|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On February 25 2015 01:30 TheSkunk wrote:Work in progress visual style for a new map, Treasure Island + Show Spoiler + That's pretty awesome. Maybe there should be a brick texture "under" (at the edges of) the protoss ship areas. The boundary looks harsh at the 3rd base in this picture.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Feels weird to use spaceship aesthetics with natural cliffs. I don't know about that... the rest looks good though.
|
Version 2.0
Version 1.5 + Show Spoiler + Bounds 128x128 (going for a small map, I guess) 12 bases No watchtowers
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EK1x2uV.jpg)
Shrunk down the bounds, as well as the mains, paths etc. May need to push the naturals further back towards the mains though, to reduce nat to nat distance. Center is reworked. Edit- I don't know if I'm digging this version. Tell me if you like it, otherwise I'm just going to work with altering version 1.5.
|
Wow I like this version a lot better! The middle has more form, many areas aren't too open or boring anymore, and the map maintains the same layout.
You just have to make sure defense and offense are balanced on the map. On one hand, you can take an easy third by destroying the rocks and protecting three bases from one choke. On the other hand, timing attacks are going to be powerful since the rush distances are even shorter since the map was shrunk.
I think it's a great interpretation of Blue Storm for SCII.
|
@sweden: I would put a very narrow choke on the highground path between the outside edge highground bases. This lets you evacuate workers if needed but puts the reliance on lowground control or preemptive positioning for defense. It'd be cool if you could put a narrow choke in the middle, too, for more interesting early game positioning, but the map is already quite splitty and this would just make it worse. It'd be nice if there were some other pathway besides the ramps in center but idk where it would go.
|
On February 25 2015 10:51 EatThePath wrote: @sweden: I would put a very narrow choke on the highground path between the outside edge highground bases. This lets you evacuate workers if needed but puts the reliance on lowground control or preemptive positioning for defense. It'd be cool if you could put a narrow choke in the middle, too, for more interesting early game positioning, but the map is already quite splitty and this would just make it worse. It'd be nice if there were some other pathway besides the ramps in center but idk where it would go.
Split maps are not necessarily bad maps. If games are too splitty, then you end up with boring matches with less action. The layout is fundamentally split in the sense that the middle will be more narrow than anywhere else because of the ramp set up, and it is impossible to open up a path anywhere else to fix that (I can only think of a backdoor to the natural, and that would seriously break the map imo).
I want to address a few things you say here. Low ground control should not be something forced on this map. I would compare its middle to Echo's middle, in the sense that you want to control around the middle and not in the middle. Secondly, I think that a more narrow middle will make early timing attacks really difficult to defend. Sentries will be much more powerful, and late game the middle will be even less spacious, which is not something you want to risk with a map that may already have split map problems.
I am assuming that the opportunity for aggression on this map, specifically the rush distance, the proxy locations, the ramp right into the middle from the natural, and the super aggressive potential third will counteract a potential split map scenario in the late game. I made similar assumptions when planning Dark Matter, since it was small, could be split in half, and had a very fixed expansion pattern (unlike this WIP, though).
This is honestly a lot of speculation though.
|
Good to know you its better...sort of? Anyways, while I was gone I made another alteration. Probably not as good but just throwing it out there before I continue to work with version 2.0.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JOdYVIS.jpg) Anyways, this one is quite splitty as well, possibly more because it is much larger (the size of version 1.0), as well as having a smaller middle choke.
|
On February 25 2015 11:04 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2015 10:51 EatThePath wrote: @sweden: I would put a very narrow choke on the highground path between the outside edge highground bases. This lets you evacuate workers if needed but puts the reliance on lowground control or preemptive positioning for defense. It'd be cool if you could put a narrow choke in the middle, too, for more interesting early game positioning, but the map is already quite splitty and this would just make it worse. It'd be nice if there were some other pathway besides the ramps in center but idk where it would go. Split maps are not necessarily bad maps. If games are too splitty, then you end up with boring matches with less action. The layout is fundamentally split in the sense that the middle will be more narrow than anywhere else because of the ramp set up, and it is impossible to open up a path anywhere else to fix that (I can only think of a backdoor to the natural, and that would seriously break the map imo). I want to address a few things you say here. Low ground control should not be something forced on this map. I would compare its middle to Echo's middle, in the sense that you want to control around the middle and not in the middle. Secondly, I think that a more narrow middle will make early timing attacks really difficult to defend. Sentries will be much more powerful, and late game the middle will be even less spacious, which is not something you want to risk with a map that may already have split map problems. I am assuming that the opportunity for aggression on this map, specifically the rush distance, the proxy locations, the ramp right into the middle from the natural, and the super aggressive potential third will counteract a potential split map scenario in the late game. I made similar assumptions when planning Dark Matter, since it was small, could be split in half, and had a very fixed expansion pattern (unlike this WIP, though). This is honestly a lot of speculation though. I think you misunderstood me, I meant lowground relative to the last 2 outer edge bases (UL / BR), so speaking absolutely I meant the midground, the same cliff level as the nat. I am thinking about how the 1/7 base is on bluestorm and trying to make it more like that.
