• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:36
CEST 11:36
KST 18:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20257Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202576RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced21BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time I offer completely free coaching services Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships?
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 729 users

[M] (4) Omnivium by prodiG

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
Normal
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-17 17:43:57
June 26 2012 06:28 GMT
#1
Omnivium by prodiG
After several months of hard work I've finally finished Omnivium. I started this project back in April, and here we are now at the end of June. Omnivium is a 4 player rotational symmetry map named after the song Vortex Omnivium by Obscura. The map's main concept is to heavily use high ground and LOS blockers throughout all of the congestion points in the map, and force players to position their armies aggressively in order to hold the central double gas expansions.


Map is currently published for testing on NA as "Omnivium BETA - prodiG"

[image loading]
Click here for angled overview


Omnivium evolved from my extreme distaste for the vast majority of current tournament map pools. The maps that they are comprised of, are - for the most part - stale, uninteresting and lack innovation. I wanted to do something that was somewhat fresh. A map that forced players to push out from their bases to secure more expansions (duh!) and position their armies very strategically in order to control the center bases with the double gas. I had originally designed it around using Destructible Xel'Naga Towers, but decided Testbug-style Xel'Naga Towers would be the best fit here. No spawns are blocked (because that is dumb)

The aesthetic concept stemmed from my desire to re-use the tileset and doodad style I used on Neo Enigma and Edge of Oblivion. The idea I followed was that the map was a Xel'Naga landmark with several devices and structures left behind, with the Terrans establishing a small foothold within the infrastructure and using it to perform tests on other species. The structure in the middle of the map emits a green glow so strong the ground below is torched and dried out.

Features

-LOS Blockers - These are designed to break up death balls and force players to move their armies a little more conservatively and strategically as opposed to just taking a deathball and 1a-ing around
-Testbug-style Xel'Naga Towers - The Xel'Naga Towers will provide vision beyond the LOS blockers and above the high ground pods, as well as allow you to harass the double gas expansions from the lowground if you control one near your opponent's expansion. Early game, they serve to choke up the middle and can be broken later to widen things up and give more map control
-Defensive rocks on the natural ramp - this is to make the natural a tad easier to defend from all-ins in the early game. The rocks are exposed to the lowground side, so ranged units can still snipe it!
-5m1g third expansion with overlooking cliff to harass - The idea of the map is for players to push out to get gas. The 3rd expansions are very very easy to hold by ground, but do not provide a huge economical advantage, and are very susceptible to drops and air harass. The cliff has a ramp leading up to it to counter harassment as of version 1.1.
-Cliffwalk/Blink bridge into main base - The main base is connected to the 4th by a small bridge. This is to allow units such as Blink stalkers to get in and out of their main base to more easily defend mutalisk harass, and act as a patio for Reapers and Colossus to get around easier - pic


Info

Number of Players: 4
Map Size: 158x158
Tileset: Shakuras, Ulaan, Zhakul'Das
Main to Main (ramp) - Close Pos: 45sec ingame45
Main to Main (ramp) - Cross Pos: 58sec ingame
Nat to Nat (choke) - Close Pos: 34sec ingame
Nat to Nat (choke) - Cross Pos: 45sec ingame
Number of Expansions: 8x 8m2g, 4x 5m1g, 4x 7m2g
Number of Xel'Naga Towers: 4, blocked by Destructible Rocks
Published as: Omnivium by prodiG


Changelog

v1.1 - Added ramps onto the cliffs overlooking the 3rd expansions as well as bridges for Blink Stalkers & Cliffwalkers to get in and out of the main bases easier.
v1.0 - First release! Testing pending before it becomes an official ESV map.

