EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 102
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
| ||
|
JessicaSc2
Poland123 Posts
On March 05 2014 23:28 And G wrote: 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). I think the spawns are ok because u can just take the 3rd by your main when spawned counterclockwise. Your'e right about the gold exps though. I will probably turn them to regular bases. | ||
|
JessicaSc2
Poland123 Posts
the gold base chokes up the map by quite a bit, watchtower at high ground 3rd seems silly and the low ground 3rd is really close to it, other than that everything seems fine Yes at the second glance the watchtower seems silly... I need to rearrange this area. The thing with the gold base areas is that without them the place is way too open. btw it's 160x160 so it's a pretty big map. (a tad bigger than Frost) | ||
|
WittyWhiscash
Canada5 Posts
On March 05 2014 22:41 And G wrote: 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.  Well, considering I just actually analyzed the ladder standings for WoL, and there's only 2812 bronze level players in my region compared to the 6000 in the other leagues in my region, I can see how the ladder kept tossing me at silvers, golds, and platinums in my region. Gonna have to see if I can get HotS and hopefully have somewhat of a chance on the ladder. Because playing against silvers, golds, and diamonds on the ladder and getting owned because they have a better unit composition against your attempt at macro is frustrating beyond belief as a bronze. Thank you for the encouragement. I only just joined recently, so it's encouraging to know I have some kind of potential. I've watched some Youtube timelapses on mapping, I've probably read the articles on the mapper's index two times over, and I've got lots of book smarts, if you will, on the game, reading up on the game, builds, and spending lots of my lunch times and free time watching old WCS Korea tournaments. I guess the last step before I can see where I REALLY sit on the ladder and in the mapping community, is to get HotS, play some ladder games on there, and release a few maps to the community. I'll update later when I release the map on the forum with some extra changes. EDIT: Here it is, if you couldn't see it on the first page. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/445293-fastfire | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
I have been busy and wasn't able to work on my map recently. Now I managed to change a few things on it! ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IsUZ7Iz.jpg) pre-version: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5t3pNWc.jpg) What exactly did I do? 1. Widened the space in front of the main ramp. But now it seems really open. Not sure what to do tbh :/ Tried different things that didn't go well... 2. Removed watch towers completely 3. Changed ramps for corner high grounds 4. Added, changed size and rotated direction of ramps in the center I'd like to have more feedback on this. Thx in advance! | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
A few thoughts on the design: Originally I wanted there to be two valid options for a 3rd, one vertically and one horizontally. Long path ways leading to additional bases along the perimeter. Openness for battles. (I think it may be too open in some areas, I'm not sure). Central pathway isn't covered by the watchtowers. I'm not sure on the bases on the top right/bottom left but the gist is there. Ramp sizes are experimental since I just made ramps. I was just trying to make sure they're not stupidly massive. Pic: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0EQ8Tm0.png) btw, I looked into that map analyzer and I can't get it to work. It looks like I've got a really old version or something? I get the error: could not open map MPQ archive file even on official blizzard maps downloaded from the editor. | ||
|
meatpudding
Australia520 Posts
| ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
- Liberty (Mod) - Swarm (Mod) - Liberty (Mod) I'm pretty sure I've got an older version since I have 1.4.3 and that pic And G used says 1.63. *shurg* | ||
|
meatpudding
Australia520 Posts
| ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/28zFqiS.png) These pictures are beautiful :3 | ||
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
On March 07 2014 10:14 Harreh wrote: Hello again, I have created another map so more criticism/feedback would be great. A few thoughts on the design: Originally I wanted there to be two valid options for a 3rd, one vertically and one horizontally. Long path ways leading to additional bases along the perimeter. Openness for battles. (I think it may be too open in some areas, I'm not sure). Central pathway isn't covered by the watchtowers. I'm not sure on the bases on the top right/bottom left but the gist is there. Ramp sizes are experimental since I just made ramps. I was just trying to make sure they're not stupidly massive. Pic: + Show Spoiler + btw, I looked into that map analyzer and I can't get it to work. It looks like I've got a really old version or something? I get the error: could not open map MPQ archive file even on official blizzard maps downloaded from the editor. Looks generally okay, but seems really similar to Akilon Wastes, and not just the Tileset. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Eeyc6N.jpg) I haven't made anything in a while, but it doesn't matter 'cause my stuff was never that good anyway. Still, it's fun to be working with the editor again. Here you a sort of safe third (though still vulnerable to siege weapons, especially dropped on the tower behind) after which expos get more difficult. I'm considering adding another option for the fourth at the 8/2:00 positions to make another possible direction to expand and compensate for the only viable fourth not being a complete base. | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
But there are many significant features that define akilon wastes. - Backdoor via rocks into the nat - rock tower leading to the 3rd - Blinkable nat and main (particularly from the 3rd) I guess it's really the perimeter areas that give it that akilon feel. I don't disagree though.. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Spu58s.jpg) There is a choice of 3rds, one has a high ground behind it, while the other is open. Circle syndrome means that the last expansions will be heavily contested, but 6 bases per player makes out for it. Playable bounds are 152x152. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
I also don't like the option between the 3rds with one having a cliff behind it, it makes it feel like you're flipping a coin wether the opponent will abuse them or not. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
