EPTHe's asking if the big bases are the mains, with a free expo on the highground behind it, or if the highgrounds in the corners are the mains. Judging from the sizes of the ramps, I'm guessing the larger area is the main w/ a free expo, but I'll let you set the record straight.
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
He's asking if the big bases are the mains, with a free expo on the highground behind it, or if the highgrounds in the corners are the mains. Judging from the sizes of the ramps, I'm guessing the larger area is the main w/ a free expo, but I'll let you set the record straight. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 12 2012 08:10 Fatam wrote: He's asking if the big bases are the mains, with a free expo on the highground behind it, or if the highgrounds in the corners are the mains. Judging from the sizes of the ramps, I'm guessing the larger area is the main w/ a free expo, but I'll let you set the record straight. Yes, the large area is the main  | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
This is a rough map with a few concepts that I wanted to test out. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vPbvKl.jpg) One of the first things you'll notice is that the minerals are different. This is an arrangement that I came up with. The purpose of which is twofold. One, the 16-24th workers are worth it more than they are in normal mineral layouts. This means that when defending against an all-in, you don't need to have an extra base to be ahead, you just need to have more workers. That being said, 16 workers still saturate the same way that they do a normal base, so the timing should be the same. Two, 8 workers is ideal saturation, so even if you have 70 workers on 3 bases, it's better to have 70 workers on 4 bases and even better to be on 5. This means you can always expand for an advantage, which I like  Here is a graph of the income rate of ideal saturation (8 workers per base) vs one base saturation with this new layout vs one base saturation on a standard base. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LphwDl.png) This is just rough data (taken every 6 workers and only looked at manually from only one playthrough )The other abnormal thing is that the main is on the Lowground. I've seen some ESV maps that do this, like ESV Colosseum AE. You have LOSB so that you can forcefield to stop 4gates, and high ground so that you can see over the LOSB as a defender. Just testing something out There's also a weird natural that has a destructible rock door that is closer to your opponent than the other entrance. I might re-arrange the main and base that is currently on the other side of the main wall and make that your natural. One of the bases was inspired by TehTemplar's earlier drafts of Sandfold (the 4th base, or 3rd if I re-arrange the main). I also played with high ground in the middle to allow for contains no matter how many bases your opponent is on, since I don't think contains happen enough (except in TvT) | ||
|
Ruinsteel
United States43 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J6XNO.jpg) You also have a very interesting concept going there...not really sure how to comment other than it looks cool, haha! | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iiq53.jpg) I think I will soon make a poll which concept i should work on... | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 12 2012 11:27 RFDaemoniac wrote: This is a rough map with a few concepts that I wanted to test out. im not sure i get this. workers can pass through minerals? otherwise you only have a surface area of 4 minerals (+2 v.far minerals) | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
You might consider moving the middle bases to the other side of the ramp they are near, so that it is a base for the other player just outside their third. @a176 I should have posted one of my close-ups on the minerals. Here it is ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C1pUFl.jpg) You can move between the mineral patches in one direction, yes. The closest patches are still 4 across, making 8 workers ideal saturation, but 16 workers is still the same income as a normal mineral set (having 4 so close makes the 4 that are slightly farther away work out). | ||
|
Ruinsteel
United States43 Posts
Updated middle: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5KbG8.jpg) Tower range: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4tzhT.jpg) Overview for reference:+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wgpJJ.jpg) Note:Textures will be worked on once I believe the layout is good (or when I get bored ). | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 13 2012 01:17 RFDaemoniac wrote: @Aunvilgod: I like the middle high ground but those center bases are pretty much winners' bases, especially because the third is right there. I guess this is cool because bases will be contested all the time, but I wouldn't feel safe expanding anywhere beyond my third. You might consider moving the middle bases to the other side of the ramp they are near, so that it is a base for the other player just outside their third. @a176 I should have posted one of my close-ups on the minerals. Here it is You can move between the mineral patches in one direction, yes. The closest patches are still 4 across, making 8 workers ideal saturation, but 16 workers is still the same income as a normal mineral set (having 4 so close makes the 4 that are slightly farther away work out). I think you're working too hard. ^^ Are you adjusting the amount per patch as well to account for 12 patches? You can do this with 8 patches arranged nearer to what we expect, but with distance patches, to achieve the same end. This has been discussed a couple times before but never really in depth and never with a lot of testing. Searching just now for my old posts, I saw that Lalush and Nullcurrent had played around briefly with this during the FRB craze, but never pursued it. I would still like to pursue it someday. You can see some pictures in this thread from a different era. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Main concerns: - Third may be a tad too safe (even though it isn't that closed off, it just SEEMS safe, somehow) - I like the bottom base a lot, I think it avoids being a "winner's base" despite being in the middle, which can be tricky to do (I need to move those geysers down to where the minerals are, though). But I'm not sure what to do with the upper middle base.. maybe just remove it? If I do, then there are 5 bases on each side, + the bottom base.. it's not a huge map, maybe 11 is ok? - Zerg tears because of all those sexy highgrounds + the NE and NW areas might be a bit chokey, even though there are some very open areas in the middle. - With all your attention on the top half of the map for the early+mid parts of the game, doom drops into the main could be devastating (not sure if that's actually a balance issue, but thought it might be worth pointing out) (make sure you enlarge it, it gets much bigger :-P) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VzC6u.jpg) | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 15 2012 20:29 Fatam wrote: Looked at my very first map and thought about completely reworking it (since it was garbage, but had a few nice ideas in it). What I have so far is still really rough (ignore the lack of texturing/doodads/correct lighting). Also try to ignore the XNT being off-center by a square, I know it's itching my ocd a bit. Anyhoo, I wanted to see if people thought the layout/shape was worth a damn before I sink lots of hours into it. Main concerns: - Third may be a tad too safe (even though it isn't that closed off, it just SEEMS safe, somehow) - I like the bottom base a lot, I think it avoids being a "winner's base" despite being in the middle, which can be tricky to do (I need to move those geysers down to where the minerals are, though). But I'm not sure what to do with the upper middle base.. maybe just remove it? If I do, then there are 5 bases on each side, + the bottom base.. it's not a huge map, maybe 11 is ok? - Zerg tears because of all those sexy highgrounds + the NE and NW areas might be a bit chokey, even though there are some very open areas in the middle. - With all your attention on the top half of the map for the early+mid parts of the game, doom drops into the main could be devastating (not sure if that's actually a balance issue, but thought it might be worth pointing out) (make sure you enlarge it, it gets much bigger :-P) Not a bad concept. I'm worried that the 4th base is too difficult to hold consistently once the rocks are broken, since it's next to your opponent's fourth | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
ScorpSCII
Denmark499 Posts
On September 16 2012 06:36 Fatam wrote: I thought battles between the fourths would be interesting. But maybe I should remove the rocks and just make a cliff there. Only thing about doing that is that you're only looking at two attack paths then, and they're right next to each other. Map becomes too easy to defend then (if it isn't already). Just make it a tiny passage covered by rocks. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 16 2012 20:10 ScorpSCII wrote: Just make it a tiny passage covered by rocks. Make it a narrow U-shaped passage to extend the ground distance, and blocked by rocks. :D | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AnxF0.jpg) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
fryedman
United States10 Posts
I will admit it leans towards early game and mid game play, but that was my intention. The map has two Xel'Naga and a 3rd for each player in the middle of the map. My idea with this is to force players to be aggressive throughout the game and, though it can be done, not early rush or play macro mode. ps: I don't know how you guys get such great pictures  Map is Omega protocol if you wish to test it ![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/a/img689/3029/terrain001a.jpg) | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
Maps should generally have 10-14 bases depending on playstyle/size, so you should probably add some bases somewhere. Also the map seems slightly asymmetrical (although that might be just textures). | ||
|
fryedman
United States10 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:45 The_Templar wrote: Hi fryedman, I'm having difficulty seeing your map design, but it seems like there's only 6 bases on the whole map. Maps should generally have 10-14 bases depending on playstyle/size, so you should probably add some bases somewhere. Also the map seems slightly asymmetrical (although that might be just textures). Thanks for the advice, the map is slightly asymmetric but practically the same on both sides, I am still trying my best at design. What map size would fit a 10-14 base map, or what would you recommend for that many bases? | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:59 fryedman wrote: Thanks for the advice, the map is slightly asymmetric but practically the same on both sides, I am still trying my best at design. What map size would fit a 10-14 base map, or what would you recommend for that many bases? I would suggest anywhere from 130x130 to 160x160, although anyone on this site is free to correct me | ||
| ||
