|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
your Country52797 Posts
On August 06 2013 23:02 The_Templar wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PCgoM7b.jpg) Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:01 moskonia wrote:
Templar, Blink and reapers are too strong here, consider having some distance between the main and the area near it.
Two more issues which have the same way to fix them both is that the bottom bases will be rarely used and that the 3rd is really easy, which is especially bad since this is a very big map. The fix would be to make another entrance for the 3rd bases, one that connects it to the area behind it, and thus making the bottom bases a reasonable 4th bases while making the 3rd harder to take.
Other than that the top left area should be changed somewhat, it looks a bit cramped, the base above the main is fine, but the other expansions should be altered a bit imo. You need to remove either the 2 small expansions, or the one between them, all 3 is too much.
With all of these changes I think it will be a really interesting map, I really like reflected maps. -3rd changes done -Removed 2 expansions, replaced with a gold Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:19 -NegativeZero- wrote:On August 04 2013 11:00 The_Templar wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WCHuoxb.jpg) Size: 166x160 Looks like you might be able to blink directly into the main without an obs from the high ground bases adjacent to them. Also the mains are definitely siegeable, geyser might even be able to be hit with range 6 units from the low ground. As for the map layout, I agree with everything moskonia said, plus I think the 3 bases at the top left are all so close to each other that they will never all be used except as winner's bases - especially since controlling the center base controls all ground access to the 2 bases behind it. The quick fix would be to remove the center base, but the better option would probably be to remove all 3 bases and replace them with a single base - maybe a high-resource gold? -Blink issue fixed (I think? haven't tested yet) -Haven't fixed or checked on main mineral line issue yet but will probably fix  -Hmm is the top right I have right now slightly better? Additional changes: -Made middle slightly move interesting, requiring a side attack path. -Made lower right ridge above the middle wider -Removed ridges next to the third -Removed vision-blocking doodads at the lower ridge Planned changes: -Fix the main mineral line -Move the top left regular expansion somewhere else -Slightly alter middle to be slightly easier to look at Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 22:58 TheFish7 wrote:Lots of us need to work on our mineral lines. Here are the standard layouts for reference; On November 30 2012 09:12 iamcaustic wrote: Okay, so since everyone keeps messing up the basic, standard mineral placements, here you are: + Show Spoiler +This is as standard as you can get. Cardinal and 45 degree mineral lines, one geyser on either side. If you're a new mapmaker and aren't comfortable doing non-standard things like having 2 geysers on one side or unique resource placement, just use this image for reference and you should be good to go. On February 20 2013 08:19 Gfire wrote:I guess it's important now to make sure that the workers don't get too messed up when auto-splitting in the mains. + Show Spoiler [side] ++ Show Spoiler [top] ++ Show Spoiler [corner] +Here I've shown some of the ones I tested. Some of them end up with workers going behind the minerals and some don't. I only tested formations which allowed for 3-worker geysers... I think any of these formations would be fine in a non-main position. I do those first ones all the time T_T
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9MOrCKJ.jpg)
|
On August 12 2013 02:30 MEzrezzed wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Newest WIP Map size: 170 x 166 Thoughts?
Too big, too open, the lower right hand corner is too hard to hold a base.
On August 11 2013 11:20 RFDaemoniac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 08:06 a176 wrote:On August 10 2013 16:30 RFDaemoniac wrote: so one ramp for three bases? + Show Spoiler +
Yes. but you can harass 2 out of the 3 mineral lines from the low ground outside of their base in order to force an engagement or just do some economic damage. If it's a ramp down from the main to the in-base expansions it'll be even easier to harass them. Killing the rocks around the outside allows you to run away effectively after this type of harass.
I suspect that the 3p and how out of the way so many areas are allows for cheese, that the relatively short rush distance allows for early aggression, that the very short rush distance after the middle rocks go down (25 seconds instead of 50) enables mid-game aggression and a strong defensive position is necessary to compensate for this, while keeping harass options open.
I'm considering moving the mineral lines in the two in-base expansions right up against the edge so that roaches and swarm hosts can attack workers, but this may not be necessary because of how common either hydras or mutas are.
I'm also thinking about making the 3rd spawn location in-base expansions into island expansions by placing indestructible rocks at the two chokes.
