Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 84

Post a Reply

Prev 1 82 83 84 85 86 217 Next

Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin

a176

Canada6688 Posts

November 07 2013 14:50 GMT

#1661

On November 07 2013 11:24 EatThePath wrote:

Result of a brainstorm tonight on open naturals and forward defendability at narrow areas. And tries to have spread out bases... after the first three and a half.

kind of like this. the third is far too safe for my liking though.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 07 2013 18:12 GMT

#1662

On November 07 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:

Show nested quote +

kind of like this. the third is far too safe for my liking though.

How would you change it? I wanted it to be pretty safe after having to potentially scrum over the natural which doesn't have the typical 9 square choke. But I kind of agree. Move it clockwise further down the access path from the plateau, away from the natural? Add a path from the lowground outside edge? Make it cliffable from the lowground outside edge?

On November 07 2013 21:59 ConCentrate405 wrote:
Sad to know that it was already been tested... even sadder that it didn't work...

On the brightside, having a lava map on the pool for RedBull/TLMC is a tell that maybe now some triggers and regions are acceptable on melee maps, as long as you don't make some crazy arcade stuff and only emulate the basic game mechanics.
Hmmm horizons are expanding... time for a slightly different aproach on my map.

Hey, I'm glad there is still creativity and new thoughts in the scene.

Vicissitude

Sweden28 Posts

November 07 2013 18:31 GMT

#1663

On November 08 2013 03:12 EatThePath wrote:
Hey, I'm glad there is still creativity and new thoughts in the scene.

That is always extremely welcome, creativity will always shine.

More on topic, I do like how your map is structured, or at least what I can see from the image. Maps do always seem to tight and crammed when I look at them this way though, and I'd like to try this one out with a friend, if possible. Is this map uploaded on any server or it's only your local creation thus far?

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 07 2013 19:06 GMT

#1664

On November 08 2013 03:31 Vicissitude wrote:

Show nested quote +

It's on NA, I'll put it on EU for you.

It will probably seem much more open in game. ^^

Vicissitude

Sweden28 Posts

November 07 2013 19:28 GMT

#1665

On November 08 2013 04:06 EatThePath wrote:

It's on NA, I'll put it on EU for you.

It will probably seem much more open in game. ^^

Yes, that is most often the case! Thanks a bunch. What is the map called?

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 07 2013 20:05 GMT

#1666

On November 08 2013 04:28 Vicissitude wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes, that is most often the case! Thanks a bunch. What is the map called?

Oh, lol... sorry. It's called "open nat 1 wip".

Vicissitude

Sweden28 Posts

November 07 2013 21:54 GMT

#1667

On November 08 2013 05:05 EatThePath wrote:

Show nested quote +

Oh, lol... sorry. It's called "open nat 1 wip".

Thanks again.

RFDaemoniac

United States544 Posts

November 08 2013 04:38 GMT

#1668

@EatThePath My first thought for making the third less safe is to rotate the minerals around so that they are more vulnerable to air, increasing the airspace there just a bit as well, and perhaps even putting losb behind the mineral lines to enable drops and prevent putting static d there.

MarcusRife

343 Posts

November 08 2013 15:24 GMT

#1669

Here is something I cranked out based on Superouman's suggestions in the TLMC thread.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2013 19:31 GMT

#1670

@Marcus: That's really cool, I love the lava in conjunction with the chokepoint style, really gives it flavour. Can I recommend the skygeir cliffs on the bridges to make them look like they're up above the lava and not in it? Regarding layout, a few concerns. Why the double size main ramp? I don't see the point and you already have a back door anyway which adds vulnerability. Also, you might need to make LosB or no-build at the back door so people can't warp into the main from behind the rocks. The clockwise 3rd is too easy I think, and so is the clockwise 4th. It will be really simple for protoss to take a 3rd against zerg with these chokepoints and a minimal sentry based army and some walling. I suggest you make the passageway between the 3rd and 4th much wider so the 3rd has a dangerous but distant attack route into it, and push the 4th farther away so it's not to trivial to expand there at a whim. Not sure, you might have to enlarge the map to find more space for it. Imo, this is one of the few maps where excess airspace would be a good thing, given how many chokes and narrow places there are. It would give a nice dimension to map control where you have just enough ground to cover yourself and drop harass and air skirt around the map looking for ways to poke in and do damage.

