| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:18 -NegativeZero- wrote: Yeah, I don't know, I added the pods because I felt it was a bit too open without them, same for the crevasses, it's a balance that's exceptionally hard to strike.Still looks kind of choked up - maybe reducing the size of the 2 big high ground pods in the center would help. | ||
|
RxDamitol
United States83 Posts
I thought I'd thrown mine in too! I just started it today/last night, so it's still really rough! Avernus Outpost Tileset: Avernus ( for now ) Playable: Full: 174x174 It is a large, rotationally symmetrical 4 player map. The Spawn locations are in the corners and the map flows clockwise. I tried to make it so that there would be minimal positional imbalances, but I am toying with the idea of forcing cross-spawns. Very basic texture work and minimal decore. It is available on the NA server, if it looks interesting, please check it out and let me know what you think. Top Down: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jJUY0l.jpg) Angled View: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JwNk4l.jpg) Perspective View (cross spawn): + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Uremxl.jpg) Features: + Show Spoiler + One of the interesting features is the double rocks leading into the natural. [ It's a little wierd, I know... lol ] The reason for 2 rocks is to deter people from using this for early attacks, however, the way it's positioned, reapers and colossus can still get up into the main without breaking them down. In the late game, you can break them to continue expanding clockwise. If your opponent spawns to the position clockwise from you, you can break down your own rocks to take your 3rd and begin expanding counter clockwise. If I end up forcing cross spawns, then I'll probably remove one of the rocks. They're both 2k hp but that bothers me because one is much larger than the other, so I might make them 1k and 3k. It probably makes very little difference in game, but it just makes more sense in my head, hahaha. On October 20 2012 15:14 SiskosGoatee wrote: The double rocks is weird, this could probably just be rocks on the ramp. If you're worried about whether it's too hard to hold both entrances to the nat, you should make it a little easier to wall the first ramp by adding a couple doodads to decrease the number of buildings you need. When I made it I was thinking more about terrain evolving and stuff not coming into play until later in the game. But it definately want to play it a bunch of times with different variations. Known issues: + Show Spoiler + I think there's way too much dead air space around the bases at the moment, so I'm going to make it unpathable.. or no flight zone... or something.. I'm not sure if the nopathing makes it noflying as well.. but anyway, yea.... Also, the 4 raised squares in the middle near the LOS blockers... I think I need to make them unpathable as well, and I'm thinking about making it so everybody has vision up there. It seems like it gives too much of an advantage to zerg because they can easily cover the whole center area with 4 overlords that are relatively safe up there. I play zerg fwiw.. Center too wide open? + Show Spoiler + On October 20 2012 15:47 EatThePath wrote: I agree with this. The strength of this map so far is the straightforward design. This is also it's biggest problem though. Everything past two bases revolves around a giant, flat, open, boring expanse. There should definitely be more definition in the terrain. The 3rd bases are probably too open. Even something like a high ground pod in front of them to create the sense of two entrances would be a huge improvement. Some kind of fortifiable terrain in the middle would be good too. Yeah, I was worried about that too. I'll go look at cravasse again, I haven't seen that map in a while. I kinda had Antiga in mind but didnt really like the way it would fit. I tried with a couple different configurations of high ground in the middle but it felt a little cramped, although I didn't play on it that way. I'll try it a few different ways and see what I can come up with. I don't think that it's any more wide open than Entombed Valley. It might just be a little too simple and boring... but, I hope not. Oh, I always forget to put neutral depots at the bottom of the ramps. How does everyone else feel about these? I'm kindof... neutral. hahaha I think that's all I've got for now. Keep up the good work everybody, the maps make the game! More pictures and info can be found at: rxdamitol.imgur.com Thanks for all the input so far! UPDATES: + Show Spoiler + 10.21.2012 - Made the double rock a single small rock with 4khp, and added a center high ground. Fractured Valley + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kbmYDl.jpg) EDIT: Updates, typos. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
