|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
@NegZero: Bigger high ground w/ tower, wider ramps there. Bigger 4th base. Bigger OR farther away 5th base with a wider ramp OR chokey entrance but farther away to defend. I'd also move the tower closer to the 3rd base corner of the high ground so that it isn't able to see any of the alternate route to the 4th. Alternate version 3rd is too easy imo. Reposition the half base to be a little harder to deny from the middle/cliff.
@Melt: The late game looks kind of static. 5th base covers the 6th and the high grounds are very LEFT or RIGHT, can't easily contest each other. Maybe add a ramp? Or another path somewhere? The proportions mean you can attack plenty well but it will be very sumo, not so much jujitsu. I think the righthand lowground base would be much more interesting if you removed the mineral ramp and put it snug up against the natural cliff. It could be defended against harass / light attack easily this way, but you'd have to have army defense if they have a big attack there. You could fit in another base this way (if you want).
@RxDam: Wow that map is enormous. Needs to be smaller. XD
@Fatam: This map keeps morphing.  I like the 4th base but I feel like it's still too close / easy / cramped. It's great for harass but difficult to attack without your whole army there. I'd say this is good except it's so easy to take after the 3rd and close to defend. Not sure what to change there. The middle seems too on/off. I think this should be returned to a more open / multiple routes area. Here's a picture with some changes.+ Show Spoiler [picture] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dWN1t.jpg) Didn't I do this before lol? I made the harass hallway the same cliff level at the 4th so that it becomes more important and requires active defense. The towers have more interesting LosB, whatevs. The center is now sort of Metalopolis style 6th bases (shouldn't be able to tank the CC). The two wide bridges in the middle are not easy to cross if defended, but far apart so hard to defend both. If you look at the first 5 bases, it's very dynamic but also stable more stable I think. Hope this gives you some ideas. Oh, and you should add a bricks / tiles texture to use on the 4th base and the bridges. Also, what if you moved the towers away from the rocks (towards the 6th base) so that when the rocks are broken you can avoid tower vision to move out of your natural?
@Moskonia: That backdoor requires map control to defend against, especially as you take the two bases in your crescent. It's not going to be very fun and will encourage 2base play in certain matchups, as iamcaustic is trying to point out.
|
On October 29 2012 06:19 -NegativeZero- wrote:Basically another Match Point clone with some notable alterations - also I was experimenting with making the map as unnecessarily symmetrical as possible (3rd/4th/5th are reflected, mains are symmetrical and exactly opposite each other, etc). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IPuLn.jpg) Alternate version (removed 1 entrance to 3rd): + Show Spoiler +
Looks like it could be cool
- I would probably widen all 4 side entrance ramps to the corner bases by 1 FF.
- Wouldn't the rocks make more sense on the opposite ramp of the 4th? i.e. the attacker would have to kill the rocks to be able to attack from that angle. The 4th is already sort of far away so the defending player shouldn't be further punished by having to kill rocks before he takes his 4th.
|
On October 29 2012 07:39 EatThePath wrote:@Fatam: This map keeps morphing. I like the 4th base but I feel like it's still too close / easy / cramped. It's great for harass but difficult to attack without your whole army there. I'd say this is good except it's so easy to take after the 3rd and close to defend. Not sure what to change there. The middle seems too on/off. I think this should be returned to a more open / multiple routes area. Here's a picture with some changes. + Show Spoiler [picture] +Didn't I do this before lol? I made the harass hallway the same cliff level at the 4th so that it becomes more important and requires active defense. The towers have more interesting LosB, whatevs. The center is now sort of Metalopolis style 6th bases (shouldn't be able to tank the CC). The two wide bridges in the middle are not easy to cross if defended, but far apart so hard to defend both. If you look at the first 5 bases, it's very dynamic but also stable more stable I think. Hope this gives you some ideas. Oh, and you should add a bricks / tiles texture to use on the 4th base and the bridges. Also, what if you moved the towers away from the rocks (towards the 6th base) so that when the rocks are broken you can avoid tower vision to move out of your natural?
