EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/16Qa667.jpg)
and some aesthetics, I don't think I did it much honour and I'd rather have someone else do this.
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0INha52.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SBlU7zg.jpg)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 67
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
and some aesthetics, I don't think I did it much honour and I'd rather have someone else do this. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
SFHyper
United Kingdom45 Posts
On July 14 2013 01:17 19Meavis93 wrote: some updates on neo outsider, changed some proportions slightly, as well as fixing a few mineral patches being unmineable from one side. and some aesthetics, I don't think I did it much honour and I'd rather have someone else do this. + Show Spoiler + I don't know, I'd say you did a pretty good job sir! | ||
|
sc2Dust
United States1 Post
I'm new to this so i hope i did a great job! Map: Celesta if you have any suggestions please say :D | ||
|
greenroom
United States20 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qL7E0V7.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6uDSmB9.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z1MuFCX.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nC10tb4.jpg ) I'm a little worried about the map being too easily split down the middle. I'm thinking about adding another ramp to the middle expansion to deter people from just camping the middle. | ||
|
th0t
Poland36 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eFpy35p.jpg) What do you think ? | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/v5jY.png) (136x104) Before I make it pretty, are there any obvious issues that need resolving? Also, I'm not sure about the connection between the 4th bases, and whether the connections from naturals to map center should be high or low ground. | ||
|
Syphon8
Canada298 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xrSD5Dn.jpg) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/WxVwz.png) All expansions should be somewhat ambiguous now. Comments? | ||
|
BeastPansy
United States1 Post
Zhakul'Das Springs Map Image Here is map I've been making and I would love some feedback. It is a 1 v 1 melee map and you can look up the description in the game. I'm freaking new so I can't post an actual picture. It is published on the Americas server. Thanks! | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
This is probably as good as it's going to get, so if anyone with experience could share some thoughts, that would be most appreciated. ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/XfJxi.png) | ||
|
TheFlexN
Israel472 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:47 And G wrote: After some more thinking and testing I concluded the thirds were too exposed and the mains were too small. I also made the nat gas easier to scout with overlords and I considered adding watch towers to the thirds overlooking the fourth, but in the end decided against it. If it turns out players will always expand to the top (the fourths) before going for the bottom expansion or vice versa I may place gold patches accordingly. This is probably as good as it's going to get, so if anyone with experience could share some thoughts, that would be most appreciated. + Show Spoiler + I will be happy if you could mark what base is the natural, from what I understand you have an expantion that is extremely open and one that is on low ground that you come from the back to it and has 2 blocked entrances. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:47 And G wrote: The double back door to the in-base expansion is pretty non-standard, as is having so many entrances to the natural. Non-standard can be okay but it's also pretty awkward in its proportions (it will take many maps before you can proportion a standard map, let alone something more crazy. I'm still not there). There is a lot of air space and many extremely tight chokes. Having many small chokes can be an interesting way to challenge larger engagements, but again it sort of comes down to proportion work and the shapes of various areas. You also don't have enough bases for most people's taste. There are only 4 1/2 bases per player, but only 3 of them are really feasible to hold. Also it's a awkward for the minerals to face the center for the top bases. What sort of gameplay are you trying to create with this? See my comments below about sc2Dust's map, as some of them apply here as well. On July 15 2013 11:21 th0t wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Some experiments... What do you think ? It reminds me of this map that was just put up on TL. The collapsible rocks look like they're more useful to an attacker than a defender. I also don't really like the 3/4 base that is also harassable. What about having a rocked backdoor to that high ground third? On July 14 2013 21:20 sc2Dust wrote: imgur.com/wA52eIJ I'm new to this so i hope i did a great job! Map: Celesta if you have any suggestions please say :D This is pretty great for a first map. The choice of a 3rd (and then 4th) is interesting. If you're trying to make the bases above/below the mains ambiguous so that either player could take them I would say that they're not quite ambiguous enough. It's too hard for either player to take it instead of possible for either player to take it. The middle also isn't particularly interesting. I, too, started out thinking about a layout for the bases and then putting a middle in, but it results in some very disjoint maps. It doesn't feel like a unified whole. The high ground third particularly contributes to this, as does the lack of anything other than low ground in the middle (with obstacles). Of course you can't just fix it by adding in some high ground features, as it will still feel disjoint. The most significant problem with this is that the path from any one base to any other base is pretty much just a straight shot, perhaps with some slight turns to avoid a high ground pod. Also what are the bounds? It looks like the map is a little larger than necessary. This may be in an attempt to keep the bases far enough apart from each other, which is related to how flat (both in height and shape) the