Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 205

Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin

Lycanthoss

Lithuania29 Posts

May 19 2017 07:33 GMT

#4081

The visuals aren't done as im trying to figure out if movement space is too wide. Posting it here to know if layout is good. Map idea is that resources are a lot harder to reach and defend as game goes on.

nesta-kun

Denmark26 Posts

June 10 2017 04:44 GMT

#4082

Hi teamliquid mapmaking community!

This is my first post, but I've been lurking the forums for a while. I have finally created a map that I am fairly confident in.
Overall it's pretty standard, my initial idea was just the main/nat/3rd layout + the rocks to the middle.
I've put in the most significant pathing blocking doodads, but I'm waiting with the rest of the aesthetics until I'm sure there are no glaring issues with the design. My biggest concern is that the gold might be too easy to take? - but I would say it's pretty similar to Proxima Station.

Some things to note:
Map size is: 128x160
Siege tanks can hit one geyser in the natural from across the chasm, but no minerals - this would be an easy fix with doodads, however I've chosen to keep it as is for now.

Any and all critique is very welcome!

Overview:
[image loading]

Fatam

1986 Posts

June 11 2017 19:24 GMT

#4083

Looks super good for a 1st map! The main to nat distance could be smaller and maybe the nat town hall to nat ramp distance could be a smidge smaller as well. Although I'm not the expert on standard-style maps since I make weird stuff so maybe someone else can tell you better.

Third is maybe a touch on the tough side for LotV but seems mostly ok.

The 1/7 o'clock and 2/8 o'clock base and that highground area feel a little awkward, not unusable but maybe like they could be done in a better way.

nesta-kun

Denmark26 Posts

June 12 2017 18:01 GMT

#4084

@Fatam

Thank you so much for the feedback! I'll make some revisions and post back here.
The corner bases for sure was a bit of a challenge, but I'm sure i can figure something out that feels a little more natural!

nesta-kun

Denmark26 Posts

June 13 2017 17:56 GMT

#4085

I made some changes! Main/nat/3rd is slightly different and the 3rd should be easier to take, and I opened up the map a little by adding a ramp next to the gold.
The corners saw some changes too, technically one less path around that area, but at least the paths are more meaningful.
The expansion pattern is pretty clearly just vertical now, however I'm think I'm ok with that. I also developed the aesthetics a little, I think it's more interesting than the more commonly used Aiur/Bel'shir/beach theme.

Overview:
[image loading]

Edit:
I made a gif showing the changes:
+ Show Spoiler +

Fatam

1986 Posts

June 20 2017 20:47 GMT

#4086

seems like a better version for sure. I'd love for someone else to comment since feedback from only 1 source isn't worth so much

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

June 21 2017 03:28 GMT

#4087

Yea it's a good map definitely. The middle is a little bit chokey imo, but that could be considered a feature given the placement of the gold bases. It's a balancing act between ease of taking the gold bases and making them useless winner's bases. Bases 4-5-6 have fairly high resource density.

happykrogan

Germany408 Posts

June 23 2017 14:48 GMT

#4088

The first map I post on teamliquid.
I didn't start the aesthetics yet too. The trees are placeholders where i want to put more detailed doodads later.
It feels a bit awkward especially because i don't think that the map is very good but I didn't wanted it to rot on my computer with no feedback at all.

[image loading]

So pleaße tell me what I can improve.

happykrogan

Germany408 Posts

June 23 2017 14:52 GMT

#4089

On June 23 2017 23:48 happykrogan wrote:
The first map I post on teamliquid.
I didn't start the aesthetics yet too. The trees are placeholders where i want to put more detailed doodads later.
It feels a bit awkward especially because i don't think that the map is very good but I didn't wanted it to rot on my computer with no feedback at all.

So pleaße tell me what I can improve.

Somehow i can't see the image of my post. Is that only me or did i do something wrong?

Fixed now.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

June 23 2017 16:42 GMT

#4090

On June 23 2017 23:52 happykrogan wrote:

Show nested quote +

Somehow i can't see the image of my post. Is that only me or did i do something wrong?

You need a '.png' inside your image tag, and you can't link an album

Like so:

[image loading]

happykrogan

Germany408 Posts

June 23 2017 16:47 GMT

#4091

On June 24 2017 01:42 ZigguratOfUr wrote:

Show nested quote +

You need a '.png' inside your image tag, and you can't link an album

Like so:

Thank you

Legan

Finland326 Posts

June 28 2017 17:50 GMT

#4092

Hi, my first post and map that I dare to share with others for feedback.

My thought process for the map was something like:
Have two possible third bases, one on high ground and one on low ground. 'Preferred' fourth base should be in front of the third base, thus 'blocking' the main attack route to it. Also if you take high ground base as third, then 'preferred' fourth base should be on low ground, and similarly if low ground base is taken as third, then 'preferred' fourth base should be on high ground. Also both third bases should have a secondary attack route. 'Preferred' fourth bases should have one possible fifth between them and two on the edge of the map. For the center of the map I didn't have any idea, but thought that separate attack routes for possible fifth base on low ground and 'preferred' low ground fourth could be better, than huge open area. Also there is no specific idea about bases on the edge of the map (2, 3, 8 & 9 clock). My only concern was not making them too safe. This led to pushing specially base at 2 o'clock to be more distant to the high ground fourth base.

The center of the map maybe messy and I'm not sure how preferable low ground fourth is after taking the high ground third, but I'm okay, if it isn't.

* I struggle with ramp and choke sizes. There aren't probably too small ramps but maybe unnecessarily wide ones.
* Main probably needs some blockers on the cliff to limit reaper usage.
* Filling areas with same doodad doesn't look good and isn't better than filling with water.
* Every base should be safe from siege tanks and liberators, either having two or more squares behind minerals or controlled high ground behind minerals.

[image loading]

164x172
45s from ramp to ramp with worker.

What is the correct point for measuring the rush distance? Upper edge of main's ramp?

Another view of map with camera angle at 70 degrees.
+ Show Spoiler +

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

June 30 2017 05:31 GMT

#4093

Caveat Lector: When asked to critique things I can come across really harsh, so please take this constructively.

On June 23 2017 23:48 happykrogan wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

So pleaße tell me what I can improve.

The mineral lines are too close to the edges. It looks like you could place a liberator at the natural or third to deny mining from out of stalker range
The second passage at the natural makes walling off really awkward for Protoss against Zerg
I don't like the second passage in general. It feels really awkwardly placed, and is so narrow that it's sure to lead to clumsy battles from low ground to high ground. Also could possibly be used for some abusive cannon rushes. If you want to facilitate movement between the natural and the possible third, you can make the main smaller and use that space. The main is big enough to spare some space.
Avoid horizontal ramps. They're shorter than diagonal ramps, look really bad, are hard to wall-off etc. To use very sparingly.
The two crescents in the middle of the map and all the holes restrict movement too much. Armies are forced to go really far to get around them. Also leads to some balance concerns.
The long passages around the corner bases are too narrow and round-about to see play.

On June 29 2017 02:50 Legan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +

There's insane amounts of airspace around the edges of the map, which means that drops are able to enter the bases from basically any angle. Also makes the map really big.
Even discounting all the excess airspace the map is still really big. Maybe it can be made tighter. Possibly by eliminating the middle 11/5 o'clock bases since they feel a bit in the way and out of place
You're right that you'll need blockers for reapers. In addition to that I'd try to make the main more concave to reduce its perimeter.
Same comment as above about horizontal ramps. It isn't as bad here, but I still think the map could do without them. Maybe it'll improve the middle too. To me it also feels messy to I'm not really able to articulate what exactly is wrong with it.

Legan

Finland326 Posts

June 30 2017 14:30 GMT

#4094

On June 30 2017 14:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Caveat Lector: When asked to critique things I can come across really harsh, so please take this constructively.

Show nested quote +

The mineral lines are too close to the edges. It looks like you could place a liberator at the natural or third to deny mining from out of stalker range
The second passage at the natural makes walling off really awkward for Protoss against Zerg
I don't like the second passage in general. It feels really awkwardly placed, and is so narrow that it's sure to lead to clumsy battles from low ground to high ground. Also could possibly be used for some abusive cannon rushes. If you want to facilitate movement between the natural and the possible third, you can make the main smaller and use that space. The main is big enough to spare some space.
Avoid horizontal ramps. They're shorter than diagonal ramps, look really bad, are hard to wall-off etc. To use very sparingly.
The two crescents in the middle of the map and all the holes restrict movement too much. Armies are forced to go really far to get around them. Also leads to some balance concerns.
The long passages around the corner bases are too narrow and round-about to see play.

Show nested quote +

There's insane amounts of airspace around the edges of the map, which means that drops are able to enter the bases from basically any angle. Also makes the map really big.
Even discounting all the excess airspace the map is still really big. Maybe it can be made tighter. Possibly by eliminating the middle 11/5 o'clock bases since they feel a bit in the way and out of place
You're right that you'll need blockers for reapers. In addition to that I'd try to make the main more concave to reduce its perimeter.
Same comment as above about horizontal ramps. It isn't as bad here, but I still think the map could do without them. Maybe it'll improve the middle too. To me it also feels messy to I'm not really able to articulate what exactly is wrong with it.

Thanks for feedback.

Changes:

Removed airspace from edges and shrank map overrally. Map is now smaller, 152x156 and rush distance 42s.
Removed low ground base at 11/5 o'clock.
Removed vertical and horizontal ramps.
Made main more concave, but didn't add any blockers yet.
Simplified middle a lot.
Reworked base at 3/9 o'clock.
Removed doodads for now.

152x156
Rush distance 42s

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

June 30 2017 19:26 GMT

#4095

Not a huge fan of the new middle--too many straight lines to the opponent. As for the 6/9 o'clock bases you could change the minerals to be backed to the outside of the map. Like that you don't need as many big holes in the map and can also reduce the size of those bases.

Legan

Finland326 Posts

July 03 2017 11:33 GMT

#4096

Thanks again.

Changes:

Reduced size of bases at 6/9 o'clock as suggested.
Moved bases at 7 and 8 o'clock away from middle to sides.
Added doodads to under base at 7 o'clock to make it safe from siege tanks, but not sure if actually needed and may make secondary path to base at 6 o'clock too long.
Reworked the middle to have S like characteristics. It also have two possible places for 6x6 debris, that define is the there vertical or horizontal path at the center. Debris could be replaced with some doodads to limit the middle more.
Added also doodads again, but some of them allow units to fly through them. This is shown in pictures below. I found pathing and vision blockers. but nothing that could raise the flying height of units on top of these doodads.
Two structure doodads at middle, that aren't totally destroyed, have flying blockers.

Two pictures that have same middle but differently placed debris:
+ Show Spoiler +

152x156
43s

[image loading]

152x156
43s

Edit:
Version with high ground instead of doodads, other versions had too small chokes:
+ Show Spoiler +

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

July 03 2017 17:56 GMT

#4097

On July 03 2017 20:33 Legan wrote:
Thanks again.

Changes:

Reduced size of bases at 6/9 o'clock as suggested.
Moved bases at 7 and 8 o'clock away from middle to sides.
Added doodads to under base at 7 o'clock to make it safe from siege tanks, but not sure if actually needed and may make secondary path to base at 6 o'clock too long.
Reworked the middle to have S like characteristics. It also have two possible places for 6x6 debris, that define is the there vertical or horizontal path at the center. Debris could be replaced with some doodads to limit the middle more.
Added also doodads again, but some of them allow units to fly through them. This is shown in pictures below. I found pathing and vision blockers. but nothing that could raise the flying height of units on top of these doodads.
Two structure doodads at middle, that aren't totally destroyed, have flying blockers.

Two pictures that have same middle but differently placed debris:
+ Show Spoiler +

152x156
43s

[image loading]

152x156
43s

Edit:
Version with high ground instead of doodads, other versions had too small chokes:
+ Show Spoiler +

Middle-wise, I like the second version best since it does a good job of separating the bases closest to the centre. The doodads behind the secondary bath are definitely unneeded--it's completely fine for a fourth/fifth base to be accessible to be shot at from behind especially when it's quite easy for a friendly army to move behind it to defend. As for air blockers I really hate them and think they should be avoided whenever possible, since they're really buggy and units can get stuck against them. Units clipping through doodads is kinda ugly, but at least it doesn't harm gameplay. You can try to use other doodads or shrink the existing ones.

Also to get feedback about the map have you tried any platforms other than TL? I know there's a few mapmaking Discord channels (I think https://discord.gg/cyCmptG is the biggest one, but there's some others floating about).

Forerunner

1 Post

July 19 2017 17:29 GMT

#4098

Greetings! I am David (Forerunner) and I enjoy working on 1v1 Melee Maps in my free time. I'm still quite new to the whole process, but practice makes perfect, eh?

I am currently working on the map Thundering Tides, the most up-to-date version can be found on the American server under that name in Custom Games.

Playable Size: 140x180
Full Size: 160x208

Top-Down Image:
+ Show Spoiler +

45-Degree Angle
+ Show Spoiler +

Action Shot:
+ Show Spoiler +

I look forward to any comments and ideas you guys may have, thank you so much for your time and effort! Feel free to contact me on Discord at Biosphere#5860, I'd love for you to join my StarCraft II server!

Best regards,
Forerunner

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

July 20 2017 14:47 GMT

#4099

On July 20 2017 02:29 Forerunner wrote:+ Show Spoiler +

45-Degree Angle
+ Show Spoiler +

Action Shot:
+ Show Spoiler +

@Forerunner: hello and weclome to sc2 map making. here is a quick comment just from analyzing the overview: the map is pretty big and there is plenty of empty space, also bases (just look at nat and third) are pretty (too) spacious. The third backdoor is a neat idea in general, but given the large natural base's ramp one would rather go straight in anyway, so i think you need to work on general spacing first before experimenting with backdoors, etc.
i hope this is not too demotivating, but i suggest to put the map away for a minute, open in the editor any of the current ladder maps and just copy the minearl lines and geysers from there, start a new map (136x152) and switch on symmetry mode and then paste these three bases in one corner. then - before doing any terraining - just set up more bases in the same pattern that you suggested here (plus one) until you have 16 overall. In doing so the spacing should be fine. 144x144=16 bases as a standard. the golds are very hard. maybe leave them out instead?

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

July 20 2017 15:04 GMT

#4100

okay, a few months after the classic TLMC double-finalist-entry-and-fail i fired up the galaxy editor again. a few hours last night and some quick changes today and here is something with a rather high base-density on 144x144. c&c welcome!

alternative 1
[image loading]

alternative 2
[image loading]

alternative 3
[image loading]

Prev 1 203 204 205 206 207 217 Next

Please or register to reply.

Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 205

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming