|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
@Timetwister22
ok whenever i make a map which is not a remake i get told that its proportions are shit, i dont understand whats wrong with this one, the only base i see that is too far is the one underwater which can be changed quite easily imo (i just need to shrink the size of the area its in and move it around a bit)
as for rush distances that was the entire point of the map 'a small rush distance map which allows for macro play' was my plan when starting, and since all maps in the map pool these days have at least 3 minuite long rush distance which I think is ridiculous and takes away from the gameplay as scouting becomes less of a factor. But who am I to think that im just some random scrub nobody will ever care about
what other bases are there which are problematic? also sorry i uploaded the wrong image refer to the updated post
as for mineral lines they can be fixed easily.
|
Ok heres what i think fixes the problems @Timetwister22 pointed out
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yvmb6tb.jpg)
|
There is just a ton wrong with the proportions. It's the lack of general flow, not so much indavidual issues. It's a combination of many things that contribute toward good or bad proportions. It's just a matter of map flow, which this map doesn't have. It's hard to teach or even explain proportions as it's just something you have to get a feel for, kind of like riding a bike for the first time.
But, to give you an idea, I'll say the map itself is just way too big. To start off, 2 player maps should be about 140x140 mas for 2 spawns, and 150x150 for 4 spawn. The ramps that lead to the high ground in the middle are way, way to big. I'm guessing those are like 5-7ff wide, but hard to say. You should really never use a ramp larger than 5ff wide, and only in rare occasions do you see that. Also, you use cardinal ramps. aka those that go directly left and right. You want to use the diagonal ramps, as the cardinal ramps are uglier and different sizes than their diagonal counter parts. Furthermore, your bases are just not the proper sizes. Yet, what the poor proportions really boils down to is the amount of wasted space. Pathways are wide when they don't need to be, there is a large amount of airspace around the outside of the map, the middle is stretched to take up space, etc etc.
Simply put, make the map smaller, use your space more efficiently, and go ahead and look at some other maps to get a feel for how large bases, pathways, and chokes should be. Taking a look at the TLMC2 finalist maps would be a great start. Once you understand the basics, then you can move on to the more interesting things such as having a bigger nat than main, further thirds, etc.
|
I've wanted to make a rush map for some time now, what do you guys think of this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gf8qw1t.jpg)
I took some concepts from Klontis Mire, but I added some things and I think it would play out differently. The very short air distance is sure to be interesting, and the short ground distance will give a possibility to punish greedy air play.
|
On June 30 2013 10:15 moskonia wrote:I've wanted to make a rush map for some time now, what do you guys think of this: I took some concepts from Klontis Mire, but I added some things and I think it would play out differently. The very short air distance is sure to be interesting, and the short ground distance will give a possibility to punish greedy air play.
I don't see this design being viable for a number of reasons.
1. Air rush distance
Blizzard decided to make air play strong in Heart of the Swarm. We've already seen this kind of concept be flawed back in Wings of Liberty for maps like Scrap Station. The speed of drops, banshees, mutas, and now oracles suddenly appearing in your mineral line is game breaking when main bases are this close to each other.
2. Klontas inspiration
Klontas actually made a terrible attempt at making a rush distance map. Reapers, blink stalkers, and any strategy in general that could exploit the main base cliff were incredibly powerful, and are a major reason the map was pulled from ladder play so quickly.
3. Terrain design
Overall, the map lacks a lot of form, definition, and purpose when it comes to the terrain. The only notable exception here is the cute low-ground rush path. Even Klontas Mire, the map you drew inspiration from, had a number of locations that could be used to gain positional advantage, either through different terrain levels and/or chokes.
|
On June 30 2013 04:19 sdair wrote:Ok heres what i think fixes the problems @Timetwister22 pointed out
This map suffers from a lack of space efficiency, poor proportions, and unrefined aesthetics.
