Try to identify what the concept of your map is. It seems to be large open spaces with narrow chokepoints and routes separated by long travel times. In that regard I rather like what you have now, but it needs to be fixed in terms of proportions, distances, and resource placement.
Your original stated concept of taking two bases at once is something worth playing around with, but I don't think you should grow too attached to any one map idea where you explore it -- it's rather experimental and will be hard to execute properly. Keep trying different things.
Minor changes to the center; I split it into three highgrounds with paths between them. Again, the main end goal is to improve the flow and paths through the center. I feel that this layout makes it feel less awkward to take a fifth, without making it too easy or making the paths through the centre invalid. I also put the sixth base on a highground and narrowed the path around the edge of the map towards the fourth.
I think the outside path into the 4th should be a lot wider where it gets to the base, in order to promote its usage. Otherwise everything always goes by the same ramp from the nat/3rd highground that's been used the whole game.
Little update to the map I'm messing around with. Might consider doing aesthetics soon. Still feel troubled about not having a 6th base.. and a 5th base that is difficult to hold.
I think you can warp units into the opponents main base over that little wall, monitor. And I share your uneasiness about the fifth base on that map. Other than that, I like it; the paths around the map seem very dynamic and well thought out.
@monitor: The highground overlooking the 3rd mineral line seems a bit cramped, especially considering the surrounding areas are the most narrow on the map. I think you could push the mineral line towards the outside of the map 1-2 squares and push the ramp/cliff on the inside further in to easily gain a few squares of breathing room here. Right now it's a relatively antizerg spot that's also a great place to shell the hatchery with tanks/colossus. Also you could add 2 squares to the east and west edges easily, the main could use the space, so could the natural, and so could the outer route. It's looking good, though. This is one of those maps where the aesthetics will really help make the map more readable by highlighting the flow.
On December 20 2013 02:58 fedexfan wrote: Played around with my map a bit :
I really like the shapes of this center, and the sort of dancing it would allow. I am also skeptical about the ease of three bases, and would be kind of interested in seeing what this map looks like with just two bases there instead of three (main and nat) making it a 12 base 4p. I would also encourage you to go back to cross spawn only with subtle variations. It will help mitigate the long scouting time.
On December 20 2013 13:43 monitor wrote: Little update to the map I'm messing around with. Might consider doing aesthetics soon. Still feel troubled about not having a 6th base.. and a 5th base that is difficult to hold.
This is really exciting for what it could be, but I'm afraid that it will just push people towards 2 base all-ins and we'll never get to see the rest of the map... This is a little crazy maybe but what about giving the 3rd bases (cw and ccw) high yield gasses in order to make 3 base play very strong vs 2 base play? and 4 base play very strong vs 3 base play. It will still allow for the early aggression that can throw people off, but will heavily encourage macro games after that point. It would also probably make up for the map being difficult for a zerg ground army to engage on.
On December 22 2013 03:37 fedexfan wrote: Since i made my map cross only, i removed the other 2 corner bases and made it prettier. Almost finished with the map
You still haven't done anything to fix the fact that there are three bases behind one choke (and even that choke is inexplicably split into two). Without doing something to alleviate that, this map is just not playable. Sorry.
@Marcus_Rife: I like that layout a lot. No glaring issues, I think, although the vertical rush distance may be a little too short.
You still haven't done anything to fix the fact that there are three bases behind one choke (and even that choke is inexplicably split into two). Without doing something to alleviate that, this map is just not playable. Sorry.
What if i told you......... The idea of the map is to have 2 "easy" expansions, but it is also obvious to the blind that the natural has it's own entrance with destructible debris. As far as the "weird" ramp is concerned, you can make the most standard walloff in the world with gate forge pylon and canon. Played it quite a bit yesterday, definitely "playable" . "Sorry" .
You still haven't done anything to fix the fact that there are three bases behind one choke (and even that choke is inexplicably split into two). Without doing something to alleviate that, this map is just not playable. Sorry.
What if i told you......... The idea of the map is to have 2 "easy" expansions, but it is also obvious to the blind that the natural has it's own entrance with destructible debris. As far as the "weird" ramp is concerned, you can make the most standard walloff in the world with gate forge pylon and canon. Played it quite a bit yesterday, definitely "playable" . "Sorry" .
What if I told you giving players a maximum economy for practically free results in bad, boring death ball games? Also, that ramp setup screws over Terran. There's more than just Protoss FFE openings in this game.
On December 23 2013 03:13 fedexfan wrote: The expansions are 1 gas 6 mineral patches .
The 4th is right around the corner from the 3rd, and is easily defendable when you build up a ball from behind your easy-to-defend chokes. I guess you're still short one gas geyser, but nobody should be hurting for minerals and is still plenty enough gas to death ball it up.