EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mgqhnCD.jpg)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 204
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
On April 22 2017 15:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Also not a fan of the possible thirds--the way they're placed makes them really hard to defend since any attacking force can very easily "split" them from the natural. In fact I think the core weakness of the map is that to get anywhere at all you have to step into the central donut (the low ground in white). I think a good map has to have a more "connected" architecture. Why do you think this is a bad thing? Because this was intentionally designed to be that way - to force people onto the lowground. Same thing for the other bases - the chokes are small, but you can not defend them by sitting on the highground. That way, was the intention, the bases can be easily defended by static defense and walls on one hand, but the aggressor still has no problem attacking the other player. And in any case, the top base (which is actually the more intended one) does not force you to split your force. I am trying to avoid a situation like on Antiga and Entombed where people just safely camp on their highgrounds. Agree about the center though. Another thing, We are basically not seeing blink all-ins any more. Do you think the main is protected enough? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 22 2017 20:53 Aunvilgodess wrote: Why do you think this is a bad thing? Because this was intentionally designed to be that way - to force people onto the lowground. Same thing for the other bases - the chokes are small, but you can not defend them by sitting on the highground. That way, was the intention, the bases can be easily defended by static defense and walls on one hand, but the aggressor still has no problem attacking the other player. And in any case, the top base (which is actually the more intended one) does not force you to split your force. I am trying to avoid a situation like on Antiga and Entombed where people just safely camp on their highgrounds. Agree about the center though. Another thing, We are basically not seeing blink all-ins any more. Do you think the main is protected enough? The main looks fine to me--I wouldn't worry too much about blink all-ins or reapers. Maybe siege tanks can be problematic if they can reach the main ramp from the third (not sure about that). As for the hole in the main that's present in the bottom main, and not the top main, that's just a mistake right? If it isn't, I don't like it since it just seems to be aggravating to defend terran drops as zerg with that hole there. The reason why I dislike how everything connects to the central donut is two-fold. First of all I don't think it makes army placement and movements very interesting. Maps like Abyssal Reef are great because of all the different movement options they afford to the player. Secondly, the way the thirds and all the other bases connect to the lowground, means they lack an avenue of retreat. On most maps it's an option to try to defend the attack and retreat to the natural if the defense goes wrong. On this map you'll usually lose an entire mineral line and possibly more if your army gets backed up into the third. It just makes pushes so much more likely to end the game outright. | ||
|
Shiraq
17 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IXcHkmE.jpg) Edit: Topdown view: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2qQfrkV.jpg) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Air blockers are pretty buggy, and I wouldn't use them unless they are really necessary for the map. I don't think these are. Likewise unusual mineral line values should only be used when they serve the map. For example the 6m/1g bases are already undesirable bases that no one would take until they reach their 5th or 6th base, so why make them more undesirable? And overall the map especially the middle of the map is really choky and needs more open space. The only way to get across the map are a bunch of tiny ramps. | ||
|
Shiraq
17 Posts
The main has too many openings. The back entrance near the air blockers at the very least should go, since it doesn't seem to serve much purpose for this map. I'm not sure which one you mean? The main has only two entrances. The small main ramp, and the bigger ramp to the natural just behind the rocks. Here's a more zoomed in picture of the main in case it's hard to make out from the overview picture. The thing by the northern air blocker is just a reaper/colossi ledge, not a ramp. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EdCw33K.png) Even the entrance to the pocket natural feels very dangerous due to the way it is placed. I'd suggest changing the layout so that the defender can move more easily between the two ramps than the aggressor. I like the core idea of a pocket base that's blocked off by rocks, but it can be executed better. RQM has made a few maps playing with this idea (Nexon Arena, Stormwind, Geumgangsan at http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/514377-rqm-map-compilation); see if you can get some inspiration from them. I personally found the rock entrance pretty scary to attack through in testing, since you can be attacked from the high ground as you pass and it's somewhat tight. I am assuming we are talking some kind of early attack here, since it shouldn't matter much once you've taken your third? I think it's hard to even break those rocks as the aggressor without taking a beating. But maybe there is some matchup/timing attack that I'm not thinking about? I could move the rocks back one step to make it even harder to destroy them. Or move the cliff slightly closer (over what is now unpathable ground just above the rocks) to give the defender an even better vantage point. I thought about doing that before, but felt it was overkill in the end and that the natural would be ridiculously safe with such a tight passage directly overlooked by high ground. Could you expand more on what kind of situations you feel it's dangerous? I should probably explain what I'm going for in terms of the main-nat-third design. I want a similar interaction as in Dusk Towers, where you could drop the third, but also fly past it and drop the natural, as well as being able to drop the main from the opposite side. I thought that was cool but a bit extreme with the huge deadspace on