EPTHeres a new Version of my latest creation...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/10MYpFp.jpg)
Map analyser:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nJXr8V9.png)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 163
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Zweck
Germany211 Posts
Heres a new Version of my latest creation... Map analyser: | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
 I like the map, especially how its not to splitty. Maybe the fact that after your 3rd, the next bases are pretty easy and in specific order is the biggest issue I have with it. Like the middle high grounds, but not sure if those bases should be gold. | ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
On March 05 2015 06:38 Tric wrote: Here is a map that I am currently working on, any input on the layout would be appreciated. I am more than happy to change things around to get this map to work. The only thing that I would like to have remain the same would be the middle area, everything else is subject to change. Map Top Down View Analyzer Image Also note that I started painting terrain textures, but they are currently (VERY) unfinished, as to stop from having to redo them when I need to make some changes. -Sorry for the links, I am still not able to use the image code when I post since I am so new.  *Edit I also didn't remember to put the map specifications. Sorry about that. Playable Size = 200*163 Posted on NA Servers. And I am doing this strictly for the fact that my post was eclipsed mere seconds by another one, and it was the last on the page. Hopefully this is not frowned on | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
On March 05 2015 06:38 Tric wrote: Here is a map that I am currently working on, any input on the layout would be appreciated. I am more than happy to change things around to get this map to work. The only thing that I would like to have remain the same would be the middle area, everything else is subject to change. Map Top Down View Analyzer Image Also note that I started painting terrain textures, but they are currently (VERY) unfinished, as to stop from having to redo them when I need to make some changes. -Sorry for the links, I am still not able to use the image code when I post since I am so new. *Edit I also didn't remember to put the map specifications. Sorry about that. Playable Size = 200*163 Posted on NA Servers. Map is very choky and narrow, as well as way to large. Attacker can easily punish the defender using the high ground. I advise to never make 1v1 maps larger than 160x160 aprox. With all the narrow and windy paths, air play will be a nightmare. Also, the 3rd will be impossible to take as Zerg vs. Terran or Protoss. The map is also missing a 4th and 5th base. If its going to be so large, at least give it enough bases that are reachable.I advise you to start with a blizzard 1v1 map and delete all the doodads/textures to it, so you can play around with designs. That way you know its going to be playable to some degree. | ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:18 SwedenTheKid wrote: Map is very choky and narrow, as well as way to large. Attacker can easily punish the defender using the high ground. I advise to never make 1v1 maps larger than 160x160 aprox. With all the narrow and windy paths, air play will be a nightmare. Also, the 3rd will be impossible to take as Zerg vs. Terran or Protoss. The map is also missing a 4th and 5th base. If its going to be so large, at least give it enough bases that are reachable.I advise you to start with a blizzard 1v1 map and delete all the doodads/textures to it, so you can play around with designs. That way you know its going to be playable to some degree. Well everywhere the buildings are there are No Fly Zone Markers, but I am unsure if this is frowned on or not. Also there are fourth and fifth bases, but do you mean that they should be more accessible? Also the size is that large purely for the airspace around the edges, the actual edges of the playable area are 186x160 (if you dont count the air) | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:16 Tric wrote: And I am doing this strictly for the fact that my post was eclipsed mere seconds by another one, and it was the last on the page. Hopefully this is not frowned onNp, dont think it will bother anyone | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:20 Tric wrote: Well everywhere the buildings are there are No Fly Zone Markers, but I am unsure if this is frowned on or not. Also there are fourth and fifth bases, but do you mean that they should be more accessible? Also the size is that large purely for the airspace around the edges, the actual edges of the playable area are 186x160 (if you dont count the air) Yes, they are very hard to take due to the travel distance by land. Terran is the only race I can see securing the close 4th, due to CC lift off. Maybe reverse the terrain levels at the natural/3rd, so the defender has the high ground. Idk. also, i should correct myself. 160x160 is large for a 2v2, 1v1s should generally be 156x156 or lower. Thats personal preference, however. What makes it not work here is the amount of generic narrow pathways. | ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:27 SwedenTheKid wrote: Yes, they are very hard to take due to the travel distance by land. Terran is the only race I can see securing the close 4th, due to CC lift off. Maybe reverse the terrain levels at the natural/3rd, so the defender has the high ground. Idk. also, i should correct myself. 160x160 is large for a 2v2, 1v1s should generally be 156x156 or lower. Thats personal preference, however. What makes it not work here is the amount of generic narrow pathways. Well I can swap the heights around the natural and the third and have an inner layer that goes out to the fourth by removing the sky section, would it be better if it was more open as it is around the out corner bases? Like I said everything is subject to change except the two lanes in the middle. That is the only thing that I have my heart set on keeping. | ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
