|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
Crazy
Toys in the attic, I am crazy
Truly gone fishing
They must have taken my marbles away
Crazy...
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/crazyp4sri.png)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/crazy_2ws3u.png)
Poll: This map is...Not too crazy and may become a decent map (4) 67% Crazy, but I like crazy (1) 17% Not too crazy but badly executed (1) 17% Crazy (0) 0% Very crazy (0) 0% Too symmetrical (0) 0% 6 total votes Your vote: This map is... (Vote): Crazy
(Vote): Very crazy
(Vote): Crazy, but I like crazy
(Vote): Not too crazy but badly executed
(Vote): Not too crazy and may become a decent map
(Vote): Too symmetrical
|
your Country52798 Posts
Hmmmm… if you think THAT's crazy, I should post maps on here more often
|
@And G: not a fan of the center but the rest can definetely work.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/81DdIEb.jpg)
I wanna make the natural/3rd somewhat similar to the polar night design, where you expand to the back of the map, but faster and easier to take, since there's no other close enough base to consider as 3rd. Rocks have too many HP so I probably use a neutral building at the back ramp to not punish zerg too much (time/distance wise). This plus having the ramp with the same size as the ont in the main should allow fast expos without an overly exposed natural (theory). The center will have some doodads partially blocking the path along those darker lines.
Never made a 3player, this simmetry is so hard work on. Any hints of what I should consider?
|
On March 19 2014 02:32 ConCentrate405 wrote:
@ Harreh: this closer 3rd base is much better. Increased the blink all in strenght though. Maybe you could try putting back that gap from the original picture by changing the main layout in a way that don't mess with the natural (how?). Man, this blink paranoid is screwing all my projects.
I would keep the lower ground version, it seems to have a better dynamic with two entrances. In the high ground version you can block the ramp with like 3 gateways or just park some tanks there.
Yeah I've found blink can be troublesome...
I agree, the dead-end aspect of the high-ground version means defending is so much easier.
Here's a slightly modified version:
-I've changed the deadspace in the middle to break up the direct line there kinda was from 3rd to 3rd. It also takes up a large area of flat land nicely I think.
- 4th close to the 3rd has moved slightly closer, although the ramp is the same.
- The 4th next to the nat has a wider ramp
- Added some deadspace on the main.
I'm considering the xel'naga tower positioning. I think it's good as it offers some additional protection to the 4th nearby.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/63IIE0Y.png)
|
On March 19 2014 03:33 And G wrote: [/spoiler]
some pointers that come to mind,
very small mains and natural
mineral main and natural looks very vurneable to cannonrushes
order a natural and get a 3rd free
little maneuverability around the map, will always have to pass the highground near the 3rd
center bases are super awkward because of previous point
On March 19 2014 04:57 ConCentrate405 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanna make the natural/3rd somewhat similar to the polar night design, where you expand to the back of the map, but faster and easier to take, since there's no other close enough base to consider as 3rd. Rocks have too many HP so I probably use a neutral building at the back ramp to not punish zerg too much (time/distance wise). This plus having the ramp with the same size as the ont in the main should allow fast expos without an overly exposed natural (theory). The center will have some doodads partially blocking the path along those darker lines. Never made a 3player, this simmetry is so hard work on. Any hints of what I should consider?
the natural looks small, and moving to a position to harras it from the back is almost as easy as a frontal assault
the ramp at the natural is angled somewhat awkward on both left bases
center is super open
ramps to the main on the right and bottom left are angled awkwardly aswell
|
2v2 map: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6pszrO1.jpg)
|
@moskonia: I sort of like this map for the ring around the outside concept but I think you need better proportions and spacing for the chokepoints. I'm not sure where would be best exactly but I think you have too many narrow places and the ramps are too small in general. It will make some really ugly max army situations in 2v2. The map only has 3.5 bases per player, which feeds into exactly the sort of turtle/deathball syndrome many maps create in team games where you have to macro up but there's no 4th base so you have to win in one engagement. If you can fit 2 more lategame bases in that'd really improve this.
