I believe that there are three mayor problems with this kind of a design, which are all interdependent:
1. The movement is very much predefined as paths are very restricted and chokes are few and very tight.
2. Any army composition with strong air presence will have the ability to dominate decisions of when, where and how to engage and could have the potential to dominate any game.
3. Backdoors that are connected to the rest of the map rather than to the main/nat/third setup create outside loops like the sc:bw map Outsider and have a huge merry-go-round potential.

i think it is interesting, but pretty unforgiving in many regards.

The problems are also the answers, if you want to expand on the overall concept and create a better map through various iterative steps:
1. in this specific case i think you can make it work, if you focus on creating choices for the defender. the way it is designed is not bad at all, i just think that there are no options how to move and i do not like it.
2. picture a battle in the centre, army that does currently not control air has to move back to cover third base and production. it will take forever. good luck with that drop-to-end-all-drops
3. maybe take Outsider actually as an example and use a low-count mineral block in place of the rock?

Kand1

Germany17 Posts

March 08 2017 11:47 GMT

#4043

Update on Frozen Canyon

Build a ramp towards the other side of the natural to better be able to defend drops and widened some of the attackpaths/battlegrounds because they seemed too narrow as they were before.
+ Show Spoiler +

Aunvilgodess

954 Posts

March 10 2017 19:25 GMT

#4044

First map in 4 years...

what do you think?

[image loading]

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

March 11 2017 21:42 GMT

#4045

Map is huge, I think 187x162 playable bounds or something. Distance between naturals is around 200 hex, so I'm probably going to add a bridge by the forward 3rd to shorten the distance. Any thoughts on the layout? I don't like the lack of a good transition base towards the farther bases.

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

March 11 2017 22:24 GMT

#4046

On March 11 2017 04:25 Aunvilgodess wrote:
First map in 4 years...

what do you think?

[image loading]

I'm confused as to what you are going for with this layout. The center has nothing to it and is just massive and filled with giant corridors. And the main is really exposed. Can you give a discription of the goals for the map? Because then I could help with trying to achieve those goals.

Aunvilgodess

954 Posts

March 12 2017 17:42 GMT

#4047

Good feedback, I thought something similar. I made the map a lot smaller and added a base in the center. The philosophy is that I want to have an "open split map" where each others bases are far from each other but can't be defended by a single deathball. The center bases are only accessible through the big openings in the top right and bottom left.

[image loading]

Other Version:

[image loading]

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

March 21 2017 19:42 GMT

#4048

New Map Concept, Geneva

152x152 approx playable bounds
bases top left and bottom right
+inbase natural
+middle high ground bases have 7 mineral patches
+gold base is mineral wall

[image loading]

looking for feedback, particularly on making the expansion pattern better.

Kand1

Germany17 Posts

March 23 2017 12:49 GMT

#4049

Hey SwedenTheKid,

I don't know much about mapmaking, since I only started very recently myself - so please correct me if what I say doesn't make sense - but I wanted to try to give you my impressions of your maps which I think are both really cool already.

+ Show Spoiler +

I like the layout of this one but I think I understand what you mean with the transition bases.. maybe rework the 11/5 o'clock bases - move it more towards the middle of the map? I'm not sure about the paths on 2/8 o'clock..I don't think I understand what you were going for here...also, that area seems to take up a lot of space so that the bases in the top right/bottom left corners are really far away.. maybe move one of them further towards the middle of the map? I think the idea with the bridge is nice.. I have actually tried to use a bridge to seperate the main and natural in frozen canyon (which are now on one big plateau) but somehow it always messed up the pathing .. after a while I somehow fixed it but I think it was not the most elegant way ..also I could never place any creeptumors on my bridge.. any idea what I did wrong?

The other one, Geneva, I like even more
+ Show Spoiler +

I can't really say why but I really love the middle in this map.. However I think you need to put
in some more work around the corners. In the top left/ bottom right part the bases seem to clump up a little while the top right /bottom left feels a bit too loose. Maybe you could try to incorporate the elevated path a bit
more into the part that goes behind the gold base? Also you could maybe combine the forward lowground forth base and the one next to the gold base into one and mabe ad another path in that area? Also I think you should reposition the ramps from the 3/9 o'clock base towards the third base.. that part looks a bit too narrow to me. And one last thing.. would you mind explaining your reasoning behind the 7 mineral base? To me that base looks pretty exposed and normally exposed bases are rewarded with more minerals than usual.. why did you go for less minerals in this case?

