|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
@NinjaDuckBob: A little better than the previous version, the idea of the easily wallable double entrance nat is interesting. -The mains are small and weird, expand them to fill the corners -The sequences of bases going down the sides are all too close to each other. I'd say remove one pair and spread the rest out, 12 bases is plenty. -Proportions are awkward, try to remove unnecessary tight corridors like the ones with the watchtowers, the gaps between the forward bases and the center hill, and the crevices in front of the 4/10 bases. This is the big one, there are a lot of other proportion problems that I can't really explain, just try comparing this to some of the well-known community maps such as the ones that made it on ladder.
|
@NinjaDuckBob:
Isnt the Main kinda too small for terran?
|
-- Made the mains bigger. -- Redesigned the sides of the map. -- Got rid of the 4/10 small paths. -- Am weary of making the gap between the center bases and hill airspace, tried it and I'm not sure if I want to restrict that path. Any suggestions or reasoning for that being a nonvalid concern?
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vY727X9.jpg)
was going for a remake of Lilac Unicorns, I feel like the layout it to standard to not already exist...
|
#1 is the weakest I think
|
your Country52797 Posts
#s 1 and 4 feel really similar so I'd get rid of one of them. #1 honestly feels like it would be better with a few tweaks (removing a base would be a good start...), but right now #4 is probably superior.
|
Have a couple specific questions about a very large 2p template I'm working on. (The few doodads are just a couple looks I'm messing with, but the ones near the main do tell you that the area around those geysers will be unpathable to reduce surface area to the main. May have to toy with the terrain a little there to make sure blink isn't too easy, but anyhow.)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOkMyx7.jpg)
My main concern is.. does zerg have a non terrible 3rd? I feel like it's fine for them assuming the rocks are down, and I think getting them down shouldn't be too bad considering they can walk their first queen down, inject the nat when it's up and then just work on the rocks the whole time (maybe throw the first couple lings at it as well, if needed). But wanted to hear it from a zerg.
Question 2 is @ the lowground expos at 4 and 10 oclock, are they pointless / redundant? I think the highground above them from your opponent's side kind of stretches the area you would have to defend, as opposed to just defending the nearby 4th. So even though they are close in proximity the range you would have to go to defend both is big. But maybe that base is too hard to defend in the first place and should just be deleted. Idk :-P
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2015 17:54 Fatam wrote:Have a couple specific questions about a very large 2p template I'm working on. (The few doodads are just a couple looks I'm messing with, but the ones near the main do tell you that the area around those geysers will be unpathable to reduce surface area to the main. May have to toy with the terrain a little there to make sure blink isn't too easy, but anyhow.) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOkMyx7.jpg) My main concern is.. does zerg have a non terrible 3rd? I feel like it's fine for them assuming the rocks are down, and I think getting them down shouldn't be too bad considering they can walk their first queen down, inject the nat when it's up and then just work on the rocks the whole time (maybe throw the first couple lings at it as well, if needed). But wanted to hear it from a zerg. Question 2 is @ the lowground expos at 4 and 10 oclock, are they pointless / redundant? I think the highground above them from your opponent's side kind of stretches the area you would have to defend, as opposed to just defending the nearby 4th. So even though they are close in proximity the range you would have to go to defend both is big. But maybe that base is too hard to defend in the first place and should just be deleted. Idk :-P I'm a Zerg player! :D
In my opinion, the third base is quite difficult to secure for a few reasons. Firstly, even if the queen at the natural works on the rocks non-stop (even with lings), you can't really defend the third whilst it is being constructed and the lings aren't being used for scouting, securing watchtowers, getting in the main to see what your opponent is doing, etc - which is what we build our 4 - 6 early zerglings for. Also, with the rocks where they are, the fairly standard (but already risky) 3 hatch before pool build order is virtually impossible because you cannot defend the third adequately when it is so far away before the rocks are destroyed (especially with the high ground cliff that allows early reapers to attack virtually non-stop).
It could work the way it is, but it would change Zerg play a lot I think, like when the third base on a map is really open, Protoss will almost always do some sort of 2 base timing. If Zerg can't get one more base than it's opponent, we have to do some serious damage to them (and then behind that we can break the rocks, so that would work).
