EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pR6HBLA.jpg)
The bases with one gas have half the amount of total minerals of a regular base to coincide with half of the vespene available. If you add up all the total resources it is equivalent to 16 total normal bases
Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 215
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
The bases with one gas have half the amount of total minerals of a regular base to coincide with half of the vespene available. If you add up all the total resources it is equivalent to 16 total normal bases | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On September 02 2019 10:08 MarcusRife wrote: Here is another work in progress I have. Any feedback would be appreciated. The bases with one gas have half the amount of total minerals of a regular base to coincide with half of the vespene available. If you add up all the total resources it is equivalent to 16 total normal bases The half bases are a pretty neat idea. I'd say that they're probably good for zerg overall since they can get more value out of building town halls than Protoss, and can get more use out of the fast gas mining than terran, but it's definitely something worth exploring. I'm not sure adding gold bases into the equation is a good idea though. Overall I think the map suffers from the pitfalls of reflect symmetry in that it results in players expanding very close to each other. If both players expand linearly the two third bases are a stone's throw away from each other which means that you won't see long games on it. Additionally the map lacks in open areas for engagements--everything's pretty choked up except in the areas where you added pillars where it's even more choked up. There's a few other things (the main is a bit too big unnecessarily, the two golds in the center are so hard to defend that they won't likely be taken, and the ramp leading to the linear third is so close that it makes it hard to defend), but getting more open areas and making sure the distances 'work' between the two players are the two big ones. Maybe make the map rotationally symmetric instead since that would simplify things. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On September 02 2019 10:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The half bases are a pretty neat idea. I'd say that they're probably good for zerg overall since they can get more value out of building town halls than Protoss, and can get more use out of the fast gas mining than terran, but it's definitely something worth exploring. I'm not sure adding gold bases into the equation is a good idea though. Overall I think the map suffers from the pitfalls of reflect symmetry in that it results in players expanding very close to each other. If both players expand linearly the two third bases are a stone's throw away from each other which means that you won't see long games on it. Additionally the map lacks in open areas for engagements--everything's pretty choked up except in the areas where you added pillars where it's even more choked up. There's a few other things (the main is a bit too big unnecessarily, the two golds in the center are so hard to defend that they won't likely be taken, and the ramp leading to the linear third is so close that it makes it hard to defend), but getting more open areas and making sure the distances 'work' between the two players are the two big ones. Maybe make the map rotationally symmetric instead since that would simplify things. I am glad you like the half bases in principle as it is core to the concept. I must argue though that the diagonal symmetry is core to concept as well. I have played with rotational symmetry for this concept and it works better this way in my opinion. This map is fairly large. It is 140x140. I don't think it runs into a problem of expanding too close when compared to recent rotational symmetry maps. Your point is taken about the main size. I trimmed it down again. It used to be smaller but it grew when making other adjustments and I didn't notice how big it had become. Here are some pathing measurements of this map compared with New Repugnancy with the rocks removed as given by the measurement tool. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RH8w8Dt.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1CG6xFD.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BfilD9x.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/a2tGrnl.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bR6Uz04.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6zPTBJw.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EfrYRRT.jpg) I don't know that I agree about the gold bases being too close. As the measurements show the forward bases on New Repugnancy are just as close or closer. As far as the open spaces, that is easily tunable. There is plenty of space available. I also don't want too much space. The half bases generally are not great in the early to mid-game. The golds can be in the very early game if it is your third or before but otherwise a fully saturated gold only provides 5% more than a fully saturated regular base since there are only six patches. The intent is they are placed so they would have to be at least your fourth. Additionally, they are going to run out very fast since they only have 900 minerals. The half bases are great for late game because you can have a similar income to a full base but do it with less workers and total worker count is important to balance with the army in late game. A purple vespene geyser allows you to have 75% of the gas income for half the number of workers. Those with blue minerals will provide 75% of the mineral income for 75% of the workers but the gold half bases will provide 105% of the mineral income for 75% of the workers. The double high yield gas bases will provide 150% of the gas income for the same amount of workers. The aim here is to have a somewhat standard 4 to 5 bases set up and the half bases come into play after that. I envision it not being game breaking and hopefully provide for interesting strategies in the later mid to late game. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On September 02 2019 18:33 MarcusRife wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 02 2019 10:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The half bases are a pretty neat idea. I'd say that they're probably good for zerg overall since they can get more value out of building town halls than Protoss, and can get more use out of the fast gas mining than terran, but it's definitely something worth exploring. I'm not sure adding gold bases into the equation is a good idea though. Overall I think the map suffers from the pitfalls of reflect symmetry in that it results in players expanding very close to each other. If both players expand linearly the two third bases are a stone's throw away from each other which means that you won't see long games on it. Additionally the map lacks in open areas for engagements--everything's pretty choked up except in the areas where you added pillars where it's even more choked up. There's a few other things (the main is a bit too big unnecessarily, the two golds in the center are so hard to defend that they won't likely be taken, and the ramp leading to the linear third is so close that it makes it hard to defend), but getting more open areas and making sure the distances 'work' between the two players are the two big ones. Maybe make the map rotationally symmetric instead since that would simplify things. I am glad you like the half bases in principle as it is core to the concept. I must argue though that the diagonal symmetry is core to concept as well. I have played with rotational symmetry for this concept and it works better this way in my opinion. This map is fairly large. It is 140x140. I don't think it runs into a problem of expanding too close when compared to recent rotational symmetry maps. Your point is taken about the main size. I trimmed it down again. It used to be smaller but it grew when making other adjustments and I didn't notice how big it had become. Here are some pathing measurements of this map compared with New Repugnancy with the rocks removed as given by the measurement tool. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + I don't know that I agree about the gold bases being too close. As the measurements show the forward bases on New Repugnancy are just as close or closer. As far as the open spaces, that is easily tunable. There is plenty of space available. I also don't want too much space. The half bases generally are not great in the early to mid-game. The golds can be in the very early game if it is your third or before but otherwise a fully saturated gold only provides 5% more than a fully saturated regular base since there are only six patches. The intent is they are placed so they would have to be at least your fourth. Additionally, they are going to run out very fast since they only have 900 minerals. The half bases are great for late game because you can have a similar income to a full base but do it with less workers and total worker count is important to balance with the army in late game. A purple vespene geyser allows you to have 75% of the gas income for half the number of workers. Those with blue minerals will provide 75% of the mineral income for 75% of the workers but the gold half bases will provide 105% of the mineral income for 75% of the workers. The double high yield gas bases will provide 150% of the gas income for the same amount of workers. The aim here is to have a somewhat standard 4 to 5 bases set up and the half bases come into play after that. I envision it not being game breaking and hopefully provide for interesting strategies in the later mid to late game. 70 linear third to linear third is too close especially considering the highground with the ramp leading into the third. The gold bases (which you didn't measure town hall to town hall) are different from the lowground base on New Repugnancy because you can push straight towards it (instead of having to go through the top or bottom path), and the terrain is generally more favourable to the attacker. Also high yield gas is 8 gas per trip (it used to be 6), so it's 200% income not 150%. | ||
|
alephnaut
16 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pBFKE5N.jpg) The distance between forward bases with the rocks down on New Repugnancy is 71. Here it is shorter on the short path but it is incredibly choked off. You can only send small amounts of units. The "normal path" is further. I could always close the short gap but was just trying something. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States989 Posts
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/572959737700679681/639252687153528844/unknown.png) ![[image loading]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/572959737700679681/639252797719576596/unknown.png) This is my first map since WoL, what do you guys think of the layout (despite the first image, it is vertical, although I like it horizontal as well). Am I making any cardinal sins in this map? Any feedback is welcome! Note that the cliff faces are not inputted yet, and that they will be where they look like they would be! The map size is 184x128. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 31 2019 09:04 Monochromatic wrote: This is my first map since WoL, what do you guys think of the layout (despite the first image, it is vertical, although I like it horizontal as well). Am I making any cardinal sins in this map? Any feedback is welcome! Note that the cliff faces are not inputted yet, and that they will be where they look like they would be! The map size is 184x128. * Where are the edges of the map? Having the edges of the map line up with the edges of the image makes things easier when getting feedback. * What are the rush distances like? 184 is very big--Apotheosis was also 184 tall and had rush distances that were way too long. This is probably the biggest issue (since it heavily influences the rest of the map). * Having a backdoor natural with such a large ramp (even if it is rocked off) and a large ramp is problematic, since once the rocks are down stopping runbys is a nightmare. Additionally Nydus is very strong currently, and a backdoor just makes it stronger. * That second rocked off narrow passage leading to the front natural is very awkward. It creates nooks where you can drop units supported by tanks from the lowground and so on. The non-rocked off entrance to the natural is also awkwardly long and far away from the town hall which means zerg can't wall off and pushing out of the natural (against say a contain) is difficult . | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States989 Posts