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

March 23 2017 22:11 GMT

#4050

I went for a lower mineral count because that base is very easy to take if you are ahead and control the map, therefor I don't want the player that's ahead to have greater ability to get more ahead. It's the same principle when good mapmakers avoid putting gold mineral bases near the center of the map. That happened a lot with old blizzard maps, because they wanted to encourage players to be aggressive, but it ended up just favoring the player that was already winning. It's also a very little change, but I do think it's an attractive feature.

I agree to an extent with your comments on the corners not having much going on, I'm just not sure if I can effectively make that area any more dynamic or interesting than it is. I don't want to have more than 18 bases, although I'm considering making the free base and the center bases 1 gas 6 mineral. In which case I'd rework the corners to have a highground expansion with full minerals.

Kand1

Germany17 Posts

March 25 2017 10:42 GMT

#4051

Ok, that makes sense..Thanks for explaining

I also came up with a new idea for a map. This one has two possible spawn combinations. Players either spawn at 1a or 1b.
map bounds: 167x160
rush distance:
1a main to main: ~45s
1b nat to nat: ~45s

[image loading]

I'm happy about any feedback.

conscious.entity

5 Posts

April 15 2017 22:32 GMT

#4052

So this is 7v7 melee map. But created this map with planning to use it in 7v7 monobattles.
I mean - to convert this map to monobattles version after successful testing, polishing, etc.
But this is only a draft of the map, and that's why it is not yet really pleasure for an eye, because there are not yet any artist work had performed.
Need any feedback. Especially about pathing architecture.
And you can test it, if you wish: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/199836

[image loading]

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

April 15 2017 23:53 GMT

#4053

On April 16 2017 07:32 conscious.entity wrote:
So this is 7v7 melee map. But created this map with planning to use it in 7v7 monobattles.
I mean - to convert this map to monobattles version after successful testing, polishing, etc.
But this is only a draft of the map, and that's why it is not yet really pleasure for an eye, because there are not yet any artist work had performed.
Need any feedback. Especially about pathing architecture.
And you can test it, if you wish: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/199836
+ Show Spoiler +

Right now the map seems very prone to split-map situations--you can cut it in half by holding only a handful of chokes. I think it would be better if the middle of the map was much more open. With 14 players on the map you can get some pretty big armies, so you need some space to fight with ease.

conscious.entity

5 Posts

April 16 2017 08:40 GMT

#4054

it would be better if the middle of the map was much more open. With 14 players on the map you can get some pretty big armies, so you need some space to fight with ease.

Ok, feedback accepted

Anything else?

conscious.entity

5 Posts

April 16 2017 12:19 GMT

#4055

A small update

[image loading]

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

April 16 2017 20:20 GMT

#4056

On April 16 2017 21:19 conscious.entity wrote:
A small update

[image loading]

still way too chokey for 7v7, i think the whole center corridor design needs to be removed and replaced with something more open

conscious.entity

5 Posts

April 17 2017 15:52 GMT

#4057

still way too chokey for 7v7, i think the whole center corridor design needs to be removed and replaced with something more open

Map is huge actually. It so huge that even having Xel Naga's towers is pointless, as you can judge by this screenshot:
[image loading]

And central passage is also enormous so I believe that there are two 200 supply armies could move together without any jamming.

And I believe this is final architecture of the map. But I've not yet artistically brushed it. Will do it after we finish testing.
[image loading]

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

April 17 2017 19:44 GMT

#4058

Even looking at the screenshot I think the central passage is tiny for a 7v7 map. You'll realistically have 600 or 700 supply armies on either side most games. It still needs to be more open.

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

April 19 2017 00:13 GMT

#4059

Get rid of the 2 bases in the middle of the map and make that entire area open low ground.

The problem that's always existed with 4v4 and so on maps is that there is a catch-22. You need to make huge open areas to accommodate massive armies and many many bases BUT you need to keep the rush distances similar to 1v1 maps so as not to break the meta game too badly. That's why you get weird designs like this:

+ Show Spoiler +

I honestly think a 7v7 map would be a tremendous challenge for any map maker, much much more difficult to pull off than a decent 1v1 map. Right now that map is, paradoxically, too big and too small at the same time. The rock-blocked gold bases are a nice touch, though - I like that.