Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 119

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

algue

France1436 Posts

June 28 2014 07:34 GMT

#2361

Just asking : do you think that 2 entrance to a natural, each one placed very far appart from each other, makes the map unplayable ? Note that these two entrance can be blocked by collapsable towers and that the attacker can't bounce between these two entrance easily.

Should I just block one entrance with a 6x6 destructible rock ?

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

June 28 2014 07:41 GMT

#2362

Depends on rush distances, bounce distance, droppability, and other things, but you'd have to really think it through very well for that sort of concept to work out. It's definitely not 100% impossible though IMO.

IeZaeL

Italy991 Posts

June 29 2014 13:28 GMT

#2363

New map ! Some new features here and there.

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

June 29 2014 20:52 GMT

#2364

IeZaeL, that is super cool. I love the way the 3-4 base game plays out with chokepoints and paths. I'm not sure how I feel about the topright/bottomleft areas of the map, but they're not _bad_ by any means. Awesome work.

NewSunshine

United States5938 Posts

June 30 2014 00:46 GMT

#2365

On June 29 2014 22:28 IeZaeL wrote:
New map ! Some new features here and there.
+ Show Spoiler +

The main and natural are going to be a pain, the way the ramp is situated is at best awkward, and the natural choke is pretty damn big, arguably nonexistent. What I do like is the interplay between high and low ground, and the way rocks restrict otherwise fluid highground positioning. Those other things could use a look at though.

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

June 30 2014 13:55 GMT

#2366

144x144
Thoughts?

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

June 30 2014 14:06 GMT

#2367

Awkward terrain. What's the point of a little highground ridge if there's no incentive to go through it? It's not a choke. No one will ever stick an army up there to defend anything because the enemy can literally just walk around it. What's the point of a 3x ramp at the fourth if there's a narrower choke right behind it? Why are the natural and main ramps collinear, making walling the nat a bitch? Why did you place those linear diagonal ditches where you did instead of restructuring the areas they are in? I really think you need to go back to basics, look at ladder maps, and practice proportions and proper terrain usage.

There's no reasonable 8m2g fourth, which hurts the 4base vs 3base game in ZvT/ZvP and to a lesser extent TvP. Trust me, giving less incentive to go past 3 bases is literally the exact opposite of what the metagame needs right now.

algue

France1436 Posts

June 30 2014 15:19 GMT

#2368

@The_templar : the map is too big. So big that it looks like you didn't know what to do with the middle of the map. You should try to do the same map but limit yourself to a 132*132 playable size.

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

July 02 2014 09:20 GMT

#2369

Threw this together in 30 minutes because I wanted something in the style of Khalim's Will where you expand through an in-base nat backdoor instead of through your main ramp. The main attempted theme of the map is expansion choice - there are two bases that could potentially be your natural, and five that could potentially be your third. I figured I may as well get input from other people before I take this any further on detailed proportion/cliff work or analysis.

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

July 04 2014 07:38 GMT

#2370

Put some more thought into the paths around the map. So far it's morphed into this, although I'm still not quite happy with it as-is. Tiled highgrounds are unpathable.

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

July 05 2014 18:04 GMT

#2371

Far from being done, especially with the texturing and doodading, but what you guys think about it?
Rush distance:
main2main: 55sec (SCV)
nat2nat: 45sec (SCV)

more pictures
+ Show Spoiler +

leviaias

Hungary35 Posts

July 05 2014 19:24 GMT

#2372

On July 06 2014 03:04 Big J wrote:

Far from being done, especially with the texturing and doodading, but what you guys think about it?
Rush distance:
main2main: 55sec (SCV)
nat2nat: 45sec (SCV)

more pictures
+ Show Spoiler +

So much eye candy:D Can't wait to try.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

July 05 2014 19:30 GMT

#2373

It's quite hard to see what's going on with the map bigJ, but from what I can tell the middle is the only real way to move a big army through the map, and it's quite narrow with the highground nub. Honestly this looks like a boring map with 5 1/2 bases all within walking distance of each other and not much in terms of attack paths to offer any way to outmaneuver the opponent. I guess this is somewhat made up for by the openness of the terrain necessary to secure during the 2-3 base transition. It reminds me of Derelict Watcher though. Not a bad map, but nothing very exciting (imo).