I would probably great a centre high ground though, maybe something in the structure of what they have at the centre of Crevasse. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 20 2012 15:14 SiskosGoatee wrote: It might be a bit too open in the centre but honestly, I like it, it's good in its simplicity, can't go a whole lot wrong with it. I would probably great a centre high ground though, maybe something in the structure of what they have at the centre of Crevasse. I agree with this. The strength of this map so far is the straightforward design. This is also it's biggest problem though. Everything past two bases revolves around a giant, flat, open, boring expanse. There should definitely be more definition in the terrain. The 3rd bases are probably too open. Even something like a high ground pod in front of them to create the sense of two entrances would be a huge improvement. Some kind of fortifiable terrain in the middle would be good too. I don't think you have to worry about the overlords spots. Overlords get chased off the map at some point anyway. The double rocks is weird, this could probably just be rocks on the ramp. If you're worried about whether it's too hard to hold both entrances to the nat, you should make it a little easier to wall the first ramp by adding a couple doodads to decrease the number of buildings you need. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On October 20 2012 15:47 EatThePath wrote: I agree with this. The strength of this map so far is the straightforward design. This is also it's biggest problem though. Everything past two bases revolves around a giant, flat, open, boring expanse. There should definitely be more definition in the terrain. The 3rd bases are probably too open. Even something like a high ground pod in front of them to create the sense of two entrances would be a huge improvement. Some kind of fortifiable terrain in the middle would be good too. I don't think you have to worry about the overlords spots. Overlords get chased off the map at some point anyway. The double rocks is weird, this could probably just be rocks on the ramp. If you're worried about whether it's too hard to hold both entrances to the nat, you should make it a little easier to wall the first ramp by adding a couple doodads to decrease the number of buildings you need. In addition to what they said, another major problem is that the nat to nat rush distance for close positions becomes tiny once the rocks are destroyed - probably something like 15 seconds. Unfortunately I don't know if this can be fixed without massive changes to the map layout. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g81Bs.jpg) Just a little idea I had, the third with the two pair of rocks is basically what it's about. As in, you have to break rocks to get a closer third and the other guy has to go aaaaalll the way around to hit it before those other rocks are hit and even there it's kind of a detour. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 25 2012 18:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: Just a little idea I had, the third with the two pair of rocks is basically what it's about. As in, you have to break rocks to get a closer third and the other guy has to go aaaaalll the way around to hit it before those other rocks are hit and even there it's kind of a detour. I don't have a specific comment yet as to the map design, but I was confused by what you meant about double rocks at the third because I was looking at the East 3rd which only have the 6x6 (4x4?) rocks on the small ramp, and is missing the large diagonal rocks at the wide choke like there is for the West 3rd. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 25 2012 18:39 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: The left side is 'authoritative', there are many small asymmetries still which don't really matter yet for a proof of concept. Expect the map to in the end to be fully mirrored of course. Both sides will eventually get two rocks.I don't have a specific comment yet as to the map design, but I was confused by what you meant about double rocks at the third because I was looking at the East 3rd which only have the 6x6 (4x4?) rocks on the small ramp, and is missing the large diagonal rocks at the wide choke like there is for the West 3rd. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 25 2012 19:02 SiskosGoatee wrote: The left side is 'authoritative', there are many small asymmetries still which don't really matter yet for a proof of concept. Expect the map to in the end to be fully mirrored of course. Both sides will eventually get two rocks. Fair enough, I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case you accidentally deleted the rock just prior to snapping the image, or grabbed the wrong image, or whatever. As far as the layout goes, the only real things that I can see as concerns are the far third seems like it would be pretty tough for Protoss to consider as an option as a third base given it's distance and openness, and that while all 6 bases seem more or less viable, the amount of "circle syndrome" from getting to five or six bases might encourage base-trade-iness. I think the way the center works is pretty neat (you have not been around very long as a mapper but you will note that I like centers which promote options and decision making -- swirling is a plus XD) and I think that for a third you have to work for to acquire what you have is a pretty interesting idea. | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 