Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 210

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

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

December 06 2017 23:52 GMT

#4181

Some general advice, spend some time thinking about the flow of pathways around the map. If a unit is moving from point A to point B, how would they get there, and especially think about if a group of units would get snagged on any terrain or if they might split up into 2 groups. Also try and spend some time getting a feel for proportionality. This is something I always struggled with. Every choke and pathway and base should be a particular size and there should be a well thought out reason that it is that size. Finally, work on cleaning up those cliffs - they should look natural but at the moment are laid out very haphazardly. Good luck

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

December 07 2017 04:44 GMT

#4182

Got some layouts I've been playing with:

+ Show Spoiler +

156x148

156x148

156x156

NukeOfficial

23 Posts

December 07 2017 15:18 GMT

#4183

Got some layouts I've been playing with:

+ Show Spoiler +

On all three maps, I feel like the corner expansion wouldn't really be taken/liked, because it's almost closer to your opponent than to you^^ It's far away from your main and your opponents main and doesn't really have bases next to it (besides the 3rd map, and maybe the 2nd although there it's still a lot of open space around it). I'd probable change them to gold bases (so theres reason to take them over other bases) or just remove the corner. Then again I'm no expert in maps, so take everything with an extra grain of salt

Besides that though the layouts seem pretty good, definitely interesting!

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

December 07 2017 17:36 GMT

#4184

Hmm I see the problem, but I don't think changing them to golds is a good solution. I should probably see if I can change the layout design of those areas to keep the distant corner bases relevant. I feel like this is especially a problem in the first map, and somewhat in the third. I don't think it's too much of an issue in the second one.

I am going to keep adjusting the layouts and see if I can improve them. I have an idea in mind for the corner expansions of the third image, probably won't change much in those areas for the second image, and need suggestions for the first one since that one I'm not sure what to do. All the maps have better candidates for gold bases than the corners though imo.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

December 08 2017 22:21 GMT

#4185

@antares i think all 3 of those layouts are just too big and spread out, but from what i can tell they can all be easily compressed into a more reasonable map size (even if it would be a lot of work lol)

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

December 14 2017 02:03 GMT

#4186

I updated two of them and scrapped one. I also made a third design, but don't really like it much:

+ Show Spoiler +

156x148

144x148

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 21 2018 18:44 GMT

#4187

Updates:

156x148
+ Show Spoiler +

156x148
+ Show Spoiler +

I'm having an issue with the editor on this one atm...
124x152
+ Show Spoiler +

Anyone know how to get my textures/cliffs to render properly?

Solstice245

United States145 Posts

January 21 2018 21:04 GMT

#4188

@Antarres777 A terrain set issue. I think you if draw with the cliff brush on all the edges of the cliffs they will return to normal.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 26 2018 01:06 GMT

#4189

Thanks, that did the trick. I have some more updates. I'm going to try to finish these before the TLMC deadline. Please reply if you guys have any suggestions!

+ Show Spoiler +

156x148

I like this map, it forces a non linear expansion pattern in the late game and has plenty of areas to hide proxies and exploit the backdoor into the natural. The center is narrow regardless if you are crossing horizontally or vertically until the rocks have been destroyed. Late game forces players to control the center since the latter bases are farther away.

156x148
[image loading]

I'm trying to make the natural choke more like Abyssal Reef so that I don't submit multiple maps with weird naturals. Still trying to decide on textures.

124x152
[image loading]

This will probably be my rush map. I am unsure if I should make the golds into normal expansions or leave them as is.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

January 26 2018 02:11 GMT

#4190

I'm not convinced that that counts as a rush map. And two openings to the natural will no doubt be a problem as usual.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

January 26 2018 09:50 GMT

#4191

@Antares777 my suggestion for the first 2 is the same as i mentioned earlier - make them a little smaller and overall condensed. 156x148 is approaching 4p map size.

i really like the last one btw, especially how the rocks split it into 3 main lanes in the early game - but i'd definitely enter it as "standard" rather than "rush".

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 26 2018 16:04 GMT

#4192

Thanks for the feedback!

I was working under the assumption that I would be submitting the first two to the standard category and macro category, and was kinda hoping the last one would count as rush since it is a smaller map size. It seems my sense of map size is off and I should shrink the top two, so I'm going to try that and see what comes out. I can probably shrink them both to 148x148 without too much of an issue.

The last one is my favorite of the three as well, and I've been working on it for much longer. I really want it to succeed and therefore my changes to it over time have been incremental. If this is submitted as standard, I need to put one of the other ones somewhere else. I think the top one could be submitted under the new category if I maintain the backdoor into the natural and the middle rock design, and then I could just submit the middle map as a macro one.

Meltage

Germany613 Posts

February 13 2018 13:02 GMT

#4193

Latest concept. How is it?

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 13 2018 22:49 GMT

#4194

Eh, I'm not really a fan. I think the golds and the thirds are currently too close to one another, and the middle structure obstructs too much movement options around the bases that are on the central high ground. The overall shape is also kinda messy.

