[M] (4) Omnivium by prodiG - Page 4
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
| ||
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On June 29 2012 08:37 Existor wrote: Cliff near 3rd? Like Lost Temple? You really want same mistake? Except that cliff was over the natural. Usually by the time you take a 3rd you have the units or infrastructure to be able to defend a drop. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On June 29 2012 08:22 NewSunshine wrote: There's also something to be said for designing a map knowing full well it will need spawn restrictions. Metropolis was specifically designed this way, and it's something we almost never do. Like I said, forcing spawns is not just about bad design, it can also be an element of good design. Forcing spawns to "fix" a map is stupid. You can always just redesign your map, and we're not so hard up for maps that we need to make do with half-measures, even though it seems to go that way. Suggesting forced cross positions on a 4player rotational is like saying: "I think your car would be better as a wagon, let's just take out the engine." Anything with 4 wheels on 2 axles would suffice, it makes no sense. | ||
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On June 29 2012 08:22 NewSunshine wrote: There's also something to be said for designing a map knowing full well it will need spawn restrictions. Metropolis was specifically designed this way, and it's something we almost never do. Like I said, forcing spawns is not just about bad design, it can also be an element of good design. Oops, I thought you said Metalopolis: + Show Spoiler + Lol... metalopolis was not designed to be cross only. It was so fucked up in close ground postions that they disabled them. Tournaments decided close air was imbalanced too, so they made it cross and additionally removed the golds. The map was NOT designed well. You might as well have designed the two other mains in cross position to be more interesting and promote harassment instead of just having a gigantic main wasting a quarter of the map space. Anyway on Metropolis: Again, I think this map wasn't designed well. First of all its basically a 2p map because the cross spawns are so similar (not even using different parts of the map like Antiga). Second there are 5 easy bases and a wasted main that is caused by the symmetry. Other than the terrible layout, the two useless mains could be redesigned to use the space more efficiently and discourage turtling (yay 200/200 deathballs 5k min 5k gas in the bank every game and nowhere to harass). My only exception for cross spawns is when you have a 2-in-1 map like the TPW map and Superouman's map he made in the sc2 beta (I forgot both of the map names). | ||
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 29 2012 09:28 EatThePath wrote: Forcing spawns to "fix" a map is stupid. You can always just redesign your map, and we're not so hard up for maps that we need to make do with half-measures, even though it seems to go that way. Suggesting forced cross positions on a 4player rotational is like saying: "I think your car would be better as a wagon, let's just take out the engine." Anything with 4 wheels on 2 axles would suffice, it makes no sense. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can design a map that takes advantage of forced spawns, to achieve layouts that are otherwise impossible. The obvious example here is 2-in-1 maps, but I think there's more to it than that. I agree with the notion with regard to normal rotational maps, however. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
Changelog - v1.1 -Added a ramp to the cliff overlooking the 3rd. This is to counter harassment from drops and air units and make the expansion more defensible. -Added a short, narrow bridge connecting the main base to the 4th expansion. This is for units like Blink Stalkers and Reapers/Colossus to have easier access in and out of the main base, but is narrow enough to be easily defended against things like aggressive blink play or elevatoring units into the main base. - pic See OP for more details! | ||
garlicface
Canada4196 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
In my quest to solve this problem way back on Blockbuster (TL map contest), I wound up utilizing the alpha-braxis rocks in a ring around the tower since they have an AI that allows them to be broken together as if they were all one unit. | ||
oOOoOphidian
United States1402 Posts
| ||
![]()
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
![]() | ||
FroznSmoke
Germany8 Posts
| ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On July 18 2012 06:16 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: So here's a quick question: do your rock/towers actually work as intended? I assume that you want the tower to only be activated if the rock is broken, right? But those look like 6x6 rocks which, as I've tested before and did again just now to confirm, are not quite large enough to prevent the tower activation (2.5 radius) by any ground unit M-moving to the rock. Did you modify the rock size, the tower capture radius, or do something else (, or does it actually not work as intended -- yet)? (No, I have not opened up the map on B.net yet to see what is actually the case.) In my quest to solve this problem way back on Blockbuster (TL map contest), I wound up utilizing the