|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
New update:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iPr8OYj.jpg)
I agree with EatThePath that movement from the natural to the third is the primary danger, but shrinking the other attack path can make it easier to defend against split army engagements. I added in the destructible rocks to help with this and moved the low ground third slightly closer to the natural. It's now closer than either Shakuras or Antiga, but has a more dangerous backdoor to compensate. I was also worried about distance from the natural to the Zerg's third, so made that slightly closer. I've moved the main starting location over to center it more per Meltage's suggestion, and moved the fifth over slightly per ETP's suggestion. I've added in vision blockers to the wide open area in front of each natural. Texturing and doodad work has begun.
|
So here is a map I got an idea for as I was running with my dog.
Tell me what you think.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OlIjHi7.jpg)
Fixed the picture, sorry everybody =(
|
@Elche
The main/natural/third layout is nearly identical to Ohana. The differences are that I think you did a better job positioning the rocks, but the ramp to the natural is too small and the path into the third is too small. Also, is any of the high ground by the fourth in position to hit the third base with a siege tank? I really like the texturing you've used.
|
@FlyingBeer
Yes there definitely are "some" similarities to ohana and the third of this map is quite similar to the nat of Metalopolis but I don't see anything wrong with that.
Yes the Natural ramp is too small and has been corrected.
I think if the path from Main ramp down to third is too wide it makes it really hard to defend your third once the rocks from the ramp leading to the third have been destroyed, it could be that it is too easy to defend three bases with mines/siege tanks at the moment but it hasn't been a problem so far.
Only the closer geyser can be hit with a siege tank.
Thanks. Textures are still WIP but I like what I have done so far.
|
@Elche:
- the main/nat ramp is too far awway from the natural, in some matchups it's important for it to be realtively close to block the ramp against certain things, especially hellion runbies and baneling all ins in ZvT and ZvZ respectively, it's also in front of the natural which makes this even more diffucult.
- I personally don't like a 1 FF width ramp leading to the natural but that's just I.
Rest of the map looks pretty original honestly.
Experimenting with this:
![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9CHlwWgg-8c/US1uU5pWWsI/AAAAAAAABQg/EiD1T7gwCsM/s1000/.jpg)
Even after you destroy the rocks, there's still a neutral time warp standing there so it still don't be too pretty to walk through there but at least it's possible.I might make a destructible time warp in the future.
|
I just got into map making and this is my first map, i spent only 3 days so far working on it, so it's nowhere near completion, but i'd like to hear your tips and basic advice on how to protect the bases better, where to add or remove pathing, the positioning of the bases and so on...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fRI5NG6.jpg)
Size : 168x168
1v1
More images :
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Since Blizzard did a terrible job with the 2vs2 maps in HotS and I haven't seen any 2vs2 maps posted here in quite a long time I decided to sit down a make a proper 2vs2 map on my own.
The general problem - at least in my opinion - on most of the current 2vs2 ladder maps are the following:
-The maps are way too small. Some are the size of Steppes of War where you can siege the main of the enemy from your own main with swarmhosts. A lot of maps lack the space for 4 maxed out armies.
-A fair amount of maps only have 2 expansion per player which makes for really awkward low eco games.
-The natural on most maps is Xel'Naga Caverns style open which makes it basically impossible in some matchups to expand before the 10-15 minute mark. Really.
Those issues result in the fact the most matches end up being 1base all-ins from both sides because they can't really get into the midgame without dying to early aggression. With sometimes only 1 or 2 attack paths certain units that need a proper flank to engage them - like siegetanks - become almost unbeatable in mid- to lategame situations. Imagine engaging a terran mech army of hellbats, thors and siegetanks head-on through a narrow choke.
With those things in mind I created this map:
+ Show Spoiler [Map Overview] +
The size of the map is 194x170 playable.
There are 3 8m2g and 1 6m1hyg bases per player making it overall: 12x 8m2g and 4x 6m1hyg.
Texturing and aethetics are obviously not done yet, this is mainly about the general layout of the map.
+ Show Spoiler [Main and Natural Ramps] +
The size of the main ramp is fairly standard for shared bases. The rocks on the natural ramp should make it easier to not die against roach busts or speedling all-ins which are fairly strong and commong in team games. Backdoor rocks should be fairly self-explanatory.
Since this is a 2vs2 map and team games are, generally speaking, kinda crazy I went for different layout when it comes to the gases in main and natural. The gases are placed in a way that you can mine/steal one gas from your ally with around 5 worker mining it. Here is the funny thing: In team games you can mine from your allied geyser if shared control is enabled. This will open up entirely new build order where you can mine a couple gas from your allied gas before he starts mining from it again.
