|
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin |
On January 03 2014 12:55 moskonia wrote:3v3, bottom vs top: + Show Spoiler +Mains are bases with CC's. 2v1 and 1v2. a path can be open via the middle gold, the gas on each side is rich.
omfg... I feel bad for the two dudes that get stuck playing a 1v2 match. x_x
|
Made some changes in layout, put some trees and messed with the lightning.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sgsatfc.jpg)
The upper left side has a lot more of choke points than the botton right, and also high ground behind the mineral lines, maybe this can force players from different races to expand in opposite directions.
I'm considering in making the 6 o'clock low ground expo a more open, maybe no obstacle between it and the bridge. This would highlight the differrence in taking this 3rd as zerg and not the other, that would be better for protoss or terran. Any suggestions.
|
On January 04 2014 03:19 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2014 02:47 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I really like the idea of coming up with a 2v1 map concept that is win-able for the 1. Seems like a good way to practice making intensely defensive terrain. Dunno if it's possible though. Maybe if we were to really explore this option you could have a gold or semi gold in-base expo for the 1 player, maybe with a layout similar to Altarzim Stronghold, while the 2 players have very far expansions with even more things like the cliff behind the natural.
You have to be careful about terran floating when you have a gold close to the main. IMO just make the main gold, though.
|
I like the idea of the 2-player team sort of being able to help the one, like have a cliff that they can cover that would help protect a third, but for the most part it being separate.
|
On January 04 2014 05:49 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2014 03:19 moskonia wrote:On January 04 2014 02:47 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I really like the idea of coming up with a 2v1 map concept that is win-able for the 1. Seems like a good way to practice making intensely defensive terrain. Dunno if it's possible though. Maybe if we were to really explore this option you could have a gold or semi gold in-base expo for the 1 player, maybe with a layout similar to Altarzim Stronghold, while the 2 players have very far expansions with even more things like the cliff behind the natural. You have to be careful about terran floating when you have a gold close to the main. IMO just make the main gold, though.
That sounds very interesting, maybe even remove the whole 3v3 aspect and just make it a 1v2 map, with vast advantages for the 1 player like having some or all of the main minerals as gold and having much easier expansions, it still might be very hard to balance it out, but would be very interesting. The 3v3 format does help it so that you don't have to have ridiculous advantages for the 1 player, but both should make for cool games.
|
your Country52798 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ltdU8mk.jpg)
160x160
Main is wall-able with two 3x3 and one 2x2 building.
|
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
@mosk with the 2v1 vs 2v1 map, that seems horrible in a lot of situations. For example, if a 2v1 spawns as triple zerg, that single player is just done for, there's nothing they can do. They should have collapsible rocks on their ramp, and an in-base expansion, minimum. Maybe even a gold base. Interesting concept, but I'd also point out that 2v1 dynamics happen in 3v3 anyway. If the idea is that people use air units to harass or lend some weight in a fight, that is a normal thing for how 3v3 games go so it's kind of weird to enforce it so strictly. But of course it would be different like this, and I'd love to see how it works if you can iron out obvious problems in the various 2v1 scenarios.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it.
|
On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it.
I don't dislike it, just not convinced it's necessary. Although having a bit more vulnerability with an inbase exp might be good.
|
On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it.
Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it?
|
your Country52798 Posts
On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it?
If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse.
|
On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it?
That's an axiom that's not always true, though it does make you sound like a Vulcan. Doing stuff for the hell of it is a world all its own sometimes.
|
On January 09 2014 01:27 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it? If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse.
But now you're making maps that are different that maps that are currently played, and they're still worse.
|
On January 10 2014 12:45 skdeimos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 01:27 The_Templar wrote:On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it? If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse. But now you're making maps that are different that maps that are currently played, and they're still worse.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Daedalus_Point
I beg to differ.
|
On January 10 2014 12:53 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 12:45 skdeimos wrote:On January 09 2014 01:27 The_Templar wrote:On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it? If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse. But now you're making maps that are different that maps that are currently played, and they're still worse. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Daedalus_PointI beg to differ.
I have to admit, this post gave me a good laugh. To be fair, though, I'm not sure if it's possible to make worse competitive maps than the folks at Blizzard. It's a historical weakness of theirs, stretching back well before SC2. 
|
On January 10 2014 12:53 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 12:45 skdeimos wrote:On January 09 2014 01:27 The_Templar wrote:On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it? If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse. But now you're making maps that are different that maps that are currently played, and they're still worse. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Daedalus_PointI beg to differ.
Huh. Fair enough.
|
On January 10 2014 17:14 skdeimos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 12:53 -NegativeZero- wrote:On January 10 2014 12:45 skdeimos wrote:On January 09 2014 01:27 The_Templar wrote:On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it? If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse. But now you're making maps that are different that maps that are currently played, and they're still worse. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Daedalus_PointI beg to differ. Huh. Fair enough.
That, and your argument sorta boiled down to he's just not a good mapmaker. True or not, at that point you just leave it be. It's weird, and kinda douchey, to argue that someone's a bad mapmaker, when you can just give advice instead.
|
On January 11 2014 05:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 17:14 skdeimos wrote:On January 10 2014 12:53 -NegativeZero- wrote:On January 10 2014 12:45 skdeimos wrote:On January 09 2014 01:27 The_Templar wrote:On January 08 2014 14:58 skdeimos wrote:On January 08 2014 00:38 The_Templar wrote:On January 07 2014 20:58 EatThePath wrote:
^ A very templar-esque map and easily one of the best you've ever posted here. I love the ramp angles and the preponderance of bases on cliff edges. Not sure the main entrance needs to be weird with a hole but eh, the rush distance is long enough for it to be okay imo. I like how the inside nat is very vulnerable and the outside nat is very doable but neither feels like a "free base" due to the cliff and air vulnerabilities.
The main entrance is basically one of those things I just do for no particular reason, haha. Might change it to one entrance if enough people dislike it. Why do you do things for no particular reason? You should do things that make sense and have been thought through. If you don't have a good reason to do it, then why are you doing it? If I did stuff that was thought through I would be making maps that were similar to those currently played, except worse. But now you're making maps that are different that maps that are currently played, and they're still worse. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Daedalus_PointI beg to differ. Huh. Fair enough. That, and your argument sorta boiled down to he's just not a good mapmaker. True or not, at that point you just leave it be. It's weird, and kinda douchey, to argue that someone's a bad mapmaker, when you can just give advice instead.
AKA, at least you have to say why so that people can learn, and if you can't say why then you don't have a point. (This is meant from the point of view of discussion, not ad hominem.) Re: the main entrance, it makes some sense as an extra vulnerability for a map with an in-base expansion that also offers highground covering part of the main entrance, but it causes problems in certain cases like ZvZ where you can't block "the ramp" with 2 queens anymore, stuff like that.
|
Haha let's get this thread back on point.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wfLIFwl.jpg)
144x144
Been trying to make a layout like this work for a while off and on, and on these bounds. It could use a bit more airspace ofc. Should I make the middle bases gold?
|
Really not a fan of the positional differences. One 3rd is cliffable and the other is tucked against the side of the map. What is the strongest part of the concept that you are trying to promote? Also it's just so big and open, feels like a less interesting entombed valley, which is saying something. =\
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mARJLIH.jpg)
EPT