On October 31 2019 12:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote: * Where are the edges of the map? Having the edges of the map line up with the edges of the image makes things easier when getting feedback. * What are the rush distances like? 184 is very big--Apotheosis was also 184 tall and had rush distances that were way too long. This is probably the biggest issue (since it heavily influences the rest of the map). * Having a backdoor natural with such a large ramp (even if it is rocked off) and a large ramp is problematic, since once the rocks are down stopping runbys is a nightmare. Additionally Nydus is very strong currently, and a backdoor just makes it stronger. * That second rocked off narrow passage leading to the front natural is very awkward. It creates nooks where you can drop units supported by tanks from the lowground and so on. The non-rocked off entrance to the natural is also awkwardly long and far away from the town hall which means zerg can't wall off and pushing out of the natural (against say a contain) is difficult . Version 0.2 ![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382780801164771331/642218394824998913/unknown.png) Thanks for the feedback! Let me respond to each point and how I changed the map to make it better. The map has a playable size of 104x150, and a full sizew of 128*184. Rush distances are fairly short, especially when the third is taken. Rocks blocking the ramp on the third have been replaced with minerals. The design concept was a make a map with shorter rush distances in the lategame, and I think this accomplishes that. The minerals have 35 in each, so a single mule cannot mine them at once. The natural ramp has been completely redone to be simplified. The side bases have been moved to make the map "flow" better. Here's a minimap shot of the change. ![[image loading]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/382780801164771331/642219271824605184/unknown.png) Again, please share your thoughts and feedback! P.S. I forget how to add spawning points. Can someone give me a reminder? | ||
|
engrbmou11
2 Posts
| ||
|
tommyehall
1 Post
| ||
|
UrihamRayne
2 Posts
My biggest strugle of the map was the layout for the remaining bases beyond the 4th adjacent to the natural but blocked off by the destructible debris. Feels like I could have made less open areas and more narrow spaces but at the same times some of the highground bases feel cramped. Another problem I came across was making the 4th base and the 3rd base layouts, I don't know if they are "balanced" as in wether or not they favour zerg/terran too much. Finally I am very bad at texturing and making things pretty with the brush, I tried my best but I think anything beyond the 4 early bases looks bland. Any feedback is appreciated. Map size: 160x160 Playable area: 140x132 Some info on some of the map design: 1- You can't harass the 2nd base mineral line with siege tanks if firing from across the gap between it and the center of the map. 2- If you aim the liberator circle (no range upgrade) at the very edge of the mineral line on that 2nd base, most ranged ground units won't reach the liberator from the side of the defending player. 3- To access the 4th expansion, players can destroy the rocks, there are two destructible rocks in that choke point, however destroying one doesn't destroy both. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Wi5no5j.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JULbVNn.png) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ok8CJ86.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UG7WtdF.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NAW9cV0.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vfgwMcx.jpg) | ||
|
Legan
Finland297 Posts
On December 08 2019 02:46 UrihamRayne wrote: Hello forum, amateur map maker here with my first project that I actually went through and completed: Umbra Megalopolis. It's a standard 1v1 map inspired off a few things, first an old ps1 game named Future Cop that had a map named Urban Jungle that had a layout I was very fond of and the HotS ladder map King Sejong Station, which you'll see the influence of in the layout of the main base and nearby expansions. My biggest strugle of the map was the layout for the remaining bases beyond the 4th adjacent to the natural but blocked off by the destructible debris. Feels like I could have made less open areas and more narrow spaces but at the same times some of the highground bases feel cramped. Another problem I came across was making the 4th base and the 3rd base layouts, I don't know if they are "balanced" as in wether or not they favour zerg/terran too much. Finally I am very bad at texturing and making things pretty with the brush, I tried my best but I think anything beyond the 4 early bases looks bland. Any feedback is appreciated. Map size: 160x160 Playable area: 140x132 Some info on some of the map design: 1- You can't harass the 2nd base mineral line with siege tanks if firing from across the gap between it and the center of the map. 2- If you aim the liberator circle (no range upgrade) at the very edge of the mineral line on that 2nd base, most ranged ground units won't reach the liberator from the side of the defending player. 3- To access the 4th expansion, players can destroy the rocks, there are two destructible rocks in that choke point, however destroying one doesn't destroy both. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + Firstly you can use data -> export map image to get good overview image in .tga format that can be converted to .jpg/.png using GIMP or other software. Other option is to click review image button before exporting map image and use snipping tool to get jpg. There are many bases on map where mineral line, geysers or town hall block movement and make hard for defender to have good concave. This is problem with middle bases and base between 3 and 6 o'clock on high ground. The middle bases are also way to close to each other. Natural's backdoor is problem because there is very direct path from opponents third. Usually Zerg wants to be able to wall with only natural's hatchery. This is issue especially in ZvZ and in lesser extend PvZ. Not being able to reach liberator is a big issue, because it limits strategies in XvT even when it's deliberately designed that way. For 3rd/4th base and onward it's not so much issue and probably there should be some spot for liberators. Also not having space behind mineral line can easily create good canon rush spot and for drop play it is good to have some room where attacker can drop units or defender build defence. Also some times players hide buildings there but with naturals direction that is not really possible. Usually each ground level has different texture that stays same. This helps to read the layout and players know nearly instantly where on map they are. | ||