map is. Look at the top maps of http://sc2melee.net/ and notice how the terrain features that define the main, natural, or third extend farther into the map. The middle also builds around these features instead of being put next to them. Cloud Kingdom is perhaps the most exaggerated in this regard, and is widely considered to be the best SC2 map ever made. On July 13 2013 08:22 Fatam wrote:+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FFrEhEC.jpg) Have 2 maps coming before this one, but thought I'd put this layout out and see if anyone has thoughts in advance. FFE is not too weird, it's just an 11 square FFE split between the adjacent entrances (need 2 pylons + 3 3x3's total) I don't usually like 7 expos per side, but I think it makes some sense here to fully validate all the possible expansion patterns. All the pods are just unpathable overlord spots. @ blind I would probably try to scoot the 3rd slightly closer to the nat without messing much w/ the terrain. Overall map design seems pretty solid. Maybe if you want to get wild add a rocked backdoor to the nat connecting to that area where the xel'naga tower is. Expand options galore! I appreciate how disjoint the paths across the map are without feeling like you've committed so completely to a path so that a base trade is encouraged. Having three entrances to the natural feels completely okay here. The mid ground ground far third (are you trying to have this be a third?) seems a little too difficult, perhaps just because of the high ground that separates them. If it's not a third and is instead a fourth, it seems awkward for that. I would rotate the ramp down from the high ground so that it is towards this mid ground base and put the rocks on the other side of the ramp. If it is to be a third I would consider making that forward base lowground instead of highground. Siskos used this in his Metalopolis remake for the gold and I think it makes for an interesting choice. I would also then rotate the 4 and 10 o'clock mineral lines to be against the clockwise highground and move the ramp down from the middle a little closer to the edge. This would make it a viable 4th base after taking the mid ground 3rd or a viable 5th base after taking the low ground third, though perhaps it wouldn't be harassable enough for a 5th. It's just so far away and through a very open area to be a 4th, consider how many other attack paths there are with this base configuration. I like the mid ground appendage that overlooks the low ground third, definitely introduces some interesting harass/push opportunities against people expanding away from their opponent. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On July 17 2013 05:20 RFDaemoniac wrote: The double back door to the in-base expansion is pretty non-standard, as is having so many entrances to the natural. Non-standard can be okay but it's also pretty awkward in its proportions (it will take many maps before you can proportion a standard map, let alone something more crazy. I'm still not there). Originally, the natural had only the back door at the bottom, but I figured I needed a connection from natural to third or attackers would be able to bounce between those expansions faster than defenders could. If that makes the nat too exposed, I could remove the ramp to the center of the map and make the third's main entrance larger, like on the left side here: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/wCJA.png) However, P and T can easily prevent early attacks on those rocks by putting ranged units on the main high ground, and Z to a certain extent as well, while an army attacking the rocks would be vulnerable from two sides not counting the high ground, and Z might prefer to expand to the third straight away anyway. Removing the connection to the map center would probably not be much help to anyone who can't take sufficient advantage of the main high ground already and would also decrease map complexity, so I'm not convinced that change would really make the map better. What do you feel is awkward about the proportions? I realize the map looks somewhat strange, but I'm pretty happy with distances and widths of attacking paths, except possibly the connection between the fourths. There is a lot of air space and many extremely tight chokes. Having many small chokes can be an interesting way to challenge larger engagements, but again it sort of comes down to proportion work and the shapes of various areas. Can you think of any specific ways this would upset race balance or promote certain kinds of cheesy or boring tactics? Which areas would you say are shaped badly? You also don't have enough bases for most people's taste. There are only 4 1/2 bases per player, but only 3 of them are really feasible to hold. Also it's a awkward for the minerals to face the center for the top bases. I want the top bases to be somewhat feasible to hold, and I thought I had achieved this because the path connecting them is too small to support major attacks, and expanding there doesn't actually open up any additional attacking paths: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/lKCBx.png) From the center high ground, tanks can only target the closest geyser. I could switch the base layout around so the minerals are better protected, though. Which other changes would you suggest to make the top expansions more feasible to hold? Would making them larger achieve anything? Also, I don't think the bottom base is that difficult to hold. You'll have problems defending your natural anyway because of the bottom high ground overlooking the choke, so going for the bottom expo wouldn't stretch your defenses all that much. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see both players expanding clockwise in ZvT when Z starts at 9 o'clock, or in TvT fighting for the bottom base very early. What sort of gameplay are you trying to create with this? Well, I wanted to make a small map with Jungle Basin style naturals that don't suck, plus these additional goals:
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
