Leprechaun Tree :
Eventhough you don't have any expectation for this map, you could still use it to train yourself to use doodads, textures, good proportions etc.

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

May 11 2014 15:13 GMT

#2263

On May 11 2014 18:13 Leprechaun Tree wrote:
I was just kidding about making it a 1v1 map, really I made a 15 player free for all map. Here it is with spawns highlighted
+ Show Spoiler +

I have no expectations of this map seeing tournament play or anything, I just wanted to make something fun.

This is even better/worse than + Show Spoiler +

made about 30 months ago by me

(Which I still insist is totally balanced)

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

May 11 2014 23:16 GMT

#2264

Some notes:
-Controlling the watchtower gives an advantage in that valley due to LoS blockers in the chokes (may not be visible on the overview)
-Ignore that Collapsable Rock Tower, it shouldn't be there. I don't know why it is.
-Blink maybe too powerful

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

May 12 2014 00:19 GMT

#2265

@Coppermantis + Show Spoiler +

Key:
Yellow text = Race/balance issues
Orange rectangles = Unnecessarily narrow chokes
Blue ovals = Space control.

You seem to have a lot of empty spaces in random parts that seem superfluous (the one in the corner could simply not exist or be replaced by something more interesting) and not enough empty space in parts that need it. Also see the yellow text for side thoughts. In addition, you have no big ramps, they are all 1x or 2x size, why?

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

May 12 2014 00:30 GMT

#2266

Basically, my thoughts behind this one were to have large open areas separated by thin chokes, thus giving Zerg favorable areas to engage, while Protoss and Terran strategies incorporating things like Tanks, FF, and Colossus can use the tighter areas.

And yes, the idea was that the other third would be the superior one for Protoss, while Zerg might favor the 12:00/6:00 one.

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

May 12 2014 01:55 GMT

#2267

On May 12 2014 09:30 Coppermantis wrote:
Basically, my thoughts behind this one were to have large open areas separated by thin chokes, thus giving Zerg favorable areas to engage, while Protoss and Terran strategies incorporating things like Tanks, FF, and Colossus can use the tighter areas.

And yes, the idea was that the other third would be the superior one for Protoss, while Zerg might favor the 12:00/6:00 one.

Personally I think you overdid it a bit. That huge area near the center is not all needed I think, and it takes space away from the rest of the map (for example, that third is awfully small…).

LoveTool

Sweden143 Posts

May 12 2014 16:33 GMT

#2268

So I had an idea and just went with it. 148x148 playable.

I have some concerns about if that high ground may be too strong defensively. Also don't see an obvious way to make North/South spawns work. Not sure if the balance of chokeyness/openess plays out that well. Etc. Any other obvious issues?

I'm thinking I may nudge the high ground 3rds a bit N/S out towards the edges too, so the main does not have to look so weird. Collapsible rocks may move to lower part of ramp.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

May 12 2014 22:29 GMT

#2269

doing some lighting tests for a new map - a simple desert/apocalytic nature setting with a blend of various reddish browns and greys.

textures are still wip and need to be adjusted to the lighting setup I still have to decide on.

this post is a bit image heavy, so each lighting setup shows fours screenshots of the same four locations on the map. each spoiler contains one setup.

i hope i did not mix up any setups. enjoy and feel free to tell me what you thinks works and looks best.

+ Show Spoiler [Zerus] +

+ Show Spoiler [Valhalla] +

+ Show Spoiler [Redstone] +

+ Show Spoiler [New Folsom] +

+ Show Spoiler [Laboratory] +

Poll: What lighting setup is best?

Zerus (7)

33%

Valhalla (0)

0%

Redstone (2)

10%

New Folsom (11)

52%

Laboratory (1)

5%

21 total votes

Your vote: What lighting setup is best?

(Vote): Zerus
(Vote): Valhalla
(Vote): Redstone
(Vote): New Folsom
(Vote): Laboratory

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

May 12 2014 22:53 GMT

#2270

Zerus is my favorite, with Redstone a close second.

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

May 13 2014 00:11 GMT

#2271

dimensions = 136x136. m2m (townhall) = 34s close, 42s cross.

Even though the m2m distance is tiny, each player has an "inbase" mineral wall base with 8m1g.

