere on this map.
|
the natural mineral layout is a bit weird and may trouble some wallins, especialy with double ramps, maybe a single ramp and connect the 2 side by low ground? I think the natural could be revised a bit; I like the idea with the two ramps, but it seems very situational defensively- you can't really defend it with a single bunker and it would be hard to ffe. Having some space in between the ramps would help allow the defender to maneuver to get concaves in fights.
Yes, the minerals at the natural are kind of pressed into what little space is there. I have now carved out a little more space from the main, because I really like to have two ramps at the nat. I agree that it's not as easily defended as other naturals, but it's not that easy to attack, either. Especially after reading the Daedalus Point analysis I'm pretty sure I want to keep the two-ramp layout.
then the 2bases attached to the main are very easy to 4base turtle on, especialy with the chokyness of the map.
I'm really not sure about this. Turtling on four bases seems much easier on Akilon, for example. Still, if I wanted to make it harder to turtle, I see basically two options (apart from completely redoing the third layout): make the large ramp at the backdoor fourth even larger, or raise the complete region between the backdoor fourths, so you don't fight up a ramp when attacking the fourth. I might then even move the rocks to where the ramps would then be so that before taking down the rocks, you'd have to go through your own fourth to attack. Would either option really be an improvement?
the offensive high ground near the 3rd is very awkward, it's not close enough to the 3rd to do anything and chokes the whole pathway up. I am concerned about the offensive high ground near the 3rd as well- perhaps simply turning the ramp around and/or making it smaller.
Admittedly the high ground there is a bit too large. The idea behind it is to make it easier for T and P to attack the low ground third especially against Z, by giving protection against ling surrounds, and allowing T to place a few tanks there and then attack with bio and draw defenders back into tank range. Similarly, P could easily abuse the high ground with colossi and blink stalkers. I've made the high ground a little smaller and added LOS blockers to hopefully make the area work better.
and on the top left theres these 2 really weird high ground paths, which seem to be more of a pathing blocker than a pathway to actualy be used.
I've replaced them with smaller pathing blockers, I think there's to little space there for the high ground paths to work.
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/divide_0988udp.png)
Possible FFE wall:
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/terrain006fpjn1.png)
Better?
Also, are the unbuildable rocks even needed when you have a backdoor entrance? I have no idea.
|
wip name is Providence.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XYatlg4.png)
|
Is the main mineral line siegeable from behind? Looks pretty interesting anyways, the 3rd entrance being blocked by rocks seems like it would be a bit too easy base, but the collapseable rocks might allow for some cool play in order to make it hard to defend.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Main mineral lines need looking at 
Don't like the middle but I don't see how to make it better atm
|
Hello! Well, this is my first post on TL, so, I guess a quick intro should be in order.
I'm WittyWhiscash, and I've just very recently picked up Starcraft 2 WoL (3 months ago). Haven't made it far up in the ranks just yet, but that will eventually come, because I'm hoping reranking myself on the ladder will stop me facing Top 8 silvers, golds, and plats as a bronze (Highest I've made was top 15 in Bronze). I have read plenty and watched lots of Starcraft 2 tournaments in these past three months, so I understand the basics on how to play, and a lot of the strategy and tactics behind the game.
What I'm really here for is to ask for advice on what might be my first map. Currently, it is named FastFire, but that name is sure to change. It is a 1v1 map. Main2Main takes ~57s, and Nat2Nat takes ~42s. OL air Main2Main takes ~3m30s.
The concept behind my map is to encourage lots of aggression early game, with open naturals and fairly open bases to make exciting games. My hoping is that after, it will be easy enough to be able to transition into a macro game (Only 8 bases though).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sA4CZMQ.jpg)
|
On March 02 2014 20:07 WittyWhiscash wrote:The concept behind my map is to encourage lots of aggression early game, with open naturals and fairly open bases to make exciting games. My hoping is that after, it will be easy enough to be able to transition into a macro game (Only 8 bases though).
"Macro map" is not a word I'd use to describe this map. This might make for some fun games between friends of bronze to gold level, but it's neither racially balanced nor a good map even for mirror matchups at high level.