On July 17 2013 14:19 And G wrote: However, P and T can easily prevent early attacks on those rocks by putting ranged units on the main high ground, and Z to a certain extent as well, while an army attacking the rocks would be vulnerable from two sides not counting the high ground, and Z might prefer to expand to the third straight away anyway. Removing the connection to the map center would probably not be much help to anyone who can't take sufficient advantage of the main high ground already and would also decrease map complexity, so I'm not convinced that change would really make the map better. I don't think that it's a defensible position. If it more extremely overlooked the rocks it probably still wouldn't be enough because of the other set of rocks, and you can't stop them killing the rocks between the natural and third from within the natural. Can you think of any specific ways this would upset race balance or promote certain kinds of cheesy or boring tactics? Which areas would you say are shaped badly? What do you feel is awkward about the proportions? I realize the map looks somewhat strange, but I'm pretty happy with distances and widths of attacking paths, except possibly the connection between the fourths. It's not about just race balance or boring tactics, but aesthetic value. Most people will never touch a map that doesn't look good. Looking good doesn't require infinity doodads and complex texturing (though they help), it does require shaping. For example having two ramps at the one corner of the third makes no functional difference from having one ramp that's just a little closer to the third, which would look better. You also use a lot of very straight lines and polygons, which looks unnatural (and not in the "because it's man made" way). The ramp down from the main into another ramp down from the third just looks bad. The whole map is extremely choked which makes swarm strategies pretty terrible. This includes any ground based zerg army (the biggest problem) as well as bio in TvT and zealot archon in PvT. A terran player can slow push this whole map with tanks. Maybe you think that's a good thing because tanks don't get enough use atm, but it seems pretty readily dominant because of how choked the map is and how short the rush distance is. I want the top bases to be somewhat feasible to hold, and I thought I had achieved this because the path connecting them is too small to support major attacks, and expanding there doesn't actually open up any additional attacking paths: + Show Spoiler + Attack paths aren't the issue here. It's how far away it is from everything else. Defending the small choke on Klontas Mire was okay because it was so close to your other bases, but on your map it's literally on the other side of the map from another small choke that you'd have to defend. You mention wanting people to split up their units but there is very much a limit to what people will be capable of or even tollerate. The rush distance being so small will also mean 1 base play is going to be that much better than it already is because of the multiple entrances to your main. From the center high ground, tanks can only target the closest geyser. I could switch the base layout around so the minerals are better protected, though. Which other changes would you suggest to make the top expansions more feasible to hold? Would making them larger achieve anything? You have a ton of empty space in the corners. I would move them farther away from each other, more like above the third, and rotate the minerals so that they aren't in the middle of what would otherwise be a usable path. Also, I don't think the bottom base is that difficult to hold. You'll have problems defending your natural anyway because of the bottom high ground overlooking the choke, so going for the bottom expo wouldn't stretch your defenses all that much. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see both players expanding clockwise in ZvT when Z starts at 9 o'clock, or in TvT fighting for the bottom base very early. Doesn't stretch your defenses? It puts any unit that's defending that 4th hopelessly out of position to defend from any drop or a push from any other direction. Well, I wanted to make a small map with Jungle Basin style naturals that don't suck, plus these additional goals:
How is this an improvement in any way over Jungle Basin style naturals? The presence of a possible third helps, but the natural itself is just more convoluted and easier to abuse as an attacker. Imagine trying to hold 2 bases vs 1 base aggression in PvP... it's important that they'd have to walk through the natural's photon overcharge to get into the main. In this case the natural's photon overcharge covers neither entrance to the main effectively. Also making a move on the natural gives the offensive player an advantage in positioning against the units coming down the ramp while still being able to attack the natural and threaten going back up into the main. Why is the natural on the low ground anyway? It would serve exactly the same purpose if it were on the mid ground. What do you see this doing for TvT? I already explained why I think PvP would always be one base all-ins. I mentioned this before but I see no surround opportunities for zerg except for for just towards the center from the third if you time it exactly. This gives you a single chance and the terran or protoss can always just back up slightly or advance slightly (like 10 squares) and be in an extremely choked area, and that's if they decide to go that way in the first place. "A complex map that requires strategic flexibility" Doesn't really mean anything. You're definitely asking people to spread their units out to defend, but I don't think it's possible. I know that you have a vision of what you want the game to be like and you want to use a map to help encourage it. I'm totally with you here, but it's hard. Doing standard well is hard. Doing anything other than standard that isn't awkward is hard. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Well, aesthetics (including tileset) aren't final in any way, shape or form, and adding organic cliffs to the low-ground could easily be done. Also, there are good-looking maps with clean aesthetics, for example Newkirk District. Was your comment about shapes only related to aesthetics? I thought you were talking about size of engagements. Regarding the ramps, I think it makes quite a difference. The way the two small ramps are set up, you can either defend at the top of the ramps, which gives you full high ground advantage but restricts your ability to mass ranged units behind it, or you can defend further back, which funnels attackers through the choke and gives you a much better concave, but effectively gives up the high ground advantage. The latter would also allow T to set up tanks in positions where they can defend multiple entrances. Compare these defences: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/kjGmM.