Aesthetics & Details
Click here for imgur album
+ Show Spoiler [Aesthetics] +

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]


A note from the author
Please check out my website http://www.prodiGsc.com - I've recently relaunched it! I've been casting Shootmania, a new upcoming FPS title similar to Quake as well as playing plenty of other games alongside SC2 and launching my consulting company eGeek Consulting. Go take a look, and while you're at it follow me on twitter <3
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-26 06:36:19
June 26 2012 06:36 GMT
#2
I derped and quoted my post instead of editing. >_>
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
ihasaKAROT
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Netherlands4730 Posts
June 26 2012 06:48 GMT
#3
Why did you make the texturing such a 'hard' transition on for example the expansions? Theres a pretty clear line between the dirtycreep and the tiles atm. If its dirt it should be more smudged in my opinion...

Thats just nitpicking tho since the rest of the map is perfect as usual
KCCO!
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 26 2012 06:49 GMT
#4
On June 26 2012 15:48 ihasaKAROT wrote:
Why did you make the texturing such a 'hard' transition on for example the expansions? Theres a pretty clear line between the dirtycreep and the tiles atm. If its dirt it should be more smudged in my opinion...

Thats just nitpicking tho since the rest of the map is perfect as usual

Because the tiles are supposed to go over top of the dirt! It looks much cleaner in game, of course~
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
dimfish
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States663 Posts
June 26 2012 08:46 GMT
#5
I'm a fan!

The semi-third is just right where safe players are happy to take it, greedier players will get out on the map for a better base.

Then I consider how to attack someone who kills the closest rock for a tower and tries to sit back on 2.5 base, and I like that the full thirds on high ground also serve as excellent alternate attack paths, just skirting the tower range.

One suggestion: the small high-ground ridges in the center I think are a bit too big and subtract a lot from the center. Would you consider squeezing them one ramp-unit skinnier? And I would flatten not the "outside" where the chasm line touches but the "inside". I mean you've got the rock/towers presenting some chokiness already. Or maybe its fine... blah, I want to see some games on it!
Sumadin
Profile Joined August 2011
Denmark588 Posts
June 26 2012 09:34 GMT
#6
It is a sad day to be a reaper. Think you could extend the area on the fourth so that it makes contact with the borders of the main?

I dig the base layout(through only 5 min on third might be a tad too little) but the center puzzles me. I am not a fan of Xel'naga towers you can't bypass and while it technically is possible here it is very small area and it takes a long time to bypass them all. I guess that is what the rocks are for. The patches of highground in the center also puzzles me. What are they for?
The basic key to beating a priest is playing a deck that is terrible.
lost_artz
Profile Joined January 2012
United States366 Posts
June 26 2012 10:13 GMT
#7
I can't remember the name of the map but this reminds me of a map that I believe was from the map contest last year. Very similar layout overall.

The only criticism I have is that the 4ths look a bit out of place on those large high-ground areas.

Also I can't decide via map overview those blue-ish fissures/streams by each 4th un-path-able?
OxyGenesis
Profile Joined May 2012
United Kingdom281 Posts
June 26 2012 11:14 GMT
#8
On June 26 2012 19:13 lost_artz wrote:
I can't remember the name of the map but this reminds me of a map that I believe was from the map contest last year. Very similar layout overall.

The only criticism I have is that the 4ths look a bit out of place on those large high-ground areas.

Also I can't decide via map overview those blue-ish fissures/streams by each 4th un-path-able?


Are you thinking of Darkness Falls perchance?

I like a lot of the ideas that are being explored in this map. My only worry is that in PvZ it encourages 2/2.5 base all ins as the 3rd is only a half base and the 4th is really hard to hold when the opposition has the Xel'Naga. How much HP do the destructible rocks covering the Xel'Nagas have?
Maker of Maps inc. Vector, Uncanny Valley and Fissure | Co-Founder of SC2Melee.net
Sea_Food
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Finland1612 Posts
June 26 2012 12:13 GMT
#9
Why is the attack path in close positions much more tight and much harder to surround than in cross position?

prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 26 2012 15:02 GMT
#10
On June 26 2012 18:34 Sumadin wrote:
It is a sad day to be a reaper. Think you could extend the area on the fourth so that it makes contact with the borders of the main?

