|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
@ZigguratOfUr
*Map Boundaries 148*148
Server(s) Published On - EU
Full Map Name (& key words) - Energy Cove[/QUOTE]
- 156x158 is considered to be too big for a 2p map nowadays. The fact that the rush distance from nat to nat is straight (similarly to older larger maps like Odyssey), but even so there's a lot of room to shrink this map. For example the area right of the top left base (or left of the bottom right base) doesn't seem very useful.
- I wouldn't recommend ever using the terrain warping tools in playable areas like you've done on the lowground. It just makes things weird especially when the terrain has to straighten out when buildings are built on it.
- Rocked off back pocket naturals are obviously perilous especially in ZvP where zerg can knock down the back path and run in zerglings. Personally I don't think that it's necessarily a problem to have this on a map, but it gives a lot of players cold feet.
- The main is rather small which makes terran unhappy.
- The middle seems pretty fun, with the combinations of tight corridors and more open areas. I like it. Maybe it's a bit too narrow/choky at times? Not sure.
[/QUOTE]
@ZigguratOfUr - thank you for your feedback. I addressed these issues and made the map smaller - the size is now the same as Automaton LE - 148x148. I also made the low ground flat and made the main base bigger. Rocked off back consists of two layers - both 2x2 rocks with 1500 hp. The middle area is now more open and a couple of ramps have been merged.
Much appreciated!
Rendered picture:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PGhz3eL.jpg)
|
|
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mVYe34a.jpg)
140x140
Server(s) Published On - EU
Future Funk
I thought this might an interesting idea. The 3rd bases are connected by a passage that is blocked by rocks and destroying them effectively changes the way this map is played.
|
On July 21 2020 03:32 SilentStorm3 wrote:140x140 Server(s) Published On - EU Future Funk I thought this might an interesting idea. The 3rd bases are connected by a passage that is blocked by rocks and destroying them effectively changes the way this map is played.
Diagonally reflective maps have their issues with expansion patterns and I'm not sure Future Funk does a great job of handling them. In particular you end up expanding closer and closer to the opponent which can get awkward. For the thirds there's the rocks to buffer, but for the lowground base next to the main you end up a short distance right across from the opponent with a strong highground in the middle. That makes it quite hard for players to actually expand all over the map and play macro games--the top right corner of the map for example will almost never see play since you're always just face to face with the opponent.
Dreamcatcher is an example of a map that does handle those issues well, and it does so by breaking up the straight lines between a base and their counterpart across the map.
Nice choice of colours for the Blackpink style deco though.
|
On July 21 2020 03:32 SilentStorm3 wrote:140x140 Server(s) Published On - EU Future Funk I thought this might an interesting idea. The 3rd bases are connected by a passage that is blocked by rocks and destroying them effectively changes the way this map is played.
Similar to what Ziggurat has said, the map has issues generally. I will break them down and explain.
1. You expand to be right beside/extremely close to the opponent
2. the triangle third has a straight path towards the other player's third with a powerful highground
3. middlebases that are favorable to whoever controls the map more, and this means they also make it irrelevant for you to expand / play macro games due to a risk.
4. bot left/top right you have expansions right beside each other.
So with #1 (and in terms #4) You expand towards / right beside the other player. Which leads to very awkward moments, if you both take the in-line third vs the triangle and forward third in this example. You do not expand towards bot left, you have no reason to as you expand far too close to the other player, and they can logically intercept you. But either way both / one of the bases there are flat out voided.
And due to your triangle bases having a straight line leading into them, making the middle bases so valuable that whoever holds the highground basically holds both thirds. You lead into issue, large issues. 1. being that no matter what the middle bases are basically useless, you will never take them much like the corners unless you are already winning.
So you make a distinct, a near untouchable advantage to whoever wins the first engagement. In an example, Dreamcatcher is a great map for this symmetry type as it properly deals with these issues, you don't have thirds that makes you stare at the other player awkwardly as you're forced to take a very vulnerable 4th (/or if you take the triangle third and forcing you to be hyper aggressive to control the central highground and to maintain complete control of the map).
