EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On December 21 2012 07:19 Gfire wrote: I think you'll have to use trees or something to block vision and pathing. The shrubbery as-is allows the opponent to put units inside, which allows units to slip into spots where they can see down, and prevents full walls. I don't think the map really stops 4gates, though, since you can see down into the main if you have units near the ramp. I already have pathing blockers in the los blockers, so the thing about the pathing is solved. I think this (the los blockers) allows for the defending player to have a bigger chance defending the 4gate with other builds besides the 4gate itself without NEEDING to have a descending ramp, maybe if i found a way to make LoS blockers that work only in one direction and spam the ramp with them, that way the units descending for the ramp won't have vision until they get out of the ramp, but the units in the main will be able to shoot at the descending enemy units. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Images of the Beta ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kdTEV.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/reJUO.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O5A9E.jpg) Overview of the map + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Pdfxq.jpg) Size: 162x108 Xel'nagas: 0 Bases: 5 per player I didn't quite like the looks of it, but i don't think im allowed to whine since i did it in just one day. i would like to know what you guys think of adding a sixth base over here, or if you would put it in a different spot since im not sure that 5 bases are enough for a map of this size, even if it is just a experimental one. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QzzDB.jpg) | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:29 moskonia wrote: Essentially, the point of low ground mains is saying 'One base all ins will never work'. A map with a lowground main basically makes one base all ins completely non viable and forces you into a twobase play.Whats the point of the low-ground main? So I got inspired by this map I saw on reddit. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KdQzVl.jpg) You can tell I made it because too many chokes, too large, too many towers, too many bases. too many counter attack paths and too many siegable naturals. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mqXgHl.jpg) - Rocks at expansions? Puh-lease Dustin. I give you hostile planetary fortresses blocking the golds and the island expos. - Inbase natural with nice ledge over it and ehh, a burning neutral CC that burns down just fast enough that you can comfortably 1gate expand there but you can't actually hatch first or nexus first there. - A planetary at the middle because why not, ling runbies through that might be possible, walking through it might be ill advisable, whoever opens up that attack path better really want it because you're going to have tot ake out a planetary doing so | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Seems lazy to use command centers when you can create all kinds of custom objects, though. I think the main problem with the map is, though, that it's too big and has too much information to easily read. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:29 moskonia wrote: Whats the point of the low-ground main? It's mostly to test if it is posible to add variety to the actual maps. In sc2 the maps that don't have a highground main base are utterly broken in PvP since the 4gate is the only strategy that works in the matchup, but by adding the LoS blockers the map becomes playable in PvP. In BW you could have maps without a highground main since warpgate didn't exist, and because of that you could have a wide variety of different map layouts in the main bases. But as i said here in sc2 have a wide variety of mains it just isn't possible, since if you dare to have a lowground main or a main at the same level as the natural PvP becomes a 4gate shitfest. Tho it may generate other problems like making the 1base all ins or some rushes harder to defend, since the attacking units would have the high ground advantaje, so the map may need some serious testing. The map has been published under the name of KTV Fotra Këpuka in the Beta and in WoL if any of you guys want to try it out, later today i will make the TL thread for the map with pics showing how the LoS Blockers thing is supposed to work and my thought behind it. srry if my english went to shit tho  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Vision makes no difference since you can get spotters so easily anyway, though, so basically high ground only helps against warp gate attacks which you fight at the ramp. 4gate in PvP might not be that anymore with the msc so we might actually be fine to have low-ground mains or flat chokes. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On December 20 2012 13:17 Gfire wrote: Here's something I'm trying. Any thoughts? Random idea: (poorly drawn) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R915i.jpg) | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I do like the idea, though. | ||
|
BlindSC2
United Kingdom435 Posts
I've got a map layout which I'm fairly happy with, I simply haven't put any 'doodads' or extra textures in it yet. In the first couple of screenshots, I left in the red pathing blocks just to show where they were since it isn't very obvious without the extra textures. I'll be playing with textures and extras over the next couple of days Album of pics (11 total) 168x128, quite a lot (too much probably) of dead space, wasn't entirely sure how the bounds worked, 'playable' space is quoted as 148x100. It isn't published anywhere yet, though the name I came up with is 'Whetstone' Starting location distances are 131 direct, 183 pathed. Description: Relatively small and enclosed main and natural, with a single choke, although a small passage off to the side is ripe for drops or siege-ing. The low-ground third is very tucked away and again enclosed, accessible via two ramps, one close to the natural, and other leading to a 'hidden' path which goes to a potential fourth in the corner. Aside from this counter attack path, all three early bases are defended by guarding one large ramp, which leads towards centre map. Aside from the fourth in the corner, the other choice is a closer, but far more open alternative near centre map. Although more difficult to hold, if a player does so, they are rewarded with a strong stepping stone towards the single gold base, which is placed at the very heart of the map, blocked by destructible rocks which also prevent direct access between watchtowers. Paths to the far north and south, unseen by the xelnaga towers, provide counter attack options by ground. Some notes I know I can improve on: -There are a couple of crazy good bunker spots at the natural with the way the mineral fields are now, I'll be changing those at some point. They needed changing anyway since I've read the mineral placement page in the map index thread. -Though I haven't play tested it (since I can't yet...) and I so haven't seen how the boundaries work, there could be WAY too much deadspace around the edges for flyers. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
It's not bad for a first try. The mains are kinda small, though. I kinda like the third setup, actually, although the proportions could of course use a little work. Not too fond of the middle. I'd suggest you use some standard mineral layouts, though. There's a thread about it. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
Here's some of the fixes i would do. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KuTAx.jpg) | ||
|
BlindSC2
United Kingdom435 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I think you could increase the north/south bounds of the map to give you some more space to maybe increase the main size and give you some more room to work with. I think you probably need a fifth base that's not too close to the middle, probably. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 20 2012 17:04 Gfire wrote: I don't think you can really damage units with them unless you can root them in place somehow, as it tends to just push them out of the way. It's more like a (perhaps somewhat subtle) battlefield alteration opportunity. It's nothing too effective since it doesn't really close off any paths, but it's a tool the players can utilize. These days everyone puts so much thought into everything and everything has to have a point: a very distinct and intentionally designed purpose. But I think giving the players tools that they can then figure out how to use, without any specific intentions, can be a good thing. Absolutely true about open-ended features. However, consider that all map terrain is like this inherently. That's why unique map features typically have a clear purpose. At the outset of a "new" game, I would lean towards obvious-use instead of open-ended, while the dynamics are themselves fresh and open-ended. Nevertheless I support exploring this use of rocks. A good way to make them palatable would be to include a small but obvious use that masks the more open-ended nature in the big picture. For example, place a small rock/random doodad clump at the extent of each collapse pile. This creates the impression of a chokepoint and distinguishes the area in which the rocks fall, but being a small dot will have little effect on the open terrain in general. Then collapsing the rocks "closes the chokepoint" instead of "doing nothing", while from the mapmaker perspective it's really the same thing. Or, you can place LosB in the collapse zone. The rocks will fall and "turn off the LosB". | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I like your idea about some doodads in around there. I might do something like that. | ||
| ||