alpha-braxis rocks in a ring around the tower since they have an AI that allows them to be broken together as if they were all one unit. I dropped the tower capture radius down to 1.5 (might have been 1?) - I don't see this as posing any issues since anyone who wants to take the Tower will just right click the tower anyway (I looked quite heavily at this when I was designing the original Destructible Xel'Naga tower on Destiny last year) On July 18 2012 06:42 FroznSmoke wrote: Is there the possibility of this map being uploaded to the eu server? Even though it is still in beta i would like to play the map. I can look into this ;D On July 18 2012 06:34 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: your posts are so beautiful josh ![]() Not as beautiful as your face, Steve ![]() | ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
![]() | ||
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
Look at it this way: In PvZ it is hard enough as it is to secure a third, why would you lessen the gains from finally achieving this? Protoss basically has no reason to do anything but 2 base builds because the 3rd with normal geysers is too hard to hold, and the 3rd with 1 geyser doesn't pay off. Another example: In PvT you need AoE or you lose. In PvT you typically get colossus first, which can be done on 2 bases. Once Vikings are fielded, you are in the process of getting your 3rd so you can also make Templar to be able to fight cost-effectively; this map cuts your ability to win in the later stages of the game because the lack of gas makes useful unit counts (either HT or Colossus or Stalkers) lower compared to Terran, who has other ways to mitigate the lack of a 6th geyser on the easy 3rd. | ||
oOOoOphidian
United States1402 Posts
On July 18 2012 07:22 tehemperorer wrote: As Protoss player I see restricting the proper 3rd to only 1 geyser is pretty much a red flag to veto the map. There's really no reason for that, just like there's no reason to place rocks on the third. Thoughts? What is the reasoning behind restricting the easy third to 1 geyser? Look at it this way: In PvZ it is hard enough as it is to secure a third, why would you lessen the gains from finally achieving this? Protoss basically has no reason to do anything but 2 base builds because the 3rd with normal geysers is too hard to hold, and the 3rd with 1 geyser doesn't pay off. Another example: In PvT you need AoE or you lose. In PvT you typically get colossus first, which can be done on 2 bases. Once Vikings are fielded, you are in the process of getting your 3rd so you can also make Templar to be able to fight cost-effectively; this map cuts your ability to win in the later stages of the game because the lack of gas makes useful unit counts (either HT or Colossus or Stalkers) lower compared to Terran, who has other ways to mitigate the lack of a 6th geyser on the easy 3rd. The third base here is extremely easy to secure. You can just camp your army and defend all three bases from ground units. The reduced gas makes it so you can't just sit there on 3 base and get a ridiculous gas army with no danger or effort required. Even entombed valley has a harder to defend 3rd/natural, as you have to split your army. Also, you read the map description in the OP, right? What you are complaining about is the entire purpose of the map. This will probably be a good map for terran as you said, with less need for the gas and difficulty dealing with 6-8 geyser zerg and protoss. Given how terran is having many problems in this patch, introducing a map that changes some things up would be great and it's not at all as terran favored as Antiga. | ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On July 18 2012 07:22 tehemperorer wrote: As Protoss player I see restricting the proper 3rd to only 1 geyser is pretty much a red flag to veto the map. There's really no reason for that, just like there's no reason to place rocks on the third. Thoughts? What is the reasoning behind restricting the easy third to 1 geyser? Look at it this way: In PvZ it is hard enough as it is to secure a third, why would you lessen the gains from finally achieving this? Protoss basically has no reason to do anything but 2 base builds because the 3rd with normal geysers is too hard to hold, and the 3rd with 1 geyser doesn't pay off. Another example: In PvT you need AoE or you lose. In PvT you typically get colossus first, which can be done on 2 bases. Once Vikings are fielded, you are in the process of getting your 3rd so you can also make Templar to be able to fight cost-effectively; this map cuts your ability to win in the later stages of the game because the lack of gas makes useful unit counts (either HT or Colossus or Stalkers) lower compared to Terran, who has other ways to mitigate the lack of a 6th geyser on the easy 3rd. The concept of the map is that if you want more than five geysers, you have to move out on the map and take the middle expansions. In order to secure them, you have to position your army aggressively, as opposed to straddling your three bases right up next to your main base. Nothing says you have to take the 5m1g expansion at all, let alone as your 3rd (I personally take it as my 4th usually). I simply don't have enough testing data yet to be able to say for certain whether the 3rds as they are are a distinct problem. | ||
nicotn
Netherlands186 Posts
| ||
| ||