|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On June 30 2016 15:40 Syphon8 wrote:Pay no attention to the un-visuals. I think this has the right number of bases, but maybe not in the right spots. Thoughts? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fx7l3xU.png)
That's pretty cool. Nice concept.
idk if the rock tower is necessary since it will already be kind of hard to attack on this map via ground. I'm also not sure the in-base nat should be right against the ledge like that since tanks can probably hit the geysers from the middle (orange) lowground.
but @ your concern, I think mostly the bases are in good spots.
|
It was intended for those geysers to be siegable (right now even the CC is), since the pocket third is so easy to defend. I was worried about it being too easy to hold 4 bases behind two tiny chokes, even though they are quite far apart.What do you think?
|
@syphon: cool ideas but it seems undeveloped... Like a lot of the space is just kind of there, not doing anything. The high grounds to the left and right of the main are really big and open for their function, which is to house an expo and provide a ramp on the far side. And the middle is huuuuge with nothing to anchor positioning. Maybe a couple holes or ground dots to make some tactical spots? If it were me I would redesign the wings near the main base to have more functional spaces. The overall concept is cool though.
To clarify, is that narrow ledge supposed to be pathable? Having two bases of the first 4 you can choose from be eminently cliffable is pretty rough on Zerg and fairly Terran positive in general.
|
The narrow path is indeed walkable, you can go straight to the pocket third if you want without taking down the rocks. It's only as wide as the Ulrena path, though. So if you drop anything on it the defender can attack them pretty easily from the main.
Maybe they are a bit too exposed, but IDK. I have to play it a bit first. I'd move the in-base main back a bit if anything.
Also agree the ground is pretty plain most places. I'm leaning towards putting some chokes around the lowground bases towards the middle, but open for input.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M3Qaeq1.jpg)
Size: 152x128
Nat2Nat: 37s vertical, 43s horizontal, 48s
The metal highground pods at 12, 3, 6, 9 are all unpathable
playable?
|
In vertical spawns the incredibly close air distances between the naturals could be a problem. In horizontal spawns it's hard to see how games would ever get past two-three bases. The low-ground bases near the metal pods require the player to control the middle for them to be taken safely, and the other potential thirds are really close together. In diagonal spawns the games can probably go a bit longer, but control over the centre of the map still basically determines the winner. Overall I think the way the centre is the sole focal point of the entire map isn't a good thing.
|
I think Protoss would really like that map, maybe Terran. Zerg probably wouldn't.
|
On July 01 2016 07:50 Namrufus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Size: 152x128 Nat2Nat: 37s vertical, 43s horizontal, 48s The metal highground pods at 12, 3, 6, 9 are all unpathable playable?
I would take 2 of the spawns, most likely cross, and just make it into a 2p map emphasizing the 2 locations. As a 4 player map it's pretty far off.
|
On July 01 2016 12:09 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 07:50 Namrufus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Size: 152x128 Nat2Nat: 37s vertical, 43s horizontal, 48s The metal highground pods at 12, 3, 6, 9 are all unpathable playable? I would take 2 of the spawns, most likely cross, and just make it into a 2p map emphasizing the 2 locations
I know I'm probably a broken record at this point, but I think this is the way to improve almost every 4p map ever made.
@ the map, if you chose cross spawns to make it into a 2p, you could connect the highgrounds between the vertical spawns and then you have a cool dynamic where you can either take the forward lowground bases to be aggressive or the further back highground bases. Also the highground 3rd would be further away so that's a tradeoff that makes sense.
|
A bit more elaborated on...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pbMSwY6.jpg)
- Pushed the inbase naturals back from the cliff a bit and pushed out the base of the narrow cliff with a doodad wall so it's harder to siege the free nat
- Added high ground pods in the middle under the rocks
- Dotted some overlord spots around
- Redesigned the bases near the 12 and 6 to have a defensive choke
- Each of the dark stripes on the center lowground has LOS blockers on either side.