Apart from the fact that there are too few bases (even in WoL we're past the Blistering Sands days) I see these issues:
- The main is too small.
- It seems impossible to take the base above/below the main as a third, and once the alternative third is taken by either player, it's even more impossible to take it as a fourth.
- The high ground with the watchtower and the double ramps seems awkward.
Also, the minerals at the middle bases look kind of messed up.
If you want to keep the size and general layout of the map, I'd suggest the following adjustments:
- Extend the main base to the base below/above it so you got more space there.
- Extend the natural a little to the border and move the resources accordingly.
- Remove the ramp from the middle base facing the opposing third (and make the other ramp a little wider).
- Remove the small high ground in the middle and two of the remaining ramps (either diagonal is fine). Also remove the watchtower.
I don't think there's anything more you can do, and this will always remain a bad map for Zerg.
If you want to create maps for macro games, you should read up on Circle Syndrome, which is basically about how easy (in terms of space and especially distance) it is to defend bases versus how easy it is to attack them. As a rule of thumb: If the line of defense (covering all base entrances) isn't shorter than the line of attack (shortest attacking path between lines of defense) when both players are on four bases (or five if one is a half-base) then your map has Circle Syndrome and is not a good macro map.
Here's an illustration of how to check for CS on your map (for three bases):
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/cs_0ay5xud.png)
This looks okay.
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/cs_0bhnafg.png)
This looks bad. See why I want to remove that ramp?
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/cs_0cc5zr6.png)
... lol.
The problem with CS (and why some people think it's categorically a bad thing) is that it makes affected bases nearly impossible to keep because they can so easily be attacked, or if an attack fails, then the counterattack will often destroy the base on the other end of the attacking line, which means that you'll have lots of midgame aggression and little macro.
A map that I find well designed at least in terms of CS is Akilon Wastes: You can get to four bases quite easily (if not too easily) but once you try to take a fifth base CS comes into play, which (in my opinion) makes for interesting mirror matchups. For an example see this game between TheSTC and Ryung with lots of mech action. See how the location of the fifth and sixth bases makes it very difficult to keep them? You have a similar situation on your map, only with the third and fourth bases.
By the way, I like the two ramps at the natural. I think this might require a longer nat2nat distance, but I may be mistaken.
|
Hello TL, I have created a map and would appreciate some criticisms.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sV34z5j.jpg)
I think it needs play testing a fair bit, and I can't really participate in non-protoss matchups. I've played a game or 2 with my terran buddy and it seems to work quite well but there's still so much of the map that's unexplored.
|
It looks like you're forced to expand horizontally here, which is okay I guess, but I find it a little boring to be honest. I don't understand why the rocks at the third aren't on the ramp, and I don't see what purpose the rocks at the fourths serve. Are the small high grounds at the watchtowers pathable?
Overall it seems fine, although if you haven't already you should make sure that the natural can't be sieged from the third and you can't blink from the base with the huge ramp into the main. Unless either is intended, of course...
|
the rocks I just placed there. I'm not sure the rocks leading to the bottom right base are needed, or even if that area should be highground.
I can put the rocks at the 3rd on the ramp no problem.
The towers are on the same level as the surrounding area, they just poke out a bit.
http://imgur.com/xCInL2y
Currently a siege tank can be in range of a small part of the mineral field. I can easily change it though so a siege tank gets range onto the ground but just the outer perimeter.
I've got a version with an expansion on the low ground, inbetween the nat ramp and the base with the huge ramp. And I guess it needn't have such a large ramp as I'm not sure on that bit.
I thought the extra base could encourage more vertical base progression
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4yQ1VMI.jpg)
|
The towers are on the same level as the surrounding area, they just poke out a bit. Never mind, I thought the unpathable area behind the tower was high ground.
The added base does indeed make vertical expansion a much better option, as you now need to defend much less ground on four bases (see also my comments on WittyWhiscash's map above regarding CS). However, now it all looks very cramped. Just a suggestion, but maybe move the vertical third closer to the border and combine the corner bases? This would make the resulting base more difficult to take as a fourth, which would probably never happen anyway with the low ground third.