1. Space efficiency
The idea of "space efficiency" is sometimes a misleading one. People sometimes wrongly assume that we're talking about having pathable terrain in every possible corner of the playable bounds. What's really meant here is that every part of the map should have a clear purpose that justifies its design. Right now, you have a huge swath of areas that are needlessly big, lack any strategic purpose or are otherwise wasting space and causing your map to be excessively large. It's good that you've made this as a starting draft, but now you need to sit down and ask yourself the five W's: who, what, where, when, why. Who is going to find this terrain feature useful/difficult/helpful/etc.? What purpose does this terrain feature/layout/ramp location/etc. fulfill? Where should I shift this piece of terrain to fix this part of the map? When will this part of the map ever play a key part of the game, if at all? Why am I making this particular design decision?
2. Poor proportions
Key army routes and major points of contention on the map should allow large armies to move comfortably, while secondary routes such as harassment paths needn't be very wide. Base locations should vary in open space, based on what purpose they're fulfilling. For example, your main base holds your core production, so it needs more space than a natural would, but at the same time it shouldn't be too big otherwise it gets difficult for different -- particular lower -- levels of play to keep tabs on drops, proxies, nyduses, air harass, etc. On the flip side, your natural should focus on conserving space to allow for wall-offs and other defensive building placement. There are many more examples, but these are a few to get you started.
3. Unrefined aesthetics
Here you're clearly going for a beach theme, but your terrain uses very harsh, unnatural edges that would only be seen from man-made structures. Simply put, your environment and terrain are clashing, which give off the impression of a very amateurish effort. Timetwister lamented cardinal ramps, but they're not bad... with exception to key chokes like the main and nat, where you want to use diagonals to keep consistency for defensive play such as wall-ins. However, the key takeaway here is that they don't look natural, which is detrimental to the feel of your map's environment. Neo Planet S is a high-profile example of a map that uses cardinal ramps to great effect -- as part of a man-made structure, the pod that houses the high-ground third.
It's important that your map not only functions well, but does so in a way that compliments the environmental theme you're going for.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ry6Hxw8.png)
Just thought i'd throw this WIP out here
Not really sure how to deal with the center space yet.
Even though the bounds are 152x152, i feel like the center circle is too small
|
Been working on this for a while, feedback would be appreciated
+ Show Spoiler +from top to bottom 1. current version im working with 2. last revision 3. original concept made larger 4. original concept http://imgur.com/RdJD0T8just an imgur link because hotlink doesn't seem to work
|
On July 01 2013 03:19 19Meavis93 wrote:Been working on this for a while, feedback would be appreciated + Show Spoiler +from top to bottom 1. current version im working with 2. last revision 3. original concept made larger 4. original concept http://imgur.com/RdJD0T8just an imgur link because hotlink doesn't seem to work
Is there a test map published for us to play around in? Your map seems to be at a stage where it'd be hard to give specific feedback without getting a feel for its actual proportions in-game. The one clear thing I can see from the overview is that the southern-most mid-map ramp is smaller than its north/east/west counterparts. Probably a simple copy/paste mistake.
|
On July 01 2013 03:19 19Meavis93 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Been working on this for a while, feedback would be appreciated + Show Spoiler +from top to bottom 1. current version im working with 2. last revision 3. original concept made larger 4. original concept http://imgur.com/RdJD0T8just an imgur link because hotlink doesn't seem to work
Hotlink works just fine. You need to link to the actual image and not to the imgur display page for that image. + Show Spoiler +
I would also recommend posting just the main overview that is the last image in the thread, and then linking to the others for reference. I had to spoiler the image above because of how long it is....
You might have some issues /complaints about the cardinal ramps in the natural and the lack of a downramp from the main. Why not lower the natural to the same cliff height as the other bases?
There are also some pretty severe rotational imbalances re taking a third. This is a pretty classic problem in 4p rotational. A player that spawns clockwise to their opponent will be taking a third that is towards their opponent (no matter which direction they expand in), while their opponent can expand away from them through the rocks.
The clockwise 3rd and the base next to it are hardly distinguishable. It's no harder to defend both of them than it is to defend one of them... you tried to mitigate this by making the third a half base, but this just serves to exaggerate the rotational imbalance.