Bel'Shir Map Analyzer Bel'Shir Heavy Rain Map I think this one requires a little less work than Skyline City and since I have a lot of free time on my hands I have no problem working on both. :D -Really wish I could just post images. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
| ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:58 SwedenTheKid wrote: @Tric yes widen basically everything you can. There is just so much air space that makes the map so much larger than it needs to be. Zerg needs to be able to have areas they can surround armies. A good rule is to never have a map in which the protoss can reliably force field his or her way to the enemies natural, with a good amount of sentries. There needs to always be 1 or more areas where the Protoss army is exposed. Ok I will definalty attempt that and make it so that there is only the two chokes. I will attempt to open everything else up, I can also shrink the map size down so that way the air harass so absurd. Probably take me a few days, but I will see what I come up with. Thanks for the feedback! | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
Make a 4th base horizontal to the natural, past the 3rd. Thats a step forward. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 05 2015 06:39 Zweck wrote: @leZael: I really like the low mid and the diagonal rocks around it! Heres a new Version of my latest creation... Map analyser: It changes quite radically the concept of the map but I like it a lot. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
 I feel like the lowground 5th base should be further away to make it harder and to promote midmap control as opposed to base site camping defense. Like this maybe: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QleADfF.png) The aestehtics look nice btw. I like the moody unused corners. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Both your maps have similar problems that a lot of newbies have. 1. Don't use straight cliff edges (with some exceptions). 2. Don't use straight ramps (with some exceptions). Your ramps should almost always be diagonal, especially the main base ramp where the 1 forcefield size is crucial for game balance. Cliffs should be varied in their direction, especially natural terrain cliffs. Fill in with doodads and make it eyepleasing with texturing. Design-wise, your maps both exhibit long looping outside routes that don't really do anything. In normal gameplay they won't come into contention between the players, so they offer little to gameplay. I recommend a design exercise to help understand how to better use space in your maps: Keep the expansion pattern from one of your maps in mind. Now make a new 128x128 map (rather on the small side), and put in that expansion pattern with NO TERRAIN so that the bases are relatively well spaced out. USE STANDARD MINERAL ARRANGEMENTS. Now draw in routes that connect the bases, e.g. some might be on highground, some might have lowground paths between them. AVOID NEGATIVE SPACE. Adjust everything so that the end result is more or less a playable map. Pay special attention to the nat2nat distance, and the appropriate placement of the 3rd bases. You might have to reduce your base count from 12 to 10 to make it fit in 128x128. Now go back to your original map and try to apply some of the ideas from the small version in tightening up the routes and using correct proportions. Everything should flow to the middle UNLESS there is a special reason that is cohesive with the design of the map, and chokepoints should be fair and meaningful to gameplay. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/44l2Oiq.png) Also your gas placements in the main are imba. Put 1 geyser either side or make them horizontal. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
@andG: I love that bluestorm 2v2 version :D the aesthetics is fine, what don't you like? Most 2v2 maps have pretty simple aesthetics. @LComteVarauG: the vert spawns look imba because you have to expand towards. the horizontal spawns look imba because the nat2nat is short. Maybe a different setup using rocks? idk.. @meavis: Use some greenery or machinery decoration on the main bases and the corner bases to differentiate them (highest cliff level, extremities of the map), make them feel special. Don't know what else to say, the map has been a fave of mine. | ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KvFs6R5.jpg?1) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2GQK26i.png?1) Here is an updated version of Skyline. I am getting the nagging feeling that this map might now work out originally as planned (visually anyways), I think part of the problem with the maps that I am working on is that I work to much on the aesthetic appeal of the map and am not really sure of what proper balance is yet, as I am extremely new to the scene (2 weeks, I come from Dota2). What I might try to do is get rid of the buildings in the middle or change the skybox to have what they use the buildings for in the campaign and have them sunken down to the lowest level of the map. And before you guys start posting links to guides (I appreciate it, I really do, I've already read most of the guides that are readily available, right now I just need to actually implement what I am seeing rather than trying to do anything to crazy.) *apparently I uploaded the old versions of the map........ here are the new ones... | ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EeiOZdf.png?1) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Nt4fgK.jpg?1) Here is another map I've come up with today. I haven't decorated the entire map yet, I just wanted to get some balance input on this from you guys. This is uploaded on NA, searchable by Primal Pool (I think, not sure how the tagger works yet.) I am possibly thinking of removing/redoing the double sided ramp coming in from the NW and SE sides of the middle area and possibly trying to make it more open? *Edit pictures weren't loading properly. Bear with me, I'll have it sorted soon. :D | ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7LqPADb.jpg) | ||
| ||