The low ground third is very open and the adjoining high ground base makes for a very good attacking position. Not sure what you can or want do do against this, after all there is an alternative and better protected third which at least Z will probably always take anyway.
|
Based on a BW map made by none other than Superouman (formerly Protoss4ever), creator of Cloud Kingdom. He commented in the BWMN thread that he was considering converting the map to SC2 but to my knowledge he never did, so I thought I'd give it a try. The layout changes I made were intended mostly to reduce the map's openness and fill in the map's open middle.
Unique features:
-Double nat entrance: the low ground one can be walled with 2 3x3 buildings. FFE is probably still possible, though it'll require maybe 1 more building than normal. Past the early game though, control of the high ground above the nat will be essential. Collapsible rocks on the ramped entrance is definitely an option, though hopefully unnecessary.
-Small map size: 124x124 dimensions, same as Steppes of War (although nat-nat is significantly longer)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zfpxPdK.jpg)
Also here's a stupid small map that I'll probably never finish, also based on a BW map:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8eCRnSr.jpg)
|
That snow map is indeed stupid, and possibly fun. Something wnio and I would have played on repeatedly.
The superouman remake is really great. Maybe it should be a little bigger, idk. Love it though. If you made the map dimensions bigger, you could put the lowground 4th further out from the cliff, making it less static for locking in the expansion pattern. This way it wouldn't be automatically susceptible to cliffing from either side's approach, to make it more possible to take from either side. Add in a small jutting cliff portion for a minor cliff vulnerability if it needs it. (Need picture?)
|
So I like backdoors, and yesterday I had this idea for a natural/third layout that could work, and then I made it into a small macro map and stole the middle from Metalopolis (kinda):
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/dn_0cgtqyp.png)
This is 6 bases per player plus 2 golds on 144x128. Obligatory analyser picture:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/dn_0ag0prr.png) There is a small no fly zone between each watchtower and the border to the East/West so you can't sneak into the corner. Note that ramp sizes are largely experimental and can (and likely will) be changed later, while overall spacing and distances will not.
I don't have a lot of time to work on maps and I can't decide whether to focus on this map (working title Doublenat) or on the one that is split lengthways (working title Divide):
+ Show Spoiler +
Please help me decide:
Poll: Which map project looks more promising?Divide looks more promising. (2) 50% Doublenat looks more promising. (1) 25% This is all ridiculous and you should make standard maps instead. (1) 25% They both look fabulously fantastic. (0) 0% They both look kinda meh. (0) 0% 4 total votes Your vote: Which map project looks more promising? (Vote): Doublenat looks more promising.
(Vote): Divide looks more promising.
(Vote): They both look fabulously fantastic.
(Vote): They both look kinda meh.
(Vote): This is all ridiculous and you should make standard maps instead.
Thanks!
|
So, I would like to thank And G.
While it was my first map, and it was most likely horrible, thank you for at least saying what could be done even though it wouldn't fix it completely. While my skills as a mapper are horrible compared to everybody else, they will improve as me as a player improve. So I guess this screenshot counts as incomplete as it will never will be released. Changes suggested have been applied, and aesthetics are pretty much completed (some islands around the main one might be added, and some trees might be added around the island). Thank you so much.
-Witty
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W3F92BL.jpg) High-Ultra graphics, even though it kills my laptop to do that. Can do it on my new desktop I just got though.
And then, just from logic and from a bronzie (Or even less than one if you want to take into account my status currently), in DoubleNat, that watchtower makes no sense from the point of view of control of ground vision. Would it be for use of air vision control? I know that the terran will try to skirt their medivacs around the map to do drops. Just thinking, it would make sense that for the opponent to break those rocks so they can gain vision of the air. Right?
|
@EatThePath: Thanks - I'm not really sure what you mean, a picture would be helpful. Basically just add space between the base and the path behind it?
@And G: On "Doublenat" it just seems too easy to secure 3 bases and then a 4th soon after, positioning your army at the base in front of the 2 nats. The other one looks a little turtly too, but that should be easier to fix.
