Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 110

On April 04 2014 03:58 And G wrote:
It's horribly outdated though. I think it would be great if we had a single compilation of map design rules with explanations and exceptions; e.g. like this:

• The main needs to be separated by a single narrow (one forcefield wide) diagonal ramp from the rest of the map.
  
  • Exception: If the distance between main ramps is longer than xy seconds, the ramp may be two forcefields wide.
    
  • Exception: The main ramp can be wider than one forcefield if the rest is initially blocked by rocks and there is an in-base natural.
    
  • Exception: There can be an additional backdoor entrance blocked by rocks if x and y applies.
  
  
• The entrance to the main needs to be in range of the natural Nexus cannon.
  
  • Exception: ...
    
  • Exception: ...
  
  
• ...

I mean, with everyone having internalized all the rules by now, I think we sometimes forget why these rules exist in the first place and under which circumstances we can ignore them. New map makers ignore them all the time because they don't know them (see Erotes' map), and then the rules are drilled into them and they end up producing the same kind of maps everyone makes. That's also why I don't like to tell aspiring map makers stuff like "put your main on the high ground with a single narrow ramp" because I think it's important that you first understand why whis is a good idea.

On April 06 2014 07:25 Big J wrote:
I see no situation in which you'd need to have a backdoor expansion when having a rockblocked doublewide ramp to the main. If you expand forward, your main defensive focus will be under that ramp regardless of its size.

On April 06 2014 19:57 And G wrote:

Yes, but if you expand forward there's usually no point in there being a blocked wider ramp since as you said, the ramp isn't your line of defense then. What you say about the Nexus cannon is true of course; the main point is that the main ramp should be "protected" by the natural Nexus. And of coursse there are exceptions to that rule (like an in-base natural, obviously).

Those examples weren't meant as absolute rules, but as guideluines for people who don't yet understand all the intricacies of map design. Of course there is no rule that is 100% true in all circumstances, that's not the point. But a new map designer doesn't want to spend hours reading analysis and watching replays, he wants a simple checklist whether his created map passes a basic sanity check. If you look at your map and think "rule X doesn't apply here because Y" then that's fine, but it's important to be aware of rule X first, and to know why that rule exists.

Narrow ramp to main base? Check.
Space behind mineral lines? Check.
Main and natural mineral lines out of low-ground siege range? Check.
etc.

Main and natural mineral lines out of low-ground siege range? Check.

On April 06 2014 21:38 Big J wrote:
I think it is better to just tell them, that they should go through current and previous ladder maps and look at their setups.

On April 06 2014 22:16 And G wrote:

I see two major problems with this:

• New mapmakers usually make maps because they want to do different (a.k.a. "innovative") stuff compared to typical ladder maps. Ideally, you'd give them the tools/knowledge to do this rather than trying to stifle their ideas by telling them to copy proven layouts. If you give them a checklist, and their map violates a rule, then they can specifically try to fix this problem or even decide to ignore it. What's important is that they realize that this might potentially break the map. What they choose to do with that knowledge is up to them.
  
• To learn something from looking at existing setups you already need to have a decent understanding of mapmaking first. For example, there's a "rule" that the gasses at the natural shouldn't be too hard for Overlords to scout. This can take many forms; typically you'll see two geysers on the same side, Overlord hiding spots, or dead space behind the geysers. However, if you've never heard of that rule before, you won't even realize that the geysers are placed very deliberately on most maps. Telling a new mapmaker to keep Zerg scouting in mind when placing geysers is much better than telling him to look at existing base setups.

(If you're going to argue about gas geyser placement, just ask yourself which map is likely the better one: a map by someone who deliberately made natural geysers impossible to scout, or a map by someone who made them impossible to scout because he didn't consider Overlord scouting at all?)

On April 07 2014 02:37 19Meavis93 wrote:
layout is somewhat nice but you need to fix the sizes of certain areas, there is little to no room in the nat and low 3rd

On April 07 2014 03:35 And G wrote:
I like the idea but I think it's really not suited for rotational symmetry. If you could somehow make this work with axial symmetry by stretching the map horizontally this would be a really cool design though.

On April 06 2014 21:38 Big J wrote:
Obviously, if a person has no idea about what his map features could lead to his maps will be bad. But his maps will be bad, regardless of how big of a list of "to-do features" you give him. And I think, before someone takes the time to go through a list, he/she will rather just spend less time of thinking about what he/she is doing.

On April 07 2014 04:31 Big J wrote:
What do you mean by "this"? The second entrance to the natural? Because I think I will drop it regardless, since the more I think about it, the more I believe it is
- either broken against Protoss in PvZ, because it is too hard to wall
- or broken against Zerg, because sentry/Immortal (or other sentry based rushes)

On April 07 2014 05:40 And G wrote:

By "this" I mean the whole main/nat/third layout. I don't think it's broken in PvZ as long as you can wall the second entrance with three (or even two) pylons, and you could make it easier to defend for Zerg by enlarging the area between the natural base and the narrow entrance so a Protoss player could camp on the narrow pathway with sentries, but to get damage done he'd still need to walk into more open space at the base. This would also require rearranging the mineral line so it's closer to the main base.

The reason why I think it's bad in a rotational 4 player map is that the player spawning counterclockwise will always keep his units between his own and his opponent's natural regardless of which approach he actually takes, while the player spawning clockwise would have his units way out of position when attacking via the narrow pathway.

On April 07 2014 05:40 And G wrote:

By "this" I mean the whole main/nat/third layout. I don't think it's broken in PvZ as long as you can wall the second entrance with three (or even two) pylons, and you could make it easier to defend for Zerg by enlarging the area between the natural base and the narrow entrance so a Protoss player could camp on the narrow pathway with sentries, but to get damage done he'd still need to walk into more open space at the base. This would also require rearranging the mineral line so it's closer to the main base.

The reason why I think it's bad in a rotational 4 player map is that the player spawning counterclockwise will always keep his units between his own and his opponent's natural regardless of which approach he actually takes, while the player spawning clockwise would have his units way out of position when attacking via the narrow pathway.

On April 07 2014 02:21 Big J wrote:
Rotational Caverns of Xel'Naga for 4players
+ Show Spoiler +



Two third options, so regardless of your spawn position, there should be an acquirable third base. And regardless of your choice, you have a 4th nearby to expand away from your opponent. So in terms of spawns, all should be playable.

The wacky thing is of course the second easily wallable entrance to the natural. Any input on this?

On April 07 2014 13:32 EatThePath wrote:
The middle on this is so cool, I want to steal it but I have nothing to put it on.

On April 07 2014 17:56 skdeimos wrote:
Nat entrance should be wider to accommodate for no longer having a backdoor. 10 squares is the standard these days, I believe.