EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 165
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Magorion
Canada11 Posts
| ||
|
Allred
United States352 Posts
| ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KBq8KeU.jpg) half bases now have 7 minerals instead of 6, and there is a backdoor into the alternate natural. Thinking about possibly starting from scratch and making everything a bit smaller, as well as improving the symmetry. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6S1PBM4.jpg) Progress on my oldest WIP, hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting so much, just been mapping a lot lately.  Playable bounds 128x128 | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
@sweden: I think the 3p is going to have problems with distances being too short. Once the rocks are gone the push distance from CCW outer natural is so short. imo best practice with 3p is just to make them too big and use air blockers. It seems wrong for usage of space and compact design but the only alternative is to have A.) a broken map or B.) highly circuitous pathways to stretch out travel times. In fact, I think a larger map would highlight your back door design by making timing attacks "count" more, and not just a matter of course with multiple nearly equivalent and easily interchangeable options. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
Dude it's already like 185x185  But yeah, the problem with 3p maps is not having a choice whe expanding away from your opponent, as well as it being always asymmetrical. Like I said, May redo it, possibly as a 4/2 player map. Thanks for confirming my fears however. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 19 2015 07:57 SwedenTheKid wrote: @EatThePath Dude it's already like 185x185 But yeah, the problem with 3p maps is not having a choice whe expanding away from your opponent, as well as it being always asymmetrical. Like I said, May redo it, possibly as a 4/2 player map. Thanks for confirming my fears however. Whoa doesn't even look like it from the angled view. It's those looping back-pathways to the alt nats. Maybe make them a narrow highground (like the E/W edges of Deadwing, but not that narrow) to save some map size and make more room in the middle. Also some transverse obstacles in the terrain would help. 3p is like one of the most restricting archetypes in SC2, you're basically relegated to catallena or merry-go-round. Still waiting for the mold-breaker. | ||
|
Magorion
Canada11 Posts
| ||
|
Tric
United States21 Posts
On March 20 2015 04:50 Magorion wrote: No feedback about my map? Isn't that a lovely feeling when you don't get a response? However in all honesty I think it is because no one knows what to sure to find your map and test it (minus "Heyday" in the analyzer image) and even then we don't know what server it is on or if it is even published at all. Not saying this is the reasoning... as I never got a response on mine, but it might make some people hesitant to try and find the map if there isn't specific information saying how to find it or if it is even able to be found at all. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
On March 17 2015 10:47 Magorion wrote: This is my first Starcraft 2 map submission online. It's all weird and different so you probably won't like it. I was intentionally trying to break out of the standard layout since that is the only kind of map designing I have interest in. The idea for this map is to have 4 ambiguous thirds, each with their pros and cons. I'm curious to know what people's reactions are to it. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9h8qFhh.jpg) Analyzer + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bSaXPLl.png) There is a lot of stuff going on here, Maybe one of the reasons you haven't gotten feedback. First thing I noticed (it took a while to get a basic grasp on what was going on) was that you have a lot of bases very close to the starting location, as well as the map being very large. This could lead to stale games and favor Zerg in longer games. There is also a lot of "dead space" making counter attacks (including against the natural) to costly while also being easy to defend against. There is also still a lot of stuff going on, but I honestly don't know what good feedback I could give. Less bases and a smaller map, mixed with less constricting terrain (see Deadspace thread) to improve and promote aggressive play would be nice. Good luck. Edit- Deadzones thread, my bad | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Also, I'm much more likely to give feedback if people ask specific questions, like the issue with the small ramp on the Blue Storm remake. Still requires the map to have a decent layout, though. As a side note, it doesn't matter if no one is able to find a map on battle.net because no one is looking anyway. People here give their advice based on posted images and nothing else. It's the same even for the large majority of published maps that have their own thread. Which is another reason to be very careful about which advice you listen to, because for all you know the guy telling you to change the layout of the natural didn't even realize it has a backdoor blocked by rocks, or whatever. Other people might know more about mapmaking but no one knows more about your map than you. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Alpaca10
Germany15 Posts