Wow those changes are incredible. I think that will inspire me to implement most/all of what you did. This map has given me so many troubles to try and get right, you really have no idea. Take every other map that I've released (which is 5 I think) combined and triple it, and that's how much time I've spent on this map's layout compared to their layouts. And it was still not right lol
And what's sad is yesterday w/ that map competition I made a map in 2-3 hours that was probably better than Yog's. ><
|
Updated map:
-Enlarged high ground pods, widened the ramps facing the center
-Widened the side ramps to the 4th, removed rocks
-Revised center terrain and positioning of 6m1hyg bases (those protrusions next to the ramps are unpathable and will be filled with doodads, so basically only tanks can hit the bases from the center)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PIKFE.jpg)
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nynnl.jpg)
Still might widen the middle bridges slightly, and I think the texturing needs to be cleaned up in a few places. But here's what I have. If the 4th is too easy to attack now I could put rocks on the attacker's ramp. But I don't know if that's necessary
angled: + Show Spoiler +
|
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games.
|
On October 29 2012 20:52 Samro225am wrote:
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games.
Probably 20-30 people have commented on the map (it's been around a while, and while a lot has changed, the nat/3rd setup hasn't) and no one has mentioned this as an issue. Of course it's possible that you're right, but I will try to lay out the reasoning behind the setup.
The reason I don't think it's an issue is this: the attacker comes down from the highground if he is going for the nat, but he can't actually shoot anything if he just stays on the highground. In order to -actually attack- he would have to come down that ramp, then he's either getting sandwiched by your reinforcements and your main army coming from the 3rd (in the example you mentioned where he faked you out by feigning at the 3rd), or if your main army is in the nat then you have highground advantage. If you're far enough out of position that he can rush up the nat ramp before you get back, then he won't have any highground advantage cuz you will have vision from your buildings. The only races that could do that kind of rush-up-the-ramp-before-you-get-back are terrans w/ stim and zerg, so rushing in and FF'ing the ramp probably isn't an issue (any more than it is on any other map with a nat ramp).
|
On October 29 2012 20:52 Samro225am wrote:
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games. Seems like a good thing to be possible honestly, punishing people for improperly splitting their army. One of the only things I like about entombed is how the bridge functions and if you let them get up the other side because you just put your army in your natural on one hotkey you can't go there any more into his concave. It's a test of strategy.
|
On October 29 2012 22:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 20:52 Samro225am wrote:
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games. Seems like a good thing to be possible honestly, punishing people for improperly splitting their army. One of the only things I like about entombed is how the bridge functions and if you let them get up the other side because you just put your army in your natural on one hotkey you can't go there any more into his concave. It's a test of strategy.
That's a good comparison I think.
I also like it because the defender is rewarded a lot for moving out and holding that high ground, and that also gives you the tower. If you look at it the distances are about same as Daybreak actually.
|
On October 30 2012 01:47 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 22:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 29 2012 20:52 Samro225am wrote:
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games. Seems like a good thing to be possible honestly, punishing people for improperly splitting their army. One of the only things I like about entombed is how the bridge functions and if you let them get up the other side because you just put your army in your natural on one hotkey you can't go there any more into his concave. It's a test of strategy. That's a good comparison I think. I also like it because the defender is rewarded a lot for moving out and holding that high ground, and that also gives you the tower. If you look at it the distances are about same as Daybreak actually.
i like the abstract(!) idea of a player moving out. yet i have my difficulties to picture it in these specific situation on that map.
are you saying that i have to defend on the highround as protoss for example? so i could have access for the tower, but it just needs a drop and i have to move a significant number of forces down the ramp, up in the nat or even up in the main, while he rest of my forces and/or the third falls?
edit: on daybreak i think the path from the centre in front of nat to the third choke is actually quite a bit away. here - when the defender is on the hg, the attacker can switch directions and go against the third if you do not stop him there. falling back takes some time away for you.
unsure, but i feel like there is some choke needed or the path to third a bit longer, etc. just a feeling, but possibily i am just too afraid of hard thirds.
|
On October 30 2012 01:54 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 01:47 EatThePath wrote:On October 29 2012 22:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 29 2012 20:52 Samro225am wrote:
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games. Seems like a good thing to be possible honestly, punishing people for improperly splitting their army. One of the only things I like about entombed is how the bridge functions and if you let them get up the other side because you just put your army in your natural on one hotkey you can't go there any more into his concave. It's a test of strategy. That's a good comparison I think. I also like it because the defender is rewarded a lot for moving out and holding that high ground, and that also gives you the tower. If you look at it the distances are about same as Daybreak actually. i like the abstract(!) idea of a player moving out. yet i have my difficulties to picture it in these specific situation on that map. are you saying that i have to defend on the highround as protoss for example? so i could have access for the tower, but it just needs a drop and i have to move a significant number of forces down the ramp, up in the nat or even up in the main, while he rest of my forces and/or the third falls?