I would suggest blocking (either with rocks or by removing the ramps) all of the other entrances to the third and then removing the rocks from the natural to the third (maybe widen that ramp that goes from the natural to the third too). That way, you get a feasible third that the other races can take easily too because it is an "in-natural" third, and it makes the high ground cliff make more sense. However, later in the game, it can be opened up to the way it is now allowing for massive attacks on both the natural and third. That would create some interesting play around those bases, though then you might need to open the high ground up a bit - think of a Protoss deathball there data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
About the low ground expansions, I do not think that they are pointless, but they seem very chokey, and I do not really think I can see and Zerg player securing them properly until the base above them is protected. But that's just really my opinion data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
Btw: I am only Platinum league but I consistently beat diamond/masters players when I do go and "ladder" (i prefer mapping now) data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
Hope I helped! And well done with such a unique design!
Edit: I really think that the bases above and below the mains (like plausible fourths) are really cool because if you do not spread yourself very thin, that base is available for your opponent (and vice versa).
|
Looking for help!
Not Named.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v4lvVIn.jpg)
Middle: + Show Spoiler +
Main To Main: Cross: 50s in game Adjacent: 45s in game
I think the Layout is solid. However the third looks a little too far. Before anyone ask the purpose of the half minerals/gasses in the middle were to give it some spice. (I liked how the ramps were and proportions but a full base didnt work out.) So it wouldn't be boring or uninteresting. As it is a 4 player map I felt that there also enough bases to begin with and so adding 4 half bases might be good idea.
As for a question I need help making the doodads, the decals and space decals, appear in-game currently not working :/
|
your Country52797 Posts
Rush distances look really close, what are they? @Rukis
|
On April 18 2015 08:56 The_Templar wrote: Rush distances look really close, what are they? @Rukis
well Cross spawned its 50 in-game seconds and adjacent its 45 in-game seconds.
|
On April 18 2015 08:21 LComteVarauG wrote:+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2015 17:54 Fatam wrote:Have a couple specific questions about a very large 2p template I'm working on. (The few doodads are just a couple looks I'm messing with, but the ones near the main do tell you that the area around those geysers will be unpathable to reduce surface area to the main. May have to toy with the terrain a little there to make sure blink isn't too easy, but anyhow.) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOkMyx7.jpg) My main concern is.. does zerg have a non terrible 3rd? I feel like it's fine for them assuming the rocks are down, and I think getting them down shouldn't be too bad considering they can walk their first queen down, inject the nat when it's up and then just work on the rocks the whole time (maybe throw the first couple lings at it as well, if needed). But wanted to hear it from a zerg. Question 2 is @ the lowground expos at 4 and 10 oclock, are they pointless / redundant? I think the highground above them from your opponent's side kind of stretches the area you would have to defend, as opposed to just defending the nearby 4th. So even though they are close in proximity the range you would have to go to defend both is big. But maybe that base is too hard to defend in the first place and should just be deleted. Idk :-P I'm a Zerg player! :D In my opinion, the third base is quite difficult to secure for a few reasons. Firstly, even if the queen at the natural works on the rocks non-stop (even with lings), you can't really defend the third whilst it is being constructed and the lings aren't being used for scouting, securing watchtowers, getting in the main to see what your opponent is doing, etc - which is what we build our 4 - 6 early zerglings for. Also, with the rocks where they are, the fairly standard (but already risky) 3 hatch before pool build order is virtually impossible because you cannot defend the third adequately when it is so far away before the rocks are destroyed (especially with the high ground cliff that allows early reapers to attack virtually non-stop). It could work the way it is, but it would change Zerg play a lot I think, like when the third base on a map is really open, Protoss will almost always do some sort of 2 base timing. If Zerg can't get one more base than it's opponent, we have to do some serious damage to them (and then behind that we can break the rocks, so that would work). I would suggest blocking (either with rocks or by removing the ramps) all of the other entrances to the third and then removing the rocks from the natural to the third (maybe widen that ramp that goes from the natural to the third too). That way, you get a feasible third that the other races can take easily too because it is an "in-natural" third, and it makes the high ground cliff make more sense. However, later in the game, it can be opened up to the way it is now allowing for massive attacks on both the natural and third. That would create some interesting play around those bases, though then you might need to open the high ground up a bit - think of a Protoss deathball there data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" About the low ground expansions, I do not think that they are pointless, but they seem very chokey, and I do not really think I can see and Zerg player securing them properly until the base above them is protected. But that's just really my opinion data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Btw: I am only Platinum league but I consistently beat diamond/masters players when I do go and "ladder" (i prefer mapping now) data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Hope I helped! And well done with such a unique design! Edit: I really think that the bases above and below the mains (like plausible fourths) are really cool because if you do not spread yourself very thin, that base is available for your opponent (and vice versa).
