|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
Hey there guys, I haven't done much on the mapping side in a little while, but here's something I'm currently working on. I'm still working on visual design (lots of stuff being blocked out, though the terrain design is complete). I also thought I'd use it as a platform to spark some mapmaking discussion with you all.
Lately, I've become increasingly frustrated with the ladder map pool, bringing on maps that reward making more crap than your opponent, rather than positional play and strategy. Alterzim Stronghold is the extreme culmination of this concept, marking a complete 180 in Blizzard's philosophy when it comes to designing SC2 maps.
I've noticed a number of WIPs in this thread feature more difficult-to-obtain third bases, which makes me think you guys are on the same thought process I am. I think the game is suffering from excessive economy access -- SC2 almost feels like BGH from Brood War. Zerg and Protoss having 8 gas economy is the current status quo in mid-late game. Players are reaching 3 base economy -- AKA maximum saturation -- within 7 minutes (10 minutes SC2 time). For a simple example of how this can impact gameplay, let's look at an inherently balanced matchup with TvT, and focus on a common micro-oriented opening: the banshee.
Let's say we have your first banshee pitted against 5-6 marines. The micro opportunity here is easily apparent: with good control, your one banshee can do a decent amount of damage. Now let's scale up the numbers: 4 banshees vs 20 marines. Despite the additional number of banshees, the micro potential is significantly reduced. This is expected and has to do with scale. With higher economy saturation, games lean in favour of scale over control. This is one of the key reasons bio/mine vs ling/bane/muta is the dominant TvZ head-to-head right now. Yes, there's always going to be some sort of micro (lings baiting mines, marine splitting) but the core concept is constantly pumping huge waves of easily-replacable core units instead of relying on smaller numbers of more expensive units with higher cost-efficiency (the only way to make them work is to somehow survive to reach critical mass).
With my thoughts and opinions on the matter out of the way, I was wondering your guys' thoughts and what map design techniques we might use to balance out the pace of the game. This WIP I'm sharing is my attempt at balancing pace, borrowing past research into Brood War map design. It's 132x132 (slightly larger than Cloud Kingdom by comparison) and features a nat-nat worker distance of ~43 seconds (~38 seconds for nat choke-nat choke). The third base design borrows heavily from Brood War: it encourages map awareness and good positioning by making it easy for players who succeed in those two categories to defend, while punishing those who fail at it.
I think it will smooth out the pace in games of equal skill while letting superior players take an advantage over lower-skilled opponents.
|
I quite like the third and its little path ! Good job.
The center is a bit meh :|
|
agree, maybe stretch map bounds out a little and size mid up, other than that I really like the layout.
|
On November 17 2013 07:15 IeZaeL wrote:
I quite like the third and its little path ! Good job.
The center is a bit meh :|
It's a very Brood War-inspired centre area. Since most engagements are going to occur in the centre on smaller maps, I went for a good combination of terrain features and open space. I agree there's nothing grandiose about it, but where the magic should be happening is due to the map size (utilizing all paths instead of large corner areas being ignored) and rebalanced resource acquisition (greater emphasis on early-game strategic play). That's the design goal, at least. 
On November 17 2013 08:33 19Meavis93 wrote:
agree, maybe stretch map bounds out a little and size mid up, other than that I really like the layout.
Here are some size comparison images for the centre ramps. If the overall proportions still feel too small for you, let me know. I thought they were pretty decent, personally, but it's great to have your guys' opinions on it.
+ Show Spoiler [Size Comparison Screenshots] +
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n8TPuWI.png)
Update. Aesthetics are incomplete still.
|
@caustic: I'm sure the middle is fine, it breeds planning of army movement while actually rewarding active map control from the center, not 1a, which is in line with your concept. The 3rd is very cool, I wonder if maybe there couldn't be another (perhaps 3/4) base, like under a cliff in the middle.
