Inspired by this guy, I decided to try to make some BW ports of my own, based on some of the more popular and well-balanced SC2 maps (aka not blizzard maps). Here's the first one - I haven't started any others yet, suggestions are welcome.
Both naturals are wallable with barracks and 2 depots (ling tight). Some modifications had to be made from the original such as moving the mains down 1 cliff level since top level is unbuildable in BW.
I'm willing to make modifications based on comments/suggestions anyone has (keep in mind that I'm fairly inexperienced with BW mapmaking).
I'm currently in the process of editing the map. I plan to modify it slowly and get people's opinions with each step - basically I'd like to change it as little from the original as possible while still balancing it a bit.
Changes: 1.1 -3rd moved slightly closer to main -Gas in 3rd geyser reduced from 5000 to 1500 (I know several suggested making 3rd mineral only, I wanted to test out this less drastic change first) -Natural ramp narrowed from 4 to 3 width, destructible building removed -Third ramp narrowed from 5 to 3 width, destructible building added (to help defend early pushes) -Side (high ground) entrance to third narrowed -Both entrances to corner expansions narrowed (ramp from 3 to 2 width)
It's the most playable SC2-> BW port i've seen to date and i don't say it because i made the original one. I'm surprised it looks so playable, i guess my bw map-making years paid-out :D
I'd move the highground third bases away from the border and add unpathable high ground there. Same with the corner bases. The destructible buildings are not needed since it's not SC2 and it'll only hinder army movement.
Problem is that the third looks too far away from the nat in comparison to the SC1 version. Might be hard for Toss or Terran to hold.
On February 21 2012 09:32 rauk wrote: isn't this kind of free win tvz? how can zerg secure third gas? same goes for pvz.
idk, I'm not an expert on map balance, I just copied the sc2 map. superouman himself actually thinks the third should be mineral only, so I'm hearing 2 opposite ideas here.
You probably just have to use your army more to defend expansions and make more static defense rather than relying on the small expansion chokes that are common in modern bw maps - this is basically true for all sc2 maps.
On February 21 2012 09:32 rauk wrote: isn't this kind of free win tvz? how can zerg secure third gas? same goes for pvz.
idk, I'm not an expert on map balance, I just copied the sc2 map. superouman himself actually thinks the third should be mineral only, so I'm hearing 2 opposite ideas here.
You probably just have to use your army more to defend expansions and make more static defense rather than relying on the small expansion chokes that are common in modern bw maps - this is basically true for all sc2 maps.
Superouman's a sick sick BW mapper. Listen to his advice.
On February 21 2012 09:32 rauk wrote: isn't this kind of free win tvz? how can zerg secure third gas? same goes for pvz.
idk, I'm not an expert on map balance, I just copied the sc2 map. superouman himself actually thinks the third should be mineral only, so I'm hearing 2 opposite ideas here.
You probably just have to use your army more to defend expansions and make more static defense rather than relying on the small expansion chokes that are common in modern bw maps - this is basically true for all sc2 maps.
You shouldn't take my suggestion into consideration, bw map making and balance feels so far away from me now.
On February 21 2012 09:32 rauk wrote: isn't this kind of free win tvz? how can zerg secure third gas? same goes for pvz.
idk, I'm not an expert on map balance, I just copied the sc2 map. superouman himself actually thinks the third should be mineral only, so I'm hearing 2 opposite ideas here.
You probably just have to use your army more to defend expansions and make more static defense rather than relying on the small expansion chokes that are common in modern bw maps - this is basically true for all sc2 maps.
You shouldn't take my suggestion into consideration, bw map making and balance feels so far away from me now.
Yeah right. It's like riding a bike. You never forget.
On February 21 2012 09:32 rauk wrote: isn't this kind of free win tvz? how can zerg secure third gas? same goes for pvz.
idk, I'm not an expert on map balance, I just copied the sc2 map. superouman himself actually thinks the third should be mineral only, so I'm hearing 2 opposite ideas here.
