|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
@Coppermantis: That's quite small and chokey for a 3v3 map. I would remove some of those rectangular impediments and stretch out the distance between the sides and the middle bases, if possible. (Increase the map dimensions.)
---------
This is an updated version of my map from the NYU map jam, Genesis. Along with improved aesthetics, I added a new pathway to the semi-island to make it easier to attack a terran who floats an expansion to the island. It's a 1ramp with blue rocks on it. These are only 3k hp as opposed to the 4k hp black rocks. This way it's a liability to open for your own purposes but only beneficial when attacking by opening more routes into the enemy base. But it still doesn't open the 3rd entrance to your main -- the black rocks still have to die for that to be open.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/00wJF.jpg)
Any thoughts on the layout / balance / design? What bothers you aesthetically that I should prioritize updating?
|
@ EatThePath -- I really had fun on that map last night. The only thing I thought of that you might want to consider is the way the half-blocked natural is laid out. Currently, when you break the rocks, it does not appear that the AI's radius on finding a less-saturated mineral patch is wide enough to automatically transfer workers once the rocks are broken. If you take a base and you over-saturate those patches (3-per, so max saturation on 5 patches which translates to one under optimal saturation on 8) with the intent of breaking the rocks, but while you are doing other things the opponent breaks the rocks and you don't notice, the workers just seem to stay where they are instead of splitting off when they bounce around. At least that is from what I could tell. Now, I could see this as one of those "raising the skill cap" arguments and you might like this idea -- that you need to be paying attention to gain the benefit -- and that's fine. But I just thought I'd bring it up since I can see people complaining about this as it effects not only this scenario, but also the plain act of rallying to any particular patch. If you wanted to fix this, I think the easiest way would be to swap the uncovered gas with the clump of two mineral patches.
The only other thing I can think of is that the minerals in the main have a configuration that sometimes makes workers mine behind one the mineral patches (the bottom-most in the top main, the top-most in the bottom main). This can be annoying on the split because that first mining takes just that much longer to get back. Maybe this is not a big deal, but it seems less clean.
But yeah, I really like it and otherwise think it is laid out very well. Grats on getting it into the tournament.
|
@Hyp Regarding the natural minerals, I actually set it up like that intentionally. If the minerals under the rocks are close enough to attract workers that bounce from a busy patch, they will go and get stuck even though there are rocks. So I kept them far enough apart to prevent workers rallied to the 5 open patches from bouncing to the rocks and endlessly trying to path to an obscured patch. It does mean you have to watch your mining later and make sure you've distributed workers correctly, but I don't think this is too much to ask. Ditto for the main minerals although I'd change if it players had that much of a problem with it. ^^
|
Thoughts?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nv5OQ.png)
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cAmdQ.jpg)
I've been messing around with this for a little bit now. I'm not sure what I think. I feel like the rush distance may be short and I'm not sure about the middle with Xel'naga tower. I also feel like i might be able to squeeze 2 bases in each empty side but I'm not sure. It's far from done for sure, but I just wanted to get some feedback. (I'm also not an expert map maker, so I know it could be a completely terrible map, so let me know if thats true as well.)
|
I think it needs more use of choke points. The thirds and fourth bases are hard to hold without your entire army being there, because there's not a nice choke for defenders advantage. This results in kind of deathbally play. I think you could create some tighter chokes outside of the third, and reduce the size of the ramps going down into the low ground bases.
|
On October 31 2012 06:56 Gfire wrote:I think it needs more use of choke points. The thirds and fourth bases are hard to hold without your entire army being there, because there's not a nice choke for defenders advantage. This results in kind of deathbally play. I think you could create some tighter chokes outside of the third, and reduce the size of the ramps going down into the low ground bases.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1G0vv.png)
What about with these unpathable high grounds and smaller ramps?
|
On October 31 2012 07:14 lorestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 06:56 Gfire wrote:I think it needs more use of choke points. The thirds and fourth bases are hard to hold without your entire army being there, because there's not a nice choke for defenders advantage. This results in kind of deathbally play. I think you could create some tighter chokes outside of the third, and reduce the size of the ramps going down into the low ground bases. + Show Spoiler +What about with these unpathable high grounds and smaller ramps?
I might even consider 2x for those ramps. Typically I find a 3x small enough to make a large-army engagement pretty ugly (bad for spectating,) but not enough to discourage the attacker from going through there with a whole army. Of course, the defender also has to bring their army through one of those so it's a tough call. That's one of the hard things about 4p maps. You could try some partial block-off with rocks, I guess, or some more creative solution.
In the middle and in any open areas you can make them nice and open so there's lots of room to micro, since those spots don't really need a defender's advantage.