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/Pny64.jpg) Heck, you could put a PF there: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/hLRZJ.jpg) This wouldn't be possible with a single large ramp. Naturals not better than on Jungle Basin Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel the problem with JB wasn't the naturals themselves, it was how difficult it was (especially for Z) to take a third when anyone could safely take the natural, which was partly due to attackers being able to bounce between the main and the third faster than the defenders could, and the central base being too difficult to protect especially for Z, which led to lots of two-base play. I don't see this being the case on this map. Natural on low ground, doesn't cover main back door I could make it middle ground. In fact I'm not opposed to completely redesigning the region around the natural, including its position. I could even put it in the corner and have the ramp to the main near the connection with the third, which would then also connect the natural with the bottom part of the map, all blocked by one single rock. So you'd automatically open your back door once you connect nat and third, but could defend it more easily on two bases. T can slowly push with tanks Tank pushing is a viable strategy here, but I don't think it's particularly easy. It boils down to control of strategic positions, and I think any race has ways to deal with tanks on this map. Short rush distance It doesn't look all that short to me. Is there a way to calculate rush distances? The map analyzer seems to be broken. Splitting up units On three bases, you can park your main army between nat and third and just react. It only becomes a problem once you get to four bases, which I find okay, or if you take the bottom base as third, which I think would be okay if it's a gold expo. It seems to me that the one who gains most by splitting up units is the attacker, as chokes can effectively be defended against large armies. And that's okay as well for me. Bottom expo not defensible as a fourth If you take that base, you'll have to take the watchtower as well, of course. Once you do that, it becomes easier to deal with pushes towards your third through the middle as you can flank them, and the top approach can also be defended with small forces, which means you can have the bulk of your army near the watchtower. This is more true for T and P than for Z, but Z has an easier time expanding to the top of the map, so it balances out. No surround The whole area between the central high ground to the bottom base is more or less open, so there's room for maneuvering there. I could remove some of the obstacles or make it wider if it's not enough; I did have LoS blockers instead of cliffs there at some point. Additionally, central pushes can be flanked from the bottom high ground, and you can swing around the top approach with fast units. Surrounding is not as simple as on a large and level field, but it's very much possible. It's somewhat similar to Scrap Station in that regard, where you can flank pushes across the watchtower area by going through the gold. Empty space I don't think of it as space. I see no reason why maps should be rectangular just because the most efficient data structure to store grid coordinates is a two-dimensional array. I could make this map larger on any axis if I feel the need, and I can block flying if it turns out empty corners are a problem, but I won't put anything somewhere just because there's space. Still, making the top bases larger and increasing the distance between them seems logical, so how about something like this? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/96iyz.png) Or I could push them even more into the corners, make the top connection wider, and put either another base there, or a watchtower. Thanks a lot for taking the time to give me some feedback. It's very much appreciated! | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
@Sc2Dust - My suggestion is to keep practicing and keep mapping! @greenroom - I like the changes, its still kind of easy to split though, and the 3rd will be harder for toss. The thing to focus on would be the size of each choke, and the flow of each pathway. @BeastPansy - I like the layout, it has a good standard feel to it, my one concern is having high ground near both the 3rd and 4th, although I do like how lategame battles become a fight for those same high grounds. If I were you I'd focus on avoiding the use of straight lines in your cliffs. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PbFdjJQ.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ayPPEup.jpg) Both are 144x144. | ||
|
Syphon8
Canada298 Posts
| ||
|
TheFlexN
Israel472 Posts
I love the layout of the high groud 4th, thats really complicated and will probably make a very wierd area to defend and thats why its awsome. I do think the tower can be removed, but it might force people to go around, wich is a good thing. The only thing that bothers me is that the map looks so cool and has alot of very interesting high ground use but the main/nat/3rd layout is the most standard that we have in mapmaking right now and I think you can make something slightly more interesting that will fit the awsomeness of the map. The 2nd map defenetly has the posibility to siege the zergs 3rd base with tanks or collosus and it is a very safe spot to siege from but it opens counter paths that might balance it out. Can you confirm if you can warp in from the middle into the area behind the mineral line (the small extension area)? If its possible you might want to open that gap more because protoss rushes with a pylon that safe is not good for anybody. I do like the 4th location but I dont think taking a 5th will be possible. Anyway, awsome maps! | ||
| ||