You probably just have to use your army more to defend expansions and make more static defense rather than relying on the small expansion chokes that are common in modern bw maps - this is basically true for all sc2 maps.
You shouldn't take my suggestion into consideration, bw map making and balance feels so far away from me now.
SC2 and BW is completely different in terms of map and balance
On February 21 2012 09:41 -NegativeZero- wrote: superouman himself actually thinks the third should be mineral only, so I'm hearing 2 opposite ideas here.
I also think thats a good idea. Map looks great btw, good job
For balance sake I'd say change the ramp up to each team's third highground base and make it narrower. It doesn't really alter the dynamic of the map too much since it still leaves the third vulnerable, but it doesn't make it completely open on 3 sides anymore either. What's more it will mean that a pushing player has two choices for attack routes initially instead of one really wide attack route. They have to go either straight across the map towards the natural, or along the winding ridge, and I could see both cases producing some cool results.
I'm also a fan of making the third a mineral only.
Just my two cents. Awesome map transfer of a really cool looking map, DLing now.
On February 21 2012 09:32 rauk wrote: isn't this kind of free win tvz? how can zerg secure third gas? same goes for pvz.
i'm fairly confident that any modern 3gas defiler build is impossible, maybe you can mass hydralurk off 2 base like it's 2001 or something.
I think Zerg needs some way to get a 3rd and wall off their 4th at the same time, and a base that can be blocked with a small amount of lurkers otherwise they die to 5rax +1.
I can't see any way to do it except add another base at the corners, and create a narrow choke to it.
On February 21 2012 09:07 GTR wrote: this actually looks really nice.
I was just thinking the same thing. I would love to see some real games on this map. Will probably be rare though =/
I'm going to make a tournament with these SC2->BW conversions.
This map actually looks really, really good. It looks like a legit BW map, not just a novelty.
Was thinking the same thing, I'd be happy to set up a prize pool and help generate some hype for it, I don't have time to organise it though (plus Aus timezone lol).
I'm not surprised this converted to BW so well. (Really nice job btw.) Its SC2 design was way more BW than SC2 when the map first hit the streets. (That's a compliment to your force of change superouman.)
dont know if that map would work. if you look at all modern maps used by kespa all the 3rd/4th bases have narrow entrances that make it easy to defend, for example if zerg needed to simcity the 3rd vs a toss to take an easy 4th. almost all the non-natural expos on this map are wide open making it pretty unbalanced. also the expos towards the center are rediculously hard to defend, since they are entirely on the low ground and easily sieged on the cliffs on all sides
On February 21 2012 13:44 Ribbon wrote: Looking at the original, the third is actually a lot harder to take in this version because the embiggened main pushes it very far away.
Looking at the original, I can barely distinguish the terrain. Seriously its like a blob of purple there, some blue there. It resembles too much like my little cousin's playdoh...
On February 21 2012 13:44 Ribbon wrote: Looking at the original, the third is actually a lot harder to take in this version because the embiggened main pushes it very far away.
Looking at the original, I can barely distinguish the terrain. Seriously its like a blob of purple there, some blue there. It resembles too much like my little cousin's playdoh...
Yeah, the BW version certainly makes a bunch nicer thumbnail. I'm surprised at how clean the BW version looks, especially since other SC2->BW ports haven't looked much better like that. Maybe because Cloud Kingdom has more detailing on it that looks pretty smushy in a thumbnail? I never thought it was ugly playing it.
Here's a nice map analysis. It's aimed at the SC2 version, but it's basically the same map, and the analysis is only on expansions and key areas and general-purpose stuff that applies to both games. The purpose of the SC2 map is to punish "SC2" gameplay (1A) and reward BW-style gameplay (splitting your army up to attack from multiple angles), so I'm actually really excited as to how a map designed to reward more BW style and fewer units in a control group and all that work in the actual BW.
I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away.
Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground?
Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps?
Thanks for this, is it ok if I upload this version as the obs map on broodwarmaps.net?
On February 21 2012 14:42 Ribbon wrote: I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away.
Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground?
Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps?
I'll definitely reduce the size of the mains a bit. The mains aren't on high ground because the highest level of terrain on this tileset (the one used to create the wall) is all unbuildable. And yes, I do plan on converting some more maps when I have the time - but first, I'd like to concentrate on editing this one.
So, based on everyone's comments, here's what I need to change: -move 3rd closer to main -make 3rd mineral only (an alternative would be to reduce the amount of gas in the geyser to 1000 or something) -narrow the entrance to the natural -narrow the entrance to the third -make a 3rd gas somehow easier to secure for zerg (assuming the current 3rd is now mineral only)
What I'm thinking right now for the last one is to narrow both chokes to the top left and bottom right bases so you can defend this with lurkers/sunkens more easily, combined with the mineral only creating a situation almost like the top/bottom of Polaris Rhapsody. The problem is that the base might be too far to take as a 3rd gas for zerg.
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open). The advantage of narrowing the ramp by the natural would be that as the game goes on, larger armies would have to push out from progressively farther places (first the natural ramp, then the 3rd ramp, then finally all the way around the winding high ground) - sort of like Aztec minus the winding high ground part. But the advantage of narrowing the ramp by the 3rd would be that it makes it easier to defend, and I do agree that the third is too exposed now. Thoughts?
On February 21 2012 14:42 Ribbon wrote: I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away.
Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground?
Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps?
I'll definitely reduce the size of the mains a bit. The mains aren't on high ground because the highest level of terrain on this tileset (the one used to create the wall) is all unbuildable. And yes, I do plan on converting some more maps when I have the time - but first, I'd like to concentrate on editing this one.
So, based on everyone's comments, here's what I need to change: -move 3rd closer to main -make 3rd mineral only (an alternative would be to reduce the amount of gas in the geyser to 1000 or something) -narrow the entrance to the natural -narrow the entrance to the third -make a 3rd gas somehow easier to secure for zerg (assuming the current 3rd is now mineral only)
What I'm thinking right now for the last one is to narrow both chokes to the top left and bottom right bases so you can defend this with lurkers/sunkens more easily, combined with the mineral only creating a situation almost like the top/bottom of Polaris Rhapsody. The problem is that the base might be too far to take as a 3rd gas for zerg.
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open). The advantage of narrowing the ramp by the natural would be that as the game goes on, larger armies would have to push out from progressively farther places (first the natural ramp, then the 3rd ramp, then finally all the way around the winding high ground) - sort of like Aztec minus the winding high ground part. But the advantage of narrowing the ramp by the 3rd would be that it makes it easier to defend, and I do agree that the third is too exposed now. Thoughts?
If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe?
idk if it'd work. Only map I can think of with a double gas is Longinus.
I'm such a noob at maps.. But is it possible to have the width be shortened a bit? I think that would help bring the third a little closer to the main as well as decrease the size of the main... And this might be just my imagination, but the top ridge is a bit wider than the bottom part of the ridge? yeah the more I look at it, I think it's the just how the ramp's color makes it look wider...
But this map is really aesthetically pleasing ~ :D
But don't listen to me, i'm a noob and I've never analyzed a map...
Thanks for this, is it ok if I upload this version as the obs map on broodwarmaps.net?
On February 21 2012 14:42 Ribbon wrote: I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away.
Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground?
Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps?
I'll definitely reduce the size of the mains a bit. The mains aren't on high ground because the highest level of terrain on this tileset (the one used to create the wall) is all unbuildable. And yes, I do plan on converting some more maps when I have the time - but first, I'd like to concentrate on editing this one.