I dig the base layout(through only 5 min on third might be a tad too little) but the center puzzles me. I am not a fan of Xel'naga towers you can't bypass and while it technically is possible here it is very small area and it takes a long time to bypass them all. I guess that is what the rocks are for. The patches of highground in the center also puzzles me. What are they for?

I did it like this to avoid Blink Stalker and Medivac abuse (think Antiga Shipyard)

On June 26 2012 19:13 lost_artz wrote:
I can't remember the name of the map but this reminds me of a map that I believe was from the map contest last year. Very similar layout overall.

The only criticism I have is that the 4ths look a bit out of place on those large high-ground areas.

Also I can't decide via map overview those blue-ish fissures/streams by each 4th un-path-able?

That area is also doubling as an attack path, I wanted to have it wide enough for players to move their army through if they had an expansion there.

On June 26 2012 21:13 Sea_Food wrote:
Why is the attack path in close positions much more tight and much harder to surround than in cross position?


Depends where you're trying to surround, I guess. Lots of space to do it below either natural expansion, or near the 4th's. Doing it near the chokes as you might imagine is a bad idea...
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
SidianTheBard
Profile Joined October 2010
United States2474 Posts
June 26 2012 15:44 GMT
#11
Most of these things I'm pointing out I could easily test myself by logging into sc2. But I'm not actually around my desktop so I'm unable to do that. So instead I'll ask here so you can easily double check!

Make sure 4th's outter gas doesn't take 4 workers to saturate.
Make sure XWT can't get activated with the rocks still there. I know on one of my older maps I had to lower the activation range on the towers to make them not work when 6x6 rocks are on them.
Those little cliffs in the middle between the 2 high ground pieces.....best part about this map!

Picture to understand what I mean.
+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading]


My final concern itself is mainly about the watchtowers. Are they really needed? With them all being blocked by d-rocks the likelyhood of anyone breaking them down early is very slim. Zerg almost make no units to break them down, Protoss won't want to push out to break them down until they get a big enough army. I suppose Terran could, but depending on the matchups a few hellions and/or marines would take forever to break them down.

End game though, all they will serve is a point where Deathballs are going to stand because of the positioning of them, especially with the high ground platforms right next to them.

I know a lot of people hate the lone single XWT exactly in the middle but I think that might be best here. Get rid of the 4 you have now, remove that doodad in the middle and just put the XWT in the middle. No d-rocks on it though. Now it'll give early game vision of all the paths in the middle and thus you can defend easier against 1-2 base all-ins because you'll be able to scout it if they push through the middle. Yet it still won't give vision if you decide to sneak all the way around the edges. (assuming cross positions anyway)

Also, the map still looks amazing, but aesthetically it feels a little lackluster compared to many of your other creations.
Creator of Abyssal Reef, Ascension to Aiur, Battle on the Boardwalk, Habitation Station, Honorgrounds, IPL Darkness Falls, King's Cove, Korhal Carnage Knockout & Moonlight Madness.
TheFish7
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United States2824 Posts
June 26 2012 15:52 GMT
#12
Nice work prodiG! I am really digging the middle, the low ground dead-end surrounded by LOSBs that can shoot up to the 4th is pretty clever. I also like the half base 3rd, I want to see how games play out with this setup.

Since these are the TL forums, I must criticize something ;-) - so I'll also criticize the 4ths not "touching" the mains, sure it limits medivac/blink abuse, but it will make it harder to defend mutas w blink stalkers and give brood lords ideal dead air to it in.
~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
June 26 2012 15:58 GMT
#13
Simplying beautiful. I expected nothing less from you prodig.

I think you need to switch the mineral placement of the 4ths. If a player gets map control, they can control every 4th by just harassing from the low ground areas, giving them even more control on the map.
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-26 16:14:25
June 26 2012 16:13 GMT
#14
On June 27 2012 00:44 SidianTheBard wrote:
Most of these things I'm pointing out I could easily test myself by logging into sc2. But I'm not actually around my desktop so I'm unable to do that. So instead I'll ask here so you can easily double check!

Make sure 4th's outter gas doesn't take 4 workers to saturate.
Make sure XWT can't get activated with the rocks still there. I know on one of my older maps I had to lower the activation range on the towers to make them not work when 6x6 rocks are on them.
Those little cliffs in the middle between the 2 high ground pieces.....best part about this map!

Picture to understand what I mean.
+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading]


My final concern itself is mainly about the watchtowers. Are they really needed? With them all being blocked by d-rocks the likelyhood of anyone breaking them down early is very slim. Zerg almost make no units to break them down, Protoss won't want to push out to break them down until they get a big enough army. I suppose Terran could, but depending on the matchups a few hellions and/or marines would take forever to break them down.

End game though, all they will serve is a point where Deathballs are going to stand because of the positioning of them, especially with the high ground platforms right next to them.

I know a lot of people hate the lone single XWT exactly in the middle but I think that might be best here. Get rid of the 4 you have now, remove that doodad in the middle and just put the XWT in the middle. No d-rocks on it though. Now it'll give early game vision of all the paths in the middle and thus you can defend easier against 1-2 base all-ins because you'll be able to scout it if they push through the middle. Yet it still won't give vision if you decide to sneak all the way around the edges. (assuming cross positions anyway)

Also, the map still looks amazing, but aesthetically it feels a little lackluster compared to many of your other creations.

I haven't tested everything in-game yet, but my editor testmode tests have shown that none of the potential issues you're describing exist.

The towers are necessary because they provide vision of the 4th expansions. The point of the map is that if you want more than 5 geysers, you need to move out into the middle of the map and position your army a bit farther forward. Losing the tower below your 4th means that ranged units will harass the expanion.

Aesthetically, I went for a more standardized theme here as opposed to my usual explosive amount of doodads, to try and avoid performance problems and bugs that make me look like an idiot in front of 52 thousand people.

On June 27 2012 00:52 TheFish7 wrote:
Nice work prodiG! I am really digging the middle, the low ground dead-end surrounded by LOSBs that can shoot up to the 4th is pretty clever. I also like the half base 3rd, I want to see how games play out with this setup.

Since these are the TL forums, I must criticize something ;-) - so I'll also criticize the 4ths not "touching" the mains, sure it limits medivac/blink abuse, but it will make it harder to defend mutas w blink stalkers and give brood lords ideal dead air to it in.

The current metagame has shown me that medivac harass quickly dropping on one side and then the other is more of a problem than keeping a few units back to deal with things like muta harass, which is why I decided to go this way as opposed to keeping it flush. It's the lesser of two evils, imo.

That said, the whole "Zerg > All" status quo atm might make me change my mind. I'll keep an eye on it.

On June 27 2012 00:58 FlaShFTW wrote:
Simplying beautiful. I expected nothing less from you prodig.

I think you need to switch the mineral placement of the 4ths. If a player gets map control, they can control every 4th by just harassing from the low ground areas, giving them even more control on the map.

That's the idea! :D
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
iTzSnypah
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States1738 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-26 16:29:38
June 26 2012 16:18 GMT
#15
Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.

EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.
Team Liquid needs more Terrans.
FoolieCoolie
Profile Joined November 2010
Serbia71 Posts
June 26 2012 16:38 GMT
#16
On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:
Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large.
EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.


But we like big maps :D
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
June 26 2012 17:31 GMT
#17
I have to say I think this is definitely your most successful attempt to create a map that pushes beyond the current safe mapping metagame. This is the kind of mapping we need. ;D

I have a feeling the ledges above the half base might prove imba for competitive play. It's pretty rough that marine drop can hit every patch. Of course it remains to be seen, and I hope they aren't. Maybe a ramp blocked by rocks? Or just narrower so they are harder to abuse (less space to avoid defenders on the low ground). I'm curious if you've tested it / what you think. Regardless, it's really cool that you can skip that base in some matchups/positions anyway.

