I've created my first melee map for SC2, paying exceptional attention to symetry and attempts at making all ramps, chokes, hills, towers, minerals are all evenly and fairly balanced for each side.

My problem is that the starting bases are so close together, that workers SEE the nearby ally's base minerals- and travels to THEIR set of mineral fields, rather than stay within their base.

What are the properties of a worker finding minerals? Is it "line of sight" or "range" (ie. they go to the nearest mineral within 9range)?
If anyone knows this it would be OH-so helpful, as testing for something like this would be very time-consuming.

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Oh, this map is 4v4. Bases are teamplay style top right and bottom left.

Attachments:

Move the bases farther apart? You can't use the data editor in melee maps.

I'm not changing any data, I'm talking about current SC2 AI. How close a mineral field has to be, before a worker "notices" it, and automatically mines from it.
The bases can't be moved further apart, they are already SO SO tightly placed together, with no room to spread out - without completely revamping the starting/natural-expand areas of the map.

Changing the range at which a worker mines from would be data editing, so yes you are.

EDIT: oic. I'll check.

at the moment, (i've only checked a few starting positions) - but for the most part, the minerals are out of sight, but the vespene geysers (ally) can be seen in the "vision" - again, not sure if it's a "vision" thing or a "range ai" thing, where the workers may find the nearest mineral field automatically.

Obviously, when mineral fields are far apart, they just stand around once a field is mined-out. So there is SOME form of AI telling them to either stop, or find another.

It seems that the rule is that they'll mine from Mineral Fields up to six "cells" (whatever that's supposed to mean) away from the CC/Nexus/hatch. At least, that's what the trigger action that tells dudes to mine implies.

True, it doesn't look like you can move things around a whole lot. But maybe you can take this as an opportunity to revamp some things about the map. Personally, I don't like the fact that the mains on each side have ramps down into them instead of up out of them. There are other minor things, like have you checked the boundaries? If you didn't already know, then buildings cannot be built beyond the yellow boundary and units cannot move or fly beyond the blue boundary.

I've checked the boundries, but that was a last-minute thing, so it ended up being tighter than I expected. For example, I had a ramp going off screen which I didn't realise until later when testing it in the previewer. ---It's down to the LAST "square" at some starting base mineral lines.
I'll do a second version as a test... in this test I'll try to expand the boundries by 2squares or so, also put the starting bases on level ground. - It's impossible to test but in theory with the Beta down.
Thanks so much for your tips (both of you) by the way. - I think (also helps with base tightness) I'm going to reduce the starting gas to 1. The minerals starting are at 6 fields (from 8 normal in basic maps). Which forces a quick expand (may or may not benefit zerg, but tight chokes may or may not even it out). --- Also with only 1 geyser, it forces people to change their build order and gameplay, forces them to carefully choose their units, and reduces the likeliness of air rush and air power (early). -Again, don't know if that will be nice and tactical, or just frustrating - so hoping to test when the beta comes back.

Try not to make your melee maps deviate too much from a "standard" layout. Throwing in unorthodox concepts is okay on certain occasions; but a concept map with about 4 or 5 concepts crammed into it at the same time is almost bound to fail. (Messing with resources is pretty much a no-no if you want people to play serious melee on it.)

Aristo, I don't see anything wrong with it. Unorthodox =/= imba. We're gonna have to try new things in SC2 so that the system can evolve.

One more thing, Drakiel - if I were you, I'd start over (keeping the original, of course), and make the whole thing significantly larger. Perhaps you could also reconsider some of the things I mentioned. I really do like the map as it is, but I'm not comfortable (personally) with main bases that are actually lower than the surrounding terrain. Even or above is better. That's one thing that I believe messes with the balance too much.

There are many proleague SCBW maps with low-ground mains; with SC2's terrain bonus even less significant than it is in BW, I don't think it's too much of a problem.

Unorthodox != imba, but unorthodox == annoying. As I have said, changing one thing is good. Changing 39487029342 different things at once and expecting people to know how to play the map is not.

Really? Hmm. That's interesting. How do people generally wall off in those cases?

That's why I suggested that he redo it with significant changes, #1 being that it should probably be bigger.

Hmm I see what you mean and I've considered making it even ground. I really did want a penalty for players that just stay in their base, but don't want it to make it difficult to fend-off rushes.

All of this is speculation, of course, since the Beta is down and my map was completed, it's not possible to test yet ;o(.
I won't make any significant changes until all of these things can be tested.
(Ramp size -for 4v4, lower mineral field/gas count, lower ground starting base.)
Thanks for your responses guys!

P.S. Don't know if I said it, but I wanted reapers to have SOME benefit early game, since they can not climb that long central barrier at each team's starting base. All they have are the left and right sides to invade, and flat ground all around would make them useless. -again, this is just theory