25 2012 23:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Well yeah, I sort of intended the open third to be for Zerg since Zerg in general needs a third before busting rocks and P and T can take the closer third but have to bust rocks for it. I will probably make the close third a bit more choked though.]As far as the layout goes, the only real things that I can see as concerns are the far third seems like it would be pretty tough for Protoss to consider as an option as a third base given it's distance and openness, and that while all 6 bases seem more or less viable, the amount of "circle syndrome" from getting to five or six bases might encourage base-trade-iness. CS and base trades are honestly cool. I never got the argument that CS is a bad thing, I in fact think it's a good thing and leads to more action and decisions. I think the way the center works is pretty neat (you have not been around very long as a mapper but you will note that I like centers which promote options and decision making -- swirling is a plus XD) and I think that for a third you have to work for to acquire what you have is a pretty interesting idea. How does a swirl promote decisions?Basically, waht I wanted to do with the layout is force a lot of 'long way around' attack paths into places meaning that you have to make decisions on if you want to commit and maintain map control before you attack or you might get countered but I'm not sure how the swirl comes into that. I just added the swirl, which wasn't strictly necessary. Because I like it aesthetically. On October 26 2012 00:56 OxyGenesis wrote: IT's not that long, it's probably comparable to Whirlwind or Abyssal City.Currently the nat can be sieged from the 3rd, this is compounded by the fact that the way to get to the 3rd is ridiculously long. I think the rocks on the ramp should be removed. Overall the layout is pretty simple. | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
On October 26 2012 01:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: IT's not that long, it's probably comparable to Whirlwind or Abyssal City. I mean with the rocks there. Siege tanks at the 3rd behind the rocks hitting the nat are currently impossible to deal with. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 26 2012 01:36 OxyGenesis wrote: If the rocks are still up once the tanks get there it's probably going to get tricky. But for these things I always subscribe to the 'sentry prism argument' if you will that David Kim once brought up. Yes, if a prism drops a sentry on your ramp and forcefields it you're pretty screwed, just as when dts get into your base and you have no detection. But you had ample opportunity to stop it from getting to that point. He has to go an extremely long way around himsefl to get there. You can break down the rocks to deal with it or just intercept him as he goes there with whatever force, if he commits too much you can counter because it's extremely far away.I mean with the rocks there. Siege tanks at the 3rd behind the rocks hitting the nat are currently impossible to deal with. Basically, I do not believe such strategies should be prohibited, they should just have the right risk/reward ratio. Terran can also drop tanks at the other third and siege the base and I'm planning to add more good tank drop spots, I most certainly do not intend to make that pillar unpathable. You can always give the rocks there less hp if you feel it is too powerful for instance, there are enough variables in play in the map which can be adjusted to balance it out before removing it. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
A swirl does not promote decision making, per se, I just like using them, which is why I said it was a plus and not the reason I liked the center. Swirling can be used to promote decisions by creating helping to create a "long way around" with limited terrain space and allowing for shortcut options which might include some sort of drawback like a choke or ramp. It can also simply make a point of convergence more interesting or as you mention aesthetically pleasing, although neither of these two things really matter to decision making. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 26 2012 01:44 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Yeah, that'sprobably true. But a map that only encourages base trades would be pretty rare though.I don't think that base trades in themselves are a bad thing either, but I think the argument is more along the lines of promoting a base trade as the primary form of engame, which I can see as being annoying if all of your games are going to play out that way, much like a map that promotes deathballing, or 2 base timings, or six pools, or whatever the other things are that aren't promoting multiple play styles. However, I was voicing it not a personal concern but as a general concern -- essentially, I don't mind it per se, but I thought I ought to mention it since it is a common criticism and this thread doesn't seem to generally produce and abundance of feedback. In any event, I used the word "concern" specifically because I do not think the level to which there might be CS is something that will result in a