|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
Thanks for your comments, TheFish7. I made a few changes to the natural based on your and RFDaemoniac's feedback, as well as some minor adjustments to the center:
+ Show Spoiler +
Rush distances are about the same as on Cloud Kingdom, main2main is a little longer and choke2choke is a little shorter while nat2nat is considerably shorter, but since this requires the removal of two rocks I don't see this as a problem. Reaper rushing might be a little too effective, though, so I may remove the cliff at the bottom of the nat.
The rocks now prohibit any movement across the junction, but I think the third may be a little too well protected. I guess the ridge with the large ramps should be wider? Or not? What about the ramp connecting main with natural, is it too big?
Also, RFDaemoniac mentioned overcharge before; I only play WoL so I'm not sure in what ways exactly HotS impacts maps. Is there anything else that needs to be taken into account?
|
One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based on
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SCdaFWd.jpg)
Also, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left.
@The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now.
@And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay.
|
On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based onAlso, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left. @The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now. @And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay.
chupung ryeong? I have no idea what i'm looking at, looks like you cant get an early wall anywhere.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/scP6ZO3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QB9iO3c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d8uveV0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Tb2E7f.jpg)
Changes:
1) Changed the middle expansion's 'enemy ramp' to face away from the middle of the map and towards the enemy 4th to discourage camping the middle.
2) Enlarged the same ramp to encourage counter attacking it and make it more vulnerable.
3) Removed the northwest and southeast rock pillars to make the 4th and 5th more vulnerable, as well as to make the map less cramped and more zerg friendly.
4) Reduced the size of the xel naga tower ramp to make the 6th expansion less cramped.
5) Seriously modified the main and natural ramps.
6) Changed the lighting.
7) Did some serious texture work 
I think I'm about done with this map unless anyone has any more feedback for me.
And thanks for the replies thefish.
|
On July 19 2013 16:20 19Meavis93 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based onAlso, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left. @The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now. @And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay. chupung ryeong? I have no idea what i'm looking at, looks like you cant get an early wall anywhere.
Good guess, but no, hint: its based on a map from a popular first-person-shooter.
Might have been better if I did some more aesthetics before posting.
|
Something new, need input
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a5uFP3P.jpg)
|
your Country52797 Posts
map has convinced me to make a city themed map next
I'm assuming the mains are the the bottom left, top right areas. The thin wall on the edge of the out of base natural looks like an excellent spot to place tanks, and I'm not so excited about those thin ridges in the middle, looks really easy to push with a protoss deathball. The 4th base is either really open or requires map control to take, depending on which one you choose. I also see no point in having those rocks between the main and the inbase expansion, but a rock tower that blocks that path off when destroyed would be really interesting.
|
your Country52797 Posts
I updated this one:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MbKNh6c.jpg)
Corner high ground bases are now closer to the center to make it slightly easier to secure the 5th.
|
On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:
@And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay.
Well, this is hardly the first map featuring cliffs overlooking natural expansions, and here you don't even need to build air just to take out that single tank. Considering the natural is also protected by rocks, I don't think dealing with drops is asking too much of players.
You have a point concerning the narrow high ground lanes, though. So I made them wider and also moved the towers to the central low ground:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/oMH4.png) Size: 156x124
Not sure if the tower overlooking the top base should be removed as well, either way looks fine to me. Also not sure if T might be tempted to go for two-base play; the natural is out of tank reach, and even Z should easily be able to defend the natural against early pushes once the rocks are down, while going for the third not only exposes the army itself but also makes cutting off reinforcements easy.
So I don't think I'll be making any more significant changes to the layout. It looks reasonably balanced to me now.
|
On July 21 2013 17:13 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 16:20 19Meavis93 wrote:On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based onAlso, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left. @The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now. @And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay. chupung ryeong? I have no idea what i'm looking at, looks like you cant get an early wall anywhere. Good guess, but no, hint: its based on a map from a popular first-person-shooter. Might have been better if I did some more aesthetics before posting.
Wild guess: Dust 2?
|
United States2141 Posts
On July 21 2013 17:13 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 16:20 19Meavis93 wrote:On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based onAlso, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left. @The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now. @And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay. chupung ryeong? I have no idea what i'm looking at, looks like you cant get an early wall anywhere. Good guess, but no, hint: its based on a map from a popular first-person-shooter. Might have been better if I did some more aesthetics before posting.
Call of Halofield Fortress-Strike?
|
Nooooo I thought it was obvious guess it needs more work
On July 23 2013 15:57 Corak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2013 17:13 TheFish7 wrote:On July 19 2013 16:20 19Meavis93 wrote:On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based onAlso, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left. @The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now. @And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay. chupung ryeong? I have no idea what i'm looking at, looks like you cant get an early wall anywhere. Good guess, but no, hint: its based on a map from a popular first-person-shooter. Might have been better if I did some more aesthetics before posting. Wild guess: Dust 2?