|
UrihamRayne
2 Posts
On December 08 2019 07:40 Legan wrote: There are many bases on map where mineral line, geysers or town hall block movement and make hard for defender to have good concave. This is problem with middle bases and base between 3 and 6 o'clock on high ground. The middle bases are also way to close to each other. Not being able to reach liberator is a big issue, because it limits strategies in XvT even when it's deliberately designed that way. For 3rd/4th base and onward it's not so much issue and probably there should be some spot for liberators. Also not having space behind mineral line can easily create good canon rush spot and for drop play it is good to have some room where attacker can drop units or defender build defence. Also some times players hide buildings there but with naturals direction that is not really possible. Usually each ground level has different texture that stays same. This helps to read the layout and players know nearly instantly where on map they are. Thank you for the comment! Small tweaks made to the positioning of some mineral patches, most of them are closer to the edges of the bases. The center was widened to both create some distance between the gold bases and to increase the walk distance between the third and the opposing forth. Some retexturing was made to made each map height more distinct. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0gP3NZU.jpg) | ||
|
Microglycerin
7 Posts
Before I get to work on the details and decorating the map, I'd like to hear what you, experienced map makers think about it. Is this layout acceptable? Are there any things that should not be in 1v1 map? Here is some info: 148x148 main ramp to ramp: 41s big units fit through the middle + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yFMxlth.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gEKPDef.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7x4K04i.jpg) I'd appreciate any feedback, cheers! | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On May 01 2020 23:42 Microglycerin wrote: Hello, I'm kind of new here, I started to have fun with the editor at the begining of this year. Not sure if this thread is still live, but I hope it's worth a try. I'm working on a 1v1 map. Right now it's just a concept, no doodads, textures are just to differentiate high/low ground. The large lowground areas at the top and bottom will be changed probably, i had no good ideas for them right now. Before I get to work on the details and decorating the map, I'd like to hear what you, experienced map makers think about it. Is this layout acceptable? Are there any things that should not be in 1v1 map? Here is some info: 148x148 main ramp to ramp: 41s big units fit through the middle + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + I'd appreciate any feedback, cheers! It's a pretty normal map--nothing that's glaringly wrong. A few points:
| ||
|
Microglycerin
7 Posts
I didn't notice the misplaced mineral patch, but it's minor issue compared to a command center in the corners  | ||
|
SilentStorm3
11 Posts
I consider this map to be great for early aggressive tank pushes, but the moment a Terran/Protoss player wants to take a 4th base, the Zerg has enough army to poke multiple bases whilst expanding behind. It's still WIP. Let me know what you think *Overview Image ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eiTOxke.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/UCNXSrh.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rqrOVJJ.png) *Map Boundaries 156x158 Server(s) Published On - EU Full Map Name (& key words) - Energy Cove | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On June 03 2020 03:43 SilentStorm3 wrote: This map has a pocket base protected by minerals and rocks. The main attack path goes through a narrow low ground chokepoint, but alternative routes provide more space to maneuver. Securing 3 bases is quite easy, but the longer the game goes, the harder it is to establish new bases. I consider this map to be great for early aggressive tank pushes, but the moment a Terran/Protoss player wants to take a 4th base, the Zerg has enough army to poke multiple bases whilst expanding behind. It's still WIP. Let me know what you think *Overview Image *Map Boundaries 156x158 Server(s) Published On - EU Full Map Name (& key words) - Energy Cove - 156x158 is considered to be too big for a 2p map nowadays. The fact that the rush distance from nat to nat is straight (similarly to older larger maps like Odyssey), but even so there's a lot of room to shrink this map. For example the area right of the top left base (or left of the bottom right base) doesn't seem very useful. - I wouldn't recommend ever using the terrain warping tools in playable areas like you've done on the lowground. It just makes things weird especially when the terrain has to straighten out when buildings are built on it. - Rocked off back pocket naturals are obviously perilous especially in ZvP where zerg can knock down the back path and run in zerglings. Personally I don't think that it's necessarily a problem to have this on a map, but it gives a lot of players cold feet. - The main is rather small which makes terran unhappy. - The middle seems pretty fun, with the combinations of tight corridors and more open areas. I like it. Maybe it's a bit too narrow/choky at times? Not sure. | ||
|
SilentStorm3
11 Posts
I'd appreciate your feedback *Map Boundaries 144*154 Server(s) Published On - EU Full Map Name (& key words) - Sparkling Engines ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eldI3ZU.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/59qQGyK.png) | ||
| ||
