Tried to make the main less blink friendly. The main is kind of small as a result buuut knocking down one of the cooling towers (depending on where your opponent is or where you want to expand to) makes holding the first three bases pretty comfortable. Building your base out doesn't feel as risky. Thoughts?

Picture of update:
+ Show Spoiler +

Would prefer not to increase map bounds, but if there's no way around it so be it.

SwedenTheKid's WIP: Carry over from previous page
[image loading]

@STK: I would make the map mirror vertical and horizontal separately, gives the map more diversity.

algue

France1436 Posts

January 14 2015 17:25 GMT

#2883

JaredStarr : Straight cliffs look bad. You should look at some map using man made cliffs and try to reproduce their style.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 14 2015 18:01 GMT

#2884

I'm not worried about cosmestics atm, i'll make it look pretty once I know terraining works.

Edit: Blink shouldn't be a problem anymore though? Main is okay for size? Once I know all that kinda stuff is okay I'll make it look good, down there is unpathable

+ Show Spoiler +

algue

France1436 Posts

January 14 2015 19:46 GMT

#2885

The way you design your cliffs isn't cosmetics, it helps you to get the right proportion for your maps. If you think about your cliffing style once you gave its final shape to the map, you are going to run in a lot of problems.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 14 2015 20:25 GMT

#2886

The only natural cliff near the main isn't pathable so the final design in this space won't effect the map. If that's not where you're referring to I'll need you to explain further.

This is where I think you're talking about:
+ Show Spoiler +

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

January 14 2015 21:10 GMT

#2887

Thanks for feedback guys. I will try to change the map to fit Star Station symmetry, as advised. Will work better.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

January 16 2015 03:02 GMT

#2888

So, latest version. Getting close to done.

Xenotolerance

United States464 Posts

January 16 2015 04:42 GMT

#2889

That's a great look!

update, same concept but rebuilt

132x148 rush 39.1

previous, 136x144 35.1

.... I think the I like the old version, if tweaked, better... QQ. not sure where to take this

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 16 2015 15:05 GMT

#2890

Stk: Texturing looks awesome, makes everything pop.

Xeno: I like the old version better too. One small tweak I can suggest is making it so toss player can't blink across the trench in the centre. I can see that giving them an advantage while holding the centre.

Meavis

Netherlands1300 Posts

January 16 2015 22:21 GMT

#2891

alright, looking for feedback for which art style I will be using
[image loading]

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

January 16 2015 22:54 GMT

#2892

It's really personal preferance. While the 2nd one looks more natural, I really like the 1st. Maybe use both styles?

RFDaemoniac

United States544 Posts

January 16 2015 23:18 GMT

#2893

I think the 1st one looks cleaner, and more interesting. Side note I like the parallel lines of different length in the 2nd one, if they were evenly spaced. You could try using them in places to decorate.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 17 2015 02:31 GMT

#2894

* Pulled the low ground bases a little bit counter clockwise
* Changed up the main/nat setup.
+ Show Spoiler +

Meavis: I like the first one. Those lines are pretty cool in the second - maybe use them to draw attention to a point of interest.

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

January 17 2015 03:06 GMT

#2895

Meavis - what do you think about trying the first one, but having the orange line doodads be a softer color, like a blue, grey, or purple?

JaredStarr - I am concerned about the distance to take any possible 3rd base

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 17 2015 09:00 GMT

#2896

Meavis : Honestly the first one feels Foxtrot-y to me, so I'd say the second one is better

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 17 2015 17:39 GMT

#2897

128 x 128

I'm starting to get back into mapmaking and was wondering what people think of this design.

Is the third too easy to defend?
Does it encourage split-map scenarios and stalemates too much?
Is the center too narrow or too open?
Is the map too small?

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 17 2015 18:56 GMT

#2898

I'd say the third is good, the proportions of the chokes being roughly those of Overgrowth. The openness of the middle seems good too. However I dislike the layout, because there is no choice of thirds and the expansion pattern is very rigid ; you have no choice of fourth/fifth either. Yes it encourages split map too much, and the size seems OK to me, maybe a bit small.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 17 2015 19:28 GMT

#2899

On January 18 2015 03:56 OtherWorld wrote:
I'd say the third is good, the proportions of the chokes being roughly those of Overgrowth. The openness of the middle seems good too. However I dislike the layout, because there is no choice of thirds and the expansion pattern is very rigid ; you have no choice of fourth/fifth either. Yes it encourages split map too much, and the size seems OK to me, maybe a bit small.

Any suggestions to make split map scenarios less common?

I could open a small low ground path from the final expansion to the low ground middle towards the opposite natural, but I don't think it would do much other than make harassment easier. Other than that, I could widen some of the ramps or try to somehow push one of the expansions closer to the center, but I'm not sure how I would do that without messing with the layout too much.

I really want to keep the map size, so I may have to change the middle depending on rush distances. Even though the map can easily be split in half, I can't say for sure that it will be a macro map since the size is so small. I'm hoping that these features cancel each other out. I think maps that lean closer towards circle syndrome should be larger, and maps that have fixed expansion layouts should be relatively smaller.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 17 2015 19:51 GMT

#2900

On January 17 2015 12:06 TheFish7 wrote:
JaredStarr - I am concerned about the distance to take any possible 3rd base

With the idea of the map not forcing cross spawns the obvious third would be towards the center and depending on where your opponent spawns would depend on how you would open/close your base with the cooling towers/debris.

Distance between the nat and third is pretty close despite appearances. Main to third can be made very close by opening up the front main ramp and defending from either the third of in front of your main.