![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ydV6WyN.jpg)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 78
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
![]() | ||
tooCasual
Canada4 Posts
Updated with a couple different options I did bring the 5th in closer to use it as a possible clockwise 3rd, tightened the choke points (or changed them completely) and made the path to the 6th more open and direct as recommended. I didn't realize until after I uploaded it that option 1 is VERY Cloud Kingdom ... might just toss this one out... Option 2 is more chokey through the middle, but not sure if I have good ramp placement Option 3 splits the map vertically instead of horizontally like I think I had originally planned and there's a lot of dead space along that bottom/top path to the 3rd Maybe I could push where the 3rd is back a bit to use the space a bit better and make the 3rd and 5th kinda the same distance from the natural? | ||
badgertk
United States8 Posts
Now onto the map itself. It is called Bhekar Ro Centaur III. According to StarCraft lore, Bhekar Ro is a fringe terran world. A centaur is considered a minor planet that exhibits behaviors of both comets and asteroids. The Roman numeral III is just arbitrary. The map is 2 player map with spawn positions at 4 and 10 o'clock positions. Its size is 206x168. There are 14 bases. There are no doodads on this map as of now. It is currently only published on the Americas server. ![]() The main base contains 12 mineral patches and 2 gases but you initially get access to 6 of them. The other 6 can be optimally harvested by putting another cc/nexus/hatchery next to the starting position. This brings me to the next feature of the map: the small main base. The extra minerals take up valuable real estate. To counteract this, the natural base is excessively large. The natural ramp is 2 forcefields wide and you can wall off using a forge, gateway, pylon, and a zealot. There is also another ramp blocked by rocks that lead to an easy third base. You can wall this off using a pylon, 2 gateways, and a zealot. However, there is also an attack path from the backside. This attack path however requires the player to travel the perimeter of the map. The gold base setup is quite strange. There are 7 gold minerals and 2 rich geysers. However, one of the geysers is 2 spaces too far away so it requires 4 workers to optimally harvest. The geyser that is at a standard distance can be scouted by the enemy. ![]() I am really curious as to what people will think about the 4 extra mineral patches in the main base. I think of it as a normal map but the players have an extra 6000 minerals bank. This pushes the mineral to gas ratio of the map up and so there should be more low tech units running about. I am slightly concerned about the extra ledge sticking out on the side of the main base. Will reapers or tank drops be too strong? A collosus can actually walk up it! Should it be removed? With the natural base being so large, it might make cc/nexus/hatch first too risky. Photon overcharge can't even cover the ramp! Concerning the base with the ledge that leads to the main, I have tried to avoid the Xel'Naga Caverns wall-off but to no avail. I especially like my precise Xel'Naga tower placements. I think Xel'Naga towers to scout gases have not been ever used and think they might be cool. I do have issue with the 1 and 7 o'clock Xel'Naga towers. Is there a better way to block it off than two rocks? Should it even be blocked off? The gold bases are interesting because they are actually really close to the natural ramp. Except for the closer gold base has the minerals facing the wrong way and there are rocks blocking the path. I am concerned about tanks just sitting there on the gold base cliff being too strong. This also caused be to removed the center path and have a hole in the middle of the map. To be honest, the hole isn't that bad looking. I might actually consider not filling the middle hole with doodads. For more screenshots, follow this link (http://imgur.com/a/OpQZD). | ||
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
@badgertk: You've got some interesting ideas but I think you're trying to break too many conventions at once - it'll be too difficult to predict how balance will turn out, and nobody would want to play the map. If you want to make something non-standard, I'd recommend focusing on a single non-standard feature as sort of the central "theme" for your map. On an unrelated note, the map is far too large right now. You should try to condense or remove some of the narrow outer pathways, especially since they probably wouldn't be used very often anyway. Also wtf is with the analyzer pic lol | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 12 2013 14:12 tooCasual wrote: http://imgur.com/a/UfZgW#0 Updated with a couple different options I did bring the 5th in closer to use it as a possible clockwise 3rd, tightened the choke points (or changed them completely) and made the path to the 6th more open and direct as recommended. I didn't realize until after I uploaded it that option 1 is VERY Cloud Kingdom ... might just toss this one out... Option 2 is more chokey through the middle, but not sure if I have good ramp placement Option 3 splits the map vertically instead of horizontally like I think I had originally planned and there's a lot of dead space along that bottom/top path to the 3rd Maybe I could push where the 3rd is back a bit to use the space a bit better and make the 3rd and 5th kinda the same distance from the natural? both 1 and 2 are too CCish. 3 has a problem with the 4th expo being a bit too forward/exposed, imo. its the base layout combined with somewhat generic pathing thats the problem; its hard to come up with unique base layouts nowadays so what you can try is to come up with some unorthodox pathing instead. | ||
badgertk
United States8 Posts
