EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 178
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
| ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
On July 29 2015 11:26 -NegativeZero- wrote: oxide by freakling? seems everyone's remaking this map now, iezael's working on one, and i have wip versions for both starbow and regular sc2... Yup, it looked really good in my head but the proportions are much harder to convert from BW. Probably will just start over with a smoother layout. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On July 30 2015 03:09 EatThePath wrote: @sweden / others: the center would be a lot less boring if there was a small trench running north/south creating two alleys in the middle, making mobility better on the highgrounds and separating the lowground slightly into two camps. But the 4th base is laughably easy, you'll need to think hard about what to push around to fix that. agreed with all of this. most of the bases here are more clumped together than on the original map due to how you rearranged the pathing, i think you went a little too far with that. regarding the center, you could go one step further than eatthepath's suggestion and re-add the tiny center choke from the original map, which further splits the low-grounds and basically forces full armies to move around the high ground platforms. this is an extremely important part of how the original map functions. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
[edit] imagine if the narrow passage in the middle were just impassable, which is what it becomes in a lot of large army movement time/position-sensitive situations. then look at the analyzer view of the map. it's a giant split path. this is what I'm suggesting you avoid by providing an interesting and playable balance. | ||
|
Caviar
70 Posts
Pictures + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IY3rTjv.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TLTDcAa.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jyggT8U.jpg) edit: Added Overview. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
If you just wanted feedback on the aesthetics, it looks good, but I'd blend the rock textures more. It doesn't look very natural. As for the layout, that's a lot of bases in close proximity to the main, if I'm reading the pictures right. Not sure how I feel about that kind of backdoor. | ||
|
Caviar
70 Posts
On August 02 2015 06:18 SwedenTheKid wrote: @Caviar If you just wanted feedback on the aesthetics, it looks good, but I'd blend the rock textures more. It doesn't look very natural. As for the layout, that's a lot of bases in close proximity to the main, if I'm reading the pictures right. Not sure how I feel about that kind of backdoor. Sorry about that the overview picture didnt make the original post. I re posted it. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K5n4pxG.jpg) Micro Map...Experimental...135x135...so many viruses on computer...feedback please ;-; | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
Reminds me of an And G map, personally never liked the backdoor expo setup. That's just my subjective opinion however. Symmetry may lead to positional imbalance due to how close the backdoor 3rds are to the counterclockwise naturals. I'd recommend checking out some of And G's maps with this sort of setup, he does it pretty well imo. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On August 02 2015 13:22 SwedenTheKid wrote: + Show Spoiler + Micro Map...Experimental...135x135...so many viruses on computer...feedback please ;-; overall i like it, although the direct path from 3rd to 3rd through the center might be too choked. just be aware that the low base count pretty much rules it out as a potential lotv ladder candidate. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
Elohim 136x136 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xTqZG5N.jpg) Untitled work 144x144 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OqhDouk.jpg) | ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9kyYvOw.jpg) size: 120x144 nat2nat: 43s highground pods near the nat and third are unpathable. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
I like it but how distant is the high ground 3rd? The low ground one is far to open to serve as a 3rd base. Outside of that I really like the contrast between open areas and chokes. | ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
On August 10 2015 01:20 SwedenTheKid wrote: @Namrufus I like it but how distant is the high ground 3rd? The low ground one is far to open to serve as a 3rd base. Outside of that I really like the contrast between open areas and chokes. It's about as far as Iron Fortress's thirds, but less exposed... though this map's nat-third takes 3 tumors to connect, which is probably unacceptable. I'll move the main's mineral line closer to the ramp and bump the third a little closer to the nat in order to reduce the tumor requirement. Something like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cGPSML8.jpg) thanks for the feedback. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On August 10 2015 02:56 Namrufus wrote: It's about as far as Iron Fortress's thirds, but less exposed... though this map's nat-third takes 3 tumors to connect, which is probably unacceptable. I'll move the main's mineral line closer to the ramp and bump the third a little closer to the nat in order to reduce the tumor requirement. Something like this: thanks for the feedback. idk if it helps given the geometry in this case, but another thing you can do is use a very small vertical/horizontal ramp (2 squares wide) to allow creep to exit the main in the direction of the 3rd. and then make the ramp unpathable and cover it with doodads so it otherwise functions normally as a cliff barrier. about the map, I like the design concepts but I'm worried that 4th base might be pretty hard for zerg, they can either take middle (very close to opponent taking a passive macro 4th right across from them), or the other options are both far to get to and close to opponent's push. @swedenthekid: the rock/sand map is cool. 2 things: imo some of those passage ways near the natural are unnecessarily tight, just reduce the size of the holes jutting in. also I think it'd be cool if the middle hallway was lowground (you'd have to bump the entirety of the map up 1 cliff level to do this). this would create a small ramp where those bridges are now. would add a lot of shape to the map. it has a very cool flow, but would probably benefit from being just a little bigger overall. that would also provide some places to put negative space for overlords / air units. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
As for the size, it will be increased a bit with the addition of playable bounds and not just absolute bounds. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
 | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On August 10 2015 11:26 SwedenTheKid wrote: Thanks for the feedback EatThePath. As for making the middle area low ground, don't know if I will, but could you elaborate? Do you mean there should be only two ramps leading into the middle? Wouldn't that make huge dead zones with only one straight path through the middle? Also, is a 10 hex natural entrance acceptable (a complete wall could consist of 3 gateways and one zealot)? I once heard the normal size of a natural's entrance was 9 hexes. As for the size, it will be increased a bit with the addition of playable bounds and not just absolute bounds. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/10yU1fk.png) The lowground would have 4 ramps, two large ones vertically oriented. Hopefully the drawing is clear ^^ Nat choke is good at 9-10 or even larger depending on the particulars, so that's fine. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HUAzKte.jpg)
