|Deleted my earlier attempts so this site would not be cluttered with suboptimal maps. Thanks for everyone giving feedback to my maps so far!|
This is my recent attempt at a 2 player map. Map size is 128x96. I took some inspiration from Ride of Valkyries and tried to modernize the expansion settings. I think this map offers some unconventional features and possibilities for new play.
Currently testing with a few friends how the map will play out.
Ready to hear your criticism! :)
|Looks rather nice and interesting. I would say that you should get rid of those 3-mineral mini-expos, though and instead get more expansions and an additional pathway along the bottom edge to delinearize the map, make better use space by filling those bog holes and give more focus to the bottom part of the map.|
|Don't delete your maps, how are you going to see how far you've come? :(|
Agree with Freakling for the most part. I think your biggest issue that I've seen so far is the uninteresting pathing between the two players in your 2player maps. For example here, there is only 1 path from one base to the other. In this map, it's not even that big, too.
How are players going to flank? How are players going to retreat and possibly counter attack? There has to be a way for the defending player to retreat without having to give up strategical ground. The bottom sidepath is too far and small to traverse with a countering army. All your other map making skills like expansion layout, spacing, etc. are definitely better than your first attempt. But the pathing is important and it influences how interesting the map is to play.
I think you can definitely change this map for the better, you have a lot of unused space at the bottom to make more paths, but make sure that the paths aren't just added in there for no reason. They need to be viable and the map has to accommodate them.
|Updated the map to version 0.2.|
I largely extended the bottom half of the map to make it more playable and attractive. The bigger ramps allow for better flanking and backdoor attacks. Also there is one expansion for each player which is risky to take, but essential in the late game. The expansions should lead to fights for the lower half of the map in lategame PvZ and TvP.
I'm also thinking about adding a small bridge between the mineral only expansions. However i like the simple layout of the map as it is now. I think too many paths don't always result in a better gameplay. If you look at Ride of Valkyries it only has one basic path too, but still produces great games.
|Can you fit 5 expos along the bottom edge? One of the strengths of axial symmetry is that it allows for truly neutral centre line expansions and thus prevents a clear map split.|
|Updated to version 0.3.|
- extended bottom half of the map
- added a fifth, neutral expansion on the bottom line
- added a bridge between mineral only bases in the north to allow for run-by's and more paths
@Freakling: thank you! Took your feedback into consideration and added some of the stuff.
modified by DarkstaR
|I don't think the bridge was a good idea. It's basically just a free pushing road for Terran where Tanks cannot be flanked.|
I guess you are right. What about a gap where only zealots, marines and lings will fit through?
|Updated to version 0.31|
- removed bridge between mineral only bases
- fixed space at island expansion
- made bridges to corner expansion tighter to allow for burrowed lurkers for zergs
- added some doodads and tile decoration (still more to come)
Will playtest this map today with some players to see how the individual matchups play out.
|There shouldn't be 9 mineral patches in naturals.|
|9 is a bit much. 8 tops for more macro-y maps, but 7 is pretty standard. Mains are usually 9, in the old days they had 8 (like in Lost temple which is 8-8 and 6 for the minonly).|
modern maps are 9-7 most of the time.
some 3 player maps with 10 patches in main.
sometimes 8 in the nat for more macroish maps
6-7 for mineral onlies is good.
7-8 pretty standard for a third gas base (unless a player is taking a main).
Short logic for this has to do with Protoss/Terran vs Zerg economy. Too many patches is good for P and T, while zerg doesnt benefit as much since they need more gas and usually have less drones. Zerg has less workers, but higher efficiency and usually +1 more base than P or T in most scenarios of standard play, so it works out. It's like a metagame/balance thing, although it's not really "proven", I'd say that's what mapmakers and players are comfortable with.
modified by JungleTerrain
|@SiaBBo & JungleTerrain|
Thank you! Fixed it and will present a new version soon.
What about the map as a whole? Do you have some tips to decorate it?
- fixed amount of minerals per base (9 main, 7 natural, 7-8 rest)
- moved 3rd gas base slightly
- moved mineral blocks at corner bases
I'm now looking for ways of decorating maps with ground textures. As i'm new to mapping i still don't have an idea how some of the custom ground textures are made. But it would be cool to have the map look a little more special.
modified by DarkstaR
|I'm not too good with space tileset, but you can take a look at my map (3)Power Bond. You can do some cool stuff with solar array and tile editing/copy paste. Look at the map thread, Freakling posted some stuff decoration-wise.|
Freaklings space maps have nice decoration. I particularly like the ones like magrathea where he uses bridge tiles as an isometric brush. It's unbuildable so good for open battlefields.
Just take a look at some space pro maps over the years, I actually kinda like Blitz X deco in some places. Andromeda is boring imo though. Circuit breakers is pretty stale too
|Just you wait till you see the funky stuff I am using to update Magrathea :P|
Deco is really the fun part, just use your imagination.