@copper: I'm having a problem with the expansion pattern here. You have to take a 3rd, 4th, and 5th towards the opponent, which just keeps ratcheting the sudden death meter higher as the armies get bigger. The openness and distance is also quite a lot. I think it'd really help these issues if you put the close 3rd on high ground with a large ramp facing the main cliff, and the minerals close to the pathway that currently leads to the grassy far 3rd.
|
Another open nat design for you to ponder
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R3elkWf.jpg)
|
Why is the ramp near the tower not a normal one? I don't think it would make a lot of difference and it looks better.
Don't really know what to say about the map, there is so much on it, but it looks good, feels kinda awkward, maybe because there are so many chokes, but since the middle is open it should be fine.
|
I think it looks cool but the corner path looks excessive. Cut down on the fluff and get rid of those.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y3LNBOU.png)
Green water zones are pathable by units ! So that like , 95% of the map is pathable. Also , asymmetrical map.
|
Update on previous post's map.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P2SR1IB.png)
|
On November 21 2013 05:22 IeZaeL wrote:Update on previous post's map. + Show Spoiler +
I think this map could greatly benefit from some pathing refinement. There's so many random, tiny low-ground paths running through the map. It unnecessarily complex and hinders general army movement without any clear benefit.
Oh, also, top right/bottom left mains are much too small.  You'd need a much safer nat to justify having players build their production in the nat area.
|
Also it looks like the main resources can be shot from the low ground passages, which just shouldn't ever be possible.
|
Jumping on the train re: lez's map, the tiny lowground paths in the middle are just pointless. I really like tiny lowground paths in general, but these neither save you time nor let you be tricky. If you dodge the enemy from the highground they will see you anyway, and they can't really be used to fight in past the early game. If the natural was situated at 2/8 oclock, it would make a lot more sense to have those paths.
|
I think it looks sexy. Other than the problem of every mineral line being assaultable from the low ground and the imbalanced spawns. Otherwise I think it's really cool.
|
Based on this BW map by CrystalDrag.
-Mineral block on island is 8 stacked patches of 4 minerals each
-Double collapsible towers on center base both fall when 1 is killed, collapsing into 2 stacked sets of destructible debris
Considering narrowing the large bridges a little, any other suggestions?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zH87jDl.jpg)
|
I noticed this thread and tried to make my first Melee map a few days ago..
I haven't really textured it yet.. just kind of played around with the brush.
Any thoughts? ..other than it being way too big?
![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/ghaleon109/TestMap1_zpsb3293c8e.jpg)
|
@NegativeZero: Pretty cool. I think the small ramps could stand to be bigger, but I guess it's fine. I like unusually small chokes. I'd just say I don't think you %100 need those to defend the third. It's a pretty easy third. Increasing the amount of distance you have to cover to defend the third might be a better option than enlarging the bridges, if it's too easy to take. I don't have an opinion on the larger bridges.
@Ghaleon109: It might not be as big as it looks. Actually all the bases look really cramped and they look really close together. Try to leave more space than that around minerals generally. Resource placement is probably something you should learn. At least copy+paste the resources from ladder maps or whatever. Not all Blizzard maps have good resource layouts but it would be a good place to start and you can learn the specifics later. Starting with those more standard layouts you're used to will help you proportion the bases properly and whatnot.
What you do have here is a close third with only one entrance (at first) which is very similar to Derelict, but much unlike most community maps. The space you have between the nat ramp and the third ramp is very open, but you don't have to cover very much space. I kinda like the way the orientation of the ramps works here though, in contrast to Derelict. You can sort of tuck your army between the third ramp and the side of the nat ramp in that little nook... Kinda interesting. You can defend the third and have a decent defending position there, but the nat becomes a bit vulnerable (especially considering you can shoot up at the nat minerals from below.) Kinda cool. The ease of walking up into your nat with colossi will help Protoss defend a lot here, which otherwise might have been too difficult.
|
Here is my latest idea.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oBOOev4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GAd0h0A.png)
|
working on a remake of gladiator
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OiA1Mom.jpg)
It feels quite empty to me in terms of doodads, any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uXtbkRIl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xYMCiOAl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wKoFCaAl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/411_Gladiator.jpg)
