EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z4g7L5q.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cOLEJCq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xQukAjW.jpg)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 203
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
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
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 + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BLLNKdD.jpg) | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
what do you think? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PiQVzPH.jpg) | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DB6bMLU.jpg) 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
On March 11 2017 04:25 Aunvilgodess wrote: First map in 4 years... what do you think? 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
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jCeqoY6.jpg) Other Version: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1nrkw3g.jpg) | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
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]](http://i.imgur.com/UivdZ9p.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zIPHuGn.jpg) looking for feedback, particularly on making the expansion pattern better. | ||
|
Kand1
Germany17 Posts
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
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
 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]](http://i.imgur.com/XYMLlDU.jpg) I'm happy about any feedback. | ||
|
conscious.entity
5 Posts
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]](http://i.imgur.com/IFi6Dp2.jpg) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
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
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
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wzTkfKT.jpg) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On April 16 2017 21:19 conscious.entity wrote: A small update 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
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]](http://i.imgur.com/TLmoxbb.png) 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]](http://i.imgur.com/UOIbfJn.jpg) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
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 + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/commons/images/thumb/9/92/Research_Site_JD-2.jpg/400px-Research_Site_JD-2.jpg) 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. | ||
|
conscious.entity
5 Posts
looks like I'll make central passage and certain ramps at the middle of the map even wider. | ||
| ||