Also I agree that flush cliff between main and 4th would be preferable, as a protoss.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
June 26 2012 17:32 GMT
#18
On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:
Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.

EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.

so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war?
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
June 26 2012 18:18 GMT
#19
On June 27 2012 02:32 FlaShFTW wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:
Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.

EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.

so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war?

We've got TPW Frostfang, don't we?
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
June 26 2012 18:23 GMT
#20
On June 27 2012 03:18 NewSunshine wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 02:32 FlaShFTW wrote:
On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:
Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.

EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.

so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war?

We've got TPW Frostfang, don't we?

xD yeah, was most balanced map ever.
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
Kmatt
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1019 Posts
June 26 2012 18:24 GMT
#21
You know, I almost always open up all the maps in the little sidepane that have names I don't recognize every time I'm check TL. I usually cycle through the tabs, looking at the overviews. Every so often I see interesting ones, usually maps with clever aesthetics or something that I leave a comment on. Then there's this. These are the cleverly built maps that actually look fun to play. Bravo, sir.

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.
We CAN have nice things
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
June 26 2012 18:25 GMT
#22
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!
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
WniO
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2706 Posts
June 26 2012 18:40 GMT
#23
some of the stuff works really well like the green lighting in areas, but i dont dig those diagonal tiles... maybe make them more visible or just oust them.
Kmatt
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1019 Posts
June 26 2012 18:46 GMT
#24
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.
We CAN have nice things
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 26 2012 21:04 GMT
#25
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)
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Diamond
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States10796 Posts
June 26 2012 21:17 GMT
#26
On June 27 2012 06:04 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
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)


"ESV" not "ESVTV".
Ballistix Gaming Global Gaming/Esports Marketing Manager - twitter.com/esvdiamond
Sumadin
Profile Joined August 2011
Denmark588 Posts
June 26 2012 22:05 GMT
#27
Can a siege tank on the center leages reach the mineral lines on the fourth? Seems very close to me.
The basic key to beating a priest is playing a deck that is terrible.
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 26 2012 22:07 GMT
#28
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
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
June 26 2012 22:09 GMT
#29
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.
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 26 2012 22:34 GMT
#30
On June 27 2012 07:09 FlaShFTW wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

...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~
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
June 26 2012 22:40 GMT
#31
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.
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
June 26 2012 22:48 GMT
#32
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.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
June 26 2012 22:53 GMT
#33
meh, i feel like tanks in the middle can still harass like crazy.
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
FlukyS
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Ireland485 Posts
June 26 2012 23:16 GMT
#34
Looks like a hard map against FF or tanks with all them chokes.
Damrak
Profile Joined January 2012
Netherlands124 Posts
June 26 2012 23:19 GMT
#35
It certainly has the looks imo, maybe too many chokes for zergs, but im not sure though
shadogi
Profile Joined November 2011
United States194 Posts
June 26 2012 23:36 GMT
#36
The ledge above the third burns my eyes.
oOOoOphidian
Profile Joined January 2011
United States1402 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-26 23:52:54
June 26 2012 23:49 GMT
#37
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.
Creator of sc2unmasked.com
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 27 2012 00:40 GMT
#38
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.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
oOOoOphidian
Profile Joined January 2011
United States1402 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-27 01:04:41
June 27 2012 01:02 GMT
#39
On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

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.
Creator of sc2unmasked.com
FlaShFTW
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States10154 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-27 01:07:56
June 27 2012 01:07 GMT
#40
On June 27 2012 10:02 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote:
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.

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.
Writer#1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget || Teamliquid Political Decision Desk
TL+ Member
oOOoOphidian
Profile Joined January 2011
United States1402 Posts
June 27 2012 01:15 GMT
#41
On June 27 2012 10:07 FlaShFTW wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 10:02 oOOoOphidian wrote:
On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote:
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.