No, you don't have to move out, but if you can move out (and get the tower) you can feel much more security for your main/nat/3rd for major ground attacks. Drops is a different issue of course, so in PvT after taking the high ground and tower I would just move back to the nat ramp until I get some obs out.
PvZ for example, it looks like a pretty clear cut sentry based 3rd expansions, make a wall with cannons possibly, and then you can keep your army in the low ground alley and defend everything quite easily once the wall is up. Terran should be fine with tanks in the alley.
Of course they can break the rocks at the natural and then you have to be much more aware of their army. (Need obs / ling scout / etc.)
|
On October 30 2012 01:58 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 01:54 Samro225am wrote:On October 30 2012 01:47 EatThePath wrote:On October 29 2012 22:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 29 2012 20:52 Samro225am wrote:
Fatam: why do you not address the issue around third? the attacker can bounce from third toward nat via the highround getting the defender in such a bad position. the whole map imho is going to fail because of this. taking the ccw third is not an option in many cases because it is closeer, cannot be defended at a choke and needs to be reinforced via a rocked choke...the map wonÄt go past two bases in most games. Seems like a good thing to be possible honestly, punishing people for improperly splitting their army. One of the only things I like about entombed is how the bridge functions and if you let them get up the other side because you just put your army in your natural on one hotkey you can't go there any more into his concave. It's a test of strategy. That's a good comparison I think. I also like it because the defender is rewarded a lot for moving out and holding that high ground, and that also gives you the tower. If you look at it the distances are about same as Daybreak actually. i like the abstract(!) idea of a player moving out. yet i have my difficulties to picture it in these specific situation on that map. are you saying that i have to defend on the highround as protoss for example? so i could have access for the tower, but it just needs a drop and i have to move a significant number of forces down the ramp, up in the nat or even up in the main, while he rest of my forces and/or the third falls? No, you don't have to move out, but if you can move out (and get the tower) you can feel much more security for your main/nat/3rd for major ground attacks. Drops is a different issue of course, so in PvT after taking the high ground and tower I would just move back to the nat ramp until I get some obs out. PvZ for example, it looks like a pretty clear cut sentry based 3rd expansions, make a wall with cannons possibly, and then you can keep your army in the low ground alley and defend everything quite easily once the wall is up. Terran should be fine with tanks in the alley. Of course they can break the rocks at the natural and then you have to be much more aware of their army. (Need obs / ling scout / etc.)
yeah, i see all this and i quite like it honestly, yet don't you think it defines a lot of things already? it might be good that a map asks for specific units, action, - i mean ever ap does it to a certain extent - but with a lot of discussion around difficult thirds i feels like that map had a better chance with some adjustments in this area.
|
Why not have the manmade base on the lowground now that you have the cliff going round it? Would be a lot tidier and would give you more opportunity to tweak the area outside the 3rd.
|
@fatam, I honestly like the first version of the corner expo better. Maybe just making it on the lowground like oxygenesis suggested but putting some chokes with crevasses around it would be better? Centre looks much improved though.
|
On October 30 2012 02:45 OxyGenesis wrote:
Why not have the manmade base on the lowground now that you have the cliff going round it? Would be a lot tidier and would give you more opportunity to tweak the area outside the 3rd.
Personal preference, but I think it would be a little too annoying for the defender to deal with the harass. You would need to run units all the way around and up the ramp to where the harassers are to deal w/ it. If the base + harass hallway are on the same level (like it is now) then you can have some ranged units (or even a cannon/spine) inside your 4th base that can shoot over the small chasm. A counter argument here would be that the 4th on CK has the highground above it. But I always thought the CK highground above the 4th is a bit OP (even though overall it's one of the most balanced maps in the current mappool).
One other thing you might notice w/ the new layout is that the harass hallway is a good way to avoid the XNT and sneak attack the 3rd. I think that can be useful.
