@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.

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

July 29 2015 18:21 GMT

#3544

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

July 30 2015 02:16 GMT

#3545

Thanks guys, I'm a step ahead of you concerning my WIP, just struggling with the placement of the 4th/5th without creating massive deadzones. What are people's opinions on the super small choke to the 4th in the original Oxide being implemented in sc2? Good for positional play or a bad idea?

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

July 30 2015 03:36 GMT

#3546

imo if you make it too small / restrictive, it'll just lead to runby/basetrade type play. I think you want a balance where it's usable unless an opponent is dedicating forces to making your passage too hard.

[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

August 01 2015 21:07 GMT

#3547

Here is a couple screenshots from an unnamed project I have been working on. Its near complete I just wanted to show what I have so far.

Pictures
+ Show Spoiler +

edit: Added Overview.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

August 01 2015 21:18 GMT

#3548

@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.

Caviar

70 Posts

August 01 2015 21:48 GMT

#3549

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

August 02 2015 04:22 GMT

#3550

Micro Map...Experimental...135x135...so many viruses on computer...feedback please ;-;

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

August 02 2015 06:01 GMT

#3551

@Caviar
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

August 06 2015 01:32 GMT

#3552

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

August 09 2015 01:33 GMT

#3553

Elohim was just a fun retro map that I made to practice aesthetics and create a semi-serious micro map for WoL and HotS. Also, the map plays a lot with towers and LoSB. The second WIP was an attempt to make a map with a forward high ground 3rd. Advice? Either map worth working on, or any good concepts?

Elohim 136x136

Untitled work 144x144

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

August 09 2015 16:07 GMT

#3554

What do you think?

[image loading]

size: 120x144
nat2nat: 43s

highground pods near the nat and third are unpathable.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

August 09 2015 16:20 GMT

#3555

@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.

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

August 09 2015 17:56 GMT

#3556

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]

thanks for the feedback.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

August 09 2015 18:14 GMT

#3557

On August 10 2015 02:56 Namrufus wrote:

Show nested quote +

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

August 10 2015 02:26 GMT

#3558

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.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

August 11 2015 00:07 GMT

#3559

Namrufus, why not just put a neutral creep tumor in between the natural and 3rd (in front of the main base). Just an idea. Probably a bad one

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

August 11 2015 02:00 GMT

#3560

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.

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.