Completely unplayable?

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

May 13 2014 01:59 GMT

#2272

@Samro225am I like all of them except New folsom.

@Namrufus Yes. Completely unplayable.

JessicaSc2

Poland123 Posts

May 13 2014 04:39 GMT

#2273

Even though the m2m distance is tiny, each player has an "inbase" mineral wall base with 8m1g.

Completely unplayable?

the fact that you cannot get a safe natural disqualifies it.

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

May 14 2014 07:35 GMT

#2274

I think I'm done with layout on this one and gonna start aesthetics. Any last thoughts?

Gonna do something for Starbow along the lines of Khalim's Will next, since I loved the concept behind that map in TLMC2.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

May 14 2014 12:38 GMT

#2275

I love it, seems like a pretty solid map from the overview, although it doesn't really fit the meta, as it has a large blink cliff. You should try and remove some of cliff area of the main, in order to keep blink all ins in check. That would be a bit problematic with the current 6/12 base design, but it is important.

On a good note, this map is probably very bad for SH play, as the many paths allow the other player to avoid the SHs with the main army, or counter attack with small runby forces.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

May 14 2014 18:19 GMT

#2276

@skd: Okay my feedback is only intended to be constructive -- I am pretty underwhelmed. The 4 large bridges really amount to several small holes in a wide open field that defines access to the nat and 3rd. Granted it provides some chokepoint definition at the 3rd and some forcefield engagement locations, but I think the concept would be much stronger if the bridges were narrower or separated more, creating a clear double-bridge towards center and a double-bridge to/from the 3rd. Not only would this make that area more interesting and positionally strategic, but I think it would help improve the significance of the center design. Right now it doesn't really matter which route you take because they all end up at the same place -- outside the nat/3rd. Generally no one will be defending that area, they'll just be defending either of those base locations or camping equidistant / safe stance at a "chokepoint". Apart from parade push back and forth rally type situations (primarily zvt), there won't be much interaction in the center until the late late game when the lowground bases are taken, and then the action will simply be at those bases. I think the intention though is to provide wide flanking options or unscouted surprise army movements, requiring vigilance and map presence and therefore creating action. So if the "destination" terrain of access points to nat and 3rd is more defined, I think it will also promote the center function.

In the late late game I think the army movement will be pretty interesting, so I would recommend making the map tilt toward 4+ base games. (Not too heavy handed, it's almost in the right spot imo.)

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

May 14 2014 18:38 GMT

#2277

On May 15 2014 03:19 EatThePath wrote:
@skd: Okay my feedback is only intended to be constructive -- I am pretty underwhelmed. The 4 large bridges really amount to several small holes in a wide open field that defines access to the nat and 3rd. Granted it provides some chokepoint definition at the 3rd and some forcefield engagement locations, but I think the concept would be much stronger if the bridges were narrower or separated more, creating a clear double-bridge towards center and a double-bridge to/from the 3rd. Not only would this make that area more interesting and positionally strategic, but I think it would help improve the significance of the center design. Right now it doesn't really matter which route you take because they all end up at the same place -- outside the nat/3rd. Generally no one will be defending that area, they'll just be defending either of those base locations or camping equidistant / safe stance at a "chokepoint". Apart from parade push back and forth rally type situations (primarily zvt), there won't be much interaction in the center until the late late game when the lowground bases are taken, and then the action will simply be at those bases. I think the intention though is to provide wide flanking options or unscouted surprise army movements, requiring vigilance and map presence and therefore creating action. So if the "destination" terrain of access points to nat and 3rd is more defined, I think it will also promote the center function.

In the late late game I think the army movement will be pretty interesting, so I would recommend making the map tilt toward 4+ base games. (Not too heavy handed, it's almost in the right spot imo.)

Yeah, that's kind of how I feel about it too. I designed the centre with the idea of forcing lategame armies to use the entire map, but I do so your point about how early on the action will be happening in boring open fields with small holes. I'll see what I can do to make those areas more interesting.

REALRetrO

United States15 Posts

May 15 2014 07:46 GMT

#2278

[4] Erased Sanctuary
Made it's own thread instead.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/450484-4-erased-sanctuary