Some zerg player, for example, used to only mine the first 100 gas they need for ling speed. With that setup his ally could mine from that geyser until the zerg needs it again.
After taking the natural both teams have 2 options when it comes to expanding again: Either they take the defensive 6m1hyg expand in the corners in the map or they expand more aggressively towards the top and bottom middle of the map.
There are only 2 watchtowers, located at the edges of the map. They cover the northern and southern path and make the flightpath along the edges of the map a little more narrow.
What I am most concerned right now is the middle of the map. Something seems to be missing but I can not get my hands on it. I won't put any more watchtower in the map, by the way. Most 2vs2 maps suffer from the fact that watchtowers cover basically everything. With 2 player per team there should be enough units to guard each and every way.
I'd be happy about any form of critics or ideas.
|
Seems a bit big to me. And too much air space around the edges. Maybe you can fit it into like 160x160 playable.
|
I agree, its a bit too big. You can easily fit the same layout into a smaller map. The 2v2 map I made was something like 154 x 172 and I think that is still too big. One of the reasons for this is that rush distance needs to be more or less the same as 1v1 maps, long rush distance is a bad way to discourage early aggression - i found this out through the experience of making 2v2 maps and watching small tournaments played on them. I do like the layout and base count is good imo. My suggestion is to squish everything into a smaller area, and place more emphasis on controlling the middle high ground pods, since right now they don't do much for you. Maybe reposition the middle low ground bases more like abyssal city? It could be quite good if you get the distances down to a reasonable length.
FedererFan:
The best advice I think I can probably give is to keep on experimenting, but also try and stay more standard in your layouts. Draw the layout on paper before going into the editor. You seem to have a good eye for aesthetics, but having all level one ground and having bases pop up in spots feels awkward. Try starting with all low ground/water and building surface area on top of the unpathable part. The "lowground" main with highground nat is interesting but would be very hard to pull off even for a very experienced mapmaker. The middle with gold bases and small ramps will most likely not work. Keep at it!
|
I'd agree that the map is quite huge and was even too huge. As a result I changed it to something like 176x158 playable though I will experiment more with moving the east and west more towards the middle to close a few of those gaps. I will post an update once I am done fixing some other glitches that I found while testing it. Thanks for the feedback so far.
Edit:
The size is now down to 164x150 playable with something like 45 seconds (worker) from main to main. Both pods and the bridge have been shortened to focus the action more towards the middle of the map. Textures and aesthetics obviously aren't done at all, but this is the updated version:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/swuWK9k.jpg)
|
^ that is looking better, one thing to note is that the mineral lines in the main and the nat need to be farther apart, so that a Zerg player does not unintentionally creep up their ally's bases. I find that not giving ZT ZP teams a disadvantage in creep spread is a huge challenge with shared base maps.
Updated:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0BGPgdE.jpg)
Probably won't finish it until we get access to all the new doodads
|
Well, the creep doesn't reach the CC/Nexus of his ally on all expands and the main. I would put them farther away from each other if it wasn't for the 3 gas trick which should remain a feature of the map.
The current 2vs2 ladder maps did a piss poor job when it comes to shared bases. Usually one of them is closer to the ramp, slightly affecting ZT/ZP balance depening on who spawns in which location and thus has the shorter way to the wall-in that he wants to build. On other maps (especially the new HotS ones) the creep of the zerg actually reaches the main ramp, making it impossible to wall properly, heavily affecting balance based on which spawns your team got.
Zerg on this map can savely expand everywhere without having to worry about their creep reaching important building locations of his ally. It takes 2 creep tumor from either spawn to connect main and natural for a zerg. Apologies if I didn't include that information in my original post.
What I am wondering however if it is possible to allow non-zerg races to build on the creep of their allies. That would make things sooo much easier and I call blizzard lazy for not allowing this. It would make things so much easier, especially protoss often struggle with placing their forward pylons if his ally did a great job at spreading creep. Terran has to deal with half the main base beeing unbuildable which isn't great either.
^Still not too fond of the Nexus/CC wall. To wall you actually HAVE to build a nexus in order to finish your wall. It makes mindgames behind the wall impossible and protoss should struggle against early pool openings in PvZ. Siege tank contains should be almost unbreakable either.