EDIT: You might actually see some colossi harass on this map, and tanks can be set up such that they have a long time to attack before the opponent reaches them.
The harass options are minimal for zerg making it pretty slanted for PvZ for example, really easy 3 base protoss, and then where is a zerg 4th? I think this needs to be redesigned in execution if not in concept. Also the single attack path is narrow at most points, and the only alternative is to break 2 rocks, which will not be an available options just to apply pressure after taking 2 extra bases really quickly, which will be mandatory given the map architecture unless you are doing a dedicated all in.
On August 10 2013 20:24 Elche wrote:Here is what I'm working on currently. + Show Spoiler +A bit concerned about blink stalkers but we'll see how that turns out.
Nice, why concerned about blink? It's hardly got any surface area. I don't have any real complaints except the middle 6m1hyg are best for terran but w/e.
On August 11 2013 10:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Don't usually post here, but venturing out of my usual defensive macro style maps and trying a more mid game aggressive and low econ concept. Thought I'd share and maybe get some thoughts. + Show Spoiler +128x152 38 sec nat-nat rush distance Concept: Lower econ games with only 5 bases per player, and one being a gold which will obviously mine out faster. Yet, at the same time the rush distances aren't too short, 1 or 2 base all ins aren't entirely favored. Instead, mid game pushes off 3-4 bases, or multi pronged harassment such as drops will hopefully prevail. If games go late, they will be very tense with fighting for the last of the maps resources and mid map positioning.
Favourite map of yours I've seen. I really like the corner base with the long entry. I assume this base would eventually be adopted as the usual 3rd for T/P once they learn how to, but at first people would play triangle cluster. I am worried that 5 bases (with center gold being the last no less) will give zerg problems in the late game proper. As an abstract complaint I think it's legitimate but as a real concern given how the map is layed out and the positions/routes relate to each other, I don't think it's a huge balance problem or anything. Cool stuff!
On August 10 2013 17:51 Meltage wrote:I meant defense. Without them, youd be f*cked as Z I think as other races can deathball up there, use superior range and be offensive on both your nat and third. Something that strike me as odd is the rock tower blocking the least dangerous path, as the other one is a ramp from higher ground - would make more sense use that feature there? perhpas even a double, like in my map concept
I am going to block off some of the high ground above the nat mins with doodads and stuff, I should have included that in the pic. But still it's tight and a good spot to park an army, wondering if I should somehow make it better for zerg engagements like a wider access ramp from the nat. The rock tower is meant to obstruct movement (but it allows a narrow stream of units through) so that the defender can use it to prevent the attacker from bouncing between the nat highground and the middle 3rd. Or the attacker can use it to deny flanking paths from the defender or lock them out of position. Any thoughts on changes to the rocktower / nat highground area anyone?
|
On August 12 2013 14:04 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 11:20 RFDaemoniac wrote:On August 11 2013 08:06 a176 wrote:On August 10 2013 16:30 RFDaemoniac wrote: so one ramp for three bases? + Show Spoiler +
Yes. but you can harass 2 out of the 3 mineral lines from the low ground outside of their base in order to force an engagement or just do some economic damage. If it's a ramp down from the main to the in-base expansions it'll be even easier to harass them. Killing the rocks around the outside allows you to run away effectively after this type of harass.
I suspect that the 3p and how out of the way so many areas are allows for cheese, that the relatively short rush distance allows for early aggression, that the very short rush distance after the middle rocks go down (25 seconds instead of 50) enables mid-game aggression and a strong defensive position is necessary to compensate for this, while keeping harass options open.
I'm considering moving the mineral lines in the two in-base expansions right up against the edge so that roaches and swarm hosts can attack workers, but this may not be necessary because of how common either hydras or mutas are.
I'm also thinking about making the 3rd spawn location in-base expansions into island expansions by placing indestructible rocks at the two chokes.
EDIT: You might actually see some colossi harass on this map, and tanks can be set up such that they have a long time to attack before the opponent reaches them.
The harass options are minimal for zerg making it pretty slanted for PvZ for example, really easy 3 base protoss, and then where is a zerg 4th? I think this needs to be redesigned in execution if not in concept. Also the single attack path is narrow at most points, and the only alternative is to break 2 rocks, which will not be an available options just to apply pressure after taking 2 extra bases really quickly, which will be mandatory given the map architecture unless you are doing a dedicated all in.