On September 12 2013 18:03 -NegativeZero- wrote: @badgertk: You've got some interesting ideas but I think you're trying to break too many conventions at once - it'll be too difficult to predict how balance will turn out, and nobody would want to play the map. If you want to make something non-standard, I'd recommend focusing on a single non-standard feature as sort of the central "theme" for your map. On an unrelated note, the map is far too large right now. You should try to condense or remove some of the narrow outer pathways, especially since they probably wouldn't be used very often anyway. Also wtf is with the analyzer pic lol Someone else has convinced me to remove all 4 Xel'Naga towers. The only convention I see that I am breaking is the main-natural relationship. A really small main base to almost necessitate the player take the natural base just for real estate (zerg is exempt from this). The other idea is how players will respond to effectively an extra bank of minerals. The extra minerals should increase the number of low tech unit counter attacks (such as zealot warp-ins, ling runbys). To further reinforce this idea, I made a lot of attack pathways, some blocked by rocks or small mineral fields. I don't really see a problem with making a large map. Yes nobody has made a map this large. Does that mean it is bad mapmaking? No. In fact, the larger maps have been more accepted than smaller maps. Currently there are 10 attack pathways and I am considering removing the path with the Xel'Naga tower on it. The fastest one goes through the gold base and is blocked by rocks. The next fastest one is open (I'm calling it the inner path). The next fastest one is blocked by 2 10 mineral patches and rocks if you want to backstab the third. The longest path is open (I'm calling it the outer path). All of these values are from natural ramp to natural ramp: Worker: 55s Reaper: 30s Overlord: 175s Marine Inner: 70s Marine Outer: 110s Marine Gold: 50s Marine Mineral: 100s Speedling Inner: 35s Speedling Outer: 55s Speedling Gold: 25s Speedling Mineral: 50s | ||
And G
Germany491 Posts
On September 05 2013 08:36 And G wrote: It wasn't originally intended as such, but here's an experimental layout for a 4 player map with all spawns enabled: + Show Spoiler + ![]() Main-to-main distances are 64/67/74. + Show Spoiler + ![]() The probably decisive factor whether this map works is the layout of the alternative thirds between the mains for vertical spawns. Hopefully even Z won't find it too difficult to expand there as it doesn't require breaking down the rocks beforehand, and if T tries to snipe an early hatchery there while the rocks are still in place, it may be impossible to keep the hatchery alive, but without medivacs that army has no hope of retreat. Also, to take the shorter attack route when spawning horizontally, you need to take down both rocks first and then move through a choke overlooked by your opponent's main. So... will this work? I just noticed the images aren't up anymore so let me repost them: + Show Spoiler + ![]() + Show Spoiler + ![]() Comments? | ||
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
![]() + Show Spoiler + ![]() | ||
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
And G
Germany491 Posts
![]() ![]() Originally the small cliff islands were supposed to be unpathable but actually I think they might be more interesting if you could drop units there or micro your colossi or whatever. Those kinds of islands seem to have gone out of style, though; why is that? Should I make them unpathable? | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
And G
Germany491 Posts
Anyway, I've found I like the Newkirk main/nat/third layout a lot, so here's another (somewhat more standard) attempt at a macro map based on that layout: ![]() ![]() Which map was the first with that layout anyway? Was it Newkirk? | ||
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![]() dimensions: 144x136 nat2nat: ~47s Third base tucked back, but you have to watch the rocks in front (and for drops) Two watchtowers in the middle like that old Abyssal Caverns map entrance into the nat maybe a bit too open (3 gateways) probably going to make that middle exposed base on the low ground a full base probably also going to reduce the size of that big pod near the mains Is this reasonable? | ||
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On September 20 2013 10:58 Namrufus wrote: Made this thing: + Show Spoiler + ![]() dimensions: 144x136 nat2nat: ~47s Third base tucked back, but you have to watch the rocks in front (and for drops) Two watchtowers in the middle like that old Abyssal Caverns map entrance into the nat maybe a bit too open (3 gateways) probably going to make that middle exposed base on the low ground a full base probably also going to reduce the size of that big pod near the mains Is this reasonable? yes, not fond of highground behind 3rd though, unless you plan filling that with doodads | ||
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
On September 20 2013 15:10 19Meavis93 wrote: yes, not fond of highground behind 3rd though, unless you plan filling that with doodads Just make the low ground base in front of the main a full base like you were already considering so that it can be a zerg third. It's closer to the opponent but very open. Seems like something that would really change how a match was played without forcing anything too drastic, and would make that high ground behind the third less of an issue since P and T both have tools to deal with it. EDIT: Maybe also move the ramp to the high ground fourth a little closer to the third so that it can be opened to run around and defend the high ground? It would also allow an attacker to threaten both the third and fourth simultaneously. I like that you have to either go through the third or up the tiny ramp in order to get into the natural. I expect this to provide some interesting forced engagements, particularly since that small ramp will stay open when most players wall at the choke just outside the natural mineral line. | ||
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
![]() | ||
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
![]() | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
![]() | ||
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
yes, not fond of highground behind 3rd though, unless you plan filling that with doodads The, high ground will be open - That base is supposed to be easy to defend by ground (small choke) but vulnerable to drops or stuff coming up the rocked ramps (so that is a good idea to keep some other stuff up front to keep an eye on the rocks). Just make the low ground base in front of the main a full base like you were already considering so that it can be a zerg third. It's closer to the opponent but very open. Seems like something that would really change how a match was played without forcing anything too drastic, and would make that high ground behind the third less of an issue since P and T both have tools to deal with it. Yeah, that's what I was thinking; I'll definitely make that a full base. EDIT: Maybe also move the ramp to the high ground fourth a little closer to the third so that it can be opened to run around and defend the high ground? It would also allow an attacker to threaten both the third and fourth simultaneously. I like that you have to either go through the third or up the tiny ramp in order to get into the natural. I expect this to provide some interesting forced engagements, particularly since that small ramp will stay open when most players wall at the choke just outside the natural mineral line. hmm, maybe, I'll try to mess around with the geometry over there. | ||
| ||