EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EYAr22P.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1WKioIq.png)
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 87
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
| ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HzAowLf.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/81hjfT9.png) | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
@lez: Dirt map, scrap it. Ice map, winner! This is way cool keep going with it. @meavis: I don't think gladiator is a map you can faithfully remake in the SC2 engine / metagame. Better to draw inspiration for something new. @rife: You crazy, man. I think the distance is too short for such a ridiculous nat, for this map to work I think it'd be better to move the ramp to one side or the other and rig some sort of more conventional mineral line with greater enclosure. @ghaleon: Try and integrate the expansion pattern more into the flow of the routes through the center of the map. Right now you just have a bunch of bases around the outside and some largely irrelevant features in between them, with the main points being the ramps that dictate travel distances and angles. If you adjusted the proportions in the base locations and spacing as Gfire was saying, this would naturally eat up some of the openness in the middle and also incorporate things more. @negzero: Nice enough, best part is the 4th on the far side behind the wall. Deceptively interesting map, but not that exciting. What do you like most about it? | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On November 25 2013 16:47 EatThePath wrote: @rife: You crazy, man. I think the distance is too short for such a ridiculous nat, for this map to work I think it'd be better to move the ramp to one side or the other and rig some sort of more conventional mineral line with greater enclosure. I agree on the distance and enclosing the nat more. I was already working on it. The problem with a more conventional main-nat setup with this center is the rush distance gets too long and the map gets too big. The thirds also get really far away. Hopefully this is a good compromise. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wFYSM0n.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7xHkoSE.png) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On November 14 2013 07:42 Uvantak wrote: @Namrufus i like both! to hell with haters square maps ftw! As for the first one i would make the half bases full bases and remove horizontal spawns, not because the may be too close but because the attack paths are too linear for my taste, and reduce that area behind the LoS blockers a bit, other than that the map is fine by me. In the second one... + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lv8LUo0.jpg) Open this image and yours and swap the tabs between them so you can see the changes more easily, also separate the Main base from that third (?) base with a lowground with some doodads on it, that way blink stalker all ins won't be so strong For the first map I think I'll want to keep the half-base, in keeping with the inspiration for the map (bw lost temple) and because I don't want 3 full bases all in the same corner so close together, I could move the outer base farther away and make it a full... but ehhhhh... What's your reasoning on reducing the amount of area behind the los blockers? What I might do is flip the positions of the main and the nat, then make the inbase a true half base and the outer nat a full base, in order to increase the tiny air distance in vertical positions (or I could just increase the vertical dimension of the map a bit and move the main/nat away.) About the linearity on horizontal positions: yeah, it is pretty linear, but it only will happen 1/3 of the time (and that position will have the multiple collapsible rock ramp things between the spawns, which may or may not be interesting.) I'm probably just discard this map. for the second map... yeah, I'm probably going to put this map to the side for a while, maybe reuse some of the features for later. Good point on the stalkers, that would be my priority 1 change, adding a bit of airspace around the main to reduce the blinkable surface area. thanks for the detailed feedback, I really appreciate it. Rough map based lightly on the BW map Ride of Valkries. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r4oUDYm.jpg) 128x144 I want to experiment with low resources. The lower three bases are effectively 6m1hyg FRB (1 + 3/4 + 1/2 = 3 x 3/4), but they share a single choke point until the rocks go down. The base to the north of the natural can be blocked off by rocks, though still accessible by a looong path around to a backdoor. (yeah, the middle base to the north is 4 hyg) Things about the map that I dislike the most: - 'pressure point' just outside below the ramp to the big highground area and outside the collapsible rock base, from which the first four bases can be accessed, seems a bit one-dimensional. - general lack of maneuverability between paths on the map, which I guess is the main point, but his may be a bit extreme. (few connections between upper, middle and lower paths, might be a bit too 'linear' on those parts of the map), also might be a bit too chokey in the north. Save this or scrap it? Is the FRB thing stupid? | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On November 28 2013 17:14 neobowman wrote: What's FRB? Fewer resources per base, a movement started by Barrin to get an income more similar to BW by having bases be 6m1hyg instead of the normal 8m2g. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