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

July 05 2014 20:27 GMT

#2374

Yeah, I know this isn't optimal texturing for gameplay. But I think it is getting better and ingame its more understandable I think. The area around the bottom right in the following picture still needs a lot of love though...

I think one of the biggest problems with current maps is that Terrans have a very hard time acquiring a 4th and 5th base. As labelled in the picture above, if I removed the half-base at (4), the setup would be pretty compareable to how many maps (e.g. Frost) set up the third and 4th - one in the pocket and one at the edge, with a lot of space in between. Which kind of creates at least 3, but usually 4-5 angles of attack, that a bio army cannot zone properly.
Here, you could attack this kind of setup from the bottom to the (3), the top towards the (5) and all the bases except the main - (2), (3), (5) - from the space in between (similarily to Frost, Merry-Go-Round or Overgrowth).
Not to mention that you have to be capable of running home to (1) in case mutalisks or warp prisms start a raid.
That's where I enter the (4), which doesn't increase the are needed to be defended as much as taking the (5) does - of course with the drawback of being only a 5m/1g base and being harassable from behind the minerals.
I think that still leaves some room for harassment, since you can attack the (3) from the bottom, the (4) from the middle or the top and runby from (5) in between (2) and (4). Also the airspace at the bottome towards the main should make air harass/drops/prism quite powerful. I think a player on 4bases will still have his work cut out for him.
(all of that of course is also true if you reverse the expansion order from 1-2-3-4-5 to 1-2-5-4-3)

Bigger army movement over the wall is possible around the top or the bottom too. If you take your third at the (5), pushing through the the top could be quite normal. Especially for Protoss (which have a huge area to hide pylons there) and for Zerg (though their speed), it shouldn't be too hard to counter through those paths I think (?).
I know that the map is not revolutionary in any way, yet, I think it hits some spots that a lot of older maps had and a lot of people would like to see featured on a map again. E.g. more linear pushing possibilities and acquireable expansions. I think the map is unique in the sense, that it does not try to prohibit very plain gameplay. I guess the closest we have to that is Overgrowth, but which does so in a quite attack-punishing way, while I hope to achieve the reverse with the more linear push possibilites.

This should make it a little clearer to identify the paths:

Pictures
+ Show Spoiler +

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

July 07 2014 09:11 GMT

#2375

Is this better/easier to read into?
also now the crossing area left and right of the middle has been increased

Homonuncnunc

United States41 Posts

July 07 2014 15:22 GMT

#2376

On July 07 2014 18:11 Big J wrote:Is this better/easier to read into?
also now the crossing area left and right of the middle has been increased

That looks better to me. I think the bottom left main, far third and the base just outside that all look much cleaner without as much Tyrador Sq. Brick. Bottom left Nat might look better if the center was a dark tile to carry the theme of light border/dark center through.

I'm ambivalent about the changes to the centers; I like them being asymmetrical, especially with the changes to the outskirts to make them inverse as well, but I don't know what combination of grass/concrete and dark/light textures would look the best. I think darker texture on the inside of the road reads better from an overview at least, but it might not be that way in game.

And maybe make the Decals around the top right base 90 degree angles to reflect the decals around the top right 1/2 base? Although you might have already been planning that but just haven't done it yet.

Overall I quite like your aesthetic, it's very brutalist.

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

July 07 2014 22:11 GMT

#2377

Thanks for the input.
I will experiment with your ideas about the aesthetics. Still have one unused spot for a tileset. The top main base needs more of an angular look, I agree.
While the bottom half could do with a little less geometrical figures to enlargen the emphasis on the east-west theme.

Thanks for teaching me another word. :-) Brutalist is what I was going for, for the "eastern" part of the city. Given the required symmetry, I guess it's kind of hard to prevent that it somewaht radiats into the "west".

Still working on sharpening up the profiles of either part of the city. Hopefully this doesnt mess up the gameplay.

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

July 08 2014 15:39 GMT

#2378

Kept on modifying my current WIP. I think the attack paths are starting to make sense.