close... your in the right ballpark
update-
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Dngr10S.jpg)
|
im startring to learn mapmaking but im wondering why no one is making team maps. team sc2 REALLLLLLLLY needs maps
also how the hell do you make the minerals arch like that lol. mine are just 1 shape
|
On July 24 2013 06:01 TheFish7 wrote:Nooooo I thought it was obvious guess it needs more work Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 15:57 Corak wrote:On July 21 2013 17:13 TheFish7 wrote:On July 19 2013 16:20 19Meavis93 wrote:On July 19 2013 11:36 TheFish7 wrote:One month of TL+ to the first person who can guess what 'map' this WIP is based onAlso, I'd love some feedback on the non-symmetrical layout. Right now I am thinking the right side has a tougher expansion pattern than the left. @The_Templar - The second map is really interesting and needs to be developed further. If I were to draw up a criticism, I'd say the in-base natural shouldn't be siegeable. I also feel the very middle piece of mid-ground could use a bit of widening, but not sure how to do that while keeping it compact like how it is now. @And G - The map is very non-standard, which makes it hard to judge how it will play out. IMO the main bases should not have high ground sections jutting out, this makes it too easy to drop. Having skinny little high ground walkways everwhere is also not a common feature, but my feeling is that the map overall right now is very Terran favored, for the ease of dropping, siege tank locations, too-powerful watch towers. Sentries will also be very strong. I have to advise you to stick to more standard layouts for now. HotS does impact maps, but its still something that is being explored and it would be very hard to list all the ways it does affect gameplay. chupung ryeong? I have no idea what i'm looking at, looks like you cant get an early wall anywhere. Good guess, but no, hint: its based on a map from a popular first-person-shooter. Might have been better if I did some more aesthetics before posting. Wild guess: Dust 2? close... your in the right ballpark update-
Now is see it's Aztec
+ Show Spoiler +And if it's not there is magic involved!!
|
|
|
United States2141 Posts
@Meavis: Good backdoor design, attacker's distance is greater than the defender's even on 3 bases. I think the map is overall a little too large - most of the outer bases could be a little more compact, especially the giant backdoor paths behind the 11/5 bases. Also, attacking might be awkward for zergs - once you cross the large double set of ramps on your side of the map, you basically have to walk through a small choke or corridor to get anywhere else on the opponent's side.
I thought I'd try to make a SC2 version of my most popular BW map, Overwatch. 3rds are a little hard and that is intentional, but it's hopefully compensated by the easy-to-defend bridges by the nat - also I'm considering adding a rock tower at the outer 3rd entrance to have more options for defense. I added the extra (rock-blocked) entrance to the high ground pods to benefit the more mobile SC2 armies, but I might remove it if it makes movement between the 3rd and 4th too easy. I couldn't fit in the big center ridges since ramps occupy more space in SC2, but they're no longer necessary due to lack of high ground advantage. Main concern right now is probably blink stalkers (no pun intended lol).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A3HDSK7.jpg)
Edit: Alternate version with gratuitous extra cliff levels:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qj7HFiL.jpg)
changes im currently considering, whats good/bad?
|
@NegativeZero, I like the second version better, ramps matter a lot in the early game, and can also matter some in the mid and late game, which means there is a lot more tactical play in the middle if it has ramps.
About the alternative 3rd, I really doubt anyone is going to take it instead of the one near the main since it is further away and overall harder to defend. That base will probably be taken as a 4th for Terran players and not much more since it is pretty forward.
My map: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ghq6ZoW.jpg)
The Xel'naga Tower can view the expansions below or above it (but not the ones on the side of it) and can see up to the cliff of the forward expansion, meaning that controlling a tower grants you vision on that side of the map's paths. The path to the forward expansion is really choked up, which means that it will be hard to defend it if the army is not in position, which makes map awareness a big role on this map.
I am not sure if I should choke up the open areas a bit by including holes or should I leave it like this to balance the choked up areas.
For the looks I was thinking of a Frosted Protoss themed planet, maybe Shakuras in the winter or any other Protoss planet.
|
I notice there are insane amount of 2 player maps few 4 player maps what about good ole 3 player maps like tau cross...
|
On July 25 2013 08:18 -NegativeZero- wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Meavis: Good backdoor design, attacker's distance is greater than the defender's even on 3 bases. I think the map is overall a little too large - most of the outer bases could be a little more compact, especially the giant backdoor paths behind the 11/5 bases. Also, attacking might be awkward for zergs - once you cross the large double set of ramps on your side of the map, you basically have to walk through a small choke or corridor to get anywhere else on the opponent's side. I thought I'd try to make a SC2 version of my most popular BW map, Overwatch. 3rds are a little hard and that is intentional, but it's hopefully compensated by the easy-to-defend bridges by the nat - also I'm considering adding a rock tower at the outer 3rd entrance to have more options for defense. I added the extra (rock-blocked) entrance to the high ground pods to benefit the more mobile SC2 armies, but I might remove it if it makes movement between the 3rd and 4th too easy. I couldn't fit in the big center ridges since ramps occupy more space in SC2, but they're no longer necessary due to lack of high ground advantage. Main concern right now is probably blink stalkers (no pun intended lol). Edit: Alternate version with gratuitous extra cliff levels: + Show Spoiler +
I can see why the low ground two center areas would have been a very interesting feature if only we had a more significant and persistent high ground advantage.
I think the high ground in front of the third, if you keep the rocked ramp, will make it too easy to defend 4 and 2/3 bases with a single large army, so I would encourage removal. I also sort of wish that the longer path into the third that is also smaller and not over high ground was at a more drastically different angle than the ramp down. At the moment it would only be useful if you were trying to get a concave by splitting a large army, in which case the rocked ramp down would make it harder to punish. Other than this use I would rather that it attacked the third from a more drastically different angle, so maybe you have more mineral runby attempts, or it would get around static d that was defending the other entrance (though maybe static d needs a buff against head-on attacks...
I very much appreciate the bridge through the middle that keeps the early scout and rush distance short but makes the later game rush distance longer because you often can't move your army through such a tiny choke. It does allow for faster reinforcements, which might upset the defenders advantage too much.
You could probably move the 3rd away from the main so that it's not blinkable. It wouldn't take much. Or you could reduce the width of the main a bit but make it taller by moving the natural and 5th a few squares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://satpic.ru/images/xaX5k.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PbFdjJQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nlANfOT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s3ifeyq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wg0VWzq.jpg)
