Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 158

Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

February 19 2015 21:22 GMT

#3141

Hey spacecowboy. Can 3 mineral patches at the bottom of the single wide ramp block it off? I had an idea for a map with an in base expo blocked by mineral patches.

Edit: I won't be home til late to try it out so I just figured I'd ask.

Edit: oh and merry bday!

TheRealSpaceCowboy

21 Posts

February 19 2015 21:51 GMT

#3142

On February 20 2015 06:22 JaredStarr wrote:
Hey spacecowboy. Can 3 mineral patches at the bottom of the single wide ramp block it off? I had an idea for a map with an in base expo blocked by mineral patches.

Edit: I won't be home til late to try it out so I just figured I'd ask.

Edit: oh and merry bday!

Thank you!

Yes it looks like you can. Just tried it (pathing and building placement visible), Drone was unable to get past.

On February 20 2015 06:09 The_Templar wrote:
TheRealSpaceCowboy, that's a really small rush map. Especially with those straight paths, I would make the map much larger, more like 144x144 at minimum.
It looks really easy to cannon/bunker rush a zerg natural expansion by walling off the main ramp due to the mineral patches. Alternatively, it's nearly impossible to hold your natural in PvZ and TvZ since there are three wide open entrances.
Edit: Was referring to version 1, didn't see version 2.
Version 2 has way too many bases (24). The absolute maximum is 20. The same natural problems exist in TvZ/PvZ with three entrances.

So if I remove four of the eight most center bases (merging two together) it should be fine (20 bases). What exactly is the problem with the three entrances? Too many despite the rocks? I added them to make the center bases on the sides more viable as a third. Otherwise it would only leave a forward base as the third which might make Z unhappy. Would two small open ramps (neither blocked by rocks, each the same size as main <-> natural ramp) be better?
There's going to be unbuildable rocks at the bottom of the ramp (forgot to add those) and I can still change the mineral patches. So I don't think it would be too easy to bunker/cannon rush in the end.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

February 20 2015 00:01 GMT

#3143

On February 20 2015 06:51 TheRealSpaceCowboy wrote:

Show nested quote +

Thank you!

Yes it looks like you can. Just tried it (pathing and building placement visible), Drone was unable to get past.
+ Show Spoiler +

Show nested quote +

just remove all of the center bases, 16 bases is plenty.

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

February 20 2015 05:24 GMT

#3144

Feeling better about the right side, also added in the rock tower as suggested and ultimately kept in the high yields, we'll see how they play out:
[image loading]

Just gonna toss this one down too, I'm pretty okay with it ... might just make it pretty at this point:
[image loading]

TheRealSpaceCowboy

21 Posts

February 20 2015 10:12 GMT

#3145

I've made three more rough variants, only with one of the four corners though.

Version 3
What I like about this: backwards natural, main not too vulnerable to blink (or could even be decreased further). Three possibilities for the third. Forward ramp towards the center of the map (top left of image in first spoiler) could be blocked off with rocks.
What I dislike: central third probably the best to take in all situations.
+ Show Spoiler +

Version 4
I like: Desert Oasis style main, Two outer bases (bottom left and top right) same distance to top/left main bases so possible point to be contested (maybe make it a gold?)
Dislike: main vulnerable to blink (at least for now). Two paths leading out from the natural (two alternatives) that can hardly both be walled off (maybe block both paths with rocks initially which would lead to an island map?).
+ Show Spoiler +

Version 5
Like: forward ramp (will be blocked by rocks), fourth/fifth base positions (besides what I dislike about them, could make map even bigger...?).
Dislike: even worse blink vulnerability as Version 4 due to forward ramp. Fourth/fifth base positions belonging to different mains currently way too close together (as you can see in the image below on the left and top). Two open paths to naturals as in Version 4.
+ Show Spoiler +

JaredStarr

Canada115 Posts

February 20 2015 16:42 GMT

#3146

4 Basing is rly easy IMO but here's what I think. take the forward base out and make the 2 adjacent bases raised. Lower all the terrain by 1 tier too maybe?

(I would also suggest making a ramp - single or double wide - towards the center from the 2 side bases.)

[image loading]

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 20 2015 18:20 GMT

#3147

On February 20 2015 06:51 TheRealSpaceCowboy wrote:

Show nested quote +

Thank you!

Yes it looks like you can. Just tried it (pathing and building placement visible), Drone was unable to get past.

Show nested quote +

You can place minerals anywhere with "don't use placement requirements" by holding shift, just like doodads, and thereby put them on ramps as well. This way you can use 2 patches to block a single-wide ramp. It can also give you more freedom in designing double-sided or mineral wall bases next to ramps of varying sizes.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

February 21 2015 03:45 GMT

#3148

So, back for some feedback on my new WIP, inspired (kinda) by BW Blue Storm. My main concerns as of now is the fact that if you expand clockwise, your 5th/6th base is really close to your opponents natural. Xel'Naga Towers give sight to open area but not middle bases or very center path. High ground pods and any other obvious areas will be un-pathable in the final version.

