EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 107
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
It's also possible to just remove the tower all together, as it does provide great ground based defensive vision for 2 bases and one pathway for the 3rd. Not sure where else a tower would go other than dead-centre, but I was originally against having one there for some reason so I think removing it might work fine. Something like this? The base is now much more open and that attack path is probably more appealing since it's so as slim (since the ramp's gone). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sVvGSwb.png) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Also, I'd like to hear some comments regarding this natural layout: ![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/terrain014w7dl4.png) Full map overview: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/scrapb_046kfz8.png) As you can see, the entrance near the main ramp that is also the closest entrance to the opponent can be fully walled with pylon+gateway / depot+barracks and easily blocked with three queens. Then there is a larger entrance leading to the third that requires an attacker to take a long detour through the bottom left base, and another small entrance protected by rocks. Tanks on the high ground on top of the ramp cannot hit workers, by the way. My main concern is the width of the ramp leading to the third. Too wide? Too narrow? Then, do the low ground rocks make the natural too open once taken out? And finally, an army sitting atop the ramp can attack both the natural and main while the defender has to take a longer route to defend each choke. This is kind of similar to Blistering Sands, except here the difference in distances is not quite as extreme, and an army at the high ground third is way out of position to defend anything so counterattacks are dangerous. I'd also appreciate general comments about the map, but I'm mostly interested in opinions about the natural. | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
On March 25 2014 03:00 EatThePath wrote: Yeah that's better, maybe even more open, or at least a wider entryway. You could also put the tower on the lowground making it necessary to go out of a defensive stance to take it. Yeah I think the tower can go on the low ground, great idea. This will allow an attacker to shoo away any units who control it a bit easier, which they can do before the actual attack. | ||
|
EthanS
United States206 Posts
On March 25 2014 03:54 And G wrote: So far, some (two) people seem to be of the opinion that the middle bases on Crusader (the mixed symmetry map) should not be gold bases. My question is: In what situation would you take a middle base that is not a gold? I'd love to hear a very specific scenario, e.g. "as a fourth when going mech against Zerg on cross spawns and my opponent is massing Swarm Hosts." Also, I'd like to hear some comments regarding this natural layout: Full map overview: + Show Spoiler + As you can see, the entrance near the main ramp that is also the closest entrance to the opponent can be fully walled with pylon+gateway / depot+barracks and easily blocked with three queens. Then there is a larger entrance leading to the third that requires an attacker to take a long detour through the bottom left base, and another small entrance protected by rocks. Tanks on the high ground on top of the ramp cannot hit workers, by the way. My main concern is the width of the ramp leading to the third. Too wide? Too narrow? Then, do the low ground rocks make the natural too open once taken out? And finally, an army sitting atop the ramp can attack both the natural and main while the defender has to take a longer route to defend each choke. This is kind of similar to Blistering Sands, except here the difference in distances is not quite as extreme, and an army at the high ground third is way out of position to defend anything so counterattacks are dangerous. I'd also appreciate general comments about the map, but I'm mostly interested in opinions about the natural. @AndG I still really like this map. I think its exciting for tournament play, and I expect it would compare very well to Frost, one of the more balanced maps in the pool. It is the same size as Frost, but brings additional complexity. Compared to Frost, however, it also has an additional base-per-player. That's already 25% more resources; I'm not sure that the map needs even more resources. However.... Each corner has an "easy" third, so a 4th and 5th would only be taken in a long game. That means the gold is offered as an alternate 4th to pull players to the middle, instead of taking a safer 4th on the side. Players who already have effective map control will benefit most from the central gold, so it's a bit win-more. If neither player has good map control, players with a stronger, slower army will prefer the gold's central position on the main attack paths. Examples: Slower Toss deathball, tempests; seiged mech, swarmhosts. When would you ever take a middle non-gold? I doubt you would. The 4ths are so much easier to defend than the middles, especially with static defense, that there's simply no reason to take a blue middle. I think a PF at the side 4ths (3,6,9,12) will be very strong - covering both ramps, mining, and cutting the attack path. In fact, that's a risk from P and Z too - perhaps that 4th is too strong? Maybe use chokes and doodads to keep the shape, but no ramps? That would reduce, but