|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
@The_Templar & SwedenTheKid:
Yeah, Match Point was kinda the inspiration. I wanted to have ambigious third bases that give you a choice (and impact the game) and I wanted strong highgrounds where players would want to position their armies. Something that you want to take control of.
I took your advice and created these two versions, which one do you guys think is better? Are the rocks in the center too much? (Natural can be walled off with 3 gateways and 1 zealot)
Version A
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uUTpwts.jpg?1)
Version B
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GjgDxbT.jpg?1)
I personally prefer Version A since it gives even more importances on the high ground pods.
Thanks for the feedback.
|
@sweden: Looking good, i like the new version better.
@mush: Rocks in middle make a completely split path? That makes cool XNT dynamics but not very fun defending imo. You could just place two rocks with a small gap where each large diagonal rock is, creating similar tower dynamics and strategic chokepoints early game.
I would also pull the 3rd base just a little closer, put destructible unbuildable plates on the gold, and redesign the vertical corner 4th base so it depends on the highground more for defense. Right now (given SC2 mobility) it's really easy for attacker to just go lowground edge and swoop in. Maybe if the ramp to the midground was super narrow (like matchpoint kinda).
@caviar: Very cool, love the towers, but I think there should be a sneak path through mid or something. I'd like to see the vertical lowground base (4th) moved much closer so it can be a potential 3rd. The rocks could be turned into diagonal long rocks to block the ramp and the alternate nat choke. Gives the map so much more potential in all stages of the game and doesn't really cause any "clumping" problems because the walk distance is still quite large, requiring forward defensive stance or map control to have the upper and lower base simultaneously.
|
Here is yet another version. I opened the map up a little bit more and put even more emphasis on the high ground. The rocks in the middle now have a small gap, big enough for marines, zerglings, zealots, etc.
I also put bigger rocks at the natural ramp to make it easier to wall off since there are 2 entrances.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oc5sXM9.jpg)
Is this an improvement? Should I move the vertical 3rd closer to the natural?
|
if you want it to be a valid option for a 3rd then yes it should be slightly closer, right now the vertical 3rd is clearly the better option. also the cliff to the main is probably too exposed, blink's going to be OP here.
|
On August 17 2015 10:45 -NegativeZero- wrote:
if you want it to be a valid option for a 3rd then yes it should be slightly closer, right now the vertical 3rd is clearly the better option. also the cliff to the main is probably too exposed, blink's going to be OP here.
My idea is that the vertical 3rd may be good for protoss and terran, but as a zerg you might want to take the horizontal 3rd. If the defender has his army positioned at the vertical 3rd, and the enemy is pushing from the high ground plateau, it would take the defender ages to do a flanking attack. You would have to push around the center, knock down the rocks, go up the highground and then back into your 3rd.
So as a zerg you may want to take the horizontal 3rd because there is so much open space around it. You can easily flank enemies and force fields become very weak at that position.
But as a protoss and terran you can wall off the vertical 3rd and later move out to take the highground for a 4th / 5th.
What do you think?
|
Hi everybody !
Here is my first melee map ! I'm quite proud of it, but i'd like to know what you think about it ^^ Is it balance for you ? Is there too much big area ? What do you enjoy/dislike on this map ?
Oh and i'm only working on the terrain for now, so it's normal if there is no texture/doodads ^^
Thank you !
Oh and sorry for my english, i'm french ^^
![[image loading]](http://nsa37.casimages.com/img/2015/08/25//150825023416263707.png)
|
On August 10 2015 03:14 EatThePath wrote:+ Show Spoiler [snip] +On August 10 2015 02:56 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Hey thanks for the feedback ETP. Ehhh... I'm feeling ambivalent about this map now, I'm just gonna shelve it.
|
Hello everyone. Have been experimenting with some more abstract layouts as well as Brood War remakes. This one was something I sketched up yesterday, its 152x152, with all 4 spawn positions enabled.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pd0k2MU.png)
|
Awesome! Reminds me of Outsider.
While I love the two-sided mineral lines, they're problematic with warp-ins. Outsider had the outside paths completely isolated from the center, if you try that same idea here and remove the bridges to the center, then you won't have to worry about that. Alternatively, it may not even be that big of a problem.
Or you could go all in and just add four more bases on the bridges to the outsides with mineral lines that block paths.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wYCHsh6.jpg)
Feel like this is getting closer so I started doing some light texture work just to get a feel of where I'm going.