@RFD: That's a good idea, I'll try it.

MarcusRife

343 Posts

November 08 2013 21:13 GMT

#1671

On November 09 2013 04:31 EatThePath wrote:
@Marcus: Why the double size main ramp? I don't see the point and you already have a back door anyway which adds vulnerability. .

It wasn't meant to create vulnerability. I think putting a single wide ramp hurts the defender more than it helps them. When trying to move to cover the back door it would be annoying to have to pass through a single wide choke. I will take your suggestions under consideration I think many of them will improve the map.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2013 21:49 GMT

#1672

On November 09 2013 06:13 MarcusRife wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well, not that we've seen it recently but really early all ins are much stronger on a wider ramp. For example, I think protoss just dies to some early barracks attacks unless they preemptively play in such a way as to handle them, which immediately puts them behind if the terran isn't doing such an attack. But I couldn't say for sure. It also makes early pools much much stronger. etc.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2013 22:49 GMT

#1673

Rotated the 3rd base so the mineral line is vulnerable from the cliff, and added a pathway below it connecting to the outside lowground. Added an overlord pod near the natural.

MarcusRife

343 Posts

November 10 2013 01:52 GMT

#1674

Made some changes added some things

I tried the skygeir cliffs as suggested.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

November 10 2013 05:44 GMT

#1675

You should probably add at least a couple more extremely wide open areas to compensate for the tiny chokes everywhere. Also I think what he meant with the Skygeirr cliffs would involve you moving everything down 1 terrain level so the bridges are at the lowest level, in which case the bridges would use the thin platform cliffs and make it look like they are actually suspended above the lava.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 10 2013 10:01 GMT

#1676

It does look kind of cool with the understructure, but yes this is what I meant.

I liked the towers better in the old location, especially now that you have 3 bases clustered in the corner all guarded by the new tower. If you lower the cliff levels, you might be able to do something interesting with highground at the corner platform.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

November 10 2013 12:15 GMT

#1677

What started out as a massive rework of White Forest basically turned into its own map. The goals here were:

-Emphasize/exaggerate the spread-out base layout of the original, making it more BW-ish.
-Discourage turtling on any number of bases (except 2 maybe) - the distance you must cover and defend always increases dramatically with each new base taken. (Also effectively solves the original's potential split-map problem)
-Make the 3rds far but not too difficult to be taken
-Enable multiple expansion patterns - the fact that most expansions are approximately equidistant from each other means that 2 bases on each side (1/7 and 2/8) are effectively neutral and could be taken by either player. Even the 3rds are a choice - P and T will probably take the choked 12/6 bases but Z has the option of taking 2/8. Circle syndrome exists as a result, but should be partially nullified by the fact that each base is further than normal from the adjacent bases.
-Emphasize alternating chokes and open spaces - still working on this one, I'd like to make the chokes even more chokey and the open areas even more open. For instance I'm considering removing some (or all) of the destructible rocks and simply making those ramps narrower, and/or messing with the proportions in front of the 2/8 bases, but idk exactly what to do yet.

Overall the layout is very standard, but I wanted to test how these more spread-out proportions would work on an otherwise ordinary map before making something a bit more unique.

Angled:
+ Show Spoiler +

Aircooled

United States79 Posts

November 11 2013 04:54 GMT

#1678

I like the idea of making the center rock ramps maybe even 1x and the center high ground pod ramps 3x (move the rocks there maybe?) as it would encourage army movement around the outside like Tristram but here theres an easier third for p and t as you said.

I've been trying to make a semi island map for a litttle while now and recently came up with this; not sure if I should open up the middle path or keep it how it is.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

November 11 2013 09:45 GMT

#1679

Not sure how that's considered a semi-island map, it has only 2 islands which isn't unheard of on standard maps. I'd say keep the narrow middle, maybe open up a couple more already open areas to compensate. But I can't really judge the openness well without testing the map, you'll definitely want other more experienced opinions.

On my map I think I'll try changing 4 of the rocked triple ramps to single ramps but keeping the center ones triple with rocks, to keep the option of effectively flanking an army in the central corridor once the rocks are down.