| legion | | |
After being slaughtered on my previous (and 1st) map, here is my second attempt this time in space.
Again, this is a skeleton without any eye candy or anything, the idea is to achieve a small quick play symmetric map (hence the low minerals/no 3rd).
Thoughts ? |
| SiaBBo | | |
| So you didn't understand anything that we told you. |
| Kinosjourney | | |
Tight, bad mineral lines etc.
You should try to make more open maps with less straight lines, look at other maps and try to mimic them :) |
| Excalibur | | |
Do.
Not.
Use.
Straight.
Lines.
Ever. |
| Excalibur | | |
VIDEO GUIDE TO MELEE MAPPING:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/9317/
Watch it. It will help.
MELEE MAPPING GUIDE:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/378/
For creating a balanced map and understanding why maps have certain things that they do.
MINERAL FORMATIONS:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/5150/
Self explanatory.
modified by Excalibur |
| legion | | |
@SiaBBo - Not helping...
@Kinosjourney - Not helping...
@Excalibur - but i like straight lines :) and tnx for the links, ill watch them.
p.s. why not straight lines ?
EDIT - after some reading: reset minerals & gas for equal mining.
any more input is welcome.
Try to give specific points even if you think this map has no chance as comments like "your map is imba" or "bad mineral placement" or "don't use straight lines" don't help unless i can understand why you are saying what you are saying :)
modified by legion |
| Excalibur | | |
Straight lines make making a balanced 'good' map almost impossible. You will not see any recent proleague balanced maps using them.
Watch the videos, might give you a better idea.
modified by Excalibur |
| Legion | | |
| Excalibur, i get ur "general" point that its bad couse it makes it hard to balance or that its bad couse pros don't use them, why do you think its bad on this map ? where is the imbalance that it creates ? |
| freakling | | |
Benzene contains quite a lot of straight lines...
Straight lines are OK as long as they fit into the concept and still are no ends in themselves... So rather igonre that complaint, there are far far more serious issues anyway:
- 96x96 is the bare minimum an acceptable map should have as size - but that requires a concept that makes optimal use of that little space.
- Huge gaps of litteraly empty space (terrain) are obviously not what I refer to as "optimal use"
- Those narrow paths at NW and SE are exactly 200% useless... (100% beause they are really absolutely useless and another stunning 100% bcause they absorb a whopping third of your overall available space)
- Your mineral formations range from absolutely ugly to absolutely dysfunctional.
- 2 entrances to main screws zerg, screws terran vs. toss and toss vs. zerg and ... litterealy any one who tries any solid buildup...
- no 3rd and no defensible nat means you cannot do shit but cheese and rush...
- short'n'straight main to main pathing just amplifies that tendency...
modified by freakling |
| Gnom | | |
| HEY! At least he has humor. |
| K_A | | |
To make a small map that is also balanced you will need the following:
Z shaped path betwen bases to stop rushing
Easily wallable main choke point
Practically no empty space.
It might be possible to do without third gas but there would need to be at least some kind of extra expasnsion or turtling would be far to powerful.
Another thing to keep in mind is terrans huge advantage with range. If passages are too narrow it's impossible for zerg or toss to get close with melee units. |
| SiaBBo | | |
| ^ Everything else than Z shaped thing. You can do good map with just making "I" shaped map. :b |
(2)Opposing Forces
