I've been playing about with creating melee maps and I am curious what;s communitys thoughts on various map designs small specific things like

- Having less mineral nodes for an expansion
- Mixing high yields with normal mineral nodes
- Mineral only expansions with no gas
- I was considering aoe dmg effects in areas of map clearly visable (f.e. like over heating generator i would put maybe high templar psi storm effects around the generator make it dmg units near it. Another example could be larva lakes could walk through but dmg units)

anything ive not put on list that definitely shouldn't be in melee map?

asdfiprod

United States34 Posts

May 22 2010 23:06 GMT

It's a new game, experiment.

tompliss

France21 Posts

May 30 2010 08:34 GMT

Hey guys,

I'm new here, and have a question about melee maps :

I've made one, filling the requirements to be a melee map (as map status tells me), I published it, but when I host it, I can't select "melee" style to play it ...

So it force me to create teams myself (just boring), and I can't open it to public (I don't even know if this could be possible anyway...).

Any solution ?

PS: sorry about posting it in here, but I've been searching for a whole day before coming here, and can't create a topci yet ...

Ocedic

United States1808 Posts

May 30 2010 08:50 GMT

As a map maker, I have to say it's way too early to make any general do's and don't. Creativity should be encouraged, though of course there should always be reasoning behind every action. I've seen a few maps have random or unexplained aspects.

When in doubt, ask yourself "why is that the way it is?" If you can't come up with a suitable answer, it's time to rethink whether that unique aspect is really needed, or if there were a different way it could be incorporated.

On a general note I would like to see more original maps and less BW maps. There's nothing wrong with BW maps of course, but I think Blizzard maps have made people think that anything other than the original BW maps are inferior. No, only Blizz maps are inferior

Don't be afraid to try something new imo

PaterSin

Germany301 Posts

May 30 2010 08:52 GMT

On May 23 2010 08:05 monkh wrote:
I've been playing about with creating melee maps and I am curious what;s communitys thoughts on various map designs small specific things like

- Having less mineral nodes for an expansion
- Mixing high yields with normal mineral nodes
- Mineral only expansions with no gas
- I was considering aoe dmg effects in areas of map clearly visable (f.e. like over heating generator i would put maybe high templar psi storm effects around the generator make it dmg units near it. Another example could be larva lakes could walk through but dmg units)

anything ive not put on list that definitely shouldn't be in melee map?

-less mineral nodes in an expansion seems not so good would make you think twice about expanding there, it would take less workers but u'll get a lot less out of it unlike high yield.
-mixing them seems interesting give it a try I guess
-no gas is also interesting but I'd do that on high yield to make it worth it
-last point seems a bit unfair for zerg. terran bringing medivacs+scv's and protoss only taking shield dmg. Zerg would have more of a disadvantage imo

Nightmarjoo

United States3360 Posts

May 30 2010 08:55 GMT

Making the farthest minerals in a formation high-yield would be pretty neat.

I don't think mineral only bases will work well in this game, but I definitely could be wrong. I just feel like gas is too precious in sc2.

Falling

Canada11349 Posts

May 30 2010 09:02 GMT

Have people been experimenting with those wide borders Blizzard put on all their maps? (The feature that allows Terrans to force a stale-mate by running away from the battle field, float indefinitely in a map corner and leave the computer for a day.) Does no border affect the gameplay in other ways significantly? Because if not, this might be a significant don't.

tompliss

France21 Posts

May 30 2010 09:14 GMT

I think there is a bad point about narrow borders :
It prevents drops and air-harass too easily, for no reason ...
If you are on an island and can't be attacked from north because it's the border of the map, it's kind of weird ...

Bswhunter

Australia954 Posts

May 30 2010 10:21 GMT

How about making a high yield mineral field directly between the players in a 1v1 that they have to fight over.

Ecael

United States6703 Posts

May 30 2010 10:24 GMT

#10

On May 30 2010 19:21 Bswhunter wrote:
How about making a high yield mineral field directly between the players in a 1v1 that they have to fight over.

We kind of have that in scrap station and incineration zone. The former is used more as a hidden expo and the latter taken only when you have the game won anyway. The viability of such a thing really depends, but if it is right on the path, then it'll be taken only when you have the game won for all practical purposes...except for maybe TvT.

Rabiator

Germany3948 Posts

May 30 2010 10:32 GMT

#11

Rising and falling lava like we have seen in the solo mission. This is kinda like your AOE damage, but different visual effect.

Having "true bridges" where you can go under the bridge too.

tompliss

France21 Posts

May 30 2010 12:39 GMT

#12

You can't make "true bridges" ...
The game doesn't handle multi Z-level platforms ...

Gibybo

United States229 Posts

May 30 2010 12:55 GMT

#13

On May 30 2010 21:39 tompliss wrote:
You can't make "true bridges" ...
The game doesn't handle multy Z-level platforms ...

There is something the map editor can't do? *gasp*

tompliss

France21 Posts

May 30 2010 19:17 GMT

#14

I've made a map, filling the requirements to be a melee map (as map status tells me), I published it, but when I host it, I can't select "melee" style to play it ...

so, no answers ?

monitor

United States2404 Posts

June 13 2010 17:13 GMT

#15

Half

United States2554 Posts

June 13 2010 17:32 GMT

#16

How do you guys feel about High Yield Gas?

Bibdy

United States3481 Posts

June 13 2010 17:43 GMT

#17

If you want it to be a generally accepted map, don't get too crazy. Just stick with the tried-and-true methodology of existing maps (8 blue mineral piles, 6 gold mineral piles, no rich vespene, no quirky environmental stuff etc.) and just concern yourself with good design.

* Expanding more requires more map control and opens up new directions of attack, making it harder to defend.
* No ridiculously tight choke-points in the middle of the map (that at the very least can't be circumvented by rocks) that would just screw up some matchups (too Protoss-friendly)
* No naturals that are ridiculously easy to defend (too Zerg-friendly)
* Not too many high-ground death zones, or very close, easily-defended gold minerals to starting locations (too Terran-friendly)

You want a nice mix of things that are friendly, and unfriendly, to each race.

Merikh

United States918 Posts

June 13 2010 19:05 GMT

#18

Personally I don't think all maps need a gold expansion or maybe maps with just high geysers. They don't necessarily need both or any at all.

I also think all maps don't need to have high ground advantage at their main. Kulas is a good example of open ramp (no ramp) except the natural is hard to secure. Maybe more maps with safer naturals, harder to secure thirds.

Bigger is better :D

Crazyeyes

Canada1342 Posts

June 13 2010 19:50 GMT

#19

What does everyone think about gas-only expansions? :O

Satallgeese

United States239 Posts

June 13 2010 20:53 GMT

#20

On June 14 2010 04:50 Crazyeyes wrote:
What does everyone think about gas-only expansions? :O

Man crazyeyes, you crazy. Thats just silly. Those would seem too easy to snipe, because they wouldn't be worth it to defend because of less workers and, overall, less income.