Was wondering if you guys thought it would be a good idea to make the middle bases gold (if so I would probably put unbuildable plates or rocks to prevent early gold cheese)? To be clear the bases I mean are the middle ones that are nearer the mains.
|
@Antares777
Yes, it is based off of outsider. And thank you, glad you like it. If I removed the bridges to the mineral walls from the center, the map would become far to easy to turtle on 4 bases (3 bases of gas). With ground access, it becomes more important which pocket base you choose (the one more distant from your enemy first). Fixing the warp-in problem would be simple with the addition of unbuildable plates/ground outside the mineral walls, but as you said, it may not be such a big issue.
@Fatam
Those bases could be gold, and I would add unbuildable rocks. The only issue I see is the bases being mined out early on therefore removing some tactical importance to that location. Maybe not that big a deal, just a thought.
|
Nice Fatam, I like that layout. Think the mid bases would be better suited as golds if they were a bit more open. think they're good as is.
By the way, LotV just screams for more experimentation with in-base naturals and quasi in-base naturals like those seen in GSL Crevasse and Mammoth. I have had a thought for a while where you'd have an inbase natural where in order to take it, you'd have to open up a backdoor. Would be tough to implement though.
|
Ok, been a while. Think I've improved the layout a good deal. Made it bigger to make cheese harder as well as increase the nat to nat time. bounds are 160x160(playable)
Edit-
This map is made with consideration for LotV.
Farthest Outpost
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LsvWMK9.png)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
This is a Starbow concept;
The problem with 4 player Starbow maps is that often they fall into the "Fighting Spirit" syndrome. Since in SB/BW, your expansions tend to not expand aggressively, it's hard to keep bases near the player without just putting them on the edge (see Circuit Breaker, Fighting Spirit, Luna, etc).
My goal with this was to avoid maps that look like Fighting Spirit.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A2O79n6.png)
Bounds are 144x148
|
you should adjust the main/nat position so the main minerals aren't siegeable from the low ground.
also if it's a rotational 4p how are the bounds not a perfect square?
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eSwJSmP.jpg)
Updated;
I recognized more of a siege problem from the third rather than the natural, so I added some walls. Moved the bases slightly more centered (some were a little off, like the bottom left natural).
And I don't understand the question NZ.
|
my first starbow WIP… ok well its really just a port of Oxide. But I didn't see any other posts of the map, let alone for starbow. Again, this is my first SB map attempt, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Bounds are 152x152, but the actual map is a bit smaller than that (maybe 145x145). The main has 8 min, 1 gas, but all the other bases have 7 min, 1 gas, aside from the mineral only base, which has 6 minerals. I'm not sure if this was a starbow thing or if it was just a BW/sc2BW layout. Can easily change.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VplPdfm.png)
|
This is a nice map!
We've seen a trend in newer Starbow maps that they are getting bigger and bigger. I really dislike that and this is a nice return to a smaller map.
The only "non-Starbow" parts on this map is the bases in the "middle" and how small the nat choke is (since you can make tight walls in Starbow much easier than in BW, the nat chokes are usually 4,5 tiles wide, but this is not a rule without exceptions).
I assume that the BW original had the middle bases as well and since the rest of the bases on this map are quite easy to defend, I think they could work here.
Glad to see others making Starbow maps (lol, how many are making SB compared to SC2 maps at this time? It almost seems 50/50)
|
On September 14 2015 14:19 Xiphias wrote:
This is a nice map!
We've seen a trend in newer Starbow maps that they are getting bigger and bigger. I really dislike that and this is a nice return to a smaller map.
The only "non-Starbow" parts on this map is the bases in the "middle" and how small the nat choke is (since you can make tight walls in Starbow much easier than in BW, the nat chokes are usually 4,5 tiles wide, but this is not a rule without exceptions).
I assume that the BW original had the middle bases as well and since the rest of the bases on this map are quite easy to defend, I think they could work here.
Glad to see others making Starbow maps (lol, how many are making SB compared to SC2 maps at this time? It almost seems 50/50)
Thank you! I'm glad I'm off to a good start. I was actually hopping to get a bit more criticism, since I have a few issues of my own with the layout. Specifically, you would always expand vertically to the main-side 3rd and the enclosed main-side 4th in the original, and I wanted to encourage players to do that and not always take the horizontal 3rd. I also am not sure if the map needs the mineral only 3rds, but removing them would force players to expand horizontally, which I'm not a huge fan of (I really want the enclosed bases and near high ground to come into play).
Should I keep the mineral only bases? And/or make the enclosed base more accessible as a vertical 3rd?
|
Having a good time map making, SB map design is pretty cool. I have an update as well as two new SB map layouts.
For Oxide, I removed the mineral only base, made the vertical enclosed 3rd easier to take, and added an experimental corner base blocked by 25 crystal minerals.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oEqarv6.jpg)
Here are the 2 new map concepts
Euclid Wastes
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/es6Ck0Q.jpg)
Untitled Map
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nTh4Sv7.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nXV58tV.png)
