EPT@Xeno : too much bases imo. And I don't like the backdoor high-ground third. I think a third base should be balanced according to numerous factors, like the openness, the distance from the natural and main, the amount of army movement needed to defend the third and the natural, etc. Here you have a backdoor third (-> really easy to take) which is on the high-ground (->more difficult to attack), is not open at all (even with the rocks down, the rocked up ramp is pretty narrow) and is very close to the natural.
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 141
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
@Xeno : too much bases imo. And I don't like the backdoor high-ground third. I think a third base should be balanced according to numerous factors, like the openness, the distance from the natural and main, the amount of army movement needed to defend the third and the natural, etc. Here you have a backdoor third (-> really easy to take) which is on the high-ground (->more difficult to attack), is not open at all (even with the rocks down, the rocked up ramp is pretty narrow) and is very close to the natural. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
Do you think there is a way to make the map work then? Or does that factor simply make the map bad? What if I added an in-base expansion with unbuildable rocks blocking core structure placement? Overkill? Anyways thanks for feedback. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vtnHb1D.jpg) | ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uORLJa1.png) now 132x132, nat to nat is 43 seconds I'm not thrilled with the attack paths. I also should remove the extra space behind the 4 and 10 o'clock bases to make the now-low-3rd less easily harassed. open to ideas | ||
|
JaredStarr
Canada115 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.gyazo.com/9eb38facbe75912b4c8f305f7cd6a96e.png) Edit: Just a suggestion to help get ideas flowing. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
@Xeno : tbh the terrain in the middle was fine, this high-ground with a low-ground attack path in betweem feels a bit strange. I liked the 12/6 o'clock bases on the old version too. The third is definitely better as a low-ground base though. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qcR2kZs.png) Size is 144x160. Thoughts? | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
On December 18 2014 13:35 Xenotolerance wrote: @OtherWorld - the 3rd is very easy, and that's by design. The idea that started this map was literally 'what if the backdoor rocks on King Sejong were blocking the forward 3rd instead of the natural?' I made it high ground so it wouldn't be broken vs protoss e.g. warping in behind the natural, but as you point out that also makes it very hard to attack into. Anyway, as you can see I've tried making it low, along with other major restructuring now 132x132, nat to nat is 43 seconds I'm not thrilled with the attack paths. I also should remove the extra space behind the 4 and 10 o'clock bases to make the now-low-3rd less easily harassed. open to ideas It's really hard to produce a decent hourglass map. I really don't see how you could make the middle more interesting atm because the natural takes too much space with the gap behind it. Do you really want to make a hourglass map or couldn't you just make a more standard natural ? | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
On December 20 2014 02:21 algue wrote: It's really hard to produce a decent hourglass map. I really don't see how you could make the middle more interesting atm because the natural takes too much space with the gap behind it. Do you really want to make a hourglass map or couldn't you just make a more standard natural ? This concept is all about that hourglass layout, so I'm trying some ideas to make the middle work. Maybe it's just too small? Having just a few more units would make it much easier to work with I think. The first version was taller and had a much more interesting middle because it had just that much more space. Will return later... | ||
|
JaredStarr
Canada115 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.gyazo.com/940af6624b155577377070572a617208.jpg) Zoomed in: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.gyazo.com/2bac4057d869d9f5e632787bd23a42de.jpg) ** Changed the forward third to a 4 High Yield Minerals and 2 High Yield Geysers ** Went with the suggestion to put a base in the open raised terrain beside the obvious third. ** Thinking of changing center bases to no longer be high yield. I'm not sure how the forward (high yield) base will work out. I'm trying hard to keep something there just because it forced the players to be more engaging which led to more exciting games. Overall I'm liking the way the metagame looks with the players taking bases in a ccw direction. I have yet to test it out but I think it looks more promising ... Edit: Updates have been published to b.net | ||
|
skdeimos
Canada155 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mJlv306.jpg) Thoughts? | ||
|
JaredStarr
Canada115 Posts
The center of the map looks pretty cool for engagements and is nice on the eyes. Personally I would open up the wall separating the main from the center and remove the main ramp, it would force the players to engage in the cool looking center of the map a lot more. You would have to tweak the raised natural, maybe add destructible to increase rush time and probably a few more things but it's not something you see too often anymore. My drawing: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.gyazo.com/a5c68ea3907fdde9bb198cd1fec5f026.png) | ||
|
skdeimos
Canada155 Posts
 | ||
|
JaredStarr
Canada115 Posts
Right behind the raised 'freebee' mineral line looks like 3rd tier terrain beside 3rd tier terrain, that's where I was talking about. | ||
|
Riski
France15 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DLDJwpal.jpg) Also, here is the layout (145x160, nat to nat is 49sec) : + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SINCjDQl.jpg) And theme : + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7QpBZWYl.jpg) I'll take feedback on everything :D | ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
| ||
|
skdeimos
Canada155 Posts
| ||
|
JaredStarr
Canada115 Posts
On December 21 2014 09:23 Riski wrote: I'm wondering if this kind of expansion setup could work... : + Show Spoiler + Also, here is the layout (145x160, nat to nat is 49sec) : + Show Spoiler + And theme : + Show Spoiler + I'll take feedback on everything :D If you throw down destructible debris beside the cooling tower it might work out. The 3 and 9 bases and their connecting bases look kinda weird. The map also feels a little choked out in a couple spots. Be aware, forcing the players to go through one area to cross the map is difficult to make it work fairly but if you can make it work then do it. The theme looks wicked. I would love to see the map get completed just to see the themes end result :p | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 21 2014 13:06 Xenotolerance wrote: I'd be worried about walling off in time to stop a 10-pool. I think all races can get by without a finished wall against a 10pool. Protoss gateway expands often go without a wall, Terran reaper expands don't have the wall up when 10pool arrives and I'm not sure emergency walling is needed. Though given that you may lose the depot at the front, it may be just clever to not start the wall at the ramp and just do a reaper+scout, then take the natural and break down the rocks with 2marines from the reactor after 1reaper and successively wall the ramp with depots/bunker. Given how super-bulletproof the main-natural setup is once the rocks are down, I wouldn't be surprised if the setup would work in P&T's favor against Zerg. | ||
| ||