So, based on everyone's comments, here's what I need to change: -move 3rd closer to main -make 3rd mineral only (an alternative would be to reduce the amount of gas in the geyser to 1000 or something) -narrow the entrance to the natural -narrow the entrance to the third -make a 3rd gas somehow easier to secure for zerg (assuming the current 3rd is now mineral only)
What I'm thinking right now for the last one is to narrow both chokes to the top left and bottom right bases so you can defend this with lurkers/sunkens more easily, combined with the mineral only creating a situation almost like the top/bottom of Polaris Rhapsody. The problem is that the base might be too far to take as a 3rd gas for zerg.
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open). The advantage of narrowing the ramp by the natural would be that as the game goes on, larger armies would have to push out from progressively farther places (first the natural ramp, then the 3rd ramp, then finally all the way around the winding high ground) - sort of like Aztec minus the winding high ground part. But the advantage of narrowing the ramp by the 3rd would be that it makes it easier to defend, and I do agree that the third is too exposed now. Thoughts?
If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe?
idk if it'd work. Only map I can think of with a double gas is Longinus.
Don't forget Outisider!!! That made for some of the most epic games!!! :D
Thanks for this, is it ok if I upload this version as the obs map on broodwarmaps.net?
On February 21 2012 14:42 Ribbon wrote: I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away.
Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground?
Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps?
I'll definitely reduce the size of the mains a bit. The mains aren't on high ground because the highest level of terrain on this tileset (the one used to create the wall) is all unbuildable. And yes, I do plan on converting some more maps when I have the time - but first, I'd like to concentrate on editing this one.
So, based on everyone's comments, here's what I need to change: -move 3rd closer to main -make 3rd mineral only (an alternative would be to reduce the amount of gas in the geyser to 1000 or something) -narrow the entrance to the natural -narrow the entrance to the third -make a 3rd gas somehow easier to secure for zerg (assuming the current 3rd is now mineral only)
What I'm thinking right now for the last one is to narrow both chokes to the top left and bottom right bases so you can defend this with lurkers/sunkens more easily, combined with the mineral only creating a situation almost like the top/bottom of Polaris Rhapsody. The problem is that the base might be too far to take as a 3rd gas for zerg.
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open). The advantage of narrowing the ramp by the natural would be that as the game goes on, larger armies would have to push out from progressively farther places (first the natural ramp, then the 3rd ramp, then finally all the way around the winding high ground) - sort of like Aztec minus the winding high ground part. But the advantage of narrowing the ramp by the 3rd would be that it makes it easier to defend, and I do agree that the third is too exposed now. Thoughts?
If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe?
idk if it'd work. Only map I can think of with a double gas is Longinus.
Odd-eye and Polaris Rhapsody also have this concept with corner double gasses.
On February 21 2012 16:06 Kimaker wrote: If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe?
Won't 3 / 9 be harder to hold than the corner expos?
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open).
I feel like that goes against the original design of the map. The idea is that the really short paths are awkward to get large armies through, and the good attack paths are longer, so you have to spit your army a bit to take advantage of all the flanking opportunities instead of 1Aing your army. BW doesn't have 1a problem for this map to try and fix, but I still think making too many attack paths too good hurts the map's identity a bit. Those paths are awkward on purpose.
I'm excited to give this a shot! Is there a reason that the main is not on a higher ground than the natural? I liked that feature about cloud kingdom sc2 ?
This looks like a terran map, but i haven't played BW in a while so i may be wrong. Nevertheless it looks like an amazing port, infact looks like a BW to SC2 Port. TANKS EVERYWHERE D:
On February 21 2012 20:49 TemujinGK wrote: I'm excited to give this a shot! Is there a reason that the main is not on a higher ground than the natural? I liked that feature about cloud kingdom sc2 ?
BW engine only has two levels of build-able terrain
Im jumping on the bandwagon here to congratulate you to what seems to be a great map,. I think this could play out really nicely. The two problems (already pointed out) is that there are almost no spots for overlords to hover at, its tau cross-ish in that regard so would probably be fine. Also for a Zerg third i think you are better off taking 3/9 with 3 lurkers to guard the reversed ramp there. If you can secure that spot i would make it very hard for T to go all the way around, and would open up some nice backstab opportunities/ opportunity to muta kill the troops from the high ground there to buy time to rearrange lurkers. Submit to kespa!!
