| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On October 11 2012 04:17 EatThePath wrote: zerg will cry, so easy 3 and 4 bases for protoss and terran. easy for zerg too of course but they won't be able to stay ahead. see, told you so! one spot to defend all four bases is a no go | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
- spread out bases further - moved ramp to force more defensive movement - moved towers further apart ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mfySX.jpg) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 11 2012 06:01 lefix wrote: relax, there's already an update :D - spread out bases further - moved ramp to force more defensive movement - moved towers further apart + Show Spoiler + Better textures :D I'm not sure about the towers though, they seem really strong. I've been thinking about maps that have towers that cover all ground paths(Tal'Darim Altar, Cloud Kingdom, maybe others), and usually it's difficult to hold all of them in exchange. Holding both towers on CK for instance needs you to be sorta all over the place. On this map, I see neither a large distance nor positional aspects to compensate, so I worry about how important they are here. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 11 2012 06:12 NewSunshine wrote: Better textures :D I'm not sure about the towers though, they seem really strong. I've been thinking about maps that have towers that cover all ground paths(Tal'Darim Altar, Cloud Kingdom, maybe others), and usually it's difficult to hold all of them in exchange. Holding both towers on CK for instance needs you to be sorta all over the place. On this map, I see neither a large distance nor positional aspects to compensate, so I worry about how important they are here. I agree towers are too dominating, but don't ruin the map. Not sure how else you could place towers. Would be alright without them but it would make it seem very "camp your side" because middle doesn't offer much control, it's more of a counter-attack/threatening position. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 12 2012 06:09 The_Templar wrote: edit: was wrong I'm trying this.. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2eDBk.jpg) (No aesthetics yet) I'm worried that controlling the center is too imbalanced, should I be concerned? Added color... no requests for changes = no changes :D ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xzigU.jpg) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 11 2012 09:24 EatThePath wrote: I agree towers are too dominating, but don't ruin the map. Not sure how else you could place towers. Would be alright without them but it would make it seem very "camp your side" because middle doesn't offer much control, it's more of a counter-attack/threatening position. I know, this map has one of those weird problems that's tricky to fix. The towers are really powerful, but the pathing from one player to the other is effectively even, so you actually need them, making them even more important than they'd otherwise be. What you end up with is something that's, in its position, very powerful, and to add to it the map's architecture makes them vital to hold at one point or another. I guess that would make the towers on this map like the one on Antiga Shipyard, only the issue is further exaggerated. Short of using just 1 in the middle, and tweaking the nearby architecture to fit, I'm not sure how to remedy it. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On October 11 2012 10:48 The_Templar wrote: Added color... no requests for changes = no changes :D Nobody's ever going to take the 6m1hyg bases, since if it's taken by the player who controls the adjacent main it's extremely far from any of their other bases, and if the other player takes it it can be harassed from inside the opponent's main. Either move the bases, or adjust the terrain so there's a gap between the main and that base. | ||
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8mklp.jpg) Quick mapping project. Aesthetics are minimal: since the layout is experimental, I have refrained from texturing and doodads since I may have to make significant adjustments. The buildings near the XWT are unpathable. Current concerns: -Rush distance too long? -"Island" third may be too vulnerable to lowground attacks from the corridor behind. -Positioning army at third can protect all five bases simultaneously? Other modifications considering: -Move fifth base more towards the corner, bring the ramp closer to the main by a little bit. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
On October 11 2012 14:16 Coppermantis wrote: Overview: + Show Spoiler + Quick mapping project. Aesthetics are minimal: since the layout is experimental, I have refrained from texturing and doodads since I may have to make significant adjustments. The buildings near the XWT are unpathable. Current concerns: -Rush distance too long? -"Island" third may be too vulnerable to lowground attacks from the corridor behind. -Positioning army at third can protect all five bases simultaneously? Other modifications considering: -Move fifth base more towards the corner, bring the ramp closer to the main by a little bit. The bases feel way too discrete and disconnected from the rest of the map. I like the idea of having bases that are farther away and choked so that they are comparably hard/easy to defend, but there is so much open area between the bases that this doesn't seem to help. | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/52dNo.jpg) I was working on a little fix for this to make them seem less disjointed. I might need to make a ramp up to the island third now, but I think that this version is better. Now I think it has the problem that my last map had, it favors turtling too much. Wider/more ramps should help this though. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i4iCO.jpg) | ||
