EPTOops my bad. Yours.
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Drake Merrwin
Canada130 Posts
Oops my bad. Yours. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States989 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Az4ek.png) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 05 2012 13:07 Monochromatic wrote: Is it worth continuing this map? 4 bases doesn't fit with the current meta game, but several blizzard maps have 4. + Show Spoiler + In a word, no. (Modern Blizzard maps also have more than 4 bases per side.) Part of the mapmaking process involves knowing when to just scrap something and try it again, so just keep at it, it's what I've been doing. For every layout of mine you've seen there are probably 15 that you haven't, trial and error is a part of it. | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hUu2c.jpg) - Rocks added to one entrance to natural, removed half base and created ramp leading down to where it was. - far entrance to high ground third has been adjusted and the area infront of the third enlarged. - low ground fourth adjusted and small path created behind near high ground pod. - bounds enlarged to 124x142 - towers moved. Would love some feedback, as always! Hope its better. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Otherwise... Seems maybe a bit hard to play a long game, a lot like Ohana. Fifth is kinda hard. When all the bases are taken, the space between the near opposing bases is pretty open, while the center is kinda tight. The third base... Seems like it has low defender's advantage but a high distance from the opponent, which seems to me like you have to really commit to be aggressive there but it can be very successful. So, it would encourage all-ins, wouldn't it? | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 06 2012 02:18 Gfire wrote: Map looks cool eTcetRa. I'm a bit concerned about the tight and long paths in the middle though. They're a bit too long to stay the same width all the way through I think. Mostly the ones which curve around that cliff by the watchtower, between the rock and the center of the map. Otherwise... Seems maybe a bit hard to play a long game, a lot like Ohana. Fifth is kinda hard. When all the bases are taken, the space between the near opposing bases is pretty open, while the center is kinda tight. The third base... Seems like it has low defender's advantage but a high distance from the opponent, which seems to me like you have to really commit to be aggressive there but it can be very successful. So, it would encourage all-ins, wouldn't it? That was going to be exactly my comments about lategame and the closeness of the 4th to the enemy 5th. Would be nice if this could be changed. Third base seems reasonable in all matchups, to me. | ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
Size: 208x208 Playable bounds: 204x170 Overview: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AWfeU.jpg) EXTRA + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PQ7dh.jpg) | ||
|
Drake Merrwin
Canada130 Posts
-------------------------- Some changes but I feel like the hole that the former 4th left needs to be filled with something. IDK. Oh and that debris actually make the pathing of the ramp = 1 ff but not the whole half of the ramp is covered. Kind of like this: | = ramp wall, 0 = space, R = debris |00| |0R| Panel LOS blockers+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DK0c2.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M6tsE.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qiMIS.jpg) | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hd9qo.jpg) On October 29 2012 07:39 EatThePath wrote: @Melt: I think the righthand lowground base would be much more interesting if you removed the mineral ramp and put it snug up against the natural cliff. It could be defended against harass / light attack easily this way, but you'd have to have army defense if they have a big attack there. You could fit in another base this way (if you want). Thanks, great feedback as usual, but I don't udnerstand the above suggestion at all. Could you illustrate? I changed the third base to be different and easier for P to defend compared to the CCW thrid (which I imagine being a 4th). About the changes around the last bases, I'm concerned about the wideness of the paths. They're 10ish units wide, 6 units wide at the most extreme chokes. The idea with the rocked backdoor into 3rd is more to provide a second attack/harrass route into the last bases of the opponent, and still an entrance that can be walled if need be. | ||
|
NonameAI
127 Posts
On November 05 2012 13:07 Monochromatic wrote: Is it worth continuing this map? 4 bases doesn't fit with the current meta game, but several blizzard maps have 4. See where those paths behind the fourth bases are? Make those each connect to another base close to the mains.. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
I liked the low ground base... You could maybe push the high ground third even farther to the left and remove the low ground 4th, effectively making the low ground middle base an open 3rd and the high ground a protected but far 3rd or 4th. I also think that it's not as big of a problem to have a long narrow passage down the center as long as there are other, longer ways to go that are more open. Currently all entrances to all bases/other areas are approximately the same size. @monochromatic I can conceive of a 4base map being okay (certainly not standard), but not if 2 of them are untakable. I do really like the high ground setup in the middle, though. Having such short distances makes PvT and ZvX challenging, but PvT could definitely use some innovation. Your map is also a significant buff to tanks, which is kind of cool to see. Here's a map that I like a lot that your map made me think of, though it's larger than yours. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335448 | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/41zt4l.jpg) I like the central high grounds (the ones without the XNT) but the rest of the layout still feels not quite right. I'm forcing an old-fashioned FFE, but was going to do something to make it easier (i.e. put rocks that block the entrance to behind your minerals). I still want to play around with this layout a little more but wanted some input from others as to whether I'm heading in the right direction and/or if it's worth it at all. About the old-style FFE I've seen several other maps in this thread go for it and it's been encouraging since I'm beginning to get sick of Broodlord/Infestor deathball play. This is an attempt to emphasize the early and midgame without breaking them by bringing them to an earlier meta level. EDIT: Dimensions: 120x160 Rush Distance: 55s main entrance to main entrance, 45 nat entrance to nat entrance | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On November 05 2012 23:02 eTcetRa wrote: I'm glad the useless back path was removed but apart from that I liked about everything better of the old map. The old natural was much more interesting in my opinion. This natural again allows you to defend one point by placing your army at one point rather than being forced to identity where his army attacks and appropriately splitting.