I was actually mainly wanting feedback concerning the center bridges - are they too skinny or are they fine? Right now they are ~8 squares wide. If you have an opinion on that, that would be awesome. (I can also re-evaluate the space around the 3rd. One thing I might do is back the nat ramp up a few squares and use that to slightly widen the path between the nat and 3rd. That way it takes a little longer for any attacker to get to the nat, and in general that would let defending armies get surrounds a little easier.)
|
On October 30 2012 06:44 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:45 OxyGenesis wrote:
Why not have the manmade base on the lowground now that you have the cliff going round it? Would be a lot tidier and would give you more opportunity to tweak the area outside the 3rd. Personal preference, but I think it would be a little too annoying for the defender to deal with the harass. You would need to run units all the way around and up the ramp to where the harassers are to deal w/ it. If the base + harass hallway are on the same level (like it is now) then you can have some ranged units (or even a cannon/spine) inside your 4th base that can shoot over the small chasm. A counter argument here would be that the 4th on CK has the highground above it. But I always thought the CK highground above the 4th is a bit OP (even though overall it's one of the most balanced maps in the current mappool). One other thing you might notice w/ the new layout is that the harass hallway is a good way to avoid the XNT and sneak attack the 3rd. I think that can be useful. I was actually mainly wanting feedback concerning the center bridges - are they too skinny or are they fine? Right now they are ~8 squares wide. If you have an opinion on that, that would be awesome. (I can also re-evaluate the space around the 3rd. One thing I might do is back the nat ramp up a few squares and use that to slightly widen the path between the nat and 3rd. That way it takes a little longer for any attacker to get to the nat, and in general that would let defending armies get surrounds a little easier.)
they are fine for a two to three base terran army, toss can FF and broodlords can fly over it. they are perfect :D
|
On October 30 2012 06:47 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:44 Fatam wrote:On October 30 2012 02:45 OxyGenesis wrote:
Why not have the manmade base on the lowground now that you have the cliff going round it? Would be a lot tidier and would give you more opportunity to tweak the area outside the 3rd. Personal preference, but I think it would be a little too annoying for the defender to deal with the harass. You would need to run units all the way around and up the ramp to where the harassers are to deal w/ it. If the base + harass hallway are on the same level (like it is now) then you can have some ranged units (or even a cannon/spine) inside your 4th base that can shoot over the small chasm. A counter argument here would be that the 4th on CK has the highground above it. But I always thought the CK highground above the 4th is a bit OP (even though overall it's one of the most balanced maps in the current mappool). One other thing you might notice w/ the new layout is that the harass hallway is a good way to avoid the XNT and sneak attack the 3rd. I think that can be useful. I was actually mainly wanting feedback concerning the center bridges - are they too skinny or are they fine? Right now they are ~8 squares wide. If you have an opinion on that, that would be awesome. (I can also re-evaluate the space around the 3rd. One thing I might do is back the nat ramp up a few squares and use that to slightly widen the path between the nat and 3rd. That way it takes a little longer for any attacker to get to the nat, and in general that would let defending armies get surrounds a little easier.) they are fine for a two to three base terran army, toss can FF and broodlords can fly over it. they are perfect :D
I think they are probably fine. In order to actually attack anything you have to move into wide open areas, so that's okay for each race. The two bridges are far enough apart that it'd be pretty hard to hold both indefinitely, not even including fly-by's and using the other side routes. 3 FF is a good number. I think it works pretty well for Yog.
Also about the main/nat/3rd, it has the rocks to the natural on the opposite side of the 3rd, which I think is something no map has done that's ever been used? So it's not a completely unique expansion setup but definitely could create unique situations with this feature.
|
K cool. Sounds like it's getting closer to being in a decent state. I'll definitely play around w/ the third area and see if anything looks better.
|
United States845 Posts
Burning Hatred
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EMq06.jpg)
3v3 map I'm working on. It's hard to tell but there is a XWT in the center, two more on the raised platforms in front of the natural and the gold mineral line's geysers are High-Yield.
|
Cool. I'd hate to be the third person trying to expand as a part of that 3v3 team..lol. Base would be crazy far away. But I don't know anything about 3v3, maybe that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wb3KK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NiZPd.jpg)