(not able to put a picture cause of the flood control of this site. I'm new on TL to learn and to post my first own map ever made) Boundaries: 152*140 My first Starcraft map I've ever made. It's a small map with 4 bases and one rich mineral base per side. It is able to fly the whole map, which is ok I think for drops and harasses. The fourth is able to keep safe by destroying these 2 rocks at the third base. The path is blocked then from the rocks at the third and the rocks that are already there at the gold. I tried a lot for making my own map the first time. I want to improve and need help to make better maps in future! Edit: Published now on EU&NA with some changes. | ||
|
Allred
United States352 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x7puqzV.jpg) Can I get some feedback on the design of this map? The map allows for cross spawns only. The key features to the map include the central island which if controlled by the tower allows the player to control much of the map, and is a key focus of control during the game. There are four paths to this area, but in the beginning of the game the land path is the only access to this point. Rocks create a narrow choke around the xelnaga tower and block access through the bridges. Thanks! I am also thinking about putting a second entrance into the main in the bottom right main, and top left main and having it walled off with destructible rocks. Any thoughts on this edit? thanks | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/np9yZg5.jpg) big version - http://imgur.com/Fkljkds 136x136 Still has a lot of aesthetics left to do but the texturing is mostly done. The untextured highground platforms are all unpathable. Haven't figured out how I'm going to texture them but I'd like to get more contrast. The concept is one half of the map chokey one half more open, with some other ideas thrown in. Which player can force their opponent to fight where they want to fight (through harass or w/e) should be the key Posting this here b/c I've been out of mapmaking for a while so my sense of proportions may be a bit off (way off?). Wondering if I overdid the chokiness in some areas. If you're wondering, the shortest rush distance is pretty short but not quite outside the acceptable bounds. | ||
|
Magorion
Canada11 Posts
And G, you can go ahead and say whatever you don't like about my map. As for specifics, do you appreciate the "ambiguous thirds" thing I am going for? Do you guys see the pros and cons for each of the bases beyond the natural? Do you think it would be too easy to hold multiple bases and generate stale games? Would anybody like to test it out? I didn't publish it publicly. | ||
|
Magorion
Canada11 Posts
On March 23 2015 13:06 Fatam wrote: big version - http://imgur.com/Fkljkds 136x136 Still has a lot of aesthetics left to do but the texturing is mostly done. The untextured highground platforms are all unpathable. Haven't figured out how I'm going to texture them but I'd like to get more contrast. The concept is one half of the map chokey one half more open, with some other ideas thrown in. Which player can force their opponent to fight where they want to fight (through harass or w/e) should be the key Posting this here b/c I've been out of mapmaking for a while so my sense of proportions may be a bit off (way off?). Wondering if I overdid the chokiness in some areas. If you're wondering, the shortest rush distance is pretty short but not quite outside the acceptable bounds. Looks pretty balanced to me Fatam. The optional chokiness is done well. Fairly standard looking map except for those weird 4ths. They are a bit awkward looking but at least its unique. Good placement of rocks, towers and LOS blockers... | ||
|
Zweck
Germany211 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On March 23 2015 14:09 Magorion wrote: And G, you can go ahead and say whatever you don't like about my map. The natural is too vulnerable; there are too many entrances. Also, it can be sieged from the low ground while the defender cannot attack units there at all. I don't like the forward low ground third; try to keep geysers and minerals on one side of the base and have a reasonably wide attack path there even with a nexus/hatch/CC. Also, rocks belong on ramps. You can move them there while holding shift. Cardinal ramps should be avoided; try to use diagonal ramps. Try to be more simple in terms of pathing. E.g. instead of the two small ramps going up the high ground third/fourth from the middle, have only one larger ramp there. Always consider defensive concaves when designing chokes and ramps. I always like expansion ambiguity, here however the execution just isn't good enough and the proportions are off. You should probably study Polar Night and King Sejong Station and try to understand the design decision there in regards to vulnerability of the natural and position of the thirds. Then you should either redo your map from scratch while emphasizing only the core aspects of your design philosophy, or start another project to come back to this one later. Also, you should probably restrict yourself to three possible thirds. Not saying a map with four possible thirds can't be done, but this particular layout is better with just three IMO. On March 23 2015 13:06 Fatam wrote: I like this, mostly. Definitely good to see more axially symmetric maps. I don't consider the SE part of the map particularly open, though; it's really just the part around the watchtower. Some suggestions/comments, disregard at will:
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3wvM54q.jpg) big - http://i.imgur.com/9r29goi.jpg Thanks for the input, that was helpful. Made an alternate version with some major changes to the southeast half of the map along with a couple other tinkers. I think it's possible to get cute and add more los blockers to the huge open area (a common thing you see is to bi or trisect a large area with them), but not sure if it would be a good thing. | ||
| ||
