|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On August 29 2017 21:31 Meltage wrote:Cant find the TLMC thread? Here is an update on MudWatch. Feedback appreciated. Uploaded to EU and NA. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rC3CO8t.jpg) Also, testing a safer and closer third ... or just a boring one? Which do you prefer and why? + Show Spoiler +An observation is that it really helps with movement through the map from first bases to last bases ... but is it a good thing? If that large army movement is discouraged, would we see more split armies?
The TLMC thread is in general (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/525900-teamliquid-map-contest-9)
Probably would do the 2nd picture, but maybe with a slightly different ramp/rock setup in front of it.
One thing that sticks out to me is the ~10 o'clock expansion underneath the cliff, it's really far away from the 8 o'clock third AND it's really vulnerable so it seems unlikely that you'd ever want to expand there. Seems to me like an expo should either be vulnerable and a close/medium distance away, or safe if it's going to be far away. But not both
|
|
|
@Insidioussc2 I like the one with the bridges the best as it encourages making use of some of the bigger paths later on in the game. I don't like how skinny the path in front of the main becomes though, it seems a little awkward. Cool map!
Do you guys happen to see any glaring issues with this one? Obviously the aesthetics aren't final, but I feel kind of blinded by my own design, maybe I can't spot the obvious fatal flaws, so another set of eyes on it is appreciated.
(2) Magma Forge 152x136 (it's on EU if you for some reason want to play it)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NcKLiQc.jpg)
|
If anyone has a promising layout but dont have the time for asthetics, please let me know. If I dont have anything worthwhile in a couple of days, Id be up for doing the level art of the submission of someone else (for free!  )
MudWatch update:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OwEH5zX.jpg)
Made two new layouts yesterday. I want to make a few more concepts and then move forward with at least one for TLMC.
Feedback and criticism warmly welcome.
Concrete Rush
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DVHqvAs.jpg)
Grey Sands
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QqRQOfb.jpg)
|
@Meltage I'm really liking where you've taken MudWatch! Can't wait to see that one finished.
The two new ones look great too, maybe Concrete Rush's base density is a little on the high side. (my maps suffer from this too)
And one possible critique of Grey Sands is that it feels like you have to stray all the way to the edges of the maps to take any possible paths to your opponent aside from the middle. I suppose it could be a feature of sorts, I just feel like it might lead to people using the middle paths 99% of the time, because the other ones are too far.
|
On August 29 2017 21:31 Meltage wrote:Cant find the TLMC thread? Here is an update on MudWatch. Feedback appreciated. Uploaded to EU and NA. Also, testing a safer and closer third ... or just a boring one? Which do you prefer and why? + Show Spoiler +An observation is that it really helps with movement through the map from first bases to last bases ... but is it a good thing? If that large army movement is discouraged, would we see more split armies?
If think if you were going to go with one of these designs the safer third is the way to go. The "dangerous" design is subject to some serious siege tank suppression from the low-ground adjacent to the mineral line. Although this is still a potential problem in your 'safer third' it is less likely to happen. I think both thirds are a bit difficult to take in my opinion, the area around them is so wide open and they're closer to the enemy. Have you experimented with putting it in that little C shaped pocket near the main, similar to how you have the 4th positioned?
EDIT: I see you've posted an upate i guess i wasn't scrolled all the way down, that third looks much better to take and easier to hold. It's still a teensy bit unfavorable because of the way it's positioned and how you have to wall off one side of it to make it defendable against Zerg (speaking as a toss). But, it looks way better! Maybe take that C shaped idea, experiment with shifting that 4th down and closer to the natural, so there there is an option between two thirds?
If you have a minute while you're browsing im looking for some feedback on Toxic Levy! I just posted it in the custom maps thread, its about 95% done but i would love to get peoples impressions of it.
|
On August 30 2017 22:48 nesta-kun wrote:@Insidioussc2 I like the one with the bridges the best as it encourages making use of some of the bigger paths later on in the game. I don't like how skinny the path in front of the main becomes though, it seems a little awkward. Cool map! Do you guys happen to see any glaring issues with this one? Obviously the aesthetics aren't final, but I feel kind of blinded by my own design, maybe I can't spot the obvious fatal flaws, so another set of eyes on it is appreciated. (2) Magma Forge 152x136 (it's on EU if you for some reason want to play it)
Thanks for the feedback!
I can't spot any particular issues on Magma Forge, but I think something (besides aesthetics obviously) is still missing. All areas are medium wide with medium wide chokes and not too many flanking routes.
The concept and base setup has potential though, I think.
|
On September 01 2017 08:16 Insidioussc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 22:48 nesta-kun wrote:@Insidioussc2 I like the one with the bridges the best as it encourages making use of some of the bigger paths later on in the game. I don't like how skinny the path in front of the main becomes though, it seems a little awkward. Cool map! Do you guys happen to see any glaring issues with this one? Obviously the aesthetics aren't final, but I feel kind of blinded by my own design, maybe I can't spot the obvious fatal flaws, so another set of eyes on it is appreciated. (2) Magma Forge 152x136 (it's on EU if you for some reason want to play it) Thanks for the feedback! I can't spot any particular issues on Magma Forge, but I think something (besides aesthetics obviously) is still missing. All areas are medium wide with medium wide chokes and not too many flanking routes. The concept and base setup has potential though, I think.