- Rocks added to one entrance to natural, removed half base and created ramp leading down to where it was. - far entrance to high ground third has been adjusted and the area infront of the third enlarged. - low ground fourth adjusted and small path created behind near high ground pod. - bounds enlarged to 124x142 - towers moved. Would love some feedback, as always! Hope its better. Maybe creating a tower which tells the defending party at which point they are going to attack and keeping the old harder natural? | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yYXkJ.jpg) Changes as well with their rationale from the old version as well as antiga itself - It is a true 2 player map now, while it's 2 player map that is supiciously close to being rotationally symmetrical on a 90 angle, it is truly symmetrical on a 180 degree one, the major differnece is that two of the 'ex mains' are given extra backdoor rocks as well as a 3 width natural ramp opposed to a 1 width ramp. - backdoor rocks have been added this time, I know they are controversial but I like them. They also serve a purpose here by making the ex-mains more accessible since I felt this version might make a fourth _too easy_ to defend without them. The backdoor rocks are definitely positioned in a way which makes them easy to guard from the other side - thirds are only partially guarded by rocks instead of fully but LOS blockers are added to the top, making them easy to defend against a frontal attack due to the towers but making runbies more potent - the centre has been made a lot more complicated with crevasses and LOS blockers everywhere - the map offers a lot of choices for which fourth to take, 3 realistic fourth choices, one is closer but requires rocks to be broken to take it, one is expands away from your opponent and is further away and does not require rocks to be broken, and one is the gold which actually isn't that easy to kill, but very easy to deny mining from - you even have a choice for a third, it is possible to take the gold as a third - the LOS blockers around the centre have holes in it, meaning that if you hide ranged units in it you can actually acquire vision of them if you approach it through the holes and play it smartly | ||
|
Drake Merrwin
Canada130 Posts
On November 08 2012 05:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Update on my take on Antiga Shipyard Changes as well with their rationale from the old version as well as antiga itself - It is a true 2 player map now, while it's 2 player map that is supiciously close to being rotationally symmetrical on a 90 angle, it is truly symmetrical on a 180 degree one, the major differnece is that two of the 'ex mains' are given extra backdoor rocks as well as a 3 width natural ramp opposed to a 1 width ramp. - backdoor rocks have been added this time, I know they are controversial but I like them. They also serve a purpose here by making the ex-mains more accessible since I felt this version might make a fourth _too easy_ to defend without them. The backdoor rocks are definitely positioned in a way which makes them easy to guard from the other side - thirds are only partially guarded by rocks instead of fully but LOS blockers are added to the top, making them easy to defend against a frontal attack due to the towers but making runbies more potent - the centre has been made a lot more complicated with crevasses and LOS blockers everywhere - the map offers a lot of choices for which fourth to take, 3 realistic fourth choices, one is closer but requires rocks to be broken to take it, one is expands away from your opponent and is further away and does not require rocks to be broken, and one is the gold which actually isn't that easy to kill, but very easy to deny mining from - you even have a choice for a third, it is possible to take the gold as a third - the LOS blockers around the centre have holes in it, meaning that if you hide ranged units in it you can actually acquire vision of them if you approach it through the holes and play it smartly 2 small silly things that just make protoss cry on this map. First it's way too hard to take a third and you have made it harder. The only thing that you need to do is make the third closer. The other thing is the natural. IDK why people, especially blizzard, don't understand that when protoss FFE they need a space that can be fully walled with 3 3x3 buildings (or if you want space 2 3x3 and a pylon). This way protoss doesn't have to sacrifice their natural to a 6 pool. You can actually wall off in time. This isn't about balance it's about gimmicky shit. Something I wanted to point out on a balance related note. Drops were already strong on this map and you have added more air space between the natural and third. Something to think about. IDK if it's good or bad. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
Third might need to be closer, I'm not yet decided on that. I always ensure you can forge FE at your nexus if you need to though, like on Antiga. I've never had a lot of problems with far thirds in PvZ, in fact, I much prefer them but I hear the complaint from a lot of protoss players. Third seems to be about as far as in Whirlwind so it can't be that much of a problem. The map is probably slightly smaller though. Point is, I absolutely do not like easy to defend bases in maps. This way protoss doesn't have to sacrifice their natural to a 6 pool. You can actually wall off in time. This isn't about balance it's about gimmicky shit. 6-7pool would be pretty bad if it didn't forced a sacrificed natural though, I still feel it's risky to not sac a natural even if you can wall in, but it's a pretty big map so maybe you can do it on this one, I haven't yet tested it. | ||
|
Drake Merrwin
Canada130 Posts
On November 08 2012 12:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: Well, about the not walling part, this is tight, I might make it possible to wall with 3 gateways though, I'm not sure about it yet. Third might need to be closer, I'm not yet decided on that. I always ensure you can forge FE at your nexus if you need to though, like on Antiga. I've never had a lot of problems with far thirds in PvZ, in fact, I much prefer them but I hear the complaint from a lot of protoss players. Third seems to be about as far as in Whirlwind so it can't be that much of a problem. The map is probably slightly smaller though. Point is, I absolutely do not like easy to defend bases in maps. 6-7pool would be pretty bad if it didn't forced a sacrificed natural though, I still feel it's risky to not sac a natural even if you can wall in, but it's a pretty big map so maybe you can do it on this one, I haven't yet tested it. Well I don't like maps where you can't take a safe (not easy but safe) third. Like on Antiga or Whirlwind. I don't like watching PvZ on maps where 2 base all ins are going to happen. But I digress, if blizzard designed Protoss even decently then we, map mapmakers, wouldn't have to try to fix their mistakes. =( BTW, gold bases should not have gasses. Just makes them better than normal bases and not, what they should be, viable mineral bases. PS: Walling at the nexus is never safe because if zerg makes any number of roachs, you're gonna cry your soul out. Trust me. Fuck you Metalopolis. Fuck you. Just make it 3 gate wide. It's not a bad thing. | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IjZSR.jpg) Another update. Brought back the half base. | ||
| ||