On June 30 2013 22:16 MrSunny wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Just thought i'd throw this WIP out here Not really sure how to deal with the center space yet. Even though the bounds are 152x152, i feel like the center circle is too small
The center circle is definitely not too small. You need to have one base per player and some room for pathing in it. In fact, it could stand to be smaller. I would encourage you to make this a 3p as was suggested by monk in the TMLC2 feedback. This would allow it to be smaller, too. I would highly recommend making the center mirrored rather than rotational.
I don't think you need only a single gas between the two mineral lines. One thing you could do is make the gas on the middle base harassable from the center low ground.
|
On June 30 2013 04:19 sdair wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ok heres what i think fixes the problems @Timetwister22 pointed out
Please don't be discouraged by all the critique that you're getting. We pretty much all went through this stage and learned from other people to move beyond it.
On June 30 2013 10:15 moskonia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've wanted to make a rush map for some time now, what do you guys think of this: I took some concepts from Klontis Mire, but I added some things and I think it would play out differently. The very short air distance is sure to be interesting, and the short ground distance will give a possibility to punish greedy air play.
I would recommend mirroring a 2p over the vertical axis rather than the horizontal, given that we have horizontally stretched screens and it's therefore easier to see more of the space between you and your opponent.
You can fix the blink issue by switching the main and natural so that the mains are in the corner. This will also help to alleviate the close by air, while still keeping it viable for harassing the natural.
You might consider having some low ground between the mains (or what would be the naturals if you take my other advice) so that you can attack very long range air like brood lords or tempests without being required to go air yourself.
|
On July 01 2013 04:03 iamcaustic wrote:
Is there a test map published for us to play around in? Your map seems to be at a stage where it'd be hard to give specific feedback without getting a feel for its actual proportions in-game. The one clear thing I can see from the overview is that the southern-most mid-map ramp is smaller than its north/east/west counterparts. Probably a simple copy/paste mistake.
will upload a public one on NA with name of earthquake beta test, and yes thats a copy paste error
On July 01 2013 04:20 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I would also recommend posting just the main overview that is the last image in the thread, and then linking to the others for reference. I had to spoiler the image above because of how long it is....
You might have some issues /complaints about the cardinal ramps in the natural and the lack of a downramp from the main. Why not lower the natural to the same cliff height as the other bases?
There are also some pretty severe rotational imbalances re taking a third. This is a pretty classic problem in 4p rotational. A player that spawns clockwise to their opponent will be taking a third that is towards their opponent (no matter which direction they expand in), while their opponent can expand away from them through the rocks.
The clockwise 3rd and the base next to it are hardly distinguishable. It's no harder to defend both of them than it is to defend one of them... you tried to mitigate this by making the third a half base, but this just serves to exaggerate the rotational imbalance.
ramps are my main issue with this map yeah, I'd love to have the main elevated over the natural but sadly enough I only have 3 height levels, I decided to solve it as in the most upper pics with the 3rd on ground level and walls instead of ramps.
It was rotational at first, but couldn't solve balance issues so changed to cross only.
as for 3rd, im considering swapping the rock locations on natural, downside is this will make pushing tougher and will strech players out more, thoughts on this?
anyway, both thanks for the respones.
|
@RFDaemoniac dont worry, i may not take well to criticism, but im no quitter
and another map ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pyK3Lbq.jpg)
|
On July 01 2013 05:58 sdair wrote:@RFDaemoniac dont worry, i may not take well to criticism, but im no quitter and another map + Show Spoiler +
looks like its hard to move throught the middle, and the texturing is also a bit dark, im no mapping gosu though.
|
@19Meavis93
hmm in not quite sure what you mean by the middle being hard to move through but maybe thats just me being bias
and its strange the lighting in the editor seems to change a lot as this map sometimes looks quite bright and sometimes quite dark, i think i'm aiming for a more dark texturing though as i think it fits better with the theme
|
The center circle is definitely not too small. You need to have one base per player and some room for pathing in it. In fact, it could stand to be smaller. I would encourage you to make this a 3p as was suggested by monk in the TMLC2 feedback. This would allow it to be smaller, too. I would highly recommend making the center mirrored rather than rotational.
I don't think you need only a single gas between the two mineral lines. One thing you could do is make the gas on the middle base harassable from the center low ground.