|
KaptajnGrue
Denmark2 Posts
we will definetily take a look on the 3rd and 4th expos. Here's a top down picture (: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7D9Lb.jpg) | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 04 2012 04:25 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Okay, I'll join the party. Here are two that I've been working on: Working title: The Octagon + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7UYIZ.jpg) 148x148 playable <snip> Working title: Claustrophobia + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t4Nke.jpg) <snip> 148x148 playable I was hoping to get some feedback on these, particularly the latter. Also, the latter is now published with rudimentary textures on NA as Claustrophobic Paranioa (both Claustrophobia and Paranioa individually were already taken, go figure). @ lefix -- I really like the way the bases are very evenly spaced out on your 4p map. I think it feels a little bit like the BW Katrina, though the pathing is quite a bit more open and direct. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
The second map is wayyy too chokey, although the design isn't too bad (mains are too small also) if you get rid of all the really tiny passages. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 11 2012 14:49 Coppermantis wrote: + Show Spoiler + I was working on a little fix for this to make them seem less disjointed. I might need to make a ramp up to the island third now, but I think that this version is better. Now I think it has the problem that my last map had, it favors turtling too much. Wider/more ramps should help this though. You need another base for a map this size. The 4th is a little too protected assuming both players are stable on their 3rd base, it doesn't really require much more in position or army, given how small the ramps are. I would provide a very direct route nat2nat since the map is already quite big, and on the diagonal even longer. This way players can fight over the middle in a meaningful way. Not sure where to put another base but in the course of tinkering I'm sure you can discover some ideas. ^^ Oh and the main could be larger. It's "okay" right now. Mostly the proportions around the map are a little too big. You've made a new map and called it version 3. I like the new center. Both 4th options are pretty easy but, eh it's okay I guess, not any worse than current maps. Liking the weaving paths a lot. Kind of dislike the centralized 4 bases and another one on the corner. You could easily sit back on this map if you wanted, with good defense. On October 11 2012 21:16 KaptajnGrue wrote: Thanks for all the feedback! we will definetily take a look on the 3rd and 4th expos. Here's a top down picture (: + Show Spoiler + Thanks.  So, the proportions are a little weird. Some of the chokes are fine but the peninsula at the natural, for example, is pretty awkward. The size of the middle is outrageous compared to the rest of the map. If you adjusted things here and there this could easily be a reasonably good map. First I would move the main base into the corner more, pull it back a little, increase its size (which needs to be a bit bigger). You could shove the left half down (or right half up) to make it fit better in a rectangle instead of having dead space hanging off in each corner. This will let you reduce the map dimensions a bit which are quite large. It will shift the axis of the center area but I think that won't have too much effect. You can place the 12/6 bases a little closer this way too, which makes center control more relevant to defending them as well as make them viable options for 3rd base. Looks cool, needs work. I can be more specific and exhaustive if you want. On October 12 2012 04:27 The_Templar wrote: @HypertonicHydroponic the first map looks pretty boss like for FFA. The second map is wayyy too chokey, although the design isn't too bad (mains are too small also) if you get rid of all the really tiny passages. Ditto. I really like the swirling paths, this map captures the name well. If you work on the proportions this could be awesome. (Too many absurdly narrow areas, be more selective and discrete with such narrow chokepoints.) The fact that you can hit the main minerals from a cliff is kind of bad. Maybe this map just wants to be about 10% larger dimensions. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 12 2012 04:27 The_Templar wrote: @HypertonicHydroponic the first map looks pretty boss like for FFA. The second map is wayyy too chokey, although the design isn't too bad (mains are too small also) if you get rid of all the really tiny passages. To "mains are too small also": + Show Spoiler [CC grid] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ij3zs.jpg) As you can see here, there are approximately 30 CC's worth in the main. As far as I know, this is still generally held as the approximate target size. + Show Spoiler [model Terran base] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kWPqu.jpg) Here is a model Terran base since Terran production generally takes up the most space. This was done in the 10/11 o'clock position -- milage may vary. Without building too far out into the natural, Terran in this picture is able to accommodate 11 barracks, 3 factories, 6 starports (all production with add-ons), 4 armories, 2 engineering bays, 4 ghost academies, 1 fusion core, 3 bunkers, 11 turrets, and probably more supply depots than necessary, with 3 command centers. This is without tessellation of the production buildings with their add-ons to maximize space (which I'm still not sure why pros do not do ... speed vs space I guess...). To "wayyy too chokey": + Show Spoiler [gateway/pylon walls] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Kin7v.jpg) This is just to give maybe a better sense of the space toward the middle. Obviously, force fields to not need to contend with building restrictions for placement to lock down a path, but I'm not sure that this is quite as chokey as you claim -- at least not so problematically with the possible flanks. @ EatThePath -- Would you care to take a spin with me sometime? I see you on constantly, but I don't think I've ever pinged you. XD | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 12 2012 05:47 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: To "mains are too small also": + Show Spoiler [CC grid] + As you can see here, there are approximately 30 CC's worth in the main. As far as I know, this is still generally held as the approximate target size. + Show Spoiler [model Terran base] + Here is a model Terran base since Terran production generally takes up the most space. This was done in the 10/11 o'clock position -- milage may vary. Without building too far out into the natural, Terran in this picture is able to accommodate 11 barracks, 3 factories, 6 starports (all production with add-ons), 4 armories, 2 engineering bays, 4 ghost academies, 1 fusion core, 3 bunkers, 11 turrets, and probably more supply depots than necessary, with 3 command centers. This is without tessellation of the production buildings with their add-ons to maximize space (which I'm still not sure why pros do not do ... speed vs space I guess...). To "wayyy too chokey": + Show Spoiler [gateway/pylon walls] + This is just to give maybe a better sense of the space toward the middle. Obviously, force fields to not need to contend with building restrictions for placement to lock down a path, but I'm not sure that this is quite as chokey as you claim -- at least not so problematically with the possible flanks. @ EatThePath -- Would you care to take a spin with me sometime? I see you on constantly, but I don't think I've ever pinged you. XD Bring it on. Those narrow alleys are impossible for zerg to fight in t_t Luckily I play protoss. XD | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YUONL.jpg) Those are permanent forcefield doors that are disabled by destroying the control structure inside the natural. + Show Spoiler [closeup] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QL7vJ.jpg) placeholder visuals | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On October 12 2012 06:28 EatThePath wrote: New somethin I came up with. Should be familiar. Trying to make all spawns fair and interesting. Those are permanent forcefield doors that are disabled by destroying the control structure inside the natural. + Show Spoiler [closeup] + placeholder visuals Didn't notice you left the skype chat already, so here's what I said: Looks like an attempt at a better Metalopolis. Close position will always be an issue with that kind of 45-degree design on a mirror map. Just the way distances end up working out. Assuming close positions disabled, the mid-bases tucked beside the mains seem really unnecessary; without them you'd still have 6 bases on each side of the map for each player to take, which is all you need. I'd take them out and make the mains bigger. Not sure about how I feel with the "destroy this thing over here to open the path over there" idea. Seems unnecessary to me and unintuitive for people to simply look at and realize. Would be a great fit for a UMS where you have to figure out how to disable the barrier in order to advance or something, but questionable for a melee map. Finally centre; centre bases will always be difficult to hold anyway, but the way the ground levels are done it makes it really hard on the defender. I'd consider swapping the levels around, where the mid paths are low and the bases are high. That way if an attacker wants to exploit that terrain, they'd at least need high ground vision to do it. My initial thoughts. n_n | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g11351 shahzam765 WinterStarcraft466 Maynarde164 Skadoodle145 ViBE104 SortOf72 UpATreeSC60 SteadfastSC22 |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LVnH6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YMmI.jpg)