I don't know if most people find that it's a problem, but the double-high cliffs with pathable low ground directly behind them can create areas where it's hard to see units behind the cliffs. I'd recommend some medium-height doodads or some mid-level cliffs for a transition.
|
On October 31 2012 08:05 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 07:14 lorestarcraft wrote:On October 31 2012 06:56 Gfire wrote:I think it needs more use of choke points. The thirds and fourth bases are hard to hold without your entire army being there, because there's not a nice choke for defenders advantage. This results in kind of deathbally play. I think you could create some tighter chokes outside of the third, and reduce the size of the ramps going down into the low ground bases. + Show Spoiler +What about with these unpathable high grounds and smaller ramps? I might even consider 2x for those ramps. Typically I find a 3x small enough to make a large-army engagement pretty ugly (bad for spectating,) but not enough to discourage the attacker from going through there with a whole army. Of course, the defender also has to bring their army through one of those so it's a tough call. That's one of the hard things about 4p maps. You could try some partial block-off with rocks, I guess, or some more creative solution. In the middle and in any open areas you can make them nice and open so there's lots of room to micro, since those spots don't really need a defender's advantage. I don't know if most people find that it's a problem, but the double-high cliffs with pathable low ground directly behind them can create areas where it's hard to see units behind the cliffs. I'd recommend some medium-height doodads or some mid-level cliffs for a transition.
Are you talking about where the 3rd is next to the main?
|
On October 31 2012 01:28 EatThePath wrote:This is an updated version of my map from the NYU map jam, Genesis. Along with improved aesthetics, I added a new pathway to the semi-island to make it easier to attack a terran who floats an expansion to the island. It's a 1ramp with blue rocks on it. These are only 3k hp as opposed to the 4k hp black rocks. This way it's a liability to open for your own purposes but only beneficial when attacking by opening more routes into the enemy base. But it still doesn't open the 3rd entrance to your main -- the black rocks still have to die for that to be open. Any thoughts on the layout / balance / design? What bothers you aesthetically that I should prioritize updating?
@ aesthetics, One thing that I noticed was the mains are pointed on the corners but the other bases are very rounded. I feel like either they all should be sharp and pointy or they all should be rounded. But maybe that's just me.
I'm not sure I'm sold on the red bridges (I think it could be cool, but maybe this isn't the right time. the map already has a lot of goofy colors from the rocks :-P). But I like the other texturing.
|
On October 31 2012 09:29 lorestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:05 Gfire wrote:On October 31 2012 07:14 lorestarcraft wrote:On October 31 2012 06:56 Gfire wrote:I think it needs more use of choke points. The thirds and fourth bases are hard to hold without your entire army being there, because there's not a nice choke for defenders advantage. This results in kind of deathbally play. I think you could create some tighter chokes outside of the third, and reduce the size of the ramps going down into the low ground bases. + Show Spoiler +What about with these unpathable high grounds and smaller ramps? I might even consider 2x for those ramps. Typically I find a 3x small enough to make a large-army engagement pretty ugly (bad for spectating,) but not enough to discourage the attacker from going through there with a whole army. Of course, the defender also has to bring their army through one of those so it's a tough call. That's one of the hard things about 4p maps. You could try some partial block-off with rocks, I guess, or some more creative solution. In the middle and in any open areas you can make them nice and open so there's lots of room to micro, since those spots don't really need a defender's advantage. I don't know if most people find that it's a problem, but the double-high cliffs with pathable low ground directly behind them can create areas where it's hard to see units behind the cliffs. I'd recommend some medium-height doodads or some mid-level cliffs for a transition. Are you talking about where the 3rd is next to the main?
No, where the high-ground unpathable "walls" are next to the low ground bases.
|
On October 31 2012 10:15 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:29 lorestarcraft wrote:On October 31 2012 08:05 Gfire wrote:On October 31 2012 07:14 lorestarcraft wrote:On October 31 2012 06:56 Gfire wrote:I think it needs more use of choke points. The thirds and fourth bases are hard to hold without your entire army being there, because there's not a nice choke for defenders advantage. This results in kind of deathbally play. I think you could create some tighter chokes outside of the third, and reduce the size of the ramps going down into the low ground bases. + Show Spoiler +What about with these unpathable high grounds and smaller ramps? I might even consider 2x for those ramps. Typically I find a 3x small enough to make a large-army engagement pretty ugly (bad for spectating,) but not enough to discourage the attacker from going through there with a whole army. Of course, the defender also has to bring their army through one of those so it's a tough call. That's one of the hard things about 4p maps. You could try some partial block-off with rocks, I guess, or some more creative solution. In the middle and in any open areas you can make them nice and open so there's lots of room to micro, since those spots don't really need a defender's advantage. I don't know if most people find that it's a problem, but the double-high cliffs with pathable low ground directly behind them can create areas where it's hard to see units behind the cliffs. I'd recommend some medium-height doodads or some mid-level cliffs for a transition. Are you talking about where the 3rd is next to the main? No, where the high-ground unpathable "walls" are next to the low ground bases.