The single gas is rich, perhaps i have no gas there at all.
Yeah, this map was definitely an attempt at fulfilling monks request.
I tried three spawn initially but the 'top of the triangle' spawn didn't really sit well on the ring, because diagonal ramps dont sit properly in this position. Also, the 3rd set of mineral lines blocking the ring wouldn't sit well either. I suppose this is why outsider is shaped the way it is.
I tried working around these problems with the ring concept preserved to no avail. Another problem with the 3p version of this layout was that there was a lot more space on the ring between each bases, which means a longer distance between mains and the min lines blocking the path. The alternative to this issue is i bring the lines closer to the spawns and you lose the double expo 'island' dynamic. Ill probably give 3p another crack later today with all this said though.
I don't think the center circle could be any smaller. If not bigger than i think its perfect size. If it were any smaller the rush distance would become way to short - even with the maximum amount of center map obstruction.
Anyway, thanks for the quick feedback - if you could address my above concerns at all i would appreciate it 
|
For 3p, rotate the whole thing a bit so that none of them are exactly cardinal, and then it'll be easier to fudge the differences.
Also for 3p, you need to realize what the crucial features are to emulate symmetry. You can't make it perfectly symmetrical, but you can work to make all expansions have similar mining rates, vulnerabilities, area, etc.
I usually put air pathing blockers in the corners of a map like this, and include some airspace all the way around, so as to minimize the circular peg in square hold effect.
Don't be afraid to use cardinal ramps when they don't play a crucial role in defense or are out in the middle of the map. You can put a 1x1 doodad on each side at the top to help make it wallable, and I do this for all cardinal ramps even if I don't expect anybody to wall them.
I made my first 3p today, an outsider inspired map, in order to show you what I mean. Bounds are 144x144, scout time is 60 seconds (ramp to ramp) because of the rocked up middle Just to show how extreme you can get. I'm actually really happy with this and could use some feedback.
I put two high yield gas geysers between the two mineral lines on the outside, but you have to choose between mining from both of them efficiently or mining from a mineral line efficiently (you can't mine from both mineral lines efficiently, but I think that's fine...)
The use case for this on a 3p is almost certainly expanding there after you've taken the base on your side of the minerals, so saturating both mineral lines from one cc doesn't seem too important. It'd be useful if you were sneaking a base in, or perhaps for terran to lift a CC and take it as a natural while playing very aggressively... but I think terran already has enough of an advantage on this type of map because of how common medivacs are.
Also all the bases that are not around the outside are 4hym1hyg.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YO7wFFgl.jpg)
If you are going to stick with 4p, I think I would do away with how circular the map is. You could play with something like Frost's middle area in order to keep rush distances large. Monk also mentioned potentially preventing cross-spawns to sort of make it like a 3p, but I think even then you just end up way too far away from your opponent and this makes the mineral walls less interesting.
|
On July 01 2013 17:53 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It looks like your map suffers from all of the problems i encountered. The mineral lines around the circle seem really out of place, and the cluster f**k of rocks in the center is far from attractive or practical.
You raise an interesting point about symmetry though that ive been pondering for a little while now - Perhaps perfect symmetry is'nt as important as we think, as long as you make up for it in balance - outsider being a perfect example.
Even though the circle layout seems great for this outsider style map, i think the ramps and mineral lines simply don't allow it to happen on a 3 spawn.
I really like the idea of a circle map, and using no flying paths as map borders instead of the default square though
|
What's wrong with the ramps on this? I'm pretty sure that all the distances are within 2 or 3 units of each other, they all require the same number of buildings to wall off and have comparable openness.
I've updated the center to be less of a clusterfuck. Rush distance is down to 41 seconds, reduces to 23 once you destroy both rocks between you and your opponent. It introduces some more significant rotational imbalance but I think it's worth it.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nSGKO3Gl.jpg)
Edit: If you're making a circle map, I have a template that I use.
|
On July 01 2013 05:58 sdair wrote:@RFDaemoniac dont worry, i may not take well to criticism, but im no quitter and another map
what are the spawning locations like?
it seems a little chokey, no open spaces for zerg to engage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RdJD0T8.jpg)
