@Antares: Nice start. I like the map size, small maps ftw. The center openness looks good to me, although a few of the outer areas could maybe be slightly more open. But I don't like the position of the 5th/6th bases relative to each other, since you can basically take them at the same time - I can't really think of a situation where you'd be able to defend one but not the other, except for some air harass.

algue

France1436 Posts

January 18 2015 13:51 GMT

#2902

On January 17 2015 18:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Meavis : Honestly the first one feels Foxtrot-y to me, so I'd say the second one is better

I don't think foxtrot used the same textures as meavis's map.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 18 2015 14:03 GMT

#2903

On January 18 2015 22:51 algue wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't think foxtrot used the same textures as meavis's map.

I was talking about the style for the lighted lines. The first one, with hard edges, reminds me of Foxtrot's mains.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 18 2015 16:12 GMT

#2904

On January 18 2015 21:26 -NegativeZero- wrote:
@Antares: Nice start. I like the map size, small maps ftw. The center openness looks good to me, although a few of the outer areas could maybe be slightly more open. But I don't like the position of the 5th/6th bases relative to each other, since you can basically take them at the same time - I can't really think of a situation where you'd be able to defend one but not the other, except for some air harass.

I've already opened up some areas. You're absolutely right about the 5th and 6th expansions. Will it matter since they are such late game expansions though? The only thing I could do that wouldn't mess up the layout is open a low ground path to the center outside of the natural ramp, but I don't really want to do that.

This is where I'm at right now:

Thanks for your feedback!

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 19 2015 00:49 GMT

#2905

I'm not a fan of the tight chokes at 3 and 9, feel kinda awkward and forced in.

I think joining the low ground to the center path would be best, if you're trying to avoid doing that I would suggest maybe pulling the raised terrain out and combining the two bases at 3 and 9 but that's probably just me wanting to get rid of those chokes.

Finally taking a good look at it makes me think of overgrowth, just dehydrated and shriveled up. I like it.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 19 2015 17:50 GMT

#2906

Any thoughts about this?
[image loading]

Bounds are 132x124, high ground pods and holes on the map are unpathable, and my main concerns are the use of the holes (initially I put them to reduce openness and favor army placement, but I think they're a bit useless) and the viability of the layout post 4-bases stage.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 19 2015 23:25 GMT

#2907

@OtherWorld

I think the holes in the map are a bit gimmicky, but if it's something that you want to try, then do it and see how it works out.

The thirds are incredibly open. It would be difficult for a Protoss or Terran to expand there. You may want to try to shrink up that area.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 20 2015 13:45 GMT

#2908

Hmm ok I've worked on bit on it. Thoughts?
[image loading]

algue

France1436 Posts

January 20 2015 13:51 GMT

#2909

@OtherWorld : the main doesn't need to be so far away from the forward third, you are wasting space.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 20 2015 14:01 GMT

#2910

@Otherworld: You can pull the third in and have a small spot for reaper harass/blink near the main entrance. I like the modified holes in front of the main, I think they can still get toned down a bit more. The ones at the edge of the map can be toned down too imo and also the 3 horizontal holes leading to the potential 4th you could probably remove the middle hole. I think the debris in the middle takes away from engagements and promotes base trades.

[image loading]

Played around with this map a little bit and some magic started happening.

**Cross spawn only
**Going to be adding in a third expo horizontally beside the nat at the 10 and 4 spawns.
**Should I rotate the nat at 10 and 4 45/90 ccw? looks pretty easy to jump between mineral lines and harass workers.
(edit) ** Debris at the top of ramp at 10 & 4
**Free nat at 8 & 2 only has one gas.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 20 2015 14:15 GMT

#2911

I'm concerned about the mains at 10 and 4. There's no viable third, and the main ramp is a 2x. I'd open up a ramp from the other third to the low ground so that there's a path from outside the natural to the other main's third. This way, that third will work for whichever spawn. The downside would be it has two entrances, but that's acceptable since it's a third, and you can always adjust the chokes as you see fit.

The center reminds me of Secret Spring, but with less significance placed on the center path. On Secret Spring, The center was the only path open at the start of the game, and even during the late game, it was the fastest route between bases. Here, going around the center takes only slightly more time and effort since there are so many other options nearby. If you want to place an emphasis on that area, I think you should isolate it more from the other paths. Make the alternate routes further away and more of a hassle to use. This way you'll have a balance risk vs reward for whichever path you chose instead of one path making much more sense.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 20 2015 14:33 GMT

#2912

**Going to be adding in a third expo horizontally beside the nat at the 10 and 4 spawns.

As for the double ramp, there's debris at the top to choke it up a bit. My bad I meant to put something in the last post about it.

