Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 115

Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

May 15 2014 20:52 GMT

#2281

The third was almost too easy with the last version. This version, I removed bridges, which made the third even easier to defend, so I felt I had to increase the nat-third distance or else the third would be essentially free.

I added gold minerals because I thought it'd be cool if that base was a potential third. It's harder to take since it's around 1.5x as far away as the other potential third, so I think it should be rewarded with additional income. Also it's just a general buff to TvZ, since Zerg will never take that base as a third but Terran might, which I think isn't a bad thing.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

May 15 2014 21:12 GMT

#2282

new folsom won with one vote over zerus and both were far in front. so i tried both setting on several screens and decided on the friendlier zerus.

the four normal bases and the central gold

The double-60gold XWT passage

WedRine

Denmark64 Posts

May 16 2014 16:30 GMT

#2283

So back when I started playing SC2 my favorite map was Scrap Station unfortunately it wasn't really balanced and had some distance and symmetry problems, so it went of the ladder before long. Back then though, I had no idea about all of that, so I just really enjoyed that map. Now i've been wanted to make sort of a tribute map and this is what i got so far, I'd really like some input before i continue.

Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +

[M] (2) Scraplands
160x160

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

May 19 2014 08:09 GMT

#2284

Feedback on Xel'Naga watchtower placement? I think this might lead to dynamic battles to hold a third, where the player who controls their high ground (typically the defender, and defender's advantage is definitely good seeing the far distance from this third to the nat) can control the watchtower and thus keep tabs on enemy army movement. Thoughts?

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

May 19 2014 12:02 GMT

#2285

The tower placement is interesting, though I feel it would only be important once the to rocks are down. With the rocks up, it's very easy to keep track of things, but attacking the third is a pain with the rocks up, so I expect the rocks to drop fast each game. So yeah, nice little dynamic you have there. Rest of the map seems pretty nice as well.

IeZaeL

Italy991 Posts

May 19 2014 18:26 GMT

#2286

Made a new map !
http://i.imgur.com/cYRY2qD.jpg ( sorry too large to link directly )

What should i change ? Keep in mind i wanted to make that 2 expansions 6m1g.

NewSunshine

United States5938 Posts

May 19 2014 23:48 GMT

#2287

On May 20 2014 03:26 IeZaeL wrote:
Made a new map !
http://i.imgur.com/cYRY2qD.jpg ( sorry too large to link directly )

What should i change ? Keep in mind i wanted to make that 2 expansions 6m1g.

A 3rd base seems difficult to take in general, the easier option has reduced resources and the other base is quite exposed. The idea of a reduced third is cool, but I feel it's a touch too difficult here. Very attractive map though, you've shown every bit of potential I thought you had, really cool stuff.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

May 20 2014 01:28 GMT

#2288

The rocks behind the mineral line should block all possible harass to it imo. Currently you can harass a part of it, and thus unless someone constantly manages their workers to not go to those minerals, it's almost the same as having no rocks at all.

It seems like your ignoring many balance issues such blink all ins, siege tanks that can attack the natural's mineral line, and far 3rds. The map overall looks interesting, but I doubt it will be welcomed, at least in the current meta. While siege tanks are not really an issue currently, after just exiting an era of blink all ins being the most common build in PvT, most new maps should as little surface area to the mains as possible.

And G

Germany491 Posts

May 21 2014 20:14 GMT

#2289

New old map:

[image loading]

Natural:

+ Show Spoiler +

As you can see, both entrances can be plugged with a 3x3 and a 2x2 building plus an additional 3x3 building between nexus and minerals. The narrow path from the natural to the backdoor ledge is unpathable.

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

May 22 2014 03:41 GMT

#2290

Having not one, but two backdoors into the mains seems like overdoing it, I think.

Also, main is pretty vulnerable to blink stalkers already, and walling the natural seems too difficult. It seems like a partial walloff may be doable using the Nexus, so that could be okay given that attackers would have to go all the way around the bottom to get around it.

Ah, I didn't see the natural closeup. That's tricky, but it could work.

And G

Germany491 Posts

May 22 2014 18:14 GMT

#2291

Actually, I think the natural entrance may be too narrow. Take a look at this wall-off:

+ Show Spoiler +

Add a Zealot and this wall is tight with only two 3x3 buildings. The forge isn't too exposed and the photon cannon is safe from roaches. You can also easily plug any holes with a second cannon if you need to wall off completely.

So, I think I actually need to make that entrance a little wider, right?

Also, main is pretty vulnerable to blink stalkers already

I assume you are considering a blink attack through the middle of the map, hitting the NE part of the main. Still, I don't understand why you feel that the main is vulnerable. There's a little cliff surface on top of the main ramp, and some more on the other side of the backdoor rocks, but that's it. The defender has a convex position and can reposition more easily than the attacker. On top of that, the main mineral line is a long way from the cliff, and tanks on the high ground near the natural geysers can lock down all approaches except hugging the edge of the main near the map border.

I think a blink attack would have to hit the natural from the wide ramp, but then you can't really blink up into the main, and you're very vulnerable to counterattacks.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

May 22 2014 21:21 GMT

#2292

If you make the front entrance any wider, it will be really tilted toward aggression such as speedling / speed+bane / speed + roach pressure. Is this what you intend? Also, zvz will be a huge pain with this setup.

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

May 22 2014 23:36 GMT

#2293

Maybe I'm just bad at reading map proportions from the overview, but it just seemed that it would be possible to blink in from the nat and be pretty damn close to the mineral line.

And G

Germany491 Posts

May 23 2014 13:03 GMT

#2294

On May 23 2014 06:21 EatThePath wrote:
If you make the front entrance any wider, it will be really tilted toward aggression such as speedling / speed+bane / speed + roach pressure. Is this what you intend?

Not necessarily, but if I don't make it wider, then Protoss will always wall off super quick, and that is definitely not what I intend.

Here are some pictures of possible wall-ins with a wider entrance, depending on how fast you want to wall off, whether you first want to wall off the narrow entrance or from ramp to nexus, how protected you want your forge to be, whether you want pylons or cannons as part of the wall, whether you want to wall off completely (there's two backdoors after all) or leave a small gap, whether you want to be able to plug the other entrance with a 2x2 building if necessary, and so on:

+ Show Spoiler +

Does this entrance look too wide to you?

On May 23 2014 08:36 Coppermantis wrote:
Maybe I'm just bad at reading map proportions from the overview, but it just seemed that it would be possible to blink in from the nat and be pretty damn close to the mineral line.

So you're thinking of an attack hitting the natural from the wide ramp, and then blinking up into the main from there, right?

Here's a picture of the unpathable area there (NW base):

+ Show Spoiler +

This seems pretty easy to defend economically; you can place a bunker right next to the mineral line and there are several good tank spots that lock down all approaches. The distance from the cliff to the main mineral line is about the same as on Yeonsu and Heavy Rain, but of course the exposed cliff section is much shorter and doesn't provide a safe retreat path. Combined with the short path through the middle of the map that allows for strong counterattacks, blinking up into the main would be quite all-in.

The bigger problem I see is that you may not know which angle the attack will hit from and would have to invest in defenses on both sides. In and of itself each side should be relatively easy to defend, though.

Anyway, I decided that making it absolutely impossible to bounce between the natural entrances before rocks are taken down was not a very good idea, but at the same time I wanted to keep the rocks at the gold base, so now the map looks like this:

+ Show Spoiler +

Also the rocks at the backdoor third have been removed. The map size is 152x152, by the way.

EseNcEIncubus

Canada39 Posts

May 23 2014 18:40 GMT

#2295

NightCloud City (WIP)
- 2 Alternate spawns points, ALWAYS forced cross spawns like Waystation
- Elevated cliff beside naturals in bottom right and top left are un-droppable

+ Show Spoiler +

NemRaC

Germany12 Posts

May 23 2014 19:22 GMT

#2296

CJ Biome 2.0 (visual update) by NemRaC

After my map got "flamed" a bit, because it won the TLMC4, I thought I should redo the optic. I got some inspirating by a rework of the mapmaker Etcetra. Now I'm at the point that I wanted to show you guys the map and ask for some advice or tipps to make it better . I would like to know which region needs the most work , which you like the most and what i should do with the middle which is pretty boring at this point

Here some more pictures of the map :
Album

Edit: also playable on [EU] [US] [KR] to check out the map by yourself

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

May 23 2014 19:38 GMT

#2297

@NemRaC I actually liked the original aesthetics but the map was not very good for the following reasons, in order from most to least important:
-3rd and 4th bases are really close together. Once you take one, the other is fairly easy.
-Only 1 entrance for 4 bases (by ground). Pretty self-explanatory.
-20 bases, all of which are on low ground (except the mains). Borrrrring.
-Boring center.
-Third base gas might impede movement in front of the natural.
-Top right aesthetics look rushed.

And G

Germany491 Posts

May 23 2014 20:08 GMT

#2298

On May 24 2014 04:22 NemRaC wrote:
After my map got "flamed" a bit, because it won the TLMC4, I thought I should redo the optic.

No offense, but I don't think your map got flamed because of the optic.

That being said, it did win the contest, so I'd say don't change a winning formula. You apparently want to keep the one-theme-per-spawn look, which is totally okay, but maybe you should be a little more subtle about it. For example, you could give each spawn region its own texture near cliffs but keep the texture in the middle the same for all regions, or vice versa. Either way, this would give you more textures to work with, and you could then paint the middle region in its own scheme. Otherwise you should probably blur the textures there a lot more. In fact you can save texture slots by combining two similar textures of different colour. Also, the small central unpathable area could be filled with water.

On a different note, you could totally extend the main to the adjacent base of the clockwise spawn so reapers can jump up there. This would not make blink play dangerous in any way since you'd have to walk a really long way around from there to hit the natural, and it would make scouting less one-dimensional.

NemRaC

Germany12 Posts

May 23 2014 20:27 GMT

#2299

@The_Templar I know the " problems" the map has. I read through all the comments haha
I just read 5 player map in the contest rules , and wanted to make very bad, I soon realised that i would be to unsemetic to use ramps so I didn´t , which makes the map pretty unique. I will not change the basic map I just want to increase the optic , because I'm not happy with it, but thank you for saying me that you didn't like the top right so i will see what I can do we'll see.
@ And G

You apparently want to keep the one-theme-per-spawn look,

I will keep the one-theme-per-spawn .I think you wondered because I asked which region you liked the most(I just wanted to know)
to the reaper thing I already read this some , I think it wouldn't really upgrade the gameplay on the map, it would just make it easier for terran so I dont't think I will change it.

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

May 23 2014 20:32 GMT

#2300

@NemRaC: Definitely a good improvement over the original, but why not just use eTcetRa's edit? I saw an incomplete version of it and to be honest it looked better (textures were blended more smoothly, resources were placed more efficiently).

As for improving the layout, I think the best option would be to just combine the adjacent 3rds/4ths (the close by air pairs, separated by a narrow gap) into single bases, which would reduce the base count to 15 and significantly open up the middle for you to do something more interesting. However this obviously would completely break the original concept of the map so it's understandable if you don't want to do it.

I'm glad you're not discouraged by all the criticism, though, and are willing to listen to feedback - that's the best possible attitude to have.

Prev 1 113 114 115 116 117 217 Next

Please or register to reply.

Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 115

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming