Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 206

Post a Reply

Prev 1 204 205 206 207 208 217 Next

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

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

July 20 2017 19:58 GMT

#4101

^ For some reason this reminds me of Bridge too Near from BW

+ Show Spoiler +

Legan

Finland597 Posts

July 23 2017 18:48 GMT

#4102

On July 04 2017 02:56 ZigguratOfUr wrote:

Show nested quote +

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).

I haven't asked feedback from anywhere else yet, but will probably join discord soon.
I 'finalised' the first map by refactoring the middle a little, adding dooddads around the map and added high grounds for OLs.

152x156
+ Show Spoiler +

I made another map with same kind of positioning of bases, that in my first. I'm concerned that moving from bottom-left to top-right is difficult and bases on those corners are too safe for being taken as 5th and 6th bases.

138x148
+ Show Spoiler +

My newest experiment. Switched high ground third from front of the main to side and made third base in front of main a low ground base. I'm again concerned about movement, but this time there are not really routes on side of the map.

136x144
+ Show Spoiler +

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

July 24 2017 02:28 GMT

#4103

On July 21 2017 00:04 Samro225am wrote:
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
+ Show Spoiler +

alternative 2
+ Show Spoiler +

alternative 3
+ Show Spoiler +

Is this a game of spot the differences?

I definitely version 3 the best since the map is already really choke heavy overall.

On July 24 2017 03:48 Legan wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 04 2017 02:56 ZigguratOfUr wrote:

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 +

The first thing I see with your two new maps is that the base density is too high. Both of them have 20 bases which is too many for a medium-sized map, and way too many for the a small map (which the second map is). The distance between adjacent bases should roughly be around 40 by ground using the distance measuring tool and a lot of the bases are much closer than that.

Fatam

1986 Posts

July 24 2017 04:43 GMT

#4104

You know being the troublemaker that I am I have to disagree with that a bit. (of course, it's a nice basic guideline if the bases are normal setups on a standard map)

You can have 3 bases within a pretty small radius yet in order to defend all 3 you would need armies at radically different locations. Cliffs/terrain can do that. But I think you have to have that heavy in your mind if you are going to have high base density. You shouldn't be able to defend multiple bases from the same army location.

Also, further on the topic, I think it's MORE than ok to have high base density on a small map because it's easier to get punished for expanding. So to counteract the reluctantness of players to expand bc of the rush distance you should actually strongly consider high base density so that macro games are more possible. Just my take on it though

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

July 24 2017 06:04 GMT

#4105

On July 24 2017 13:43 Fatam wrote:
You know being the troublemaker that I am I have to disagree with that a bit. (of course, it's a nice basic guideline if the bases are normal setups on a standard map)

You can have 3 bases within a pretty small radius yet in order to defend all 3 you would need armies at radically different locations. Cliffs/terrain can do that. But I think you have to have that heavy in your mind if you are going to have high base density. You shouldn't be able to defend multiple bases from the same army location.

Also, further on the topic, I think it's MORE than ok to have high base density on a small map because it's easier to get punished for expanding. So to counteract the reluctantness of players to expand bc of the rush distance you should actually strongly consider high base density so that macro games are more possible. Just my take on it though

Fair enough. There's some amount of leeway with this guideline. I do think that in this specific case the maps would benefit from having fewer bases.

And as for having a high base density on small maps I think you have to be careful with that, since past a certain point having a lot bases that you can take does translate to the bases being more vulnerable individually due to the necessity of keeping everything connected.

Legan

Finland597 Posts

July 24 2017 19:06 GMT

#4106

I reworked both maps to have more distance between bases. The first new map in my previous post doesn't look well at all currently, but the second one looks now better. I also removed bases so that currently it has 16 bases.

144x150
[image loading]

yagrebinho

15 Posts

July 25 2017 08:06 GMT

#4107

On July 25 2017 04:06 Legan wrote:
I reworked both maps to have more distance between bases. The first new map in my previous post doesn't look well at all currently, but the second one looks now better. I also removed bases so that currently it has 16 bases.

144x150
[image loading]

Cool map

MoonStone1

20 Posts

July 27 2017 13:22 GMT

#4108

My first attempt at melee map, let me know what you guys think!

Texture and deco are placeholder.

108 x 228 playable.

+ Show Spoiler +

Supposed to be a 1v1 map with reasonable rush distance.
Focused on getting to 3 bases easy and macro up.

Legan

Finland597 Posts

July 27 2017 15:44 GMT

#4109

On July 27 2017 22:22 MoonStone1 wrote:
My first attempt at melee map, let me know what you guys think!

Texture and deco are placeholder.

108 x 228 playable.

+ Show Spoiler +

Supposed to be a 1v1 map with reasonable rush distance.
Focused on getting to 3 bases easy and macro up.

I have not much experience about map making yet, but I can try to give you feedback anyway.

To me the vertical distance seems huge. Have you measured distance in seconds between main ramps? I think distance between main ramps is usually min 40s and max 50s. For some reason when I start map for testing from editor, the game speed is set to normal instead of fastest. so you should check it before measuring.

You seem to have non-standard number of minerals for multiple bases. Normally there is 8 minerals, 6 minerals 3 squares away and 2 minerals 4 squares away.

The bases on sides at middle look awkward for moving through them. Also attacking workers would be easy because mineral line blocks movements for defender.

Vertical and horizontal ramps are shorter than diagonal ones and harder to wall-off.

Have you checked Mapper's Index under Custom Maps on TL? There is good list of resources for map making. Most of them are old but still relevant.

Meltage

Germany613 Posts

August 04 2017 11:50 GMT

#4110

Published on Americas and Europe as MudWatch for playtests.

Feedback appreciated. I ahvnt mapped in the last years but found some time.

[image loading]

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

August 05 2017 05:13 GMT

#4111

On August 04 2017 20:50 Meltage wrote:
Published on Americas and Europe as MudWatch for playtests.

Feedback appreciated. I ahvnt mapped in the last years but found some time.

+ Show Spoiler +

damn, now that's a name i haven't seen in a long time...

i don't think people will like the double entrance nat, it's been tried again in every expansion so far, and it never works out well. also i can't tell exactly, but the high ground pods at the 2/8 expansions look like they'll be too close to the town halls, and just get in the defender's way when fighting at that location.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

August 06 2017 20:28 GMT

#4112

welcome back meltage!

i suggest to block the second entrance. the distance from nat choke to choke looks long enough to allow a blocked second entrance at least. what is problematic within the framework of the contemporary gameplay is that third bases need to be much closer to the natural choke and easier to defend (distance from third's ramp/choke to third's cc).

Erotesn

27 Posts

August 09 2017 20:49 GMT

#4113

Untitled

Fire's Heart

MoonStone1

20 Posts

August 16 2017 19:29 GMT

#4114

116 x 164
Published on NA
"Chrysalis"
[image loading]

Images
+ Show Spoiler +

This is my eighth map, I'm trying to work on proportions and eventually submit for TLMC!

Any feedback is appreciated

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

August 17 2017 05:36 GMT

#4115

On August 17 2017 04:29 MoonStone1 wrote:
116 x 164
Published on NA
"Chrysalis"
[image loading]

Images
+ Show Spoiler +

This is my eighth map, I'm trying to work on proportions and eventually submit for TLMC!

Any feedback is appreciated

The first thing I noticed is that the long corridor leading to the natural probably lends itself to some contains that would be very hard to break out of.

Pasketi

Finland16 Posts

August 21 2017 20:36 GMT

#4116

Hi there!

I'd like to get some additional opinions on my current map.

Map and analyzer view
+ Show Spoiler +

I don't want to write long, elaborate descriptions for "Why I did this map" right now, it's getting late.

Zweck

Germany211 Posts

August 22 2017 16:02 GMT

#4117

TLMC announcement brought back the motivation! Maybe some comments on those layouts maybe? would appreciate it

(Added some quick doodads to show blocked pathing.)

And im wondering if we maybe need less bases again in the future thanks to the balance changes coming up!?
SO maybe 16 Bases is a bit too much in the first map.

Fatam

1986 Posts

August 22 2017 19:55 GMT

#4118

That first one is striking. Especially with a cool contrast-y border that could be a looker. @ gameplay it looks nice, although getting a 4th looks like it could be really tricky (especially for zerg). Either you're taking a base that's pretty far away as your 4th, or you're taking the closest one that is expanding towards your opponent and has highground with a XNT above it for the enemy to have an easy foothold.

2nd looks fine-ish to me, kind of like sequencer but painted in broader strokes