EPTOn November 15 2014 23:16 Meavis wrote:
theres no attack paths but through the middle, bad design
theres no attack paths but through the middle, bad design
guess it's a good thing I posted this in WIPWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 133
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
guess it's a good thing I posted this in WIP | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1tyZ500.jpg) Analyzer image + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I2Y07A6.png) | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mRv5B.jpg) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On November 16 2014 15:45 TheFish7 wrote: Is it weird for me to say that I think Barrin's 6m Devolution would be a killer LotV map? (assuming normal mineral lines) It has more bases, spreads out the action a bit, but retains a central attack path and doesn't go too overboard with the size... + Show Spoiler + Holy crap it's King Sejong Station, never realized that before. Seems like it could work with what we know about LotV so far, but I think we should wait until the beta before making any assumptions about economy and map design. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 16 2014 07:06 MarcusRife wrote: Something I've been working on. More bases than usual anticipating LOTV. Analyzer image + Show Spoiler + Very simple but effective design. I like it! | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
The main problem is that, everywhere there could be a large-scale engagement, there's probably a base already there. Outside the 5th (highest ground) could be nice, but I don't really see anywhere else. (Although my sense of proportion might be off and everywhere is sufficiently open, but I don't think so?). I'm not entirely sure how abusable the center choke is. I might point out that it sort of makes breaking two sets of rocks redundant since you can easily bypass one and you might consider just changing it to one rock blocking all three chokes. | ||
|
bibi123
Albania1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3bfM6VK.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PySgiWM.png) Which is better center layout? None of the stuff in the first overview would be final. Any feedback would be nice. If not Im just going to go ahead with the way it is, with obvious balance changes. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
| ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
| ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NBNGyCO.jpg) 152x152 Nat to nat close ~38, cross ~48 | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
| ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6X1x1b4.jpg) Rocks impeding the ramp to the center are gone, not sure why I had them in the first place. Maybe playing Cloud Kingdom just makes me want to put rocks on every ramp. And there's an overlord pod blocking line of sight to the tower from the attacker's side. It's still an option to target it down, but you have to commit to it during an attack instead of knocking it down from your own side of the map. I might need to make the pod wider to actually achieve this effect ... or move the tower to the other side. Army movement with the middle is pretty good now that those rocks are out. It was too easy before to get up there early and lock it down. Now I'm not super worried about it being too strong of a position in general until late gate game, or if those center bases become super important, because once anyone has a decent size army, the side paths open up and runbys get really good. I am worried about imbalance in a matchup with zerg: With P or TvZ in close positions, with the Z being counter-clockwise, might screw the zerg for a 3rd base, since Z can't really expand to the normal 3rd safely, and if they take the other 3rd they're open to attack from the middle. Siege units on the middle are really really good in that scenario, so a zerg player would have to get more aggressive, possibly taking the high ground 3rd as a forward position and/or trying to push creep hard into the terran through that area (thinking of Life vs Taeja on Merry GO Round, but a mapmaker shouldn't count on Life for a balanced concept ... or they can just get swarm hosts) In any case, it's easier for a zerg to take either 3rd now than it was before, but maybe not easy enough. I'm excited about this layout... thanks for the feedback! | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + i would personally make the map have a jungle or desert theme, because it's shape and symmetry feels more natural. That's all up to you of course, buy when was the last time we saw a pretty agria map?  | ||
|
prapti
United States1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
| ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
Overgrowth: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/d/de/Overgrowth.jpg) Image link I'm looking at the rocked-off ramps with dead zone at either end in front of the standard 3rd, and the big jungle pod in front of the forward 3rd. KSS: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/7/74/King_Sejong_Station_LE.jpg) Image link I'm looking at the crevasse coming off the forward high ground base, the really wide pit around the natural (where the helipad is it's bigger than you need to avoid siege tanks attacking resources), and the sparkly pit in front of the usual 3rd. Both of these maps are professional and have a different flow entirely so direct comparison isn't useful - I'm not comparing my work to pro maps. Regarding dead zones though I do see some pretty big ones around the 3rds in particular. I could see someone describing them as being too numerous and taking too long to go around - so I'm wondering what the particular differences are that make these dead zones prosauce and mine a problem. I do notice that the dead zones are generally in front of bases to help with defense - is that it though? Thoughts? oh yeah I did try and make some changes: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m6AGXNz.png) I tried reducing the dead zones, but mostly I just felt like I was taking away from interesting flow. I did find a way to scoot the clockwise 3rd closer and widen the ramp to make it easier to defend. But it's definitely a step backward at the same time, especially with the center. | ||
|
Homonuncnunc
United States41 Posts
| ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6nG5gP0.png) | ||
| ||