Also I'm really not a fan of far apart dual entrances in 2v2. If you have one zerg player, it's pointless to wall your entrance. It's also a huge pain against mobile harass or allin play and forces boring overly defensive openings. I would much prefer something like this that interacts more with the inbase expansion and makes it easier to work together defensively:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dfNokmY.jpg)
|
I was trying to fit in another base, but I could not find a good place for it, although I will try and look harder. I did intend to have some serious chokes at the high ground pods, but I think I overdid it. I do like your idea, I thought far away entrances could help versus aggression, but I did not think about having the combined forces at the low ground.
The only problem I see with changing the entrance is that both mains have a much harder time taking a 3rd, since the distance becomes larger to them, although I guess that is not that bad.
EDIT: here is the updated version: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zoDYtrv.jpg)
|
On March 19 2014 04:29 The_Templar wrote:
Hmmmm… if you think THAT's crazy, I should post maps on here more often 20 bases on 160x160 with mixed rotational and axial symmetry not crazy enough? ... Cool. Yeah, you should post more maps here. 
On March 19 2014 06:37 19Meavis93 wrote:
very small mains and natural
mineral main and natural looks very vurneable to cannonrushes
order a natural and get a 3rd free
little maneuverability around the map, will always have to pass the highground near the 3rd
center bases are super awkward because of previous point I've made some minor adjustments to the overall layout and I think I've fixed most of those problems now.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/antisymc_02bnlbg8.png) ![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/antisymc_02cz9zkb.png) NE/SE main2main distance is 50 seconds, and nat2nat is 36 seconds; not sure if that is too short for a 4p map? The natural choke is very close to the base, though. Also, I'm thinking about turning the middle bases around and on the low ground and removing the small central high ground.
Please disregard resource placement especially in terms of cannon rushing, it's not done well since this sort of symmetry is really annoying to work with and will be finalised much later.
|
Hey guys, here is my map .Its me first map that look well in my eyes : D
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jpdzY4E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dZRKlTO.jpg)
please help me with me map
thank you very much
|
@ And G: I really like those changes. You've maintained the pocket 3rd design, without it being a free 3rd and nat all in one deal and keep the double backdoor and the centre is much more appealing to move an army though
There's just one thing.. Are there meant to be loads of asymmetries? Eg, the southern middle base. I can't figure this out.. I can see the rotational symmetry on the top left and top right bases but then ... ??
|
hi raindrops, that looks quite good for a first map, theres only a few points I can find that could cause trouble, and those are how limited in mobility the 2chokes at the 4th are, and the pathing around the middle is also very small.
|
Thank you really much for your fast answer i fix the things.
here are the new pics from the map, for more help im appreciative.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OOifID2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AACA9hc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uQrPUVt.jpg)
btw: i think that the middelbase is much to hard to take cause of tanks on the lowground the xelnaga tower sould deledet
or that you think...
|
On March 20 2014 04:50 Harreh wrote:
There's just one thing.. Are there meant to be loads of asymmetries? Eg, the southern middle base. I can't figure this out.. I can see the rotational symmetry on the top left and top right bases but then ... ?? Yes, that's basically the central idea of the map, to have mixed rotational and axial symmetry. Everything else is derived from it, especially the main/nat/third design not only regarding the players spawning in that position, but also regarding how easy it is to take a sixth base when spawning NE vs SW since the main/nat/third areas of the NW and SE spawning positions are mirrored then. It's all very difficult to balance, but if it works, you theoretically get a 6-in-1 map as every spawning pattern works out differently, unlike in purely rotational or purely axial symmetry.
|
ok i update the map again :D
sorry for so much pics... i hope you can forgive me ; )
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/F1V4RFP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zTquHmY.jpg)
|
Hi raindrops, a couple pointers on your map. First of all it doesn't look too bad at all for being new to mapping to that's good. You seem to have a good feel for proportions.
You always need a diagonal ramp from main to nat unless you have a very good reason not to.