Thanks for the detailed reply. I suppose it does almost remove double hatch first as a build, which I don't like since my map philosophy is pretty much the opposite (I want as many builds as possible to be viable).
I made an alternate version which makes the 3rd easier for Z. along with a couple other ideas. I'm afraid it's now too good of a zerg map with how open it is, how large it is, and the # of bases.. but maybe it's ok. Let me know which you guys think is better.
original + Show Spoiler +
vs.
alternate + Show Spoiler +
The big rocks are designed to be dynamic, i.e. it will not always be the attacker who wants to kill them. The mineral line/geyser @ the 3rd is only able to be hit by tanks/colossi but if you had an army sharking above your 3rd with said units in it (or maybe just a T bio army who is elevatoring up and down the cliff to harass) it would be beneficial to kill the rocks so you could get up there and flank/trap them. Also once you take your 4th you will of course want those rocks dead.
I worry that the alt version makes the optional 3rd below the main a lot harder to take.. it's pretty much not an optional 3rd anymore (which might be ok given how cancerous mech is atm and how much mech would love that 3rd.. but kinda sucks for P who would probably take that base in some matchups). Maybe a collapsible rock tower to enclose it once you take it could make it still viable as a 3rd, idk.
|
Hello! Map name:Xanadu
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CzJkQo4.jpg)
Size:172x172. Main to Main(worker): 71 Blizzeconds cross, 57 horizontal/vertical. By all means, give feedback.
|
@Zweck; U R kinda right, but I think my MAPS at the current stage aren't toooooo big. They are just big.
At Mapximum-Contest 2 was a description: 2 Player Maps - 140x140 +-40 (180x100 possible) 3 Player Maps - 170x170 +-10 (180x160 possible)
So I submitted Aparus (164x112) AND also I submitted it at TLMC5 :-).
The Feedback I got was: - Aparus is too shrinked down - Ways are mostly too narrow - When rocks in the middle were destroyed, the path to enemie's (4th) base is very short.
So, I fixed all this on Aparus. I hope I did well. --- Still tweaking around and doing stylzzzzz... :-) Afterwards I will submit...
Here a CaNdY from Aparus E: APA E4_SCREENSHOT1_4TH_BASE_QM_AND_MIDDLE
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vlH2Ct7.jpg)
@Zweck again :-) ; I like your maps. Number 3 is my favorite :-)
PAcE Welpax
|
On April 18 2015 14:03 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 08:21 LComteVarauG wrote:+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2015 17:54 Fatam wrote:Have a couple specific questions about a very large 2p template I'm working on. (The few doodads are just a couple looks I'm messing with, but the ones near the main do tell you that the area around those geysers will be unpathable to reduce surface area to the main. May have to toy with the terrain a little there to make sure blink isn't too easy, but anyhow.) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOkMyx7.jpg) My main concern is.. does zerg have a non terrible 3rd? I feel like it's fine for them assuming the rocks are down, and I think getting them down shouldn't be too bad considering they can walk their first queen down, inject the nat when it's up and then just work on the rocks the whole time (maybe throw the first couple lings at it as well, if needed). But wanted to hear it from a zerg. Question 2 is @ the lowground expos at 4 and 10 oclock, are they pointless / redundant? I think the highground above them from your opponent's side kind of stretches the area you would have to defend, as opposed to just defending the nearby 4th. So even though they are close in proximity the range you would have to go to defend both is big. But maybe that base is too hard to defend in the first place and should just be deleted. Idk :-P I'm a Zerg player! :D In my opinion, the third base is quite difficult to secure for a few reasons. Firstly, even if the queen at the natural works on the rocks non-stop (even with lings), you can't really defend the third whilst it is being constructed and the lings aren't being used for scouting, securing watchtowers, getting in the main to see what your opponent is doing, etc - which is what we build our 4 - 6 early zerglings for. Also, with the rocks where they are, the fairly standard (but already risky) 3 hatch before pool build order is virtually impossible because you cannot defend the third adequately when it is so far away before the rocks are destroyed (especially with the high ground cliff that allows early reapers to attack virtually non-stop). It could work the way it is, but it would change Zerg play a lot I think, like when the third base on a map is really open, Protoss will almost always do some sort of 2 base timing. If Zerg can't get one more base than it's opponent, we have to do some serious damage to them (and then behind that we can break the rocks, so