Avoid cardinal ramps ; too chokey in the middle ; fourth are basically impossible to take for Zergs which is a huge flaw ; third bases are absurdly easy to take and defend in the / positions, and even in the \ positions to be fair. Are you a mech player, out of curiosity? d:

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 12 2015 09:13 GMT

#3383

What is the problem with the cardinal ramps by the way? they (here) take exakt the same amount of structures to wall off, and why should you avoid them in general?

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

April 12 2015 09:19 GMT

#3384

They are harder to see than non-cardinal on some tilesets, and more importantly you can't wall them off properly. Mid-map you can put some if there are no other ways, see Uvantak's Echo, but as far as main/nat/third are concerned they should never be used.

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 12 2015 09:55 GMT

#3385

I dont get this, srsly. U can wall them wall really easily, i just seems like a strange convention to me, people are just not USED to wall them off, so they find it awkward, but is works just fine:

KLICK:

+ Show Spoiler +

+ Show Spoiler +

I understand that there might be a problem with the first one, since its even chokier than than small diagonal one, but the second one should be just fine. Is it maybe, that its TOO EASY to wall of? with one building?

Okay maybe these are the problems with them, the first one is too chokey, the 2nd ine is too easy to wall off :D
They are both actually easier to wall of. U could make a full wall off with one Depot and one Rax for example wich would actually be bad. I see.
But i think some people dont even really know what they are doing when NOT using cardinal ramps and why.

And it gives some graphical issues by the way, (partly "flying" gate/rax) i noticed

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

April 12 2015 10:24 GMT

#3386

Well

On March 14 2015 12:28 Uvantak wrote:
That is because cardinal ramps are awfully unclear for someone reading a map, specially vertical ramps (horiz ramps not so much), have different dimensions than diagonal ramps, meaning that they can't be walled off correctly without players knowing the footprint of it, and they also look ugly from a aesthetics point of view.

In general it is better to try stay away from them if you can avoid it.

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 12 2015 13:09 GMT

#3387

"unclear for someone reading a map"
"without players knowing the footprint of it"

sounds pretty ambigous to me. So people just got used to diagonal ones i guess and now they cant "read a map" with cardinal ones and forgot the footprint of it.
Doesnt sound theyre bad in general to me. But anyway, theres still the things i pointed out and i agree to the "looking ugly" part ;-)

I mean im not saying you should be using them all the time or so, but i think its absolutely ok to have on in there every now and then, and why not trying it as a main ramp. People propably have to think about some new ways to wall, and maybe theres gonna be a cool new meta on the map or early game strategies, why not try. But I mean, im kinda new to sc2 mapmaking, so just saying.

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

April 12 2015 17:26 GMT

#3388

@Phoenix Law: Make sure your main ramps are 1-width, not 2-width, so that early walling is possible.

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 13 2015 10:29 GMT

#3389

Does nobody have a small comment on one of these two WIPs? :/

On April 12 2015 05:16 Zweck wrote:
hello, im currently working on these two maps, pls give me some feedback, i started making sc2 maps pretty much just after TLMC5, so i dont know too much about some no goes and stuff, and im just plat

And i dont really know how to properly use LoS Blockers, kinda unsure about them.

So, first one:

+ Show Spoiler +

2nd one:

+ Show Spoiler +

everythings pretty WIP of course (texturing and such)

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 13 2015 10:33 GMT

#3390

I already made some changes to the 2nd one:

MarcusRife

343 Posts

April 13 2015 15:48 GMT

#3391

Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +

MarcusRife

343 Posts

April 13 2015 16:04 GMT

#3392

On April 13 2015 19:33 Zweck wrote:
I already made some changes to the 2nd one:

They are both slightly larger than is standard. Therefore if you choose to make them larger you need a good reason to do so. That is what does the larger dimensions do for the map that couldn't be done with smaller dimensions and is what it does for the map interesting.

The first one has its bases too clumped together. A player can basically sit in one spot and defend most of his bases. This is not interesting.

The second one suffers from circle syndrome. You can read up on the topic here.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/304777-circle-syndrome

and here.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/304484-map-design-understanding-circle-syndrome

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 13 2015 18:04 GMT

#3393

okay, thx for the link. interesting

NinjaDuckBob

186 Posts

April 14 2015 05:03 GMT

#3394

Tentative name: Paths of Peril

Playable bounds: 108x164

Good and bad about it? (besides the highly unfinished aesthetics)

[image loading]

SidianTheBard

United States2475 Posts

April 14 2015 05:31 GMT

#3395

@Ninja

The base setup itself isn't too bad but there are many problems imo.

The two biggest problems imo are:

1)Tons of surfarce area on the main means certain strategies (blink, elevator play) could be very strong and thus only promote those types of strategies.

2)The pathing/flow around the map is just so restricted. You either move up the left or right side and you just stay on that path the entire way most likely. If you want to move from the left to the right you either take the one single narrow path in the direct middle or you walk all the way back to your base. You really need to get more places in the map that you can move around and setup flanks if needed. Currently, you're just going to have two armies clashing down a collumn 24/7 which isn't enjoyable to play, or watch. I think increasing it horizontally would help as well, would give you a lot more room to play around with bases and attack paths.

Look @ the map right above you by MarcusRife, you see how there are many different flanking paths plus a lot of the higher ground paths will touch the lower ground paths allowing cliffwalking as well as harass from high to low or vice versa. To hold 3base on Marcus's map you basically have to defend 4 different points, which is enjoyable because it means there is army movement, harass opportunities and it won't just be a turtle most likely. Looking back at your map, you can basically hold X number of bases with just 2 paths. Hold a watch tower and park your army at the other path and you're golden!

Good luck sir!

WELPAX

Switzerland21 Posts

April 15 2015 00:25 GMT

#3396

Hi :-)

I've been mapping a lot lately... got around 15 maps under construction. So, here are 4 MAPS:

APARUS E
+ Show Spoiler +

Angled

Top Down

X-ray

Eye Of Taram
+ Show Spoiler +

Angled

Top Down

X-ray

Lentum Zion
+ Show Spoiler +

Angled

Top Down

X-ray

Radum Brix
+ Show Spoiler +

Angled

Top Down

X-ray
( Somehow I can't save this file! - Analyzer crashes everytime after a clixk on the save button! :-( )

I might submit 3 of them on TLMC6.... but till then changes will occur :-)

PaCe
Welpax

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

April 15 2015 01:00 GMT

#3397

guys pls help me decide: which ones better?

1:

+ Show Spoiler +

2:

+ Show Spoiler +

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

April 15 2015 01:02 GMT

#3398

Zweck, I think I like the first one better. Those center bases in the second one seem unnecessary and you already have 14 bases.

I would remove the rock towers at the horizontal fourth base though.