Haha welcome to like 95% of maps, unfortunately. For whatever reason it's been super in-vogue with the popular mapmakers to not have much variation in hallway/choke size on their maps for most of SC2's history, so others follow suit. For me, I feel like it's watering down the game. You're minimizing the chance for imbalance when you play things that way, which I guess is kinda good, but you're also reducing the chance that the map can be amazing. So instead of you get lots and lots of just decent maps.
I do think that map is actually pretty solid, so not trying to hate on it in particular, just that comment made me think of that and I felt compelled to mini-rage. @ the map I agree that some areas could be pushed a bit to extremes, and maybe the debris should be at the top of the defender's ramp rather than in the middle like that (even though being in the middle is perhaps more aesthetically pleasing).
|
Update on MudWatch .. making the forward third safer.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sbV5CR9.jpg)
Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
---
I made one new concept for a rush map. It stays true to the original Silver Sands (the msot sucessful map Ive made, back in 2013) but is smaller. How does it work in today's meta do you think?
Silver Sands SE
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QxK4l99.jpg)
Both maps are on NA and EU for testing
|
Is there anything fundamentally broken about this main - nat - 3rd/4th setup?
There are gold minerals under the rocks. Destroying them opens up a new attack path. Blink stalkers / siege tanks, maybe? The mining A.I. does get tripped up a bit if you rally workers to the gold minerals before the rocks are down. You can build a town hall in the correct spot before the rocks are down, but workers can't reach the minerals to mine them. The original idea was for a 8 -blue mineral only base but I can't seem to fit 8 minerals under the rocks in such a way that workers can't mine from them.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SutsXDI.jpg)
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 02 2017 09:35 TheFish7 wrote:Is there anything fundamentally broken about this main - nat - 3rd/4th setup? There are gold minerals under the rocks. Destroying them opens up a new attack path. Blink stalkers / siege tanks, maybe? The mining A.I. does get tripped up a bit if you rally workers to the gold minerals before the rocks are down. You can build a town hall in the correct spot before the rocks are down, but workers can't reach the minerals to mine them. The original idea was for a 8 -blue mineral only base but I can't seem to fit 8 minerals under the rocks in such a way that workers can't mine from them.
@TheFish7
It might be possible to set up a pylon and warp-in over the wall very early, just one thought.
Putting unbuildable plates near the enemy side of the rock might resolve that.
|
@TheFish7 I feel like the workers are gonna be too vulnerable, unless you are in a position to defend it from the ramp outside of the base, in which case it might as well have been a regular backdoor expo.
I feel like a similar but less gimmicky setup would be to just have a backdoor expo(gold or not) blocked by rocks, and then have a separate entrance to that base also blocked by rocks. That would also allow you to tune the balance a little more carefully, maybe make it less vulnerable to siege tanks.
|
I'd say that nat is a bit cramped as well
|
Yeah i think ppl would most likely just take another 4th since it doestn even have gas. And a Gold without gas (and not available early) favours Terrans a little i guess.
The natural can be propably be cannon rushed pretty easily, watch out for this. It should never be possible to walloff a cannon with only one pylon.
Maybe some Comments on this Layout? Thx in advance 
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZVeWVnF.jpg)
And i made some small changes to this one too, if someone maybe has a comment on it
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Q9VVif1.jpg)
|
And here a rush map. Can this work?!
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1F7Mose.jpg)
And an update on an previous layout:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 06 2017 00:49 Zweck wrote:... And i made some small changes to this one too, if someone maybe has a comment on it
Thirds being too hard to hold because of the higher ground ramp next tot hem. The rocks doesn't help against siege tanks. Better if at least one third is on higher ground?
|
Yeah thats true, gonna change that thx!! I make the linear third on highground. Gonna be super standard then but thats fine, i like super standard
btw: made some major changes to my last layout:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I like it. I think perhaps you need more space outside the nat n third because you defend from there as z for sure. Maybe as p n t too - because you cant move between nat n third with troops. I would widen some areas to make up for the cramped ones. The forward fourths facing the low ground could be gold?
---
These are my WIPs .. I think I only have time to finish either the space or desert one. Which is most interesting?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Nqku7oD.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/e2EHQXI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3kb8jHo.jpg)
Edit: oh, and I made this one too. Not sure if its just gimmicky with the narrow walls or if its a valid concept. Is it more interesting than the other two unfinished?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aOVb8FZ.jpg)
|
the space one look interesting... altough 4player maps are not super popular among pro players. And they mid is way to chokey. Maybe id finish the desert one then. but not sure.
Maybe s.o. some comments on this rush map?:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/39KZzBo.jpg)
|
seems solid.. it's super standard but maybe you could make that its selling point. "look at this super solid standard map that is on the small side"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8C2Opwj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZcnJXFr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X9Knoiw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/al1xQ3N.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B1OKom0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CU6v4l9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qbPRWpT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SgVwW8k.jpg)
