|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On May 31 2014 03:20 moskonia wrote:
I noticed that the bases are a bit too close, but I have no idea what to do about it, except of course removing one of the bases. I tried creating the small cliff pods to separate the bases a bit, but it's not really effective.
Any ideas how to separate them more?
Instead of pods, make that a cliff and put the edge base on lowground, with a ramp leading back towards the nat with rocks on it. (So the only way to that base before the rocks are dead is go far down to the edge and back up into the base.) need pic?
|
Yeah that sounds a bit complicated, would be nice to see it visualized.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OiGBsIS.jpg)
Something like that
|
Seems like a good idea, will try to implant it. Thanks.
|
And G, those are some really cool ideas about the semi-island gold base. If you can make that work it would be an interesting map, for sure.
|
Any thoughts on this design?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O6YgZsVl.jpg)
|
Except there are no ramps to the main, looks good 
For real though, looks pretty solid. Pretty standard, but that is not necessarily bad. The middle is a bit choky, I would open it up a bit more, although it's not a big deal. Good job overall, can't find any glaring balance issues.
|
Thanks for the feedback (:
Well my original plan for the middle choke is to make it unpathable, kinda like on Polar Night, but after thinking on it I don't know if it's a good idea.
|
Hey, first SC2 map, haven't made a RTS map in about 10 years. This is my initial layout, fairly simple, checked out what the general requirements are in terms of resources/map size for a 1v1. I am thinking of adding a high yield to the top right and bottom left areas. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
http://i.imgur.com/2hQXrRW.jpg
(New users can't use img tags)
|
Hi, just a little map for your consideration
4 player with free spawns
Here is hoping it instills some ideas into more seasoned mapmakers works.
|
your Country52798 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/enISTgl.jpg)
144x144
Still working on aesthetics, anything I should do on the layout in the meantime?
|
Very interesting layout, but there are a few major problems in my opinion. First this kind of natural simply does not work for ZvZ especially, but for PvP and PvT as well. Having the natural be so far away from the main means that Blink Stalkers would have a field day, as well as defending the 2 bases from drops become much harder, and of course creep spread takes much longer, thus you can't really defend properly in ZvZ.
If we ignore the natural setup, the biggest problem IMO is the gold, which is far too easy. Consider removing it, or at least put a rocks to block it being taken so fast. Although the main issue then is that there is no viable 3rd base besides the forward base, which means you have to make another potential 3rd base easier.
|
your Country52798 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gjZ06Rf.jpg)
I standardized the natural and made the gold into a 6m1hyg base. I'm also trying to figure out how to make the vertical base more viable.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JhbytDi.jpg)
So... I think in your new version there is still way too much resource density at the starting corner. With those it is 16 bases in a 144x144 2player! I don't see the reason to have a small base there, other than zerg (kinda) needs a 3rd besides the vertical base. They can't take middle obviously. So I recommend remove the 6m1hyg and put a ramp down to the lowground base. It is somewhat far, but the route there is very protected. This is also pretty unique for an sc2 map. The distance between 6/12 bases is so long that it will be a relatively defensible location. The alternate swing-around threat path into the nat is so much longer for attacker that good position/scouting will allow reasonable defense.
Also the main is very blinkable, probably shouldn't be quite so vulnerable.
Not sure about the towers, the position I suggest is quite strong mid/late-game, but it's also an interesting spot. Probably too strong for tanks/colossus though.
Destructable rocks might not be necessary, or flip to other side if it's too strong an option for attacker to cut off reinforce by killing from the highground.
This map looks very cool! The aesthetics are looking good too, keep it up. ;D
|
your Country52798 Posts
EatThePath, apparently 20 base 4 player maps are ok, so why not 16 base 2 player maps?
Concerning the idea of a ramp leading down to a third and removing the 6m one: that would be good, except they are already on the same elevation and I can't put a ramp there. So I could just make it on the same ground. I think that would work with the current choice of fourth bases.
It is somewhat far, but the route there is very protected. This is also pretty unique for an sc2 map. The distance between 6/12 bases is so long that it will be a relatively defensible location. The alternate swing-around threat path into the nat is so much longer for attacker that good position/scouting will allow reasonable defense.
This isn't a problem, is it? The fourth bases get quite a bit closer to the opponent.
Not sure about the towers, the position I suggest is quite strong mid/late-game, but it's also an interesting spot. Probably too strong for tanks/colossus though.
Especially as that is more of an attacker's position until 5/6 bases are being taken.
Destructable rocks might not be necessary, or flip to other side if it's too strong an option for attacker to cut off reinforce by killing from the highground.
I sort of like the idea (assuming you're talking about the ones suggested near the third); it gives non-zergs the option to take the forwards expansions more easily by killing the rock tower
The aesthetics are looking good too, keep it up. ;D
what the hell? ETP, you know my aesthetics are always awful, don't be silly.
|
Oh those are the same cliff level. The picture tricked me! That's funny. Yeah... well in that case you can instead use the ever popular double bridge setup a la Destination. That might be cool too. Two narrow bridges there across a small gap. Don't really need the rock tower, it's more of a liability anyway.
What I was saying about the 3rd distances is a good thing. They would be a little farther than what is currently standard but I think the map architecture would support it alright.
The ice aeshetics are nice I promise. =]
|
your Country52798 Posts
On June 13 2014 06:08 EatThePath wrote:
Oh those are the same cliff level. The picture tricked me! That's funny. Yeah... well in that case you can instead use the ever popular double bridge setup a la Destination. That might be cool too. Two narrow bridges there across a small gap. Don't really need the rock tower, it's more of a liability anyway.
I like that. Should the double bridge be between the natural and third or at the entrance of the third?
The ice aeshetics are nice I promise. =]
Lies!!
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E4BhEtV.jpg)
Something like this? Maybe there isn't enough space. But you can scoot the 3rd base around a little to try and fit it.
|
Homeland
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jwbK7w9.png)
I just wanted to play around with a slightly different layout than normal.
|
On June 10 2014 21:51 subtlerevolution wrote:Hi, just a little map for your consideration 4 player with free spawns Here is hoping it instills some ideas into more seasoned mapmakers works. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k2x55cd.jpg) [I added image so others could see]
Could you take a picture from an overhead position, and with higher graphics settings if possible? It's incredibly hard to see the map layout with the textures and this angle.
In general your routes look too narrow and all the straight lines create awkward angles both gameplay wise and visually. Maybe if you use a more manmade look it would work better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