not eliminate, defenders advantage there (although that would allow the 3d/natural to cover the 4th, and prevent seiging from the 4th into the adjacent 3rd/nats). That would push more players to take the middles. | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1BQNYjq.png) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On March 25 2014 17:12 EthanS wrote: Unlike Frost, you have bases here that can't really be taken by either player, so without the middle bases you have effectively fewer resources than on Frost. Also, golds just mine out faster; they still have the same amount of minerals per patch as regular bases and have only 6 patches on top of that. So effectively, this map is somewhere between Frost and Alterzim in regards to resources. Not saying that Frost has too few bases of course, after all even a "four-player" map is still a two-player map, but I don't think having many bases is a problem as long as those bases are contested or difficult to take/defend.Compared to Frost, however, it also has an additional base-per-player. That's already 25% more resources; I'm not sure that the map needs even more resources. On March 25 2014 17:12 EthanS wrote: That's what I thought. So basically, there's three options: Keep the gold bases to pull players into the middle, make the fourths much harder to defend, or remove the middle bases altogether as there's no point in having bases no player will ever take. I'm currently leaning towards making the fourths harder to defend, but of course this has a lot of implications especially in regards to the watchtowers. I think the best way to go at this is to make all chokes a little wider and put only the bases at the watchtower on the low ground:When would you ever take a middle non-gold? I doubt you would. The 4ths are so much easier to defend than the middles, especially with static defense, that there's simply no reason to take a blue middle. ![[image loading]](http://www.pictureshack.us/images/96726_Crusader.png) This, however, makes those bases much more difficult to take as thirds and might lead to everyone taking the three corner bases first in every game, which I want to avoid. Maybe I should add a few rocks there? Or is the watchtower enough of a defender's advantage? Also, would replacing the golds with regular bases make sense here? I'd still prefer taking the fourths at the edge of the map, and I can't make them any more open than this. Edit: Actually, I think I can discourage taking the three corner bases first by making the ramp at the third four wide instead of three and slightly narrowing the chokes at the watchtower base. Does that look about right? | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/URb4Qrr.jpg) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Or am I the only one to enter such a map? That would be great, too.  | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On March 29 2014 22:41 And G wrote: So, with the TLMC being all about multiple spawning locations this time, is someone else going to enter mixed-symmetry maps like Crusader? I'd be interested in hearing how people who are actually trying to design a map based on that concept deal with some of the intrinsic problems and balance in general, and this seems a good place to discuss stuff. Or am I the only one to enter such a map? That would be great, too. I'm doing a 2/1 map and a lost temple style map for my 1v1 maps | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
Or is that just too lazy? | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
Ferisii
Denmark199 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bGua2EJ.jpg) New project under contruction. Hope I'll get it finished before the TLMC#4 submission deadline! | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
@phaenoman: Really like how that looks now! | ||
|
ConCentrate405
Brazil71 Posts
On March 30 2014 00:32 Harreh wrote: I was just going to convert my 2 player map to a 4 player rotational symmetric map with forced crossed spawns. Or is that just too lazy? The closest you'll get to cheating Trying some 3players layouts since I refuse to make a 4p, but those ramps are killing me. This TLMC made me rush my super map plan I was going to reveal next semester muahahaha | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 30 2014 04:23 ConCentrate405 wrote: The closest you'll get to cheating Trying some 3players layouts since I refuse to make a 4p, but those ramps are killing me. This TLMC made me rush my super map plan I was going to reveal next semester muahahaha I am nervous for the coming revelation that is your super map plan | ||
|
EthanS
United States206 Posts
On March 29 2014 22:41 And G wrote: So, with the TLMC being all about multiple spawning locations this time, is someone else going to enter mixed-symmetry maps like Crusader? I'd be interested in hearing how people who are actually trying to design a map based on that concept deal with some of the intrinsic problems and balance in general, and this seems a good place to discuss stuff. Or am I the only one to enter such a map? That would be great, too. Don't forget to punch up the doodads, backgrounds, and textures. Even map judges like eyecandy! | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
That was the joke | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
I'm attempting a Shattered temple/metropolis kind of map. Close spawns are disabled, obviously. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQKZdV4.jpg) 160x160 | ||
| ||