As for middle choke, I like it extremely as a design concept but I don't think it works here. Just kind of thinking out loud. My musing for an additional pathway is something like a narrow lowground corridor from mid that finds its way somewhere to the north or south extremities and up and out, but it definitely wouldn't fit in the new reduced size version.
Split maps are okay if everything on the way there is interesting. This map would be alright in that department, but it's not as expansive as say, bluestorm, (in the middle) where nearly half the map diagonal is a ramp you'd have to hold along its entirety to cover all your bases by ground. Here, you can hold 2 spots and 3 chokepoints for every base on your side by ground. That said, the air based options will be really highlighted lategame, although that will be informed more by a ground stalemate and basetrade offers rather than positioning plays. In other words, I believe you could play this very turtlely and securely if you wanted to and it'd be hard to stop you from doing it. I'm thinking mech or SH.
|
@sweden: Regarding new new version with metal upstairs, I think the center is better concerning lategame and splittiness, given that you have to hold much more width to control the ground from there. Imagine you have everybase and you're camping 200/200 at the center base which you've taken most recently. Of course it's easy to meet them as they move either side but you can't be preemptively in position anymore with a full army, and the 12/6 are consequently far more vulnerable, let alone the ramp allowing them to gain the midcliff center area.
|
@Sweden The alt. version you created seems like it would be better than the first one in LotV, but worse in HotS. I guess I'm just thinking ahead haha.
@EatThePath Gotcha on the low ground part, my bad.
What do you guys think about more aggressive/open expansions to combat split map issues?
|
Are we talking completely open behind the minerals or just having no chokepoints? I think you have to be very clever about where you put your forward expansions to avoid A. favoring terran B. creating a winner base C. having it be entirely useless. It depends a lot on what the rest of the map is doing and how the routes interact with it. I think it almost always has to be used in tandem with good ambiguity of your routes and expansion pattern options, and ideally it should complement reactive expanding options, as in choosing your 3rd or 4th according to how your opponent chose theirs (either offensively or defensively).
Probably MVP design option here is bases with their mins at a cliff edge so that holding the base requires map control and/or holding the CC site itself as well as an entirely different route/location for the cliff edge. Close awkward cousin being double-sided bases.
|
In response to your question Antares777, I honestly would have to say I don't like splitty maps, and kind of knew it would be an issue since I was trying to remake a BW map. My 3 guidelines for map making would be [1.] Balance between races, [2.] forcing players to interact to create fun gameplay, and [3.] to make players think about their actions according to the maps layout. If a map is splitty, but has a lot of options for aggression… its not really a split map. If your talking only about harassment, then I guess that would count as interaction, so I think a splitty map can work with that. As for my map, I personally want to go with the space platform version, due to the center being better imo (due to split-map "problems") and the size being more reasonable for the amount of bases.
So my question now would be what to do about the cliff-vunreble 5th/6th bases. As you said, EatThePath, they require map control and can easily favor Terran (and my map already has perks for Terran players I think). Think it works here, since its easy to block off the route to the bases back side. But your the expert. Also might alter the middle by making the 3 different paths more distinct, by adding small cliff walls on the middle high ground, between the ultra-ramps (and removing the isolated pods in the open).
Also, for my original version... BW Overwatch much?
|
fwiw I think the cliffable 4th base is pretty cool
|
Cool, will keep them. Just not to sure about the corner bases. Probably will bring them closer in and remove some of the surface area. A little airspace can't hurt to much considering I'm not wasting much space anywhere else.
|
Okay so this seemed like a good concept in my head, but now that I mapped it out it just looks silly.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EbUFZS8.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer] +
This is a 2v2 map with all spawns enabled and also a 4v4 map. The question is, does it make any sense at all?
|
I like the concept honestly. Here is what I don't like-
Not many real chokes, if you take down the rocks. Maybe make the areas with DR smaller chokes using 2 6x6 rocks instead of diagonal rocks.That way the map still has good choke points in the late game. Don't really like the close proximity of the golds. Seems like they are kinda winner-bases, especially for Terrans. Maybe move them a tad outward? Idk.
Like everything else, craziness aside.
Also, need more rocks
|
Yeah I don't like the golds either, but I don't want to have bases only along the map edges. Anyway, here's a new version which I think is much better.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3sW4LmB.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer] +
Fewer rocks though.
|
Its better, but I would still replace the middle 8 long rocks with 16 6x6 rosh (each 2 on the opposite sides of the chokes) to create one middle path through each choke. Idk, would look and feel more pleasing. But maybe thats just my taste. I'd keep with the map though, looks fun for 4v4s.
|
Quick post but just wondering if this version with an added high ground makes the map less splitty, or just ruins defenders advantage. Anyways, tell me if you like this alteration better, or if I should just keep with version 2.5 (above). http://imgur.com/FOqnz2A] [/url]
Also, I sketched this alteration, but I feel like it just helps the defender and the map really doesn't need that. + Show Spoiler +
|
@SwedenTheKid I like it, I think it helps counter the split map problem. It also adds a very high point of interest. By splitting the map more bottom left vs top right, it becomes less top left vs bottom right split.
If the high ground becomes too important, maybe try making it midlevel and add high ground between the two main ramps (does that make sense?) so that the defender cannot block the entire side of the map unless he splits his army in half to cover both ramps.
|
|
|
|