I've made some proportion changes so that there is now an open area right outside each main base.
I've pushed the in-base expansion minerals right up against the edge and roaches/swarm hosts can now hit workers while they're mining. I suspect some 2 base roach aggression will delay mining until a protoss gets 2+ void rays or colossi or a terran gets 4+ tanks, which takes quite a while.
I've also reduced the rock count on each outside to only one to make that path a little more viable. When I remove the rocks on the outside that is the path that workers take to scout, which bothers me a little bit. I'm considering expanding the map bounds to make a little more air space around the 3 bases, in which case I could extend that path to be a little longer.
I'm expecting a zerg fourth to be taken at the gold, or the other main. Nydus worms can make for a quick passage between them for defense or you can just let them kill that base as you kill all their workers with roaches, hydralisks, ling/baneling drops, mutalisks, swarm hosts, infestors, or brood lords.
I expect taking a 4th to be pretty difficult for T or P in any match up but that's part of why 3 bases are easier, to enable you to gear up pretty quickly to take that 4th.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EwPuqZ3l.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [another option] +Except that I'm concerned about rotational imbalance
Do you see how I built it to play a fair amount like outsider while making it less crazy?
I'm now considering putting a 3/4 base out in front of the main to be taken as a potential 4th, but that requires some more extreme proportion adjustment.
I'm also considering dropping it completely. How would you redesign the execution/concept?
|
^
I like the new version much better. I will think about it some more, but I think there could be more ramps to the middle, although it would weaken the concept so I'm not sure where to put them. I'll edit more later.
|
i would consider to change the way you move from a ccw position to a cw position with bigger ease, because you take down their rocks on the way. the other way around you are forced to take down "your" rocks for faster access. not sure if this is a major issue, but something i would suggest to consider at least.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q6WRlNP.jpg)
Made more alterations. Changes include:
- Addition of Xel'Naga tower
- Bottom right has been reworked (opened up paths to the 4th, added height to the bottom base)
- Changed middle so it isn't as open
Things I'm considering:
- Removing the marked cliffs at the 3rd (to easy to wall off)
- Moving 3rd's upward (base is to large)
- Adding bases on the top left
- Moving the 4th bases further inward
|
On August 12 2013 21:24 Samro225am wrote:
i would consider to change the way you move from a ccw position to a cw position with bigger ease, because you take down their rocks on the way. the other way around you are forced to take down "your" rocks for faster access. not sure if this is a major issue, but something i would suggest to consider at least.
What about having all of the rocks die whenever one of them dies?
I've increased the size of the high ground pods outside the mains/third to enable dropped tanks or something.
I had done an edit where I increased the airspace and made the paths around the outside just a tad longer so that your natural scouting/attack path is still through the center. It's only a couple seconds longer around the outside. I like having the airspace behind the bases, but I'll probably put airspace blockers in the corners of the map to keep the amount of airspace even all the way around. I don't really like the change in the outside paths that makes them available from the start of the game, but I'm up for being convinced to remove the airspace and/or keep these paths longer and open.
+ Show Spoiler [no rocks on the outside] +
EDIT: also what about leaving the entrance to the main as a 2ramp down without rocks or a pylon? It'll make protoss expand with a forge and cannons and terran wall at their mineral line vs zerg for fear of 6pool, which sort of gives the zerg a leg up in their economic opening.
EDIT 2: with further consideration I think a terran could wall at the ramp with a 1rax cc expand, which still gives zerg a slight economic advantage because the cc then has to be floated to the in-base expansion.
In ZvZ it'll make walling with evos and a roach chamber harder which might force ling baneling for longer...
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FQZYbCB.jpg)
Latest iteration.
- Moved the top island further away
- Added two more bases
- Reworked the bottom right
Map size is now 168x162
|
On August 14 2013 03:12 MEzrezzed wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Latest iteration. - Moved the top island further away - Added two more bases - Reworked the bottom right Map size is now 168x162
I really like the main/nat/thirds setup, including the backdoor to the nat.
I think that the high ground thirds should be a little farther away from each other.
Can you change the natural ramps to be diagonal instead of cardinal? It's hard to wall cardinal ramps and they're shorter so it's also harder to use them in an engagement.