Like the map apart from that, the snow/rock/vines contrast looks great.
|
On March 02 2013 11:53 TheFish7 wrote:^ that is looking better, one thing to note is that the mineral lines in the main and the nat need to be farther apart, so that a Zerg player does not unintentionally creep up their ally's bases. I find that not giving ZT ZP teams a disadvantage in creep spread is a huge challenge with shared base maps. Updated: + Show Spoiler +Probably won't finish it until we get access to all the new doodads
This is pretty interesting. I feel like it may end up being a little one-dimensional with the only easy path being a straight shot to the enemy. What do you think about this change?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PsJ3ORK.jpg)
The rocks are in a lowground passage that breaks the highground path into two.. if the picture isn't clear on that. The ramp nearby is slightly wider too so that the highground isn't too hard to attack into.
|
Acutally like that alot, thanks Fatam. Agreed that it shouldn't be difficult as it is to attack up to the central highground area. I'll probably make a version like that once I get a chance. That also give me the idea to maybe have a tesbug style watchtower under the rocks in the middle. Not having any towers is nagging at me but I don't think it really needs them.
|
snow/rock/vines concept is beautiful. The kidna thing I wish I had thought of first 
Fatams idea with the block in the middle is good I think, but I don't like the rest. The late game will still have a too narrow frontline and the half bases will still be very difficult to hold. How to defend the cliffs above and the 5th at the same time? I think scrap the 1x ramps and make a 3x where the 1x is closest to the last base. Then I'll redisgn the last base into a full base
|
Yeah, I feel the direct rush distance is a bit too big compared to the width of the map. This creates a dynamic where it is basically always better to attack the natural than the third because it's closer to the enemy. So you see don'; t see a lot of degrees of success because killing the natural is usually a game winning move anyway.
|
![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hnUKFXaeEj4/UTNFrx9wBQI/AAAAAAAABR0/cC5Tqj0nL9E/s800/.jpg)
The reason I usually don't like 4p maps is because it means that say a main also has to double as a fifth, I don't think a single 1 width ramp as the only entry point to a fifth is usually a good idea. In practice it tends to lead to turtly metropolis/shakuras like games where the only way to attack the fifth is by air. So I tried this solution:
- the fifth of the opponent and your main are extremely close by air, just barely outside of pylon warpin range. Even though the fifth is unassaultable by ground it is very easy to assault it by air
- cross only of course, it's another 2 in 1 map. In order to make this idea work you have to make it cross only anyway, so why not make it 2-in-1 then?
- option between a normal third and a more forward icarus-base as a third for both spawns
|
Hmm can you tell me what is the size of the map? Because It looks to me a bit like Metropolis, only much smaller and more open / hard to take bases. The reason why it seems similar to that map is because you can defend your entire side with only 2 choke points, and them being pretty small as well. Of course you can go through the air, but it makes taking a fortified position in the mid very strong.
This feature should make ground vs air battles more interesting, although air seems to be in an advantage since there is that big hold in the mid that allows for a safe retreat. The big hole also gives me a new look on the map, and when I look at the map again I think it is more of a Xel'Naga Caverns / Metropolis map, that is because you have the open nat, a mid base and a holed mid which make for the XN C side, and a 2 choke entrance to your side, like Metropolis.
Of course comparing the map to other maps does not mean anything, but it does give you some sort of info on how the map should pan out. On that tone I think you should put rocks on the mid expo, so it won't be easy to take as a 3rd, as was with XN C.
|
Well, I don't think the '2 chokes' idea is what caused metro to be such a fiasco. Because metalopolis also had just 2 chokes and it was by far not a turtly map.I think what caused metropolis is that the third is actually easier to defend than the natural. On metropolis with every new base you take you don't expose yourself slightly more. And if you can kill someones natural, you most likely can end the game already.
I don't think rocks on the third are a good idea here, it actually used to be a gold base with rocks but I changed it to an icarus base without rocks which doesn't give you as much income as a normal base but gives you more income for less workers.
It looks like this now by the way:
![[image loading]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-SPdPHjhXWSM/UTNfqnN3LZI/AAAAAAAABSE/GjjmvAUh0m0/s800/overview.jpg)
Major change is that in one spawn you basically have 3 bases behind a 3 FF choke but the third does have rocks which can be taken down leading to it and is pretty harassable, you do hjave to walk a long way around to actually get to the backdoor of the rocks.
It also changes the other spawn in such a way that you have to take the rocks down if you hope to defend the third.
Map is 152,136 by the way
|
I'm working on this map, I'm still not sure if I should start doing the aesthetic...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OD3XI56.jpg)
No tower
12 base (2 are island)
it's 156x128
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cp4e5Xi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2Tt5zam.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cfZGlyW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YlMt1Uj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ek0vvRP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W4UnSqD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ja9UPWb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qZ9zAvy.jpg)