I added some doodading. I am starting to like its coming along.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Meant to post this before but forgot cuz of TL being down last night :O
Pushed the ramp that comes down inbetween the nat and 3rd back a little, and widened the path to the 3rd. Made a few other minor changes. Idk what else to change, maybe I'll call it "done" soon.
|
Hey guys here is my map. I just got access to the Beta, and have been plugging away at this for quite some time now. It is pretty close to done, but there are a few issues. What I really want to get is your opinions on the 3rds. As the easily defend able base is a 6mineral rich gas, where as the full 8 mineral base is much harder to hold. Anyway I hope you guys like it!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UKjFK.jpg)
Aesthetics: + Show Spoiler +
|
On November 01 2012 03:11 Veloh15 wrote:Hey guys here is my map. I just got access to the Beta, and have been plugging away at this for quite some time now. It is pretty close to done, but there are a few issues. What I really want to get is your opinions on the 3rds. As the easily defend able base is a 6mineral rich gas, where as the full 8 mineral base is much harder to hold. Anyway I hope you guys like it! + Show Spoiler +Aesthetics: + Show Spoiler +
I think the full third is far enough away from the opponent that you could take it as a third if you wanted to in some cases. The problem is that once you do that, you basically get the 6m base for free. Maybe make the 6m base a little easier to attack from the low ground behind it or add a drop pod so it gets harder to hold in some way.
I like the use of bridges. Make sure to think about the concaves on either side of a choke like that, and how open the space is on either side of a bridge to allow for a good arc. Same with ramps.
The mineral formations aren't very good, though.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 01 2012 03:21 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 03:11 Veloh15 wrote:Hey guys here is my map. I just got access to the Beta, and have been plugging away at this for quite some time now. It is pretty close to done, but there are a few issues. What I really want to get is your opinions on the 3rds. As the easily defend able base is a 6mineral rich gas, where as the full 8 mineral base is much harder to hold. Anyway I hope you guys like it! + Show Spoiler +Aesthetics: + Show Spoiler + I think the full third is far enough away from the opponent that you could take it as a third if you wanted to in some cases. The problem is that once you do that, you basically get the 6m base for free. Maybe make the 6m base a little easier to attack from the low ground behind it or add a drop pod so it gets harder to hold in some way. I like the use of bridges. Make sure to think about the concaves on either side of a choke like that, and how open the space is on either side of a bridge to allow for a good arc. Same with ramps. The mineral formations aren't very good, though.
Thanks for the feedback! My primary concern is that if I make the 6min base to hard to hold Zerg will just be strong with their mobility. But I do see what you mean by how free that becomes if the full mineral base is secured. In fact it kinda works backwards. Taking the small 3rd opens up alot of attack paths, but taking the full base first really secures alot of the map, while only having more space to cover. One other concern I have is that the back way into the large 3rd/4th is actually the safest attack route, as there is more space to move an army throught, although it leaves the aggressor very vulnerable to counter attacks.
|
On October 30 2012 10:58 Coppermantis wrote:
Burning Hatred
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.
I think this would be a fantastic 3v3 if you made some small changes. IMO the middle is too much reward for too little risk, too good for terran with all the gold minerals and siege friendly high ground. I'd rework the middle. Also, the bases in the Southeast / Northwest parts could definitely be more accessible. Right now its gonna be hard for all 3 players to get a natural expo up. I think that could be alleviated by making the distance to get from the main to those bases shorter, so its easier to reinforce from production in the main.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oi2Ju.jpg)
Any better?
|
How come no has attempted to create HOTS map?
Blizzard cracking down on people for making HOTS maps for WoL?
|
Work In Progress
To be Named...
Dun Dun Dun!
Does not have a Title yet,
Not really sure of the basic Idea, but obvious is not complete. Idea came from Destination(probably spelled it wrong) from BW. Not really sure where to place rocks, minerals etc. Took about 3-4 hours coming from basic blob, to a neat and tight-y map, then about 4 more hours to make everything the right size -_-.
Overviews:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ix0gK.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/otVjs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R0sRw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mmSR1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ae3Pu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KzBoT.jpg)