that would work). I would suggest blocking (either with rocks or by removing the ramps) all of the other entrances to the third and then removing the rocks from the natural to the third (maybe widen that ramp that goes from the natural to the third too). That way, you get a feasible third that the other races can take easily too because it is an "in-natural" third, and it makes the high ground cliff make more sense. However, later in the game, it can be opened up to the way it is now allowing for massive attacks on both the natural and third. That would create some interesting play around those bases, though then you might need to open the high ground up a bit - think of a Protoss deathball there data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" About the low ground expansions, I do not think that they are pointless, but they seem very chokey, and I do not really think I can see and Zerg player securing them properly until the base above them is protected. But that's just really my opinion data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Btw: I am only Platinum league but I consistently beat diamond/masters players when I do go and "ladder" (i prefer mapping now) data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Hope I helped! And well done with such a unique design! Edit: I really think that the bases above and below the mains (like plausible fourths) are really cool because if you do not spread yourself very thin, that base is available for your opponent (and vice versa). Thanks for the detailed reply. I suppose it does almost remove double hatch first as a build, which I don't like since my map philosophy is pretty much the opposite (I want as many builds as possible to be viable). I made an alternate version which makes the 3rd easier for Z. along with a couple other ideas. I'm afraid it's now too good of a zerg map with how open it is, how large it is, and the # of bases.. but maybe it's ok. Let me know which you guys think is better. original + Show Spoiler +vs. alternate + Show Spoiler +The big rocks are designed to be dynamic, i.e. it will not always be the attacker who wants to kill them. The mineral line/geyser @ the 3rd is only able to be hit by tanks/colossi but if you had an army sharking above your 3rd with said units in it (or maybe just a T bio army who is elevatoring up and down the cliff to harass) it would be beneficial to kill the rocks so you could get up there and flank/trap them. Also once you take your 4th you will of course want those rocks dead. I worry that the alt version makes the optional 3rd below the main a lot harder to take.. it's pretty much not an optional 3rd anymore (which might be ok given how cancerous mech is atm and how much mech would love that 3rd.. but kinda sucks for P who would probably take that base in some matchups). Maybe a collapsible rock tower to enclose it once you take it could make it still viable as a 3rd, idk.
What if you tried this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jkQpAS0.jpg) I have used that kind of natural/third setup on a few of my maps and I found it encourages macro games whilst leaving many strategies viable (though you might want to fiddle around with the ramps and things to balance it). Perhaps make the backdoor ramps (to either the natural or third) wider, or put in a rock tower in place of one of the rocks.
|
interesting but I think that is kind of a brute force fix, not sure I want that many rocks. I see what you mean though. Gonna think on it some more while I fiddle with other templates
|
Frostburn 172x164
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bkDoii0.png)
First of all, here is an update on the progress of frostburn. I changed up the center of the map quite a bit with more high and low ground differences as well as some destructable rocks at the potential third.
The next map (unnamed as of yet) will be my second entry for for the TLMC6. It is a 2 player map with some interesting layout and use of destructable rocks, or at least I hope it is interesting.
Unnamed 2 player map 180x132
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/06GfDMy.png)
Feedback on the layout of both maps would be appreciated before I start doodading and polishing them up.
|
On the second one-
Nat-nat distance is very short with the rocks down, and the 3rd base is to easy IMO. Your forward 4th is way to close to your opponent, and your other option is quite far away. This will be a huge problem for zerg,
|
@JPR: I like frostburn better this way. its more tactical than the previous version. @Xanadu: Make sure that u cant siege naturals gas from the 4th base, but i think its ok, just not sure data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt=""
Another pretty standard straight forward layout by me. god i have no idea which ones to pick for TLMC6, i got some more in production :D what do u think about this one?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RtjwLfJ.jpg)
|
|
|
|