I think you could remove the third near the main and pull the central high ground and gold base closer to the main so that the gold base functions as an alternate third. This shift would change the horizontal center of the high ground into more of a negatively-sloped diagonal. I personally would then change it around a bit, maybe make it low ground and have ramps that go into it, and then block this new, low ground, fast route with rocks so units have to up the adjacent high ground and then down again. The reason I would do this is because with the way it is now, the center of the map is too valuable of a position. It's on high ground that stretches to both sides of the map, and indirectly influences control over the gold expansions and two additional expansions.

I do like the general idea of the golds here, though it could be refined a bit.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 17 2018 22:07 GMT

#4195

Some small updates:

148 x 144
[image loading]

148 x 148

I basically just shrunk the size for some of them so that they would be more standard. The top one I haven't even finished rebuilding some of the terrain. The bottom one's terrain is mostly finished, and I'm thinking of making the center bases gold.

Any thoughts or feedback?

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

February 18 2018 04:55 GMT

#4196

First one: Honestly, not sure what's going on regarding the high grounds at the 3-5 and 9-11 areas or the low ground beneath them. Are there bases there? I assume there must be because I only see at most 12 bases outside there, with the center bases being questionable in some scenarios, but the area is still extremely awkward, particularly in the parts closest to the natural. I also don't think the low ground does anything there besides choke up the area.

Second one: I like this one. The fourth base might be a little tricky to take as protoss? You have to do quite a bit of walking around to defend any 4th base position (I assume you take the horizontal third). I assume the center has a narrow pathable bit, because I think the rush distance would be a little too long without it.

[image loading]

146x136, current concern is that it's too easy to hold 4.5 bases.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

February 18 2018 17:26 GMT

#4197

I have previous versions of the first one posted, I just shrunk the size and didn't finish rebuilding where the bases are and stuff. You can scroll up the thread and check and see what it looked like before when it was 156x148 instead of 148x144.

The second one does not have a blocked center, you are correct that it is only partially blocked. I am worried about the fourth as well for Protoss and have been exploring using collapsible and/or destructible rocks around the top right and bottom left bases (those are the intended fourths). I think my best option is putting collapsible rocks to block the ramp into the fourth from the edge of the map.

As for your map, I agree with your current concern and would like to add that any map with an in base natural like this is going to encourage drops or air harass in the early to mid game as a form of attack. Actually there are several features on this map which would make me want to focus on air. Not necessarily a bad thing, but definitely something to be aware of. The middle is cramped, the obstruction in the middle ground outside of the main seems a little large to me, and overall gives off a very fortress-like fell where, as you said, makes it easy to hold 4.5 bases. I think maybe to alleviate some of the fortress-ness of the map, you could connect the middle ground below each of the ramps to the third to each other, which as a trade-off may make the map more circle-syndromy, but seems worth it.

Another way to restrict the ease of getting up to and defending that many bases other than increasing the attack paths would be to artificially restrict or slow down a player from expanding. This may be a stupid suggestion, but maybe try blocking the forward, center bases with rocks and then compensate by making them gold?

I think due to what I'd imagine would be an incentive to use air units, you could decrease the obstructions in the center. It seems a little overdone and I don't think it will have a desired effect on gameplay. After looking at this map, I'm just gonna play extremely defensively because I can, and because there's no way I'm going near that center with ground units. Maybe change the obstructions around so instead of having a large one in the center and smaller ones as you go away from it, have two obstructions, effectively creating three lanes, where the center lane would be on the low ground between the center bases. This would also slightly increase the ability to siege those bases, making offensive play with ground units easier and more common in the mid to late game, and I think this change would work nicely together with the suggested change of turning those bases into golds and blocking them with rocks anyway.

Very minor thing that I notice is that the geysers in the mains are adjacent to one another, making scouting gas slightly easier. This is more of a personal preference than a balance rule, but I like to have the geysers apart from one another in the mains and together in the natural so that early worker scouts are forced to check both geysers when scouting the opponent's main, yet in the mid game and late game scouting the natural's gases are slightly easier.

The more I look at the thirds, the less I think they need those rocks. Maybe try unblocking those and seeing how that goes? You could leave the ramps open and then add collapsible rocks in such a way that they block off an attack at the main ramp and other third ramp to compensate if necessary.

Another way to decrease the fortress-ness of this map would be just putting more expansions towards the center. Right now everything is condensed in high ground areas near the mains and in high ground areas away from the center.

Syphon8

Canada298 Posts

February 19 2018 22:27 GMT

#4198

Been working on something...

[image loading]

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

February 19 2018 22:40 GMT

#4199

Those mineral lines look rather odd--try to stick to the mineral lines listed in http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/527886-proper-mineral-placement-lotv-edition unless the terrain can't work with those mineral lines (which doesn't seem to be the case here). The pocket natural seems extremely frustrating due to how vulnerable it is from across the gap, as is the forward natural which can get easily sieged from the low ground. The narrow passages are interesting, but I think you should be more selective about where you're using them. For example I don't see any compelling reasons to go down the centre passage when the high ground next to it leads to the exact same places.

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

February 20 2018 02:30 GMT

#4200

Is blink still a thing to watch out for? That looks like it could be a killer here if it is. I agree with Ziggurat; the middle passage is entirely unnecessary when you have all of those reasonably wide ramps for communication around it. I'd argue the watchtowers aren't that necessary.

Prev 1 208 209 210 211 212 217 Next

Please or register to reply.

Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 210

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming