|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On July 11 2016 02:53 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 02:47 Syphon8 wrote: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.
60 is the lowground path, and yes that's the ground distance.
|
On July 10 2016 16:49 Syphon8 wrote: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.
I don't see the point, frankly. The rush distance is so short that every game will end up being settled before 3 bases. The top of the map is so far removed from the bottom that nothing there will ever see play. It's so inconvenient even trying to move to the top half, compared to how easy it is to just attack. If any game on this map ever involves the top half, it'll be because the two players agreed to do it beforehand.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wKNWgPE.png)
Tried to address the concerns. Make it more pointed. Lots of changes to the bottom half...
Mains a bit bigger, close third is much closer, far third is also quite a bit closer, the narrow channel on the lowground can be blocked at the close third with a single 2x2 building, as can the small cardinal ramp.
I also pulled the left and right edges out to give a bit of air room, and pull the mains further apart.
|
your Country52798 Posts
Isn't the map zerg hell? Also, there is a base missing in the bottom right third location.
|
On July 11 2016 14:09 Syphon8 wrote:Tried to address the concerns. Make it more pointed. Lots of changes to the bottom half... Mains a bit bigger, close third is much closer, far third is also quite a bit closer, the narrow channel on the lowground can be blocked at the close third with a single 2x2 building, as can the small cardinal ramp. I also pulled the left and right edges out to give a bit of air room, and pull the mains further apart.
Not a fan of this iteration of the map at all. At least in the previous version you could do a normal two-base all-in every game. The middle is now way too choky, which makes it pretty imbalanced, and the fix to make the thirds easier to take is a band-aid fix that doesn't address the fundamental problems with the location of the expansions.
|
^ Agree with above, fixes some problems but is not very attractive.
I think you could just change the shapes of the routes and adjust the width while keeping the original shape. The concept is super cool, I love the lowground hallways, it just needs to give players more realistic prospects to go north.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hv1EPnp.jpg)
136x192
Mains are farthest bottom bases.
Thoughts?
|
On July 14 2016 02:20 SwedenTheKid wrote:136x192 Mains are farthest bottom bases. Thoughts?
The main-nat-third setup is interesting; it reminds me of Andromeda. There are multiple openings to the main, but they look manageable (though I'm not sure why you feel the need to include multiple openings to the main in almost all your maps). The bases towards the top of the map are a bit too coupled--taking the fourth requires securing the fifth. The biggest problem with the map imo is that it is too big. 136x192 is too much for a 2-player map. Maybe reduce the size of the centre. I don't see the centre two bases both top or bottom ever being taken except by someone very far ahead. Also the mixed gold and blue mineral lines are an unnecessary flourish. Non-standard mineral lines should only be used when they serve a purpose, and they don't seem to do much here.
|
I think the really convex nature of the mains and the long rush distance would probably make proxies too strong.Is that hallway in the main 3 tiles wide at its shortest? o.0 That is a pretty narrow choke for a main base.
Threw this together last night... Inspired by like, sniper ridge, but obviously not a direct translation.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HTyyOKl.png)
It's about 152x152, 21 bases (dealwithit.png). Mains at 1, 4, 7, and 10. Close third blocked by rocks, far thirds less open.
The cardinal ridges in the center are two tiers high, and you can't walk from them onto the thirds. (They do connect with the middle-gold). The chokes going into the far thirds are four tiles wide. The choke between them is 3 at its narrowest, mostly 4.
|
On July 16 2016 03:52 Syphon8 wrote:I think the really convex nature of the mains and the long rush distance would probably make proxies too strong.Is that hallway in the main 3 tiles wide at its shortest? o.0 That is a pretty narrow choke for a main base. Threw this together last night... Inspired by like, sniper ridge, but obviously not a direct translation. It's about 152x152, 21 bases (dealwithit.png). Mains at 1, 4, 7, and 10. Close third blocked by rocks, far thirds less open. The cardinal ridges in the center are two tiers high, and you can't walk from them onto the thirds. (They do connect with the middle-gold). The chokes going into the far thirds are four tiles wide. The choke between them is 3 at its narrowest, mostly 4.
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.
|
@Syphon: Super cool design. Has issues but I'd love to see it polished up. Slightly more space for min lines and a little larger maybe.
@Sweden: I agree with zig that it's too long; you could easily make 12oclock into one gold base or something, and the two 6oclock bases don't need to be connected or have rocks, they'd be the closest 4th base option but much dicier than the edge highground 4th. It'd be nice if the top corner 5th bases weren't so boring, but at that point the game is more about macro positioning anyway so it's fine. I think I'd push the edge 4th bases a bit closer to the outer ramp with rocks, to incentivize players to break those rocks for defensive movement.
|
Vis A Vis
most updated version published on eu.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dxxbcta.jpg?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sjDwBuD.jpg?1)
|
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.
How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.
The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.
I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.
Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.
|
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff. How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored. The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance. I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage. Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.
The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.
|
On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff. How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored. The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance. I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage. Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly. The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.
1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer?
2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base.
Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.
|
On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff. How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored. The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance. I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage. Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly. The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken. 1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer? 2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base. Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.
The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken.
As for drop defence, if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans.
|
On July 16 2016 11:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff. How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored. The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance. I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage. Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly. The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken. 1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer? 2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base. Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different. The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken.
That pretty much lines up with what I said, that it's only a third if you take it late.
It's cliffable in either position though, making it harder to hold.
if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans.
Everything you just said applies to the natural third on its side, except for 'exploiting the high ground'--which makes no sense, because why would a player not have vision of their own main?
|
On July 16 2016 11:23 Syphon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 11:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff. How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored. The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance. I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage. Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly. The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken. 1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer? 2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base. Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different. The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken. That pretty much lines up with what I said, that it's only a third if you take it late. It's cliffable in either position though, making it harder to hold. Show nested quote +if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans. Everything you just said applies to the natural third on its side, except for 'exploiting the high ground'--which makes no sense, because why would a player not have vision of their own main?
"Late". Taking it before the 5 min mark is perfectly manageable, and I'd consider that a significant spawn imbalance (not map-breaking necessarily, but certainly to take note of). And you can't bounce between the main and third easily on the other side.
|
On July 16 2016 11:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 11:23 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 11:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff. How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored. The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance. I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage. Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly. The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken. 1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer? 2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base. Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different. The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken. That pretty much lines up with what I said, that it's only a third if you take it late. It's cliffable in either position though, making it harder to hold. if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans. Everything you just said applies to the natural third on its side, except for 'exploiting the high ground'--which makes no sense, because why would a player not have vision of their own main? "Late". Taking it before the 5 min mark is perfectly manageable, and I'd consider that a significant spawn imbalance (not map-breaking necessarily, but certainly to take note of). And you can't bounce between the main and third easily on the other side.
You can bounce between the nat and third though, which isn't as different as you're making it sound.
|
@ the sniper ridge map, I think the CCW player has the advantage in most cases. Although it's not the most massive rotational imbalance I've ever seen. I think zerg doesn't like either third option, and maybe that is the biggest issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