On February 21 2012 20:49 TemujinGK wrote: I'm excited to give this a shot! Is there a reason that the main is not on a higher ground than the natural? I liked that feature about cloud kingdom sc2 ?
BW engine only has two levels of build-able terrain
This map looks so much better in BW. I agree somewhat with the difficult third theories. But seriously, with a bit of tweaking it looks like a great map. Something about BW and the liberties you had to take to make it work make it look great.
On February 22 2012 02:04 Duka08 wrote: This map looks so much better in BW. I agree somewhat with the difficult third theories. But seriously, with a bit of tweaking it looks like a great map. Something about BW and the liberties you had to take to make it work make it look great.
Maps in BW just feel like thay have more space, I played a couple of games on CK on sc2, and in ZvP when we both had max armies it just felt cramped, although it is very good for flanks.
On February 21 2012 16:06 Kimaker wrote: If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe?
Won't 3 / 9 be harder to hold than the corner expos?
I wasn't saying specifically the corner expo's, just adding a double gas SOMEWHERE would help to make up for he gas deficiency. That being said, I'm not sure that bases that hard to hold would be viable given modern modes of play. Corners are still pretty far from the natural and would require you to be really spaced out.
On February 21 2012 20:49 TemujinGK wrote: I'm excited to give this a shot! Is there a reason that the main is not on a higher ground than the natural? I liked that feature about cloud kingdom sc2 ?
BW engine only has two levels of build-able terrain
I think its 3 in fact
lower, standard and high ground
But, as OP said, high ground is unbuildable in this tileset.
On February 22 2012 01:20 StarBrift wrote: I just realised how good this design is for BW and how bad it is for sc2 since they can't make maps with tight chokes without breaking the game.
Cloud Kingdom is an ESV Map, got added to the GSL Map Pool, and got added to the official ladder after winning a Team Liquid mapmaking contest. It's pretty good in SC2. The blizzard Typhon Peaks was really bad due to tight chokes where you were supposed to flank from several chokes, but Cloud Kingdom does the concept way better. It's a very succesful and popular map.
On February 22 2012 02:04 Duka08 wrote: This map looks so much better in BW. I agree somewhat with the difficult third theories. But seriously, with a bit of tweaking it looks like a great map. Something about BW and the liberties you had to take to make it work make it look great.
Maps in BW just feel like thay have more space, I played a couple of games on CK on sc2, and in ZvP when we both had max armies it just felt cramped, although it is very good for flanks.
BW maps flat out do have more open space, for various little balance reasons. CK is an unusally cramped map, though.
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open).
I feel like that goes against the original design of the map. The idea is that the really short paths are awkward to get large armies through, and the good attack paths are longer, so you have to spit your army a bit to take advantage of all the flanking opportunities instead of 1Aing your army. BW doesn't have 1a problem for this map to try and fix, but I still think making too many attack paths too good hurts the map's identity a bit. Those paths are awkward on purpose.
Well, with how well SC2 units clump and move up ramps, it's pretty common from what I've seen for players to attack up the ramps to the natural or third in the mid-game (definitely not late-game with maxed armies though).
Right now the natural ramp is width 4 and the third ramp is width 5. I'm considering 2 options right now: 1. Keep the natural ramp width 4 and make the third ramp width 2. This would allow the natural to be attacked into relatively easily but still provide a significant defender's advantage, and the third would basically only be able to be attacked from the side along the winding path aside from very small forces/harassment. 2. Make both natural and third ramps width 3 (this is actually how the SC2 Cloud Kingdom is, but obviously it's easier to attack up those ramps in SC2 than BW). This would make attacking up both ramps possible but very difficult.
Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open).
I feel like that goes against the original design of the map. The idea is that the really short paths are awkward to get large armies through, and the good attack paths are longer, so you have to spit your army a bit to take advantage of all the flanking opportunities instead of 1Aing your army. BW doesn't have 1a problem for this map to try and fix, but I still think making too many attack paths too good hurts the map's identity a bit. Those paths are awkward on purpose.
Well, with how well SC2 units clump and move up ramps, it's pretty common from what I've seen for players to attack up the ramps to the natural or third in the mid-game (definitely not late-game with maxed armies though).
Well, the clumping makes splash damage really dangerous when moving through those ramps.
Right now the natural ramp is width 4 and the third ramp is width 5. I'm considering 2 options right now: 1. Keep the natural ramp width 4 and make the third ramp width 2. This would allow the natural to be attacked into relatively easily but still provide a significant defender's advantage, and the third would basically only be able to be attacked from the side along the winding path aside from very small forces/harassment. 2. Make both natural and third ramps width 3 (this is actually how the SC2 Cloud Kingdom is, but obviously it's easier to attack up those ramps in SC2 than BW). This would make attacking up both ramps possible but very difficult.
I think one of the reasons CK is such a popular map in SC2 is because it forces you to split up your army into squads. It's true that BW units don't clump, but I think it should be easy to attack those ramps in small numbers and hard to attack those ramps in big numbers, requiring you to either split your army or go the long way to attack the third from the side. This is a runby map, a counter map, and a flanking map, and I'd like the BW version to stay true to that as much as possible.
On February 22 2012 11:19 Ribbon wrote: I think one of the reasons CK is such a popular map in SC2 is because it forces you to split up your army into squads. It's true that BW units don't clump, but I think it should be easy to attack those ramps in small numbers and hard to attack those ramps in big numbers, requiring you to either split your army or go the long way to attack the third from the side. This is a runby map, a counter map, and a flanking map, and I'd like the BW version to stay true to that as much as possible.
I like how, at least in the first game, you turtled on 200/200, and then the protoss made a bad engagement, and then you just kinda walked across the map to victory. Just like in real SC2!
I'm legit curious to see if high level BW resembles SC2 more on these SC2 ports. That game was the first time I watched a BW game and went "Wow, if this were SC2, there'd be a lot more going on". I mean, obviously, you're not a professional and it was your first time on the map etc etc etc etc etc., but it just makes me more excited about having a BW tournament on these ports. I really want to see how the different games differ on the same maps like this.
Updated the map a bit. No major changes, I'll modify it slowly and get people's opinions with each step - basically I'd like to change it as little from the original as possible while still balancing it a bit.
Changes: -3rd moved slightly closer to main -Gas in 3rd geyser reduced from 5000 to 1500 (I know several suggested making 3rd mineral only, I wanted to test out this less drastic change first) -Natural ramp narrowed from 4 to 3 width, destructible building removed -Third ramp narrowed from 5 to 3 width, destructible building added (to help defend early pushes) -Side (high ground) entrance to third narrowed -Both entrances to corner expansions narrowed (ramp from 3 to 2 width)
Just out of curiosity, what if there were two Power Generators side by side on the second ramp blocking it off completely? That way the player would only have to concentrate on two fronts rather than three like most maps.
And what about a mineral only on the high ground between 3 and 5 o clock expo and 9 and 11 o clock expo? Would that be a bad spot? Change the map too much?
I'm not suggesting only asking, since I am a map maker too ...albeit not a very good one -_-
I actually like this version a lot more than the original sc2 version, it's a lot easier on the eyes in my opinion. By the way, I agree with the sentiment that the third, as in the one bordering the main, should be a mineral only. This makes me curious as to why sc2 maps don't use high ground as LoS blockers such as in brood war.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E5Mjj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ANdCS.jpg)
the only issue i feel is that the third should be min only and the natural opening should be slightly narrower.
