|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
I think the pathway inbetween the nat and the 12:30/6:30 expos should be widened.
That way zerg can take that base as a third and not have it be super vulnerable to FFs vs Protoss. Right now both thirds are easily seal-offable by FFs.
With that change I think it could be a pretty cool map. T and P will take the chokey base as a third vs. Z, while Z will usually take the more open base. T might take the more open base vs. P in some situations.
edit: I think one more thing that could be argued for is changing the highground pods with the XNTs to lowgrounds instead.
You already have the strength of the XNT when you hold that position. If you add on top of that the strength of highground, and the position is maybe too strong. Just an opinion though, maybe some other people will have thoughts on that. (I know it's not possible currently b/c that would put it on the lowest unpathable cliff level. But maybe there is a workaround)
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c88nl.jpg)
Just a fun little project. Inspired by the close position spawns of metalopolis turned into a 2player map. Suffices that since the entire gist of the idea is the rush distance, not worth commenting on that. Anything else you think is wrong with it, much appreciated. I do intend to make a reasonably balanced map here in the end. Hatch first ZvT not recommended.
|
On November 13 2012 15:55 Fatam wrote:
I think the pathway inbetween the nat and the 12:30/6:30 expos should be widened.
That way zerg can take that base as a third and not have it be super vulnerable to FFs vs Protoss. Right now both thirds are easily seal-offable by FFs.
With that change I think it could be a pretty cool map. T and P will take the chokey base as a third vs. Z, while Z will usually take the more open base. T might take the more open base vs. P in some situations.
edit: I think one more thing that could be argued for is changing the highground pods with the XNTs to lowgrounds instead.
You already have the strength of the XNT when you hold that position. If you add on top of that the strength of highground, and the position is maybe too strong. Just an opinion though, maybe some other people will have thoughts on that. (I know it's not possible currently b/c that would put it on the lowest unpathable cliff level. But maybe there is a workaround)
Thanks for the suggestions, another option is just to move the towers so they aren't as strong - not sure where I would put them though.
Also, if you think zergs will be taking the low-ground base as a 3rd, do you think I should remove the high ground drop-pod?
|
On November 13 2012 16:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:Just a fun little project. Inspired by the close position spawns of metalopolis turned into a 2player map. Suffices that since the entire gist of the idea is the rush distance, not worth commenting on that. Anything else you think is wrong with it, much appreciated. I do intend to make a reasonably balanced map here in the end. Hatch first ZvT not recommended.
It funny how in another thread you can't drop an issue because 'if everyone believes the world is flat I'm going to continue telling them it is round' yet when it comes to your own map you tell everyone to not comment on the obviously fatal flaw.
If you wanted to make a 2 base map where it's impossible to get a 3rd (or even a natural) why not have only 2 bases per player with some land connecting them? It's not like the rush distance even needs to be that short, there is plenty of space behind the main to move the man and nat back in to, increasing the rush distance whilst keeping the openness.
|
Mars Lander:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Haven't started on the textures yet. Any thoughts about the layout in general? Particularly the middle I'm not sure about.
|
On November 13 2012 23:11 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 16:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:Just a fun little project. Inspired by the close position spawns of metalopolis turned into a 2player map. Suffices that since the entire gist of the idea is the rush distance, not worth commenting on that. Anything else you think is wrong with it, much appreciated. I do intend to make a reasonably balanced map here in the end. Hatch first ZvT not recommended. It funny how in another thread you can't drop an issue because 'if everyone believes the world is flat I'm going to continue telling them it is round' yet when it comes to your own map you tell everyone to not comment on the obviously fatal flaw. If you wanted to make a 2 base map where it's impossible to get a 3rd (or even a natural) why not have only 2 bases per player with some land connecting them? It's not like the rush distance even needs to be that short, there is plenty of space behind the main to move the man and nat back in to, increasing the rush distance whilst keeping the openness. It's the enitre gist and purpose of the map, I know quite obviously the rush distance is extremely short, there's no need to inform me, I know I'm purposefully breaking an obvious convention of mapmaking here.
It's like telling a serialist composer 'You violate the rules of tonality!', duh, that's his entire purpose in that case.
Close pos was on the ladder for like what? 8 Seasons? It's not like it's completely unplayable. I enjoyed it from time to time.
|
On November 13 2012 16:50 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 15:55 Fatam wrote:
I think the pathway inbetween the nat and the 12:30/6:30 expos should be widened.
That way zerg can take that base as a third and not have it be super vulnerable to FFs vs Protoss. Right now both thirds are easily seal-offable by FFs.
With that change I think it could be a pretty cool map. T and P will take the chokey base as a third vs. Z, while Z will usually take the more open base. T might take the more open base vs. P in some situations.
edit: I think one more thing that could be argued for is changing the highground pods with the XNTs to lowgrounds instead.
You already have the strength of the XNT when you hold that position. If you add on top of that the strength of highground, and the position is maybe too strong. Just an opinion though, maybe some other people will have thoughts on that. (I know it's not possible currently b/c that would put it on the lowest unpathable cliff level. But maybe there is a workaround) Thanks for the suggestions, another option is just to move the towers so they aren't as strong - not sure where I would put them though. Also, if you think zergs will be taking the low-ground base as a 3rd, do you think I should remove the high ground drop-pod?