I was thinking about opening the path to make that the third but my concerns are once you take your third you have 2 more bases pretty much free. Zerg would have a hayday at that point. I want to try to promote expanding in the other direction. I'll play around with the middle suggestion.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 20 2015 15:38 GMT

#2913

This is another map that I'm working on.

Features:
-many destructible rocks that offer alternative routes and strategy
-many variations in cliff height to stress army positioning
-a narrow middle that offers mobility to many different areas on the map, but in early game it is the only fast route
-two semi-island expansions

I'm looking for feedback on whether or not the semi-island idea is viable, overpowered, underpowered, or just plain stupid. I'm also curious on what people think of 6 destructible rocks on one map. I know it's a lot, but I think if placed correctly they can add a lot of depth to the game. I'm also curious on what people think of the third. I kinda had to force it in there or redesign the semi-islands. I think it works where it is, but I'd like to here what people think.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 20 2015 15:54 GMT

#2914

I'm taking off for a bit but I'll throw down some immediate thoughts.

First thing I thought after reading your post was to make the island expansions the thirds and take the thirds out.

I can't remember the name of it, but there was a map that had tons of destructible rocks at half health (or something to that effect) in a checkerboard pattern so every game was different depending on what path was opened. I'm pretty positive it was used in competitive play too.

The map center gives me headache, it's not a bad thing imo though. It's not immediately obvious what's happening there but the complexity gives it some serious uniqueness that I enjoy to see in maps. If doodads and terraining is done right you can relieve it.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 20 2015 16:05 GMT

#2915

@Jared : I really like how the 2/8 positions would play out. The 4/10 positions however feel a bit strange, because the idea that taking you third is very hard but then gives you two free bases is... unexplored in the current meta I guess? Tbh I'm not sure if it would turn out well. In general Zergs need to be on three bases when T or P is on two, and here it'll be very hard to defend the third while the T/P can pressure and expand at the same time.
The aesthetics looks very good too.

@Antares : I don't think the semi-island is a problem. However my first thought when seeing that map is that you can immortal all-in without all the way from your nat to the Zerg's nat without having to go through a single open area. Besides that the general chokyness of the map strikes me more than the number of rocks.

So I redesigned things a bit, taking into account algue's and Jared's feedback :
[image loading]

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 20 2015 18:31 GMT

#2916

Opened up the middle and put in the thirds for the 4/10. Will probably still tweak the thirds some more so the geysers will be on each side of the mineral line.

[image loading]

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 20 2015 18:34 GMT

#2917

Looks really good now.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 21 2015 00:05 GMT

#2918

I completely redesigned the layout after determining that the middle was too confusing.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Just made a quick change and updated the image.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 21 2015 09:55 GMT

#2919

The third is not open enough for my taste, and some paths feel too narrow. But it's personal preference. Other than that looks good, although the corner bases feel a bit unnecessary.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

January 21 2015 15:24 GMT

#2920

I feel like the third would be pretty easy to flank if you caught your opponent out of position, once the TC is dropped in the third; the whole corridor will be really choked up.

That being said ... Z could go for the forward more open base while P would probably go for the lowered third and T would most likely go for the aggresive third towards the opponents base. idk if race tailored bases would work in game, but it's something I didn't recognize right away and seems like it has some pretty cool potential.

What I would do is pull the terrain out in the lower third so there's no 'pit' between the lower third and base right below/above it. I would also take the bases at 3/9 and lift the terrain there and pull the terrain together a wee bit (or just totally join all terrain there - that late in the game I don't think a terribly open fourth is a broken feature) making that a potential fourth (should you choose to expand in the direction). I would take the corner bases out as mentioned by Otherworld - make them engagements points between the lower third and the 'potential fourth'. Maybe XNT instead of bases will give the corners of the map valuable engagements points to hold.

I liked the old middle

Edit:typos

Edit:
Having issues with close proximity cooling towers.
+ Show Spoiler +

You've all probably encountered this before, even I have, just never really looked for an answer to it.
Both the cooling towers are connected somehow, (maybe the overextending pre-collapse glitch?) and when you damage/destroy one, the other imitates.