Though the idea you have, to be fair. Is an interesting concept, the layout poses issues. Bot left/ top right should have 1 expansion in them rather than 2, as the expos in your use are extremely close to each other. so if you take one you might as well take the other instantly. Which isn't something you should do. And the middle bases tend to be a no, its a near-common rule in melee mapmaking that you do not. And I mean that firmly, make middle bases. As generally, if you can take and hold the middle base. You very much are winning the game, they tend to be refered as winner-bases when thats the case. But that's abit off track.
I very much like the use of the black-pink~esk tileset tho tbh could be more original. But that is just me.
I feel like you could change the third elevations abit, making direct middle lowground without the middle bases and the triangle thirds highground with a ramp. And the inline third a lowground base, with some tweaking on how the path between third's work and the corner. (maybe make the corner a highground expansion, and remove one of the bases there.) basically invert how the map is outside of the main and nat, and remove some bases. You don't need to have 16 total bases (14 total expansions) and can get away with just having 5 bases per player if you do the layout solidly.
Just the current execution has issues when it comes to how the game could play out, and macroing is kinda not exactly plausible unless players deliberately do not attack each other
|
Thank you for the tips, ZigguratOfUr and Pklixian.
I'm pretty new to map-making, so your input is very valuable. I remodeled the map completely image and reduced the total amount of bases to 14, but I've already started a new map with your guidelines in mind, so I'll keep that one for later in case I come up with a better solution. Thank you!
|
I am working on a new layout, but I don't want to commit to decorating yet.
Could this layout work?
Map size: 132x132
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MgdFVJ4.jpg)
|
It's quite small and probably too choky (it could perhaps be a bit more open to make terran pushes weaker), but I think the overall layout could work. The watchtower seems a bit too strong, and maybe could be removed (given the size of the map)?
|
On August 03 2020 23:37 SilentStorm3 wrote:I am working on a new layout, but I don't want to commit to decorating yet. Could this layout work? Map size: 132x132
So I will say that this layout is better than your previous work (I have seen the updated version)
and I will apply according feedback, broken into parts.
1. The direct middle watch tower, though not inherently in thought a bad idea. In design it can pose 1 of two issues
1a. The watch tower gives too much control to who ever wields it, meaning they see all movement through the important paths around it, to reduce it that would be to give the watch tower more space around it and cut down on the surrounding paths. but that leads to 1b. The watch tower is near-useless, as it cannot gain enough vision to be useful beyond the massive army moving through the region to ultimately attack you in one manor or another.
while I personally would recommend to tinker with the surrounding areas, their designs are already good. Making the watch tower, kinda not... needed? hard to say exactly. But from a near-unbiased position. The map doesn't really need the watch tower. Even with all that los its kinda overkil in a stance, watch towers nowadays are best used to oversee off side routes to help protect your outer bases. And tho the map is considerably small, in the stance making the watch tower a handy boon. it also isn't fully needed, situating the ramp and the constant ups and downs one would take to simply reach your nat.
2. ramp size leading into the thirds. I really shouldn't have to say this, but you by no means need the ramps to be that big with the rocks. kinda overkill in multiple stances. A standard 3x ramp (a ramp slightly larger than the natural ramp you used) is best to use, as it allows you to draw in the rock ramps closer, giving middle slightly more breathing space (and possibly helping the vision power the watch tower has.)
Though my suggestion is to pull back the rocked ramps and reduce the size of the main ramps leading into the third when you go to expand. There isn't much else to completely say. The map by no means is bad, its actually pretty good.
Tho I cannot put a firm grasp on how good it may be. As we do have to consider the fact that anything can change, and it isn't a certainty of how truly good it is til professional players play on it.