Hmm, I hadn't considered the drop-pod. I'm not the biggest fan of drop-pods any more (I think they tend to be either OP or useless, depending on where they're placed), but a good amount of people like them so I don't know that I'm in the majority there. I don't think you would need to remove the drop-pod on behalf of zerg though, by the time anyone is able to drop stuff up there Zerg will have queen(s) over there and likely an overlord or two nearby to spot.
|
On November 14 2012 06:25 zasta wrote:Mars Lander: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +Haven't started on the textures yet. Any thoughts about the layout in general? Particularly the middle I'm not sure about.
Hmm, the mains are a little on the small side, and the naturals are awkwardly shaped. I would stick to normal mineral configurations whenever possible. The middle is probably not going to get taken, most likely the resources will get in the way of army movements.
|
Edit: The image is kinda big... working on that.
Edit2: Not sure what to do except suggest to Right click > Open in new tab.
Hey everyone. I'm new and a scrub, but I was trying to get a better understanding of map design in SC2 both on a pro level and casual level. Here is a 1v1 map, sans decorations. Feedback welcome.
Hell's Playground
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Hkbdk.jpg)
|
Well, okay. Since you're new there is a lot of stuff wrong with this map:
1: It's a cardinal ramp connecting the main and the nat, you should always look for a diagonal ramp of 1 width basically, it needs to be forcefieldable and wallable for ballance reasons.
2: The natural has too many entrances and the ramp is too far away from the resource spot, it's basically impossible to forge FE or defend againt a lot of stuff.
3: Most people would argue the third is too far away to comfortably defend
4: Rush distance is huuuuuuuuge, way too much most people would argue. Especially before the rocks are down.
5: Islands are controversial and probably favour Terran too much.
6: Minerals look like they aren't placed well, there's a thread around here which indicates good mineral placement, it's best to take a look there.
7: Overall the layout does not seem to have a particular thought out purpose.
|
On November 14 2012 13:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Well, okay. Since you're new there is a lot of stuff wrong with this map:
1: It's a cardinal ramp connecting the main and the nat, you should always look for a diagonal ramp of 1 width basically, it needs to be forcefieldable and wallable for ballance reasons.
2: The natural has too many entrances and the ramp is too far away from the resource spot, it's basically impossible to forge FE or defend againt a lot of stuff.
3: Most people would argue the third is too far away to comfortably defend
4: Rush distance is huuuuuuuuge, way too much most people would argue. Especially before the rocks are down.
5: Islands are controversial and probably favour Terran too much.
6: Minerals look like they aren't placed well, there's a thread around here which indicates good mineral placement, it's best to take a look there.
7: Overall the layout does not seem to have a particular thought out purpose.
Agreed with most of these. To start with:
-Angle the main ramps to face away from the natural entrances
-Remove the bridges going to the nat, this combined with the edited ramp should create 1 wallable natural entrance
-Move the 3rd closer to the nat (a sort of Cloud Kingdom-ish positioning will be good here)
-Just take both corners of the map and move them inward, make whatever revisions to the center are necessary
Honestly I think a lot of the mineral arrangements here (not all) are better than some of the ones listed in that mineral placement thread...
|
On November 13 2012 16:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:Just a fun little project. Inspired by the close position spawns of metalopolis turned into a 2player map. Suffices that since the entire gist of the idea is the rush distance, not worth commenting on that. Anything else you think is wrong with it, much appreciated. I do intend to make a reasonably balanced map here in the end. Hatch first ZvT not recommended.
LOL this map. It's hilarious xDD
Firstly: every gold = winner's base
bases above main are stupidly designed too, the top central 2 expansions won't be taken at the same time by 2 different players, might as well make it another gold or something.
Honestly though, This is a joke right? XD
|
On November 14 2012 22:53 Semmo wrote:
Firstly: every gold = winner's base How so? both golds can be hit from the high grounds and are lowground bases. In playtesting not a lot of times we actually went for the golds.
bases above main are stupidly designed too, the top central 2 expansions won't be taken at the same time by 2 different players, might as well make it another gold or something. Yeah, I since put them a bit further apart and removed the rocks. I thought the rocks were enough to deter it but it wasn't really. Not that games on this map tend to last long enough for usually either side even a third being taken.
Honestly though, This is a joke right? XD No, I am trying to make a map based out of metalopolis close position work. It's obviously tongue in cheek but I'm at the very least strifing towards a some-what acceptable balance. I don't really expect 3 or even four base play of course. It's just a fun little rush map.
You'd be surprised that Zerg has certain advantages with this distance, I haven't had a ZvT yet where T's third was denied by creep tumours, I even once denied his natural with creep tumours.
|
On November 14 2012 23:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:How so? both golds can be hit from the high grounds and are lowground bases. In playtesting not a lot of times we actually went for the golds.
The idea of a "winner's base" is that you're already in a lead and have map control. Hence, you're "winning". In this case, it doesn't matter that the bases can be hit from high ground, as the one controlling the base should be controlling the high ground. The golds on your map are clearly winner's bases.
On November 14 2012 23:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +bases above main are stupidly designed too, the top central 2 expansions won't be taken at the same time by 2 different players, might as well make it another gold or something. Yeah, I since put them a bit further apart and removed the rocks. I thought the rocks were enough to deter it but it wasn't really. Not that games on this map tend to last long enough for usually either side even a third being taken.
While I think it's a good thing for a map to be played on 2 bases if a player chooses (i.e. 2-base play is viable), I think it's a problem if it becomes too difficult to take a third, as you move away from viable 2-base into forced 2-base, which puts us back to the problems maps had in WoL beta.
On November 14 2012 23:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:No, I am trying to make a map based out of metalopolis close position work. It's obviously tongue in cheek but I'm at the very least strifing towards a some-what acceptable balance. I don't really expect 3 or even four base play of course. It's just a fun little rush map. You'd be surprised that Zerg has certain advantages with this distance, I haven't had a ZvT yet where T's third was denied by creep tumours, I even once denied his natural with creep tumours.
Like I said, making it too difficult to take a third and forcing 2-base play results in problems. You're never going to get any form of acceptable balance like that. Basically, your stated goals are at odds with one another. Even taking your ZvT example of creep tumours denying the Terran natural, if you don't see that as being a potential balance problem, then I don't know what to say.
|
Thanks for the feedback. Based on SiskosGoatee and NegativeZero's comments, I made some fixes to the map.
I know the center is crazy, so try to ignore that right now. I want to make sure the player expansion are more correct before I address the middle. I will probably go with some less organic pieces in the middle. Also, can someone point me to the mineral thread?
Hell's Playground
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7clcb.jpg)
|
On November 13 2012 16:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Just a fun little project. Inspired by the close position spawns of metalopolis turned into a 2player map. Suffices that since the entire gist of the idea is the rush distance, not worth commenting on that. Anything else you think is wrong with it, much appreciated. I do intend to make a reasonably balanced map here in the end. Hatch first ZvT not recommended.
Well what i would do is to turn around the mains, i mean make the ramp point NW instead of SE, block the ramps leading to the middle gold, and change the gold in the south to a normal base while erasing the rocks
You won't be wining an award by the standarest map ever, but at least it think with these changes the map may give you better games
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m2BWF.jpg)
EDIT:Spoiled the first image
|
So I was messing around some more in the editor and I came up w/ a template. It's fairly small (126x132, 5 bases each).
90 - + Show Spoiler +
56 - + Show Spoiler +
The xel'nagas are different than normal. I turned them into air/ground xel'nagas - either air or ground units can take them (obviously the ones not on land can only be taken by air units, though). One might think "it's OP for zerg early since he can just send his overlords to each tower" but I don't really think so. Zerg already has maphacks in the early game, so this won't change anything there. I'm more interested in how this would affect TvP/TvT/PvP.
|
On November 15 2012 08:30 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 16:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Just a fun little project. Inspired by the close position spawns of metalopolis turned into a 2player map. Suffices that since the entire gist of the idea is the rush distance, not worth commenting on that. Anything else you think is wrong with it, much appreciated. I do intend to make a reasonably balanced map here in the end. Hatch first ZvT not recommended. Well what i would do is to turn around the mains, i mean make the ramp point NW instead of SE, block the ramps leading to the middle gold, and change the gold in the south to a normal base while erasing the rocks You won't be wining an award by the standarest map ever, but at least it think with these changes the map may give you better games EDIT:Spoiled the first image You do raise an interesting point in that perhaps removing a direct path to the enemy but rather forcing people to run around a bit more might solve some problems with close positions yeah. I'll probably incorporate some of your ideas.
@fatam, like the XNC idea and the map layout overall seems okay except that the expos are a bit too far to the side I feel, however I feel only 5 bases per player is just too few.
|
I've been trying to refine this template. Wanted to see which version people prefer. The XNT are a little different than usual - they can be used by air units as well.
3/4 expo
+ Show Spoiler +
full island-ish expo
+ Show Spoiler +
Poll: Which version is best?Full island-ish expansion next to naturals (will put neutral DT or something to block) (1) 50% Full island-ish expansion next to naturals, NO destructible debris at the 3rd backdoor (1) 50% 3/4 expansion next to naturals (0) 0% 3/4 expansion next to naturals, NO destructible debris at the 3rd backdoor (0) 0% 2 total votes Your vote: Which version is best? (Vote): 3/4 expansion next to naturals
(Vote): 3/4 expansion next to naturals, NO destructible debris at the 3rd backdoor
(Vote): Full island-ish expansion next to naturals (will put neutral DT or something to block)
(Vote): Full island-ish expansion next to naturals, NO destructible debris at the 3rd backdoor
|
the debris at 3rd would have what role?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lZf79.jpg?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/79Ymd.jpg?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vsEwB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/coF21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4WNSf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/COC3U.jpg)
