EPTJust my 2 cents...
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 108
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Just my 2 cents... | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
It would be a different story if The_Templar's map had different naturals depending on where your opponent spawns, but it looks like even the third base is the same. That's why I said "1.5-in-1 map", because it's technically a 2-in-1 map, but with far fewer differences between spawning locations than on "typical" 2-in-1 maps. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On March 31 2014 04:19 The_Templar wrote: I'm really bad at non-2-player maps so I will be posting here a lot. I'm attempting a Shattered temple/metropolis kind of map. Close spawns are disabled, obviously. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQKZdV4.jpg) 160x160 Templar I think this could work in close spawns: + Show Spoiler + If you can increase the rush distance enough without choking up the attack path too badly. you could also combine those 4 bases circled into 2 bases. The mains could be larger. if anything, I'd say increase the bounds a few squares to accomodate the extra room needed. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4KmhaCH.jpg) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
@The_Templar: I'd remove the island bases, and if you want a 4 player map with close spawns enabled, I think you need to design the map that way from the beginning. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On March 31 2014 20:25 And G wrote: @The_Templar: I'd remove the island bases, and if you want a 4 player map with close spawns enabled, I think you need to design the map that way from the beginning. Most of the point of the map is the island bases -.- | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On March 31 2014 20:25 And G wrote: TheFish7, what would you say is the minimum acceptable nat2nat distance with a main/nat layout like that? I think 35 seconds is okay but I'm really not sure about 30 seconds and your proposed change looks like even less than that. I think if you want to enable close spawns on this map, you'd need to make the map wider along the NE/SW axis on top of any changes to the corner bases. And I doubt this will ever be a good map for close spawns because of the weird positioning of the third bases, even if you combine them. In my own testing 38 seconds is the minimum I use... I find I need that much time to defend a 9 pool properly. I agree that making the map wider might be a good idea, if you're going to do that you can also reposition the main a bit and perhaps make the 3rd base (in close spawns) more accessible in the process; the narrow path to get to it is currently very skinny for a zerg defender. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On March 31 2014 23:52 TheFish7 wrote: In my own testing 38 seconds is the minimum I use... I find I need that much time to defend a 9 pool properly. I agree that making the map wider might be a good idea, if you're going to do that you can also reposition the main a bit and perhaps make the 3rd base (in close spawns) more accessible in the process; the narrow path to get to it is currently very skinny for a zerg defender. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. When defending a 9 pool, surely the important distance is main2main, not nat2nat? I mean, a 9 pool is so uneconomical that there's no need for fast expanding when defending an aggressive 9 pool, and Zerg has only the main hatchery for a while anyway, so why would the nat2nat distance be of much importance? Or are you talking about ZvZ? In that case I don't see any problem in short rush distances at all, because the only thing it really means is that no one will ever hatch first, which in my opinion is perfectly fine on a 4 player map if it only applies to close positions (and if everyone can have opponents in close positions). | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kZUZMan.jpg) Main base of player 2 is natural of player 1. 4spawns, but no close spawns. Too turtly? Too strong for drops/air play? | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 01 2014 01:40 And G wrote: If The_Templar's map is a 1.5-in-1 map, then this must be around 1.1-in-1. It's a 2.5player map with 4spawns.  | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
I think people see the highground 3rd as too defendable so I've tried to lessen that back adding a back door with rocks. But to be honest I'm not sure that it is completely true and that changes are even needed as it might not even be a problem. Anywhere, here's my idea: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mSJhPcp.png) | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/alPem6a.jpg) So here's a thing. The idea was a map that's initially restrictive, but opens up as the game goes on with the option to close back up if one so desires. All spawns are enabled, rush distances are ~60 sec both horizontally and vertically. Reapers can't cheat and become super OP in horizontal spawns because the cliffs between the pairs of bases at 6:00 and 12:00 can't be cliff-jumped. The fastest route for them is only the ^ and v shaped high grounds. The art style is...interesting, and being adjusted. Keep in mind that, as it stands, the "missing" terrain cells are still pathable. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
 No really the style is horrible, it is too distracting since it seems like the map is buggy, even if you know it isn't. | ||
|
Harreh
90 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CuOManl.png) | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
| ||
| ||