(You can trust me in that regard, when I saw Cyber Forest get a finalist placing in tlmc11, and then changed middle to be more scout friendly. I was not accounting for what made the map from possibly balances, to a memefest for PvT. And I still hate that creation of mine to this day, as both my design, and sc2's balanced change far from its original vision.
but this is not the place for me to grovel over Cyber Forest not like the map is mocking me to this day with the constant shots at my own foot to no success but you know.)
One last thing I can truly mention is the natural. the mineral line there is fine, but move one of the lower nodes in the top most (or upper nodes on the bottom most version of the mineral line) to the right more to form a pocket. or to the left depending on where you want the pocket to be. While it isn't a requirement to have worker stacking pods, it is handy to be able to protect workers by bundling them up when zerglings manage to get into your natural. a little tidbit from me even if in most cases isn't even required. you have it at all other bases making the natural an odd outlier.
|
|
|
Hi, everyone! I was experimenting with snow textures and made this map:
I'm not very convinced of the deco, but I think that the layout might be interesting.
The map is 140x140, it's called The Icing Sugar Factory, it's up on EU and NA.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KAlJ3Ii.jpg)
|
It's a pretty normal map--nothing that's glaringly wrong.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/Y2PjXmS/map1-screenshot1.png)
playable area: 108x100
servers: NA
map name: ironsides
starting points are in top left and bottom right.
|
On April 29 2021 03:17 bleakgh wrote:playable area: 108x100 servers: NA map name: ironsides starting points are in top left and bottom right.
This map has a lot of problems as a melee map (if that's what you were going for). It's too small, the expansions aren't viable due to being overlooked by cliffs, the main base has two opening, the mineral lines are wrong and the middle is a mess of chokes.
|
On April 29 2021 05:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 03:17 bleakgh wrote:playable area: 108x100 servers: NA map name: ironsides starting points are in top left and bottom right. This map has a lot of problems as a melee map (if that's what you were going for). It's too small, the expansions aren't viable due to being overlooked by cliffs, the main base has two opening, the mineral lines are wrong and the middle is a mess of chokes.
Why would my mineral placement matter? It's not LE.
Do you mean the border cliffs? Could I just remove them from the playable area?
|
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/g9NfbjR/Terrain-004.jpg)
playable area: 192x96
servers: NA
map name: vesuvius
starting points bottom left and bottom right
|
On April 30 2021 22:22 bleakgh wrote:playable area: 192x96 servers: NA map name: vesuvius starting points bottom left and bottom right
How do you think that players can defend against cannon rushes or tank pushes that have high ground? Especially if attacker can block the ramp with buildings.
What you think will happen when defender can't wall against Zerg?
Common way to measure size of a base is to use hatcheries, because you can see how much area creep covers. Also you should try moving a army around the maps and having fights in different places to see how awkwardly small some areas are.
|
On April 29 2021 05:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 03:17 bleakgh wrote:playable area: 108x100 servers: NA map name: ironsides starting points are in top left and bottom right. This map has a lot of problems as a melee map (if that's what you were going for). It's too small, the expansions aren't viable due to being overlooked by cliffs, the main base has two opening, the mineral lines are wrong and the middle is a mess of chokes.
Why would my mineral placement matter? It's not LE.
Do you mean the border cliffs? Could I just remove them from the playable area?
|
On April 30 2021 22:59 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 22:22 bleakgh wrote:playable area: 192x96 servers: NA map name: vesuvius starting points bottom left and bottom right How do you think that players can defend against cannon rushes or tank pushes that have high ground? Especially if attacker can block the ramp with buildings. What you think will happen when defender can't wall against Zerg? Common way to measure size of a base is to use hatcheries, because you can see how much area creep covers. Also you should try moving a army around the maps and having fights in different places to see how awkwardly small some areas are.
I solved your problem by changing the start locations. Maybe you would have thought of that if you weren't so busy being a rude snarky kid.
|
I don't think it's being snarky. It could maybe be worded nicer, but those are honestly questions you need to ask with any new map. There's lots of room to explore gameplay features in maps, but you need to make considerations so that gameplay doesn't degenerate to early rushes and the like. It's important feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