@WittyWhiscash: Don't bash yourself, your map really isn't bad compared to most people's 1st maps.
|
@WittyWhiscash: Don't bash yourself, your map really isn't bad compared to most people's 1st maps. Well it definitely beats my first attempt. In fact I would say yours is better than half the maps of the original WoL ladder pool, so add a few trees and then go release it. Although with the new main, I would now always go for a blink all-in in HotS, and I don't even play Protoss. But you said you play WoL so who cares. 
And then, just from logic and from a bronzie (Or even less than one if you want to take into account my status currently), in DoubleNat, that watchtower makes no sense from the point of view of control of ground vision. Would it be for use of air vision control? I know that the terran will try to skirt their medivacs around the map to do drops. Just thinking, it would make sense that for the opponent to break those rocks so they can gain vision of the air. Right? The idea behind the watchtowers is that they spot incoming air harass (drops, mutas, warp prism) very early. The nearby bases are very vulnerable by air, so there is some strategic value to controlling the watchtowers if you expand there. I have since removed the rocks at the towers—they were originally there to prevent Z from easily taking both towers early in the game with cheap and fast lings while for P and T attack such an out-of-the-way location means more investment and more risk, and I felt that the map was already enough Z-favoured as it was (short ovie distance, easy to spread creep, lots of options for ling run-bys and surrounds) but now I think that without rocks there, the map will be more interesting because you'll likely see more smaller engagements there and that's always a good thing in my book.
On "Doublenat" it just seems too easy to secure 3 bases and then a 4th soon after, positioning your army at the base in front of the 2 nats. The other one looks a little turtly too, but that should be easier to fix. I did think about this a lot, and this is partly why I said ramp sizes weren't finalized at all. However, I do believe that the current layout might work quite well, for the following reasons:- It seems to me that in an asymmetrical two-base expansion pattern, a player A taking the open natural will have an advantage over player B who expands to the natural at the rocks. This is because as long as the rocks are up, B will need to move his army way out of position to attack A. More importantly, once B's rocks are down, B needs to defend a 4-width ramp, while A's natural ramp only has a width of two. Even if A's rocks are down as well, A's position is still better as it is more defensible. So you should probably always expand to the open natural (unless your exponents 1-bases or you're Z against T or P).
- Now, say you've expanded to your open natural, and your rocks are still intact. Will you now expand to the backdoor natural? Let's assume your opponent does just this. Isn't it now better to expand to the high ground third near the watchtower instead? This doesn't widen your line of defense as much, and you can easily attack your opponent's wide ramp. Even if your rocks are taken down, you can still defend at a 2-width ramp near your main. On the other hand, defending both naturals once the rocks are down can be difficult, because the distance between those ramps is shorter on the low ground, meaning the attacker can bounce between those ramps a little faster than the defender. If you're facing Z as T or P, this might pose a huge problem.
- Taking both naturals and then the low-ground base between them as a fourth should be difficult; you can be attacked from any angle including the cliffs at the gold. If I understand you correctly, you suspect that defending there is currently too easy. If that turns out to be the case, I'll make defending on the low ground harder, e.g. remove the small unpathable area there or even turn the gold base around and add a ramp, but I think this is something that needs to be tested first.
My immediate reaction when hearing the word "turtle" is comparing the respective map to Akilon Wastes, which is very turtly but still a decent map. I agree that Doublenat does indeed encourage turtling to some extent, but much less so than Akilon. In fact, because of the wide ramp at the rocks and the way you can bounce between the two ramps, I think Doublenat also encourages attacking a turtling player much more than Akilon does.
Anyway, that's the theory. If you still feel that turtling is too easy here, it would be great if you could elaborate on this. Also, how would you fix the turtling problem on Divide? By making the low ground third more open?
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/li87Bgv.jpg)
Any feedback?
|
Seems to me like you need to force cross spawns because the high ground third is really, really close to the main of the player spawning counterclockwise. And for cross spawns, I feel the map is too big and T can easily take the gold as the third against Z. I'd say either make the golds into regular bases or turn the ramps around so they face the middle (and also make them bigger).
Any particular reason why the natural ramp has only a width of two? What's the nat2nat distance? Analyser picture would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/div_0c8bokv.png)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/div_0aimpxp.png)
