EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 12 2012 12:56 TheFish7 wrote: Maybe you could just link the wall and the statue together so that if one does the other does too? That would work as long as the wall is untargetable / undamageable. You'd also have to make 4 separate instances of each pair so they could all be separately conjoined. Might try this. Was planning to use triggers (pretty simple) but first I have to set up the units/footprints/HP/sounds/etc. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 12 2012 05:47 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: To "mains are too small also": + Show Spoiler [CC grid] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ij3zs.jpg) As you can see here, there are approximately 30 CC's worth in the main. As far as I know, this is still generally held as the approximate target size. + Show Spoiler [model Terran base] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kWPqu.jpg) Here is a model Terran base since Terran production generally takes up the most space. This was done in the 10/11 o'clock position -- milage may vary. Without building too far out into the natural, Terran in this picture is able to accommodate 11 barracks, 3 factories, 6 starports (all production with add-ons), 4 armories, 2 engineering bays, 4 ghost academies, 1 fusion core, 3 bunkers, 11 turrets, and probably more supply depots than necessary, with 3 command centers. This is without tessellation of the production buildings with their add-ons to maximize space (which I'm still not sure why pros do not do ... speed vs space I guess...). To "wayyy too chokey": + Show Spoiler [gateway/pylon walls] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Kin7v.jpg) This is just to give maybe a better sense of the space toward the middle. Obviously, force fields to not need to contend with building restrictions for placement to lock down a path, but I'm not sure that this is quite as chokey as you claim -- at least not so problematically with the possible flanks. @ EatThePath -- Would you care to take a spin with me sometime? I see you on constantly, but I don't think I've ever pinged you. XD We played some games and the map is actually much more fluid than it would seem from a quick look at the obvious trouble spots. The size is bigger than the picture seems. Concluded it's broken because of tanks warp-ins multiple entrance main/nat etc etc but it's a fun map that plays well! Not sure if it's possible to "fix" it but even if it's not, check it out, you might get some ideas.  | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 12 2012 13:04 EatThePath wrote: We played some games and the map is actually much more fluid than it would seem from a quick look at the obvious trouble spots. The size is bigger than the picture seems. Concluded it's broken because of tanks warp-ins multiple entrance main/nat etc etc but it's a fun map that plays well! Not sure if it's possible to "fix" it but even if it's not, check it out, you might get some ideas. Thanks for the beat down. :D Anyway, one of the things that I meant to say specifically, but I think you got the gist of it, is that the map is meant to be one of those "strategy" maps as DYEalabaster said it in his tourney thread -- something that you have to prepare something special for, but once it is figured out gets rotated out quickly. Fun to watch, and fun to play (hopefully even for a zerg XD). Now for EatThePath's map....... 8*) I think the map played out pretty well. We only got to one game of it since a lot time we spent was on my map, but the game on his was pretty interesting. Having watched the replay, I think I have a better understanding of what happened in our game -- lol, dat mortal -- but also a better feel for the map. Anyway, specifics of the game we played aside, here are my thoughts on a few things. 1) The invincible force field walls. I think these are fine just being rocks. If you are going out of the front of your natural to blow up the computer console, you are actually less in a defensible position than if you were to poke at it on the ramp (or at the bottom with ranged. Now you get more surface area killing the statue/console, but I'm not really sure it is going to speed up breaking down the barrier all that much. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a neat idea for switches to be used to open pathways, temporary, permanent, remote, etc., but I am unsure of whether there is a real benefit to doing it here other than the sake of demonstration and getting the idea out there more prominently. Then again, look at my maps. XD GO FOR IT! 2) The watchtowers. I think the towers covering the 4:30/10:30 bases are strong, but okay since it doesn't take too much from the high ground to spot with an overlord/supply depot/pylon to see if your base is being spied on. However, the other two towers I think are maybe a little two strong in their current state, and think if you keep them they should be nerfed a bit. Here's my reasoning -- in close positions (which we didn't get to play yet), it is almost certainly going to be your third if the game doesn't A) end in a 1-2 base all-in, B) you ninja a base elsewhere, or C) you are terran and planetary/tank the 4:30/10:30 (or even a center base). So if you have the tower to help protect your third, you get to see the attack coming from a mile away, plus, your army is already going to be out in front there in between the nat & 3rd. So essentially harassing once on three base is going to be pretty tough to come by, and an unharassed 3 bases leads to deathball. So in a sense, the postion you were trying to save gets "broken" for a reason other than rush distance (or maybe in addition to?). Instead, maybe if that plateau was made into a valley, where it could be picked at from above and thus made less invincible, it might make certain plays more viable (ling, muta, medivac, hellion, warp prism, etc.). Also, if used offensively in the same positions, you pretty much have a lockdown on when the 3rd/4th are going up. I think for cross and close air it's not as big of a deal, although, it is still quite strong for close air, but it seems like if you are trying to save close positions you might want to nerf it somehow. 3) The center bridgework. Forcefield heaven, no? Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but the very center I think is P/T favored even though there is quite a bit of zerg friendly open space around it. I think Metal was somewhat Z favored if I recall correctly, so this might be a Good Thing (tm) as far as making it play differently and/or more balanced. But when it gets down to the late, late game (thinking Haypro vs MVP), I think whoever controls this area wins, and it will be easier for P/T to hold it and control the center bases, which on this map could be as many as 6. Thanks again for the games and comments (and for liking crazy maps!). | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On October 12 2012 14:06 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: 1) The invincible force field walls. I think these are fine just being rocks. If you are going out of the front of your natural to blow up the computer console, you are actually less in a defensible position than if you were to poke at it on the ramp (or at the bottom with ranged. Now you get more surface area killing the statue/console, but I'm not really sure it is going to speed up breaking down the barrier all that much. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a neat idea for switches to be used to open pathways, temporary, permanent, remote, etc., but I am unsure of whether there is a real benefit to doing it here other than the sake of demonstration and getting the idea out there more prominently. Then again, look at my maps. XD GO FOR IT! I'm pretty sure the main purpose of the forcefield walls instead of rocks is that the enemy can't destroy them from the outside - it's entirely up to the defender to choose when to break them. If they were rocks then the attacker could destroy them from the 3rd, then they'd have too great of an advantage (high ground behind a choke). | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
all the stuff you bring up, fair points that I had to consider when putting it together -- may be better way to do it. I'm not super happy with the towers but I feel like a remake of metal should have them. The idea with the towers is that they watch the shortest path for adjacent spawns. The way the map has to be laid out, they necessarily see the 3rd base in the other orientation. I don't think this is too bad, it gives incentive for defender to be a little active so they don't get spied on for free; by same token it lets you scout on a big map with lots of bases. For close spawns, the towers actually create an incentive to be active in all the lanes and spreads out the attack paths. I want players to fight back and forth across the middle in more and more lanes as the game goes on.That's why the middle has two bridges and not a wide passage. It would be too easy to move across the map. It also makes late game battles a lot more positional. Either side can easily cede the high ground if they want to move to more open territory. So it makes you arrange large scale flanks and concentrate on how you engage. The center bases should be really hard to take because they are the last base with 6-7 before them, which is plenty. @negzero: yeah they are meant to be more defensively oriented, mostly a concession to the close spawns, and also to make the natural a little less ridiculously open and transitable. I am thinking it will have 1000 hp and 500 shield (with 3 hp armor like rocks) so that's it's not too easy to take it down with lings or something while the defender is forced to turtle. So faster than rocks to kill so that it's not a burden to open the 3rd if you want, but still protected. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 12 2012 14:22 -NegativeZero- wrote: I'm pretty sure the main purpose of the forcefield walls instead of rocks is that the enemy can't destroy them from the outside - it's entirely up to the defender to choose when to break them. If they were rocks then the attacker could destroy them from the 3rd, then they'd have too great of an advantage (high ground behind a choke). | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Idg6q.jpg) Improvements have been made. The working title is currently Vespene Pumping Station. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
------- I have implemented the remote destructible gate! (I am way more excited than is warranted, but I consider any foray into the data editor without mass casualties a glorious victory.) + Show Spoiler [picture] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zj177.jpg) If you want to try it out, the map is uploaded as Metalopolis -- Presidium on NA. Update: figured it out thanks to this thread at sc2mapster. Oh data editing. >_< | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 13 2012 09:41 Coppermantis wrote: You might want to put some sort of wire leading from the trigger to the gate. Right now there isn't very much that would let a player know that you need to break the statue to bring down the gate. Yeah, will be duly represented with some doodad work. ^^ Also plan to edit the statue to have text that says what it does. update: + Show Spoiler [new picture] + Like this ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mPoX1.jpg) | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Is a map like that able to be uploaded as melee? Or does it have to be custom? Probably a noob question but I haven't really delved into that kind of thing at all. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:13 Fatam wrote: @ Path Is a map like that able to be uploaded as melee? Or does it have to be custom? Probably a noob question but I haven't really delved into that kind of thing at all. You can add triggers and modify data and it will still be a melee map, unlike in BW. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z5Cer.jpg) - mains slightly bigger - highground third moved further out - wider ramps in center - 6th base moved lowground, with a sneak/harass path behind them I'm starting to like the map alot now personally, as the bases are well spread across the map and each base is different from another. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
The 6th base is pretty far out there, pretty close to the opponent if you take either side. What if you push it outside more and make it vulnerable by high ground instead of by frontal attack: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SIFWJ.jpg) | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ms6KRl.jpg) THese two however are less cramped, but also less interesting I feel: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/giGnAl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E5IY7l.jpg) So which one do you like more, any other ideas? | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
But I like the first one best. If you're worried it's too cramped, widen the ramps that lead up to the bridge (maybe pull them back one notch to make more space up there). Perhaps this map wants another 4 squares of X and Y for more space in the middle? | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
Here's a top view of the first version. I feel XNC was a pretty cool map but not really up to date with today's metagame of course. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
| ||