Idea for a rush map. - Tiny map - In base expansion - Extremely limited building space - Very close 4 bases - Open "natural" Basically, the idea is to make a "macro map", with in base expansions, close, easily defendable bases, then make the map absolutely tiny, and limit building space. As a result, I think it might force the players to be more aggressive so they can secure the bottom expansion, and get more building space. There are 4 rocks blocking each of those spaces. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E94ur1o.png) | ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
Good/bad ? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9yERR3c.jpg) | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On November 28 2013 22:36 moskonia wrote: Fewer resources per base, a movement started by Barrin to get an income more similar to BW by having bases be 6m1hyg instead of the normal 8m2g. Haha, I had no idea about that. I'm making a map like that now. | ||
|
skdeimos
Canada155 Posts
 | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 28 2013 16:21 Namrufus wrote: Save this or scrap it? Is the FRB thing stupid? Frankly I see FRB as a waste of time and energy. The base income cap is hardly an issue compared to more systemic issues with map design in SC2. The first issue it was trying to address was "oh no, players on 4 or 5 bases won't see any economic benefit vs. a 3 base player". It kind of missed the point that having a consistent 3 base economy should be pretty hard to do in the first place -- you can read more about my opinions regarding the scaling of economy here. If you watch some of the Brood War streams you'll see a lot of third bases getting denied, either temporarily or permanently, and a good number of games that never make it to 3 bases in the first place. By the time players should be acquiring a 4th base, there should likely be some dwindling of resources in the main base, especially with SC2's mining rates (read on for an explanation about that). FRB also griped about how the improved SC2 pathing resulted in higher income/minute while making mining rates for all 3 races the same (Probes mined faster than SCVs in SC1), which is really a plus in my opinion. Aside from better racial economic balance, it actually has little consequence beyond getting the early game going a bit faster -- total resources per base are effectively the same in SC1 and SC2 (SC1 had 9 mineral patches for the main and 7 for expansions -- or 6 for mineral only). So, you'd basically be looking at an extra mineral patch per base in SC2 once you reach 3+ bases. SC2's 2 geyser system shoots the vespene/minute above BW levels, but also comes at the cost of 3 additional workers, which cuts into mineral income until full saturation. Other than that, sure you're getting resources faster than BW per base, but so is your opponent which renders the point moot IMO. TL;DR -- SC2's economy is different, but not that different, and FRB is mostly splitting hairs when there are far more impactful map design decisions to be made. FRB wouldn't stop Alterzim Stronghold from still being a terrible map, for example. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
I agree with most of the rest of your post though  | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On November 29 2013 15:23 skdeimos wrote: I really like working on map layouts, and I have 3-4 that are complete/nearly complete, but I'm bad at aesthetic work and doodads. As a result, I have a lot of map layouts are are complete but I never get around to doing aesthetic work. I'm wondering if there's anyone here with the opposite problem? Maybe we could collaborate on maps That's unfortunate, I have the same problem as you... | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 29 2013 15:34 moskonia wrote: @iamcaustic, Alterzim is not a terrible map, you may not like it but I find that it is quite interesting. A map that is purely macro is a very refreshing change from the standard with a slight difference that most maps are. Alterzim forces me to change my builds from other maps, for example my standard PvP build is 4gate phoenix all in if I see an expo, but on Alterzim it just won't work because of the 1 width ramp to the main and nat, so I go FE. There are some issues of the map, but overall I like it. I would like if there are extreme maps in the pool instead of standard maps + variations. I agree with most of the rest of your post though I consider a map terrible when it alters the game to a point where economic management and denial is thrown out the window due to freebie max economy and an impossibly long rush distance. There's only two things to focus on: maintaining constant production and being prepared when it comes to standard matchup-specific tech switches. That, and occasionally figuring out how to beat utterly imbalanced mass unit compositions that would normally never come to fruition on a more reasonable map. Well, it doesn't matter as much for Protoss because proxy pylon and all so you have some reasonable opportunity for early/mid timings and on-the-fly backstab harassment, but it's awful in every other case. I'd have more fun playing Accounting Simulator 2013. | ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
| ||
| ||