Dusk Towers, so I wanted to make something similar but with a much tighter dead space outside the third. So that once you've taken your third the nat is still droppable, but less so, since a turret by the dead space at your third can just barely cover the whole dead space. A drop could still move past, especially if it's medivacs and you boost them, but it wouldn't be "free" as in Dusk Towers. You'd take extra damage. That's also why I used the air blocker to narrow down the droppable area of the natural. Perhaps I overdid it though? It's probably almost impossible to drop the natural now after the third is taken, now that I think of it. I think I'll look into opening the nat up a bit more to the deadspace. I also wanted to make the main-nat-third more easily manoeuvrable by the defender, hence the whole area with the two ramps and the rocks, to promote easier flow of units within the main-nat-third, should you chose to open it up after taking your third. Any thoughts on the validity of the basic idea as well as the execution of it would be much appreciated! Likewise unusual mineral line values should only be used when they serve the map. For example the 6m/1g bases are already undesirable bases that no one would take until they reach their 5th or 6th base, so why make them more undesirable? I'm probably not a good enough player to judge these things, but here are my thoughts/reasons for the altered resource counts: I felt the 6+1 base was too easy a 5th for a Zerg player. With it being so far away from everything else on the map, but still easily reachable to defend from the 4th. It felt like it was always a better choice than the other two options for a 5th who are both much closer to the center of the map. Therefore I reduced the resource count to make it less attractive. Was that unnecessary? The 10+1 base, I simply wanted to remove one gas because I was worried a 4 base mech push from that base could be OP. Since the narrow ramp isn't an overly huge barrier to a mech push, especially with the XNT providing vision I feel a meching player would be able to siege crawl his way onto the high ground and then be extremely close to the opponents 4th/5th. I actually don't remember why I added 2 mineral patches, and thinking about it now that's probably stupid as it might make a bio parade push from that base too strong. The whole idea with that base was to give an option for a more aggressive expansion for exactly those kind of attacks (mech, bio parade push), but I was scared of making it too effective. Maybe those concerns were unwarranted? And overall the map especially the middle of the map is really choky and needs more open space. The only way to get across the map are a bunch of tiny ramps. In a way that's "a feature, not a bug". The idea is that it's supposed to be hard to get onto your opponents part of the central high ground in the late game, other than through the middle, which is also hard but offers interesting possibilities for manoeuvring (I think?) and that the side paths offer a way to try to get your opponent out of position. Before the late game the same dynamic doesn't exist at all though since you can't really have your army sitting that far out without being super vulnerable to harass, so the map is really open to begin with, and has some pretty good opportunities for flanking as well at that stage. In general the map felt much bigger and more open than I had expected when I started playtesting it. That said, I'm looking at the middle now and I realise it is far too cramped for big lategame armies. I shall try to expand it a bit! And, I think, also increase the ramps by the XNT from 2 to 3 wide. The map used to be bigger, by the way, but I reduced it in size several times because it felt incredibly Zerg favoured at first. So I don't (yet, at least, but feel free to wheigh in!) want to open it up too much. But the mid, definitely. | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BpkUA0g.jpg) what do you think? I am looking for feedback especially regarding the 6 and 12 o'clock bases and their connection to the potential 3rd. I hope you can make out everything properly. The goal is to make bases that are easy to take but difficult to turtle on. Another goal is to make chokepoints stronger, so that it is more like Broodwar in that regard. I want to make it possible to really seal off an expansion with pylons, cannons, depots etc.. While sentries will be strong on this map I don't think they would be overwhelming. Helps that 2 base sentry all ins are not a thing any more. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Oh yeah I thought the reaper ledge was a ramp. There are two reason why I find the main/natural setup dangerous. The first is siege tanks. Sticking siege tanks below or beside the rocks really allows a terran to bottle up the natural and really abuse the defender. Entombed Valley had a somewhat similar setup (though less vulnerable since it was the third not the natural, and there wasn't a ramp that could be cut off from the low ground) and there were some really difficult pushes. The second is more general. If there's an early timing it's easier for the attacking player to switch between the main and the natural than the defender. Yeah the high ground is pretty good for the defender, but you can easily slip in a few lings past that, and distance-wise the attacker has the advantage which I don't really like. I do like the basic idea of the main/nat/third (except for the air blockers, since air blockers are too buggy to be used). Maybe you could rotate all the bases a bit counter-clockwise? I think it would help the idea. I don't think your reasons for using the altered resources are enough to justify them. The 6m/1g is all the way across the map: that alone makes it not "too safe". Besides there's a lot of things I'd worry about before worrying about whether a fifth base is too safe enough to need a 2m/1g difference. I can appreciate the reasoning behind the 10m/1g better, but I don't think people will take that base as a fourth in the first place, so I also think it isn't a problem. As for how choky it is I'll only say that it is by far the most prevalent problem I see in maps by people that are trying to get into mapmaking (myself included). If you really feel hindered by terrain when moving around the map it usually means the map is too choky and lacks flow. Try moving a zerg army around the map and see if you are able to find places where you can engage a siege tank based army. @Aunvilgodess Some of your gas geysers (natural and third) look placed incorrectly. Some of the mineral lines too I think, though I can't be sure from the overview. And the natural and thirds are definitely not symmetrical right now. Making the bases more BW-like is laudable, but I'm not convinced it's possible. Sentries are definitely broken on this map as are siege tanks and liberators. The main/nat/third of the original version of Namaste was somewhat similar in concept and had tons and tons of problems. Maybe try reducing the size of the main (which is much bigger than it needs to be) to give more space to the third. | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gGNRx9a.jpg) By the way, does anybody know how I can export a map image into a format that isn't tga? I can only open tgas in Libre office and when I export from there it gets compressed like crazy. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
| ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
Main base seems a little too big / awkward. There is a lot of space for reapers/blink/drops/harass that covering your entire main could be more of a pain in the butt. Also, the random parts you have "jutting" out I think are unnecessary. The Northwest and Southeast sides of the map I just can't see being used all that much. Maybe you'll take one of the bases as a 4th if you expand vertically but otherwise it might be easier just to take "your corner" (so SW & NE sides) of the map and each get 5 bases. The corner island bases...no..I don't like them one bit and they just look thrown in there just because. I'd just get rid of them. The Five paths are neat and I think it works out pretty nice. I think you should just mold the map around that. Although as I said with the 3 corner bases (NW and SE corners) I almost would rather those get deleted and rework the lower ground paths to open them up a little bit. As of right now it seems the only non-choky part of the map is the middle, which is also the best push path, which means the majority of attacks will come from it. It would be kind of cool to have the 5 paths where it goes Low ground (edges) > high(where golds are) > low (middle) > high (golds) > low (edges). I'd also then put the vertical 3rd bases on the low ground so they are connected to that low ground path. I'd also open up the high ground paths a little bit so they aren't so choked, especially around the golds. I'd love to go into more detail and draw out on photoshop just exactly I'm thinking and maybe I can do that sometime later today or this weekend, but as of right now...gotta get back to work! <3 Keep up the good mapping! | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
On May 04 2017 23:15 SidianTheBard wrote:The Northwest and Southeast sides of the map I just can't see being used all that much. Maybe you'll take one of the bases as a 4th if you expand vertically but otherwise it might be easier just to take "your corner" (so SW & NE sides) of the map and each get 5 bases. The corner island bases...no..I don't like them one bit and they just look thrown in there just because. I'd just get rid of them. Finally the myth of dead space is dead! thx for the feedback though. Ill try to make the bases next to the bridges more viable, but the bridges are one of the central elements of the map for me so Ill try to keep them. Do you think I can get rid of the small ramps next to the gold bases? I mean the one below the bottom gold and above the top gold base. That way the 5 paths would be more defined and the other paths would be more defined but I think Zerg might need them. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
| ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xdp0eV7.jpg) I think you could make it really cool with the whole 5 paths theme. Make the two higher ground paths choked with rocks on all the smaller chokes so unless you break the rocks your army gets "stuck" in that path. Maybe you could move the island base closer. Wasn't sure how it'd look. Put some water or rock doodads in the middle low ground area and throw some LoSB to make it a little less push friendly. I know you might feel the map revolves around those corner bridges but it doesn't, it revolves around your pathways in the middle because those bridges on the corners will never (well...rarely) get used. I'm under the impression you started creating the map with those bridges in mind and now want to work around them no matter what. I look at the map and those bridges just seem awkward as heck. Now, if you want them in your map, by all means, it's your map so please do! I'm just sharing my thoughts when looking at it. I hope I"m not sounding condescending, I'm not trying to, just sharing my thoughts! Looking forward to your next update on it! Cheers! | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
I want a more horizontal, long "front line" instead of a deep line where you expand towards the opponent where your bases are easy to defend through static defense due to small ramps (or narrow bridges!), but the attacker having more possible paths of attack instead. The outer paths are an element of that. If I delete the bridges the front line would be too narrow and might develop in Daybreak Variation # 9000. I think I will move the bases adjacent to the bridge further towards their respective mains, especially the vertical one, so vertical expanding is encouraged. I think I might just delete the central golds to make the outer lowground paths more viable. I think I would like to try to keep the small chokes on the highground path though. IMO small chokes are mostly a problem if you don't control your army properly. I also deleted the islands and moved the vertical 3rds to the low ground. I'll post pics tomorrow I think. thx for the feedback | ||
|
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zjT2F97.jpg) what do you think? | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/49F0BGj.png) | ||
|
Lycanthoss
Lithuania29 Posts
On May 19 2017 12:50 lorestarcraft wrote: This is a WIP I was working on, trying to get the high ground concept to work. Thoughts, anyone? the expansion under the main would basically never be taken as from this picture i presume this map is rather small-medium size and extreme late game wouldnt be reached. The small pillars in the middle could make some pathing issues if playing against a protoss. | ||
| ||
