I'm trying to create a 1v1 melee map and I've come up with this design. I'm trying to slightly encourage aggressive play and discourage turtling. As you can see the natural expansions are fairly difficult to defend. I've tried to give the different races different advantages, but I'm not adept enough at the game to correctly assess any imbalanced features. So I'm asking here in hope that some people could help me find them.
Some info:
I'm using the char/volcanic asset set
H = starting location, T = tower, B = barricade, striped lines = lava
The position of the minerals are not completely correctly positioned (it's mostly meant to show the location of a mineral field). Their scale is also exaggerated. I'll try to update the picture to give a more correct scale.
The grayscale is a heightmap. Dark = height.
I'm a bit concerned the map is too tight. I've tried to have several paths to encourage creative gameplay at the middle. I think I'd like to make more hiding spots. In that case I'll have to increase the map size I think.
The map remembers me quite a bit of inceneration zone.
I see quite some balance problems:
1. I cant judge the size of the map by this picture, but it looks quite small, encouraging early pressure which puts zerg to an dissadvantage because of denying any fast expansion and the ability to flank. Especially against a Terran who plays siege tanks would be hard to defend against because you only have a very short way where you could flank the terran while he moves his tanks.
2. Natural expansion seems pretty open making it hard to defend and vulnerable. Disencourages expanding more
3. The gap next to the natural seems a bit too small. You should check that you cant siege on the right sight of the gap and still hit the expansion.
4. The highground above the tower seems like it would deny much movement out the main because you can cover 2 of 3 ways out of the main.
5. I dont know if i like the two expansions at the 6 clock position. Its less open then the first, but i dont like the idea of two expansion that near together.
Another idea that i have is to remove one of the 6 clock expansions and place a tower there. The 12 clock expansion gives you a ressource advantage because of the gold minerals but the 6 o clock expansion will give you more vision of the map. If you opt for the gold minerals and your opponent for the tower youll have it harder to defend in terms of map control, the enemy has potentially more ways to attack.
Something like in the attachment. Just some ideas and thoughts. Im not experienced at map making at all, im more experienced as a player.
PS.: I dont like the highground between those 2 gold expansion at all. Either cut those "wings" or remove it completely.
I think the similarity you see (Incineration zone) is the shared blocked path between the mains.
My plan was to encourage aggressive play and create a more risky natural expansion. I agree that the map size the picture represents is too small, I'll definitely have to increase the size. I think that will increase the travel time between the two main exits, hopefully remedying that siege tank-problem a bit.
2. It's intended to be open and vulnerable. I hoped the short travel distance would accommodate that disadvantage slightly.
3. I'll increase the total size and increase the gap to make sure you can't do that.
4. I'm going to see if I can do something about that high ground. Maybe change it all together.
5. It felt a bit awkward for me too. I think I've seen another map have something similar (though, that might have been a team map). Still, I prefer your solution. The only problem is that there's now only 3 extra expansions (not including main and nat). As far as I know, 4 seems to usually be the minimum (?). I'll see if I can create some new areas when increasing the size.
There was originally a tower where you have placed it in the edited picture, I didn't like the idea of the entire main being visible by towers so I removed it. I'm going to see if I can change both the high ground in the middle and the lower one. I'll update this post when I do. I haven't placed any "sight-blocking foilage" yet, I thought I could put that in once I've found what areas are too powerful/weak.
The map just seems to small for my taste, I don't like the connection of the bases via gold minerals either. I would try this map with the starting positions being 2 and 8. Think it would be more interesting then.
I don't like the connection of the bases via gold minerals either.
Could you elaborate a bit on why you dislike that? Is it something specific about the terrain or is it just the nature of the connection you don't like?
I've more or less dropped the original design and done something else with it. I've got two drafts here. Mind that it's more of a sketch, not metrically symmetric. It's meant to get a sense of the flow and rough balance.
Draft #1:
I liked the idea of having a rift/crack going through the map. (It would be wide enough to disallow siege-cheesing to the other side. ) I feel it's a bit too open north/south of the gold expansions, I might rotate the rift slightly and make it bigger to help that.
Draft #2:
Moved the gold expansions to the sides. I prefer the other draft.
Same as last time. Grayscale is heightmap. T = towers, B = Barricade, Green box = LOS-blocking foilage
Any ideas? Hopefully the last time I'll have to hassle anyone here. Your feedback is very appreciated. :)
I'm trying to create a 1v1 melee map and I've come up with this design. I'm trying to slightly encourage aggressive play and discourage turtling. As you can see the natural expansions are fairly difficult to defend. I've tried to give the different races different advantages, but I'm not adept enough at the game to correctly assess any imbalanced features. So I'm asking here in hope that some people could help me find them.
Some info:
I'm a bit concerned the map is too tight. I've tried to have several paths to encourage creative gameplay at the middle. I think I'd like to make more hiding spots. In that case I'll have to increase the map size I think.
The map remembers me quite a bit of inceneration zone.
I see quite some balance problems:
1. I cant judge the size of the map by this picture, but it looks quite small, encouraging early pressure which puts zerg to an dissadvantage because of denying any fast expansion and the ability to flank. Especially against a Terran who plays siege tanks would be hard to defend against because you only have a very short way where you could flank the terran while he moves his tanks.
2. Natural expansion seems pretty open making it hard to defend and vulnerable. Disencourages expanding more
3. The gap next to the natural seems a bit too small. You should check that you cant siege on the right sight of the gap and still hit the expansion.
4. The highground above the tower seems like it would deny much movement out the main because you can cover 2 of 3 ways out of the main.
5. I dont know if i like the two expansions at the 6 clock position. Its less open then the first, but i dont like the idea of two expansion that near together.
Another idea that i have is to remove one of the 6 clock expansions and place a tower there. The 12 clock expansion gives you a ressource advantage because of the gold minerals but the 6 o clock expansion will give you more vision of the map. If you opt for the gold minerals and your opponent for the tower youll have it harder to defend in terms of map control, the enemy has potentially more ways to attack.
Something like in the attachment. Just some ideas and thoughts. Im not experienced at map making at all, im more experienced as a player.
PS.: I dont like the highground between those 2 gold expansion at all. Either cut those "wings" or remove it completely.
I think the similarity you see (Incineration zone) is the shared blocked path between the mains. My plan was to encourage aggressive play and create a more risky natural expansion. I agree that the map size the picture represents is too small, I'll definitely have to increase the size. I think that will increase the travel time between the two main exits, hopefully remedying that siege tank-problem a bit.
2. It's intended to be open and vulnerable. I hoped the short travel distance would accommodate that disadvantage slightly.
3. I'll increase the total size and increase the gap to make sure you can't do that.
4. I'm going to see if I can do something about that high ground. Maybe change it all together.
5. It felt a bit awkward for me too. I think I've seen another map have something similar (though, that might have been a team map). Still, I prefer your solution. The only problem is that there's now only 3 extra expansions (not including main and nat). As far as I know, 4 seems to usually be the minimum (?). I'll see if I can create some new areas when increasing the size.
There was originally a tower where you have placed it in the edited picture, I didn't like the idea of the entire main being visible by towers so I removed it. I'm going to see if I can change both the high ground in the middle and the lower one. I'll update this post when I do. I haven't placed any "sight-blocking foilage" yet, I thought I could put that in once I've found what areas are too powerful/weak.
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated!
The map just seems to small for my taste, I don't like the connection of the bases via gold minerals either. I would try this map with the starting positions being 2 and 8. Think it would be more interesting then.
Could you elaborate a bit on why you dislike that? Is it something specific about the terrain or is it just the nature of the connection you don't like?
I've more or less dropped the original design and done something else with it. I've got two drafts here. Mind that it's more of a sketch, not metrically symmetric. It's meant to get a sense of the flow and rough balance.
Same as last time. Grayscale is heightmap. T = towers, B = Barricade, Green box = LOS-blocking foilage
Any ideas? Hopefully the last time I'll have to hassle anyone here. Your feedback is very appreciated. :)
One last attempt at garnering some criticism before I go any further. bump!
I'm fairly sure I'm settling at draft #1. I'd love to hear some other thoughts, though.