EPTI was about to leave a critique, when I realized I had yet to actually play it. That's about as far as this story goes, as I can't seem to get a game running. Is there a chat channel for testing these custom maps? I could spend hours on these things, if for no other reason than that they're new and look pretty.
[M] (4) Omnivium by prodiG - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
I was about to leave a critique, when I realized I had yet to actually play it. That's about as far as this story goes, as I can't seem to get a game running. Is there a chat channel for testing these custom maps? I could spend hours on these things, if for no other reason than that they're new and look pretty. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 27 2012 03:23 FlaShFTW wrote: xD yeah, was most balanced map ever. Oh, you know, now that I think that was a 6m1g map wasn't it? Somebody tell Icetoad we need an 8m2g version! | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On June 27 2012 03:46 Kmatt wrote: Well, if anyone here wants to playtest this (or most any other map, for that matter) with me, feel free to message me (Kmatt.705) on NA. Try channel ESVTV 8) | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
"ESV" not "ESVTV". | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On June 27 2012 07:05 Sumadin wrote: Can a siege tank on the center leages reach the mineral lines on the fourth? Seems very close to me. Not quite, they have to sit on the low ground | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10218 Posts
On June 27 2012 07:05 Sumadin wrote: Can a siege tank on the center leages reach the mineral lines on the fourth? Seems very close to me. exactly why i suggest the minerals be rotated 180 degrees. | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On June 27 2012 07:09 FlaShFTW wrote: exactly why i suggest the minerals be rotated 180 degrees. ...The idea is that they can be hit from the lowground if you lose control of the tower. Controlling the tower means you need a forward position on the map with your army, otherwise you put a relatively high-value expansion at risk. This goes completely against the concept~ | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10218 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On June 27 2012 07:40 FlaShFTW wrote: but what im saying is that if a player obtains map control, they would completely shutdown any attempts of a 4th from the opponent. that would just snowball out of control. You'd have to give the person without map control a bit of a chance to come back. That's why you counterattack to make them leave the center while you put your base in. Or just go to the side expos. It's not that different in terms of difficulty compared to most maps to get that 3rd/4th. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10218 Posts
| ||
|
FlukyS
Ireland485 Posts
| ||
|
Damrak
Netherlands124 Posts
| ||
|
shadogi
United States194 Posts
| ||
|
oOOoOphidian
United States1402 Posts
I also love the 1 gas 3rd base. This map forces players to make decisions about what bases to take, without being unreasonably hard like Antiga. I wouldn't worry about the ledge above the third, it looks like you can't drop units on it. | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On June 27 2012 08:49 oOOoOphidian wrote: Finally a map where blink/obs isn't stupidly powerful PvT. I also love the 1 gas 3rd base. This map forces players to make decisions about what bases to take, without being unreasonably hard like Antiga. I wouldn't worry about the ledge above the third, it looks like you can't drop units on it. You can drop units on it. This is fully intended - If you want a safe 3rd/4th expansion, you have to position your army aggressively and use things like static defense. | ||
|
oOOoOphidian
United States1402 Posts
On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote: You can drop units on it. This is fully intended - If you want a safe 3rd/4th expansion, you have to position your army aggressively and use things like static defense. Static defense against tanks up there/etc? Not sure how that helps. I think there should be a path up there to make it accessible for defense. It can basically force tech paths like zerg will need mutas etc. and that's never good for map design. If you're trying to say you have to 2 base all-in so that you can secure a 3rd against harassment, that's equally silly as players can play overall defensively while harassing that base. I don't like this feature at all, it's an otherwise good map. Why not design it more like Condemned Ridge's 3rd? That allows for strong strategies without being absurd. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10218 Posts
On June 27 2012 10:02 oOOoOphidian wrote: Static defense against tanks up there/etc? Not sure how that helps. I think there should be a path up there to make it accessible for defense. It can basically force tech paths like zerg will need mutas etc. and that's never good for map design. If you're trying to say you have to 2 base all-in so that you can secure a 3rd against harassment, that's equally silly as players can play overall defensively while harassing that base. I don't like this feature at all, it's an otherwise good map. Why not design it more like Condemned Ridge's 3rd? That allows for strong strategies without being absurd. force you to tech differently and think of the bases you are going to take. as zerg, you might have to get mutas instead of destiny styled mass ling infestor. but zerg late game will need greater spire tech anyways. so why not? EDIT: basically, if you dont like the base, dont take it. be flexible about your options, and if you are a good player, you can position your army right to take those 4ths. | ||
| ||
