EPT+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oWgip.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D3Z3C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uAF1z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4CegC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ePcNL.jpg)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5n8R2.jpg) temp textures, i hope you guys can make it out only unique feature is inbase third with 6m1hy and ramp leading into it rocked by 3 stacked rocks | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On September 07 2012 14:43 Samro225am wrote: i think you made that map too small and used space not efficiently. From the xwt all paths through the map and even worse the three chokes to the first four bases can be controlled. the backdoor rock to the inbase expansion is rewally hard to defend. Taking a fifth base seems impossible to me. I really don´t see how he does not use space efficiently. It is not like we make our maps 250x250, we pretty much have unlimited space available. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mXzBQ.jpg) Playable Bounds: 154x112 10 Full Bases 2 Towers. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On September 07 2012 17:38 eTcetRa wrote: [Map] Playable Bounds: 154x112 10 Full Bases 2 Towers. Interesting! I think you should move the rock in front of the nat ontop of the ramp. Just because I don´t like Mineral blocks! :D Seriously, I like your small ideas. Covering the rocks is cute, the backdoor into the 3rd is cute. The center with the small ramps leading up allows for strong usage of terrain, very cool. And the rest is solid too. My only concern is the very late game, it seems like you can easily turtle on 5 bases. The tower covers everything but the ramp into the natural which makes lategame runbys and counterattacks near impossible. To solve this I would suggest to create an at least 2 wide ramp at the 5th, facing 2 o´clock. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
@etcetra: Easily your best map yet. I really like it, the 3rd and natural setup is awesome with the clever alternate entrance, and the spacing is great. At first I thought the 4th was too far but given the proportions I think it's fine. I love the little low ground path behind the 3rd too. My only concerns: is that a high ground drop pod by the 5th? That should not be pathable/dropable. Reason being terran gets so much freebie value out of drops there SO close to their reinforce. Already strong for drops. Other concern: the ramps in the middle are unnecessarily chokey. The center point of the high ground is narrow anyway. I would in fact extend those ramps into 4ramps, towards the tower barrier. They will really only provide a larger entrance into the funnel that is the middle high ground. | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
On September 07 2012 21:52 EatThePath wrote: @etcetra: Easily your best map yet. I really like it, the 3rd and natural setup is awesome with the clever alternate entrance, and the spacing is great. At first I thought the 4th was too far but given the proportions I think it's fine. I love the little low ground path behind the 3rd too. My only concerns: is that a high ground drop pod by the 5th? That should not be pathable/dropable. Reason being terran gets so much freebie value out of drops there SO close to their reinforce. Already strong for drops. Other concern: the ramps in the middle are unnecessarily chokey. The center point of the high ground is narrow anyway. I would in fact extend those ramps into 4ramps, towards the tower barrier. They will really only provide a larger entrance into the funnel that is the middle high ground. None of the high ground pods are pathable. Noted on the centre path  | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 07 2012 17:00 Aunvilgod wrote: He could just delete these highgrounds. Then he would have more than enough space. Pushing 8/2 out makes the map too passive imo. Rather have everything closer together so games will be more action-packed. no he is right, the map is intentionally miniature for wip. just wanted to get the general shape down. was actually waiting for all the comments regarding the backdoor halfbase :p | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 07 2012 12:26 a176 wrote: + Show Spoiler + temp textures, i hope you guys can make it out only unique feature is inbase third with 6m1hy and ramp leading into it rocked by 3 stacked rocks ah ... watching a map evolve ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AoqUL.jpg) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
The middle is a little too chokey, I adjusted that by moving the side ramps back and enlarging them (3 or 4, not 2 wide). I moved the ramp to the yet-to-be-added bases to make a longer ground path. I moved the watch towers to a new location so that they can't be used to assault the center base from the low ground. (This is up for debate, eh.) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/krIeo.jpg) You'll note that the new tower config kind of allows for two very different splits, one where you don't break your rocks and go clockwise, the other where you wall the natural and break your rocks and go up the side from the center. Which if it works is really cool right? What cliffs are those btw? I might want to use them for my map. ;D Are the rocks still triple stacked? | ||
|
Nogan
United States8 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + First post, first (completed) map. This is mostly finished, but I can't make any topics yet and I'm not quite sure how the incredibly open expansion + backdoor would play out. I know Terran and Protoss rely on having a somewhat secluded natural to open acceptably greedy, so I'm not sure if it's worth trying to alter this map or if it's fine as is. It also has a deceptively short rush distance despite being particularly large. I didn't know where to include any Xel Naga towers, so I left them out. EDIT: Drat, it didn't resize. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 08 2012 16:06 Nogan wrote: I hope this is formated correctly. I wasn't sure if images were automatically resized or not. + Show Spoiler + First post, first (completed) map. This is mostly finished, but I can't make any topics yet and I'm not quite sure how the incredibly open expansion + backdoor would play out. I know Terran and Protoss rely on having a somewhat secluded natural to open acceptably greedy, so I'm not sure if it's worth trying to alter this map or if it's fine as is. It also has a deceptively short rush distance despite being particularly large. I didn't know where to include any Xel Naga towers, so I left them out. EDIT: Drat, it didn't resize. Easiest way to quickly include pictures is to use the "upload image" link which sends it to imgur and spits out a BBC code link for you automatically. Here's some changes you could make to adjust the vulnerability of the natural, and to adjust the openness on a map that consists of a lot of narrow bending pathways. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/og8hX.jpg) This is a really neat map, nice work. I would love to play it. | ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
@Nogan Isn't the entire main mineral line siegable by tanks on the low ground? | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K7wHq.jpg) Then Sam made me do this (heavily influenced me by painting on the overview, although it came up a bit different from what he imagined. It didnt look like CK on his paintings  )+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/widpT.jpg) because he didnt think the middle in my map would work. I need more analysis (on the first concept) and see if theres something there to keep or not. The core concept, apart from the kidna generic but solid main-nat-third, is about the forward 4th being possible to take and hold in some matchups, partly beacuse of the distance to the opponent bases being ok, and partly beacuse the shrotest attack path being risky through the middle. Being a wide map, the towers help defensive scouting. I picture early game being about attacking through the middle while mostly only scouting the flanks, then switches to atticking through the wider attack paths, defending at the high ground ramps / chokes or the open ground respectively. What makes the map special, is that you in the mid-late game could attack through the narrow middle in the right moments, but always with some risk involved. The map is 152x156 and nat-to-nat is somwhere around 150ish between the mineral lines, but obviously shorter between the nat ramps. Im aware that the distance between your own bases needs some tweaking (third should be a bit more open to harrass, CW 4th should be closer and cw 5th closer still). A ccw half-base 4th along with the forward 4th being a hals base is an idea Im fond of and will look into keeping. In a big map like this, 7 bases per player is better than 6, while the resources stays the pretty much the same. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
I don´t think even terran would like to take that middle 4th. But as CK showed us you can never know. To me it seems like expanding horizontally would be much smarter, at least for Zerg and Protoss. You avoid half bases and are further away from your opponent which seems to be of underestimated importance. I think you should remove the center base and instead make the outer half base a full base. If this destroys the concept of the map you will have to find another solution... | ||
| ||
