EPTWork In Progress Melee Maps - Page 97
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Aircooled
United States79 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2HzO28T.jpg) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
I posted the original version of this map a while ago, made a few minor changes since then. Anyone have any final suggestions before I start texturing? Also should I add a reaper path to the main? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sijBB25.jpg) 90 degree overview: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/52nQRax.jpg) | ||
|
skdeimos
Canada155 Posts
On January 13 2014 12:23 -NegativeZero- wrote: @Meltage: Yep that's definitely crazy, some interesting stuff though. I assume it's supposed to be an air-focused map. Could you explain some more of the reasoning behind it? For instance the high ground pods in the center - sure they overlook the adjacent narrow path, but other than that it just seems like they take up a lot of unnecessary space. Was there another intended purpose for these? Also in my opinion the island probably has too many resources, sure it might be hard to take but it seems like if you secure it you pretty much have an overwhelming advantage. I posted the original version of this map a while ago, made a few minor changes since then. Anyone have any final suggestions before I start texturing? Also should I add a reaper path to the main? 90 degree overview: + Show Spoiler + Awesome! Excellent use of high ground plateaus. Controlling that space cuts off many pathways, which are only connected to each other with narrow ramps. It creates a point on the map that rewards map control, but doesn't reward leaving a deathball on that plateau because there are still harass/flank options. I really like it. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
MrSunny
Australia73 Posts
Just thought i'd share some old maps that I've updated a little. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LmOlt0l.png) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6HHUyvs.png) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eO5vgcX.png) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3OYrFVv.png) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
@moskonia: Reaper entrance has been added, unintended side effect is that the area in front of the 3rd entrance is slightly more open. Probably a good thing, since Z might need something to compensate for the disadvantage of the choked 3rd. @MrSunny: Thanks! As for yours, all of them are solid maps so please don't take the following criticism too harshly: 1st map: Definitely playable and everything works, but it just seems boring. The expansion pattern is basically as linear as it gets - I like how you can expand in either direction, but there's not much difference between the choices of 3rds, or between any of the expansions at all for that matter. The middle looks pretty uninteresting too - almost every location is suitable for an engagement, so players don't have to plan how or where to fight. 2nd map: I remember the original. Good concept, but I think 3 bases are probably too easy - I liked the rocks at the backdoor nat in the original for this reason. That was a proper backdoor, with the defender's distance between back and front entrances shorter than the attacker's. I can see why you might have removed them to prevent the short push distance from backdoor to backdoor, but maybe you could add some obstacles/carefully placed terrain in the top right to lengthen that. 3rd map: I have no idea how the thing with the gold bases at the middle will play out but I like the idea. The fact that the whole arrangement is basically an extremely narrow choke through the center of the entire map might be a problem, though. For instance P could sentry/immortal push through the golds vs Z and Z has no good place to prepare an engagement. At the very least, open up the areas where the choke into the golds exits in front of the naturals. You might also need to remove a set of rocks, idk. 4th map: so i herd you visit BWMN. Anyway, I remember the original version of this too, and I preferred the smaller diagonal CCW-facing ramps at the 3rds for 2 reasons: 1. The angle of the ramps helped to even out the discrepancy in distances to the 3rds in each direction. Right now the CCW 3rd is significantly closer. 2. The smaller entrances would have aided P and T in defending the 3rds, helping to compensate for the higher than normal distance from nat-3rd. Z already has the 4 massive open areas to intercept incoming attacks. | ||
|
MrSunny
Australia73 Posts
 But i appreciate the consideration. I haven't worked on these maps in a long time. I made some small drastic changes to them a little while ago. They were doing nothing, and i didn't really intend to update them further, so i figured i'd just share them now for the sake of it. 1st map: This is very old, but you basically just listed my intentions, lol. But yeah, it is what it is. 2nd map: The backdoor was a pretty key player in the original concept, but this remake of the original didn't really work either. I'm considering trying this concept again with a different mineral line layout. Not sure if its worth the time/effort though. 3rd map: Out of these 4 maps i'd probably consider revisiting this one the most. I think removing the rocks closer to the spawns would be a good idea. 4th map: The gold bases were a good change i think, but there are obvious issues with distances now due to the cardinal ramps; (I wanted to make the areas below the ramps more open). I really did like the map originally. I would update this map further but I'm unsure about it today considering its a port and i'm still a bit iffy about that situation. I haven't made a new map in a while. In general I'm just unsure as to what Sc2 needs in terms of maps - and I'm not in direct contact with any other mappers, or good players for the matter, to be-able to bounce ideas off and help figure things out. | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gypmFPf.jpg) Due to the short air distance I added some hostile missile turrets at the center of the map but the players can't see them through the Fog of war, how do I make them visible ? Edit : I just realised that this map could get a good ranking if someone did a "creepy looking map" contest | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
| ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z6w2Wwi.jpg) | ||
|
greenroom
United States20 Posts
On December 26 2013 19:00 19Meavis93 wrote: aesthetics aren't too bad if you would fill it up with doodads a bit, the highground 3rd looks a bit close to the natural and the area between them very choky, other than that a lot of the map looks a bit blocky on the cliffs and the main could probably use a little extra space aswell, probably near the ramp theres a lot of room you could fill up with more main. Thank you for the input! I've worked on just about all of that; here's my update: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UMoSjQx.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZhofMcy.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nxl2fnM.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2IDVK8l.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E86Y7DD.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ObuFTma.jpg) - I made the main and natural larger. - I added destructible rocks in the middle of the defender's ramp to the 3rd, just to give the attacker a slightly better chance of taking it. This will also make force fields a lot better, but it's only a short distance to the other ramp so I don't think it will be op. - I added some line-of-sight blockers to the path behind the 3rd and in the main to encourage proxy pylons, nydus', etc. - I did a lot of work with doodads, but I'm still not too sure about how it looks. - Reduced the "blockiness" of the mains and the paths. - Slightly reduced the choke between the natural and the third. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dLXtGUU.jpg) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
Edit: Also why aren't the naturals full bases? They're actually harder to defend than standard naturals. | ||
|
TheFlexN
Israel472 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On January 22 2014 16:52 -NegativeZero- wrote: Great concept so far. How much HP do the buildings linked to the bridges have? Edit: Also why aren't the naturals full bases? They're actually harder to defend than standard naturals. The buildings have 4000 hp 3 armor currently. That means they take twice as long to kill as rocks. This is easily adjustable. The 3/4 base natural is something I am trying generally now that there is more room to experiment with maps. The 3/4 bases natural and having a gold 4th option is all to give the outexpanding player a larger advantage. I am trying to mess with the whole 3 base max economy. I.e. I want 5 base>4 base>3base>2base etc. in a well defined way. The layout also gives a more mobile army an advantage since there are more resources around the edges of the map. This is all just theory though. One thing I have thought about is narrowing the choke between the natural and third to make walling off the natural feasible. The bridges can be walled off just like a single ramp. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On January 22 2014 19:21 TheFlexN wrote: You will have to add more ways to get to the middle and add more paths around the map if you want to make the bridges permanently closed, these can be 4 free expansions for terran eventually, or an auto win for terran in base races. Its an interesting concept, but I would be happier to see that if you destroy it, the bridge closes, but it spawns a new building with same HP that you can destroy again and it will open the bridge, and have this thing repeating. Where are these 4 free expansions? Any 4 base combination is rather spread out. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
| ||