-Iron Chariots-
Map is 144x144 with 6 bases, 2 rocks, and 2 Towers.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 21 2015 06:04 GMT

#3149

@SwedenTheKid
Addressing your concern about the sixth base, I don't think it is a problem. You took the necessary precaution of separating the two with a high ground barrier and they are far enough away that Blink, Siege Tanks, and warp-in shenanigans won't hit the natural from that location. The air distance shouldn't matter, only the ground distance, which is far enough, especially without the rocks being taken down.

I dislike the fast route being blocked by destructible rocks. You'd think that it should be blocked early game to make sure that the rush distance isn't too fast, but the path is almost completely irrelevant late game since it is narrow, chokey, and your opponent can cut off your forces really easily by moving around. Early game you can't use it because of the rocks. Late game you could use it but probably won't because of the risk involved. I'd suggest experimenting with collapsible rocks instead, so that the route can be used for aggression early on, but blocked off in the mid game (or if you're confident, never blocked off so that you can use the route to reinforce an aggressive third and be more aggressive towards your opponent). To compensate, maybe make the natural choke more narrow if you have to, or shrink the ramp. It may be better suited as a 1x ramp instead of a 2x anyway since you'd want players to use the long path in most circumstances.

The middle feels unfinished to me, with the watchtowers in the middle of nowhere and open space around. Maybe it's just because the map isn't textured yet though. I'm not sure if I'd change it in any way either.

As an adaptation of Blue Storm, Iron Chariots is pretty good

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

February 21 2015 06:27 GMT

#3150

Thanks! I also was thinking about Collapsible Rocks, but wasn't sure if the rush distance would be to short. Good to know it doesn't have any bold game-breaking problems, since I haven't been map making in a while. As for the middle, I am happy with it as it is, any more changes and it wouldn't be open enough imo. Thanks for feedback, as usual.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

February 21 2015 07:02 GMT

#3151

Latest version. Still unsure about Collapsible Tower ramps and textures.

TheRealSpaceCowboy

21 Posts

February 21 2015 09:25 GMT

#3152

On February 21 2015 01:42 JaredStarr wrote:
4 Basing is rly easy IMO but here's what I think. take the forward base out and make the 2 adjacent bases raised. Lower all the terrain by 1 tier too maybe?

(I would also suggest making a ramp - single or double wide - towards the center from the 2 side bases.)

Aren't those 2 bases too far out to be third bases? The ramp leading up towards those 2 side bases would have to be placed carefully not to provide instant free vision for blink. The ramps towards the center I forgot, but I would have probably made them even wider than double that is with the third in front of the main still being there. It's very much WIP at this point.

I made another version, derived from Version 3.

Version 6
+ Show Spoiler +

The bottom-left and top-right corner bases would probably be on higher or lower ground than they are now and there would be a ramp towards the center from both the forward thirds. As well as the corner bases (if they aren't on the same height already).

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

February 21 2015 23:26 GMT

#3153

Way to many bases near the start location, as well as awkward base positioning. Also, there is only one route to your opponent, if I'm reading the picture right... Which defeats the purpose of a map... Don't see where your going with it, but you could start by making another route to the enemy, preferably through the center.
PS thoughts on my WIP?

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

February 24 2015 03:02 GMT

#3154

changes-
Made ramps with rocks x1 width
Towers removed
Made movement from middle low ground to high ground paths take longer to allow for more tactics, while still keeping the area open.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

February 24 2015 03:08 GMT

#3155

@SwedenTheKid: the overall layout has potential but the map and all of its components look a little bigger and more open than they need to be - ramps are a little too wide, mains are a little too big, etc. I've noticed this problem with a couple of your previous maps too. See if you can shrink it down by a few tiles on each side without changing the position of the naturals, because the nat-nat through the forward ramps looks kind of short as is (ok right now but don't make it shorter).

Also, there's a lot of potential for split map situations in the late game - to alleviate this maybe consider adding a backdoor to the nat?

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

February 24 2015 05:31 GMT

#3156

I think I can make the map smaller pretty easily ( if you mean shrinking it from 144x144 to 132x144 or something like that.). And I did want to make the mains smaller anyway. As for the map being splitty, don't really want to put a back door in the natural, but I guess i will just have to experiment. I will make the center passage way more cramped, since it's obvious now I have the liberty of making the layout less open. Also, I just recently noticed how much this map looks like your map Overwatch, even though u was going for a Blue Storm look. Idk if you would agree, but thanks for the feedback.

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

February 24 2015 13:40 GMT

#3157

Which of these layouts is better?
+ Show Spoiler +

And G

Germany491 Posts

February 24 2015 14:06 GMT

#3158

Definitely the first. I hate to whine about racial imbalance on maps but forcefield good unit. Maybe you should consider opening up the middle even more and getting rid of some of the chokes. (The second version looks like nothing but chokes.)