Still need to make the bases @ 9 and 3 more interesting, but I'm not really sure what do.
|
Seems like the map is going places. I don't know if the 3/9 bases necessarily need anything else, sometimes just an open area is fine.
The stripes / los blockers are a nice add. I think the los blockers help zerg some but overall it is still probably a bad zerg map. How does zerg expand and not get shat on by tankivacs? Maybe if the rocks leading from the main to the 3/9 o'clock base weren't there it could help some.
|
So this is pretty out-there and rough around the edges. But figured I'd post it for fun and see if anyone thinks something about it. I've always wanted to make a teleporter map work.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SjkLYO0.jpg)
It may not be super clear (the visuals are placeholders until I nail down a theme), but there's a broken bridge hanging off your main with an arrow pointing to it to make it clear it's not just a doodad (I may have to figure out a more elegant way of doing this for the final version  ) If any unit walks into it, it gets teleported instantly to the corresponding "throne" looking area up north. + Show Spoiler +I made the possible teleport destination area sort of large to avoid enemy widow mine(s) completely destroying a group of units coming through, although that is probably a rare enough scenario.
And since we're not really caring about Blizz rules here, those gases up north are high yield.
So the idea is to create this super lucrative area up north, but it's this balancing act of "how much stuff do I send through the teleporter?" since it's hard for those units to be useful in the "real" fight on the mainland that will determine who actually wins the game. Yet if you just ignore the upper area and your opponent takes a couple bases up there uncontested you probably fall too behind economically and lose the game.
|
very creative and interesting idea, although i suggest emphasizing it even further by making the "mainland" part of the map ultra-standard
|
not a bad idea. Is there even a mirrored standard map to go off, though? It would be hard to make it rotational and have the concept still work the way that it does.
|
Fatam got me thinkin' 'bout mirror maps.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EUrtApG.png)
Think I need to expand the mains a bit, and delete those rocks.
4 easy to defense bases, nat ramp2ramp is about 60, 2 harder bases, and 3 golds for zest.
|
On July 10 2016 16:49 Syphon8 wrote:Fatam got me thinkin' 'bout mirror maps. Think I need to expand the mains a bit, and delete those rocks. 4 easy to defense bases, nat ramp2ramp is about 60, 2 harder bases, and 3 golds for zest.
I don't see the top half of the map ever being used, since everything's too close together towards the bottom. The third bases at the bottom of the map simply aren't takeable, since they're under a rocked off ledge and siegable from the mineral line of the other third. Also the main base surface area for reapers is kinda crazy. I think the map needs to be shorter and wider for it to work.
|
Really? I see the top being used far more often than the bottom.
The thirds are the bases at 3 and 9, not the bottom... I guess you could take that as a third, but why would you? It's much more likely to be a possible 4th.
|
On July 11 2016 02:37 Syphon8 wrote:
Really? I see the top being used far more often than the bottom.
The thirds are the bases at 3 and 9, not the bottom...
How far away are the 3 or 9 bases from the natural town hall? Seems like it would take forever to get between them making them completely undefendable too.
|
On July 11 2016 02:42 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 02:37 Syphon8 wrote:
Really? I see the top being used far more often than the bottom.
The thirds are the bases at 3 and 9, not the bottom... How far away are the 3 or 9 bases from the natural town hall? Seems like it would take forever to get between them making them completely undefendable too.
~45 tiles.
It's only about 8 tiles longer than to the close base. The architecture makes it look longer than it is.
|
On July 11 2016 02:47 Syphon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 02:42 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 11 2016 02:37 Syphon8 wrote:
Really? I see the top being used far more often than the bottom.
The thirds are the bases at 3 and 9, not the bottom... How far away are the 3 or 9 bases from the natural town hall? Seems like it would take forever to get between them making them completely undefendable too. ~45 tiles. It's only about 8 tiles longer than to the close base. The architecture makes it look longer than it is.
Is that the path distance by ground? If nat-ramp to nat-ramp is 60, nat-townhall to third-townhall looks to be about 80... Either way when travelling towards that third, your army would come pretty close to the path between the other player's natural and third.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