I don't see the bottom right getting a whole lot of play, and the bounds are kind of huge. One of the bases could be taken by zerg as a 4th but that's about it because of how close and open the center is at that point.
How about moving the main/nat/third more into the corners? Perhaps by rotating the main towards the bottom right corner just a little bit more and pulling the nat down and moving the third towards the bottom right as well, with the high ground near it and everything. Remember to leave some space around the edge of the main to dissuade blink all-ins.
I would then rotate the mineral line at the third around a little so that you can have a passage that isn't directly through the middle down to the bottom corner.
This would increase the rush distance so you could probably then shrink the bounds a bit.
I would also encourage the island to be in the bottom right corner instead of the upper left, and after you move the whole set of bases down you'll probably have enough room in the upper left for a base by ground to be taken by a mech terran or something.
|
There's a serious lack of island maps in Starcraft II.
I had this idea last week, but I'm not very good at making maps, so I'll never continue with it. In any case, I'd like to hear some thoughts from more experienced people.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GeVYR7W.png)
|
@RFDaemoniac: Thanks for the feedback!
I moved the mains/nat/3rds closer to the corners. Also tried to break up the center, it was indeed way to large. But I still wasn't satisfied so I moved the bottom right section upward toward the center. As you pointed out, it was out of the way for anyone but zerg.
First image just has the mains/nat/3rds shifted and the overall map size has decreased, but only marginally.
+ Show Spoiler +
Second is with the bottom right brought in closer, with a reworked center.
+ Show Spoiler +
Also, I'm not to keen on flipping the top left island to the bottom right. I wanted the lower peninsula difficult to hold, but if no one attempts to take it that's definitely a problem.
I'm unsure which one is better. I think the second layout is better in terms scope, but I like the look of the previous iteration. Would love feedback on which one to continue with.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BpcXZRM.jpg)
Too lazy to compress.. Zoom out a lil.
|
@InfCereal - I can't think of an island map that has been made that actually works yet in SC2, that's not to say it isn't doable. It is hard to judge but I would say there needs to be a limit to how many bases can be taken before you need to start getting air units which is not present on the map you posted. In that map, everything is too big. Fixing the proportions is going to be step 1 (right now its kinda just saying no rush until you have drop tech out)
@MEzrezzed - The second layout is better but your symmetry is off. You also have some non-standard mineral lines and some awkward chokes towards the middle of the map. My advice would be to make everything flow better - really spend time thinking about the terrain, how well do units move through this area? What side of the choke gets the better concave in a fight? Those are the things to work on as you seem to have reached the point where you understand map making but only need lots of practice to create very good work.
@Syphon8 - Its a very cool layout, but aren't you worried about protoss taking a 3rd? The islands are interesting but my conviction is that islands near the main favor a terran.
|
There are 4 non island thirds that are easiest for Protoss to take because of the halls in and out of them. Look both clockwise and counterclockwise from each natural, they're equidistant too.
|
|
|
Could you post an analyser overview (no openness, just height + destructibles) of the city map? It's really confusing to look at and I'm not sure where the terrain is pathable and where it is not.
|
On August 15 2013 20:36 And G wrote:
Could you post an analyser overview (no openness, just height + destructibles) of the city map? It's really confusing to look at and I'm not sure where the terrain is pathable and where it is not.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/204Adeu.png)
using it revealed some pathing gaps ill fill out
|
here's the map i currently work on:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v5MoAcb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Mn6Qv1T.jpg)
|
@19Meavis93, that actually looks really cool now I fully understand the layout. I can see why you don't want the in-base expansion to be a full base, but why 8/0 instead of e.g. 6/1? Seems to me you're upsetting the minerals/gas balance throughout the whole match with this setup. Do you want to encourage low-tech compositions?
@sCnDiamond, I'm sure you've thought about this, but having only one real attacking path as well as a single watchtower that overlooks that path (and is automatically taken by advancing along the path) just doesn't look like a good combination to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/egBvg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LhAw4Zq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5OJWLUG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZCPkRjy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dWpNGkU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IUyvQSjl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7vCPPk3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2m8u7hS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7WKEfp7l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WKvzXM8l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CDNOACH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jz8psQw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JRsaari.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dJVciKB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xGFFBnv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K6drfS5.jpg)
