| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QGmeNl.jpg) Yap, that's a siege shellable natural right there, I feel it can be done because T has to walk a looong way around to do it and it's from a lowground. Apart from that the map might just have too many expansions, but all centre expansions are 6m1hg, gold bases are 6hm2g | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8t1gp.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RcdZx.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kgr1i.jpg) I incorporated a few suggestions into this version. Namely I replaced the big central towers with ramps to decrease chokiness around the middle and changed the double natural ramps into a single ramp placed in-between where the two used to be. Some LOS blocks have been added as well. Does anyone have any suggestions for a name? My lore backstory is that it is a Protoss space dock used as a fleet staging point but I can't think of a good name to reflect that. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On November 21 2012 21:55 eTcetRa wrote: New update: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J3X9G.jpg) Changes are: - Natural moved backward & choke added in front of it to make it easier to hold. - Four towers removed and one central tower added. Much less free vision. - Several ramps going up to the midfield have been increased to 3x ramps from 2x ramps. For lategame. - Several aesthetic retouches. did i miss the information on size and rush distances? the map looks huge. On November 22 2012 20:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yap, that's a siege shellable natural right there, I feel it can be done because T has to walk a looong way around to do it and it's from a lowground. Apart from that the map might just have too many expansions, but all centre expansions are 6m1hg, gold bases are 6hm2g for more space efficency moce mains into corners, let naturals follow a bit and adjust third. this will decrease overall map size significantly and make paths to thirds shorter. with the current setup it would take forever to get to the action when you mis-scout a side paths push. then again you can increase connectivity around the sides. On November 23 2012 16:15 Coppermantis wrote: + Show Spoiler + I incorporated a few suggestions into this version. Namely I replaced the big central towers with ramps to decrease chokiness around the middle and changed the double natural ramps into a single ramp placed in-between where the two used to be. Some LOS blocks have been added as well. Does anyone have any suggestions for a name? My lore backstory is that it is a Protoss space dock used as a fleet staging point but I can't think of a good name to reflect that. entombed valley and cloud kingdom having an ugly child? maybe it is a beauty when it grows up  since the centre of the first three bases is so close to entombed valley, how do distances compare? what is the poverall size at all? the angled perspective makes it hard to see that really. the place around 4th is cramped and i do not see the other two middle bases work at all while the corner bases might be ok, yet really weird. | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
The map is 158x158. Definitely not huge by Tal'Darim standards ;D | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 24 2012 08:32 eTcetRa wrote: @samro225am: The map is 158x158. Definitely not huge by Tal'Darim standards ;D But still huge by general standards. Only 2 units smaller than the size of maps like Whirlwind, Terminus, and Calm before the Storm. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
for more space efficency moce mains into corners, let naturals follow a bit and adjust third. this will decrease overall map size significantly and make paths to thirds shorter. with the current setup it would take forever to get to the action when you mis-scout a side paths push. then again you can increase connectivity around the sides. I purposefully did it like this, I wanted a huge map wherein I could fit a lot of expansions and side paths but I didn't want a ridiculously long rush distance. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HOicr.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tA9uy.jpg) Zerus OP. | ||
|
Icetoad
Canada262 Posts
Labyrinthum 144x144 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nueiu.jpg) I wanted to make a map with no high ground, but since in PvP no high ground for main is really bad, I decided to have only the mains be on high ground. Also, since in sc2, high ground advantage is almost nonexistent compared to BW, why not make a map with almost no high ground? In fact, I wanted to play with chokes. No texture work has been started yet. | ||
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
On November 25 2012 13:29 NewSunshine wrote: Got some pics of a WIP, but since I'm pretty happy with where the design of the map is at, they're just teaser pictures Zerus OP. What?! Where did this come from?! Why havn't I seen this one yet!!!!? So secretive. Update on my current WIP -- uploaded to HotS server currently for testing under name "DF Fortune Plango" ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x5VDu.jpg) | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
2v2 I'm basically trying to improve upon the layout of an older 2v2 map i did ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MsdGF.jpg) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 26 2012 11:17 SigmaFiE wrote: What?! Where did this come from?! Why havn't I seen this one yet!!!!? So secretive. They're actually close-ups of that map you searched for, to see if we could actually publish to HotS. Little details regarding balance and aesthetics have changed a lot though. Its working name is Predatory Ground, but I may have another name lined up for when it's finished. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
On November 26 2012 11:17 SigmaFiE wrote: Update on my current WIP -- uploaded to HotS server currently for testing under name "DF Fortune Plango" imo this is looking pretty good. I kind of want the mineral wall to be flush w/ the main instead of having that little ledge sticking out before you get to it. And I think it should be at least 1 more mineral patch wide, so if you're trying to send stuff to your third to defend, your army doesn't have trouble/get clumped when it goes through there. But that's pretty minor. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
On November 27 2012 02:30 Fatam wrote: imo this is looking pretty good. I kind of want the mineral wall to be flush w/ the main instead of having that little ledge sticking out before you get to it. And I think it should be at least 1 more mineral patch wide, so if you're trying to send stuff to your third to defend, your army doesn't have trouble/get clumped when it goes through there. But that's pretty minor. By putting that resource line flush with the main I remove the distinct possibility of harassing from the lowground just outside -- which is something I really wanted here. As for widening the small opening--I'll think about it but I don't feel like it is necessary just yet. Also, by making it such a contrasted choke people cannot just 1A their way into that base are but instead have to think about how they will defend it -- which I want to happen. On November 27 2012 03:57 SiskosGoatee wrote: I always wondered why people never use walls like that any more in SC2 like they did in BW, and know I realize that they do, they just don't look like that any more because they cover them better with doodats due to a better engine. Take Cloud Kingdom for example, such a 'wall' is there next to the natural. Nah, I get how its done and why. I did what I did because I wanted a very specific result--the highground be accessible for cliffwalkers and/or drops onto it in order to control that area with very minimal forces--so spellcaster drops and range attacker drops work well but it also severely limits mobility and opens up for a quick destruction of not only the dropped unit(s) but of the "dropship" as well. There is a similar type of terrain next to the natural--except on that one you MUST use the "dropship" to gain vision in order to utilize the spellcaster/offensive unit. The opposite side of this is of course that it can be used to place defensive forces. The ground behind the third is not accessible except to flyover. This was done to force players to put up static anti-air to prevent harass/drops from coming in via air on that side either behind the mineral line at 3 or to the side of the main-- but it does not prevent harass from the lowground just outside of 3. So while that base appears very defensible -- with the right tools it is siegable -- but you better be ready to retreat. The idea here is to be able to pull at your opponent with limited forces and try and encourage non-deathball play. But in front of it is accessible. I am trying to open up game possibilities again after all the self-imposed limitations we as mapmakers have put on since we are entering a new meta phase with builds that have not become standardized. I think I have done it in such a manner that is acceptable and fun to watch/play--at least my test games thus far have been pretty fun and I've received some good feedback about how it is fun..... we'll see once I call it 100% complete. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9b4eG.jpg) An extremely heavily modified version of the BW map Gladiator | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On November 29 2012 23:33 RFDaemoniac wrote: I like this, but how big is it? It looks like the middle is larger than whirlwind! The whole map certainly feels larger because you can move between expansions directly instead of having to go through the center. I think bringing everything in 1 ramp width (taking it out of the triangular sections) wouldn't hurt the layout dynamics while making it smaller. You could also consider making the area with the tower in it smaller, or moving the triangles in and collapsing or taking out the high ground pods at the tips of the triangles (I would recommend just shrinking them, as they help the aesthetics tremendously). It's 156x156 (in comparison Whirlwind is 160x160). Comparing pictures this map does definitely feel smaller than Whirlwind, although obviously it's still quite large. | ||
|
hokeypocus
United States15 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