This style of map with two main pathways far apart is generally frowned upon for several reasons, one major one being that it leads to either stalemate or base trade type games. I think a path through the middle would really improve the map.
The watchtower placement is very defensive. I think it'd be more interesting and promote map movement by putting it below the cliff on the lowground instead.
|
@eatthepath thank you really much
i have split the big place on the bottom and on the top. in the mid. is now a path. me question is, is the middel base posible to take or should i remove it? xelnaga tower seems imba at this map.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NwjxczR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iFQcRxm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9IpoAJC.jpg)
|
your Country52798 Posts
On March 20 2014 01:41 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 04:29 The_Templar wrote:
Hmmmm… if you think THAT's crazy, I should post maps on here more often 20 bases on 160x160 with mixed rotational and axial symmetry not crazy enough? ... Cool. Yeah, you should post more maps here.
OK. I'll start with this
Bounds are 160x160
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VNHS3FA.jpg)
Very rough draft obviously
|
On March 20 2014 06:30 And G wrote:
Yes, that's basically the central idea of the map, to have mixed rotational and axial symmetry. Everything else is derived from it, especially the main/nat/third design not only regarding the players spawning in that position, but also regarding how easy it is to take a sixth base when spawning NE vs SW since the main/nat/third areas of the NW and SE spawning positions are mirrored then. It's all very difficult to balance, but if it works, you theoretically get a 6-in-1 map as every spawning pattern works out differently, unlike in purely rotational or purely axial symmetry.
Okay, so there's the rotational symmetry that I mentioned, plus axial symmetry vertically. I think that's all the rules.
So yes, 'clearly quite absurd' 
|
On March 20 2014 21:28 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 01:41 And G wrote:On March 19 2014 04:29 The_Templar wrote:
Hmmmm… if you think THAT's crazy, I should post maps on here more often 20 bases on 160x160 with mixed rotational and axial symmetry not crazy enough? ... Cool. Yeah, you should post more maps here. OK. I'll start with this Bounds are 160x160 Very rough draft obviously
That looks like ~1:40 main2main ground distance, is that about correct? Seems easy to take a third here, and the fourth doesn't look too difficult to defend, either. What's the point of the low ground base near the main, though? I can't think of a situation where I would expand there before having taken the nearby middle base, and once you take that one, you get the low ground base for free, right? Or am I missing something here?
Overall, it looks great. What's so crazy about it?
On March 19 2014 04:57 ConCentrate405 wrote:I wanna make the natural/3rd somewhat similar to the polar night design, where you expand to the back of the map, but faster and easier to take, since there's no other close enough base to consider as 3rd. Rocks have too many HP so I probably use a neutral building at the back ramp to not punish zerg too much (time/distance wise). This plus having the ramp with the same size as the ont in the main should allow fast expos without an overly exposed natural (theory). The center will have some doodads partially blocking the path along those darker lines. Never made a 3player, this simmetry is so hard work on. Any hints of what I should consider?
Sorry, but I don't think the Polar Night layout will ever work on a rotational map, because for the player spawning clockwise that path behind the natural will always be really easy to attack. At the very best you'll probably get something that looks like Polar Night, but plays out completely differently.
I think rather than taking a layout and putting it into a three-player map, you should think about what kind of gameplay you want to encourage, and then design your main/nat/third accordingly. Also, I'm really not an expert on multi-spawn maps, but it seems to me that one of the most critical questions when designing a rotational three- or four-player map is whether the third is ambiguous/determined by spawning positions. Yours definitely isn't, which is another huge deviation from Polar Night.
I also think that you need a much bigger map for this kind of layout. If you look at your map, you'll see that the player spawning clockwise basically has nowhere to expand after the fourth, while the player spawning counterclockwise will have difficulties even taking the fourth.
In general, I don't really see the point of three-player maps; they have all the problems of four-player rotational symmetry (mostly expansion patterns) with none of the benefits, and on top of that are inherently even harder to balance due to the grid-based terrain. So... why do you want to make a three-player map in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