horrible gameplay experience, rather that it was an observation with which you can do what you will, including reject. But basically, the rule I tend to have for myself is that I want many different attack paths but one main attack path to the enemy. This sort of encourages that base races are never an accident of two armies just missing each other but rather more one player making the decision to avoid the army of the other player. A swirl does not promote decision making, per se, I just like using them, which is why I said it was a plus and not the reason I liked the center. Swirling can be used to promote decisions by creating helping to create a "long way around" with limited terrain space and allowing for shortcut options which might include some sort of drawback like a choke or ramp. It can also simply make a point of convergence more interesting or as you mention aesthetically pleasing, although neither of these two things really matter to decision making. Ah yeah, I see, then we probably agree.I'm honestly not really content with the layout yet, I think it needs something more. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
Abusive tank spots are cool, I feel. And BW has plenty and there you just find a way around it. | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:12 SiskosGoatee wrote: Well, you can always just put the ramp at a different point to make the distance less and push it away to counter the tank strat but I'm not sure I want creative use of tanks to be discouraged. I like it and it's paradoxal how the same people say 'No deathballing! buff tanks!' at the very same time seem to want to remove every strategic use of tanks on every map and just want to relegate them to a deathball unit in your main army instead of a strategic unit that puts pressure on someone's natural in that way who was reluctant in breaking down rocks. Abusive tank spots are cool, I feel. And BW has plenty and there you just find a way around it. I think that tank timings could deny a zerg's nat near 100% of the time on this map. You can ignore feedback all you want, it's your map. But if there are obviously broken abusive strategies then don't expect map makers or players to think that it's a good map. There is a reason all the old blizzard maps are considered 'bad maps'. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wtyzo.jpg) angled: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zRJHy.jpg) | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 26 2012 19:47 OxyGenesis wrote: Yeah, unless they kill the rocks and deal with it. Like I said, there are so many variables to be able to adjust. I can adjust the hp of the rocks, the armour value of it meaning that it's easier to break down with lings and queens but not so much with zealots or marauders. I can slightly move it, I can put both gasses on the same side. Instead of killing the strat, I choose to balance it at an area where it is definitely strong, but not brokenly overpowered.I think that tank timings could deny a zerg's nat near 100% of the time on this map. You can ignore feedback all you want, it's your map. But if there are obviously broken abusive strategies then don't expect map makers or players to think that it's a good map. There are so many variables to adjust to ensure that it is not broken. I could give the rocks 20 hp if I needed to to give the access route there.There is a reason all the old blizzard maps are considered 'bad maps'. Oh yes, Lost temple was so broken, that devastating 54% TvZ winrate. Like I outlined before, people aren't always right about their hunches of balance. I hear Artosis and Wolf say every GSL that Whirlwind is a good ZvT map because it's large, obviously no one has ever looked up the stats because there is no real indication of it at this point. In order to siege it, Terran needs to acquire high ground vision which means either burning scans or getting a medivac there as well or a floating building. People said the same thing about the nook on antiga shipyard that it would be totally broken, is it in the end? Not really, it can be used and it can be [i]dealt with[/i[ which is what makes a real time strategy game cool in my opinion.@Fatam, some people might argue that either third is too far away for Protoss. I'm not too concerned about those things personally, an issue I personally have with this map is that there are three routes to get across the map, the centre one is chocked and the others are a bit too far to the side I feel and also quite choked. Which may result into a bit too much of a split map situation. Unless that's your thing. Other than that, I think it's a cool and creative layout. edit: Also, the corner expos, I'm not sure if I like how extremely defensible they are, they are on a high ground and have only one choke, the running space around it also seems pretty futile, I can't imagine a lot of reasons someone would have to go around it. I feel it would be better if the running space on the outside was just removed and the expo got two ramps in some way. | ||
| ||
|
|
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Online Event
SC Evo League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ACZpL.jpg)