I don't mind the lack of attacking routes, but I also wouldn't mind another path from the top left to the bottom right connecting the attacking paths perpendicular to the general direction of aggression. But I guess this would go directly against the map concept. I do not like the 6th base at all. I'm certain the low ground base near the tiny ramp will always be taken last, for any race in any matchup, and once the 5th bases are taken, it doesn't just seem difficult to hold the 6th like on Akilon, but straight up impossible, so this basically looks like a 10-base map. I'd definitely make the tiny ramp much wider and remove the middle ground path behind the 6th base. Also, I think Zerg would prefer a less choky area in front of the natural. Maybe move the larger ramp even closer towards the middle and widen the choke between the third and the area between natural and ramp? Or otherwise move that ramp even closer to the nat so it's easier to defend on the low ground. The distance from the main to the low ground third looks a little long anyway. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
 recently had an idea for a 4p and quickly build it to see what it is like. imo 4p just are the most elegent designs if you get them to work. map is 160x160 and the four chokes per spawn together with the rather open, but defendable third as well as the tight fourth (semi-islands) should make many styles possible. not so sure about the rock towers yet. some shapes, especially the semi-islands are to be adjusted obviously. doodads are just placeholders. not much more to explain, the design is pretty clear i assume - thoughts? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9oi43Mz.jpg) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
But I'm not an accomplished map maker so what do I know... | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e4kbrCK.jpg) Bounds are 144^2 | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On March 10 2014 03:46 And G wrote: It looks like the only non-chokey area of the map is the middle, but I guess that's the map concept. What I definitely don't like, though, is that the third isn't ambiguous at all and the natural has only one entrance that is also covered by the third. I don't think that's a good combination for an all-spawns-enabled 4p-map and I'd expect to see lots of similar games here regardless of spawning positions at least until you get to four bases, and even then there's not that much difference. I mean, I do kind of like the layout of the third, but it doesn't seem to be a layout that would work well on a 4p-map. Strangewood Mire is much superior to this map, in my opinion. But I'm not an accomplished map maker so what do I know... thanks for the feedback. and thanks for the praise for Strangewood Mire. Strangewood definitely is a concept i'd like to work on again some time. Yet my last map, Neo Jungle Valley is also more on the adventurous side of things with being all semi-island and no non-flying/cliffwalking scouts. On the one hand it is (SHOUTcraft CW) and both were played (TLMC2 & RSL season 5 and Red Bull Map Contest respectively), on the other hand I felt I should elaborate on some recurring ideas in most of my maps while keeping stuff more straight forward and easier to digest XD. streamlined for mainstream. So what are these ideas? First and foremost a play with closeness/remoteness in combination with chokes (think Strangewood's horizontal thirds). Another thing is the idea of position and spatial awareness, I especially think the idea of a forward positioning is appealing, but also the idea to utilize terrain features. You can find that in both of my last maps. Another important "feature" I always look for is the emphasize of a concept or the attempt of finding something in a design that stands out clearly. This is a quality that I always try to get at, but that has to emerge more clearly in the future I assume: an almost radical conceptual-ism. Strangewood Mire accomplished that with its imho interesting symmetry and (Neo) Jungle Valley with its very strict layout (third is overlooked by main, third overlooks next third and so on). I think all three ideas are present in this map, together with a very much multi-pathed layout that combines in an open and tower-less middle. Against this background your comment on the third is interesting. Why is it not ambitious? Too close to the nat and not open enough? I feel like on the one hand its close-distance should lead to a very quick mid-game and less two base-timings, yet on the other hand it is open enough for attacks from different angles, because of the terrain in between the open middle and the third. while it is not easily harassed and quite defendable from a player sitting back, this player gives away a lot of map control (the area from fourth to fourth) and is in danger of being sieged in. Also I felt like I need to give it a simple looking third to get away with the fourth design. But yes, I am okay with a turtle-map to a certain extent. So what to do, to make that idea stronger? Should I open up the third more or create an even chokier area in-front to punish players who give up on the area between the middle and the third? Please also consider the rock towers in this context. another more general question: why is an unambitious third worse on a 4p map? regarding matches that are similar although they theoretically grant 3 different spawn-relations: well, remember what happened to Strangewood Mire, that tried to have three very different playing experiences and Frost, that tried to have all three nat2nat distances the same. also I disagree on your remark "what do I know". sometimes its a player, sometimes its a spectator knows more than a map makers. of course that is all untrue for accomplished map makers  edit: oh, you wrote ambiguous, not ambitious. well I guess that does not change my answer, yes I think this third can be rather boring in itself, if I get the area between center and the thirds right. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Now I'm only saying this in regards to 4p-maps because I feel that the point of 4p-maps is to have games play out differently just depending on where you spawn, and that a map needs to be sufficiently good at this to overcome the inherently lower balance. Your map seems to go against that, at least in the early and mid game. I know some people are of the opinion that 4p-maps only exist to add an early element of randomness, so if you subscribe to that, please ignore everything I said in regards to ambiguous thirds. | ||
| ||