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.

If people don't like the map, they won't play it. Designing maps to invalidate entire tech paths is bad design. This is actually a serious issue. Yes it's good to get variety in maps, but not at the cost of pidgeonholing races into doing one thing every single time. Antiga Shipyard is a bad map for similar reasons.
Creator of sc2unmasked.com
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 27 2012 01:21 GMT
#42
On June 27 2012 10:15 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 10:07 FlaShFTW wrote:
On June 27 2012 10:02 oOOoOphidian wrote:
On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote:
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.

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.

If people don't like the map, they won't play it. Designing maps to invalidate entire tech paths is bad design. This is actually a serious issue. Yes it's good to get variety in maps, but not at the cost of pidgeonholing races into doing one thing every single time. Antiga Shipyard is a bad map for similar reasons.

And you can establish all of this by looking at some pictures or do you have some replays to show me? Evidence to support your claims = I will make changes
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
June 27 2012 02:26 GMT
#43
On June 27 2012 10:15 oOOoOphidian wrote:
If people don't like the map, they won't play it. Designing maps to invalidate entire tech paths is bad design. This is actually a serious issue. Yes it's good to get variety in maps, but not at the cost of pidgeonholing races into doing one thing every single time. Antiga Shipyard is a bad map for similar reasons.

I don't see how Zerg's will be forced into Spire tech because of the ledge, that just seems like theorycrafting based off a first impression to me. A zerg can simply park an overlord nearby to get vision, and if they have any lair tech at all, they should be able to defend with their units. In fact, all 3 races should be able to adequately hold that base against harassment, provided they've teched up enough. I think that's actually rather clever. How this will actually hold up in real games, though, has yet to be seen.

However, I don't think it's a terrible idea to add a ramp. It might not be necessary though, and it might not be what you intend for the map, prodiG.

As to what I think about the map though, I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason I don't like it that much. The concept - having to push forward, and secure map control, is sound, but it just comes off as bland to me for some reason, perhaps uninspired. I hope for the sake of the map that it's more interesting/fun in-game. This is all my opinion though, as most everyone else seems to like it a lot. It just happens to look sorta like a handful of my own WIP's which I've scrapped, which doesn't sit quite right with me. If that doesn't make any sense to you, that's fine, I'm just expressing my view. Take it or leave it.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
Zenon
Profile Joined December 2011
United Kingdom66 Posts
June 27 2012 02:33 GMT
#44
I like the map, you've done a really good job in my opinion.

As has already been said, you could make changes to open up options for Reaper play, but other than that, well done!
@focus_Zenon
SCII-ALI
Profile Joined October 2011
28 Posts
June 27 2012 03:11 GMT
#45
pretty sick map, but i feel like this map is so hard to take fourth for zerg..
Actionfigurejesus
Profile Joined April 2012
United States38 Posts
June 27 2012 03:23 GMT
#46
As a Zerg player, I think I would veto this immediately. the main and natural are easy to defend (which is usually a bad thing since securing 2 bases is nice for the other races, but doesn't do much for zerg), the 3rd on the right has high ground behind it with no ramp making it impossible to secure and extremely easy to abuse with drops and/or tanks. You could choose to take the 3rd in front of your main, but the base is sitting right on the edge toward the middle of the map exposing your workers. Plus the 2 ramps coming from either side make it otherwise difficult to secure (The two ramps aren't that unusual though, so not really a big deal here).

I do kinda like the middle of the map though, kinda interesting. Might host some good games for non-zerg matchups (although admittedly, I'm no expert on those). I'm just saying as a zerg player, I'd probably have to veto it since I see way too many super-abusive opportunities that I wouldn't know how to deal with.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No." -Rorschach
insaner
Profile Joined June 2011
United States3 Posts
June 27 2012 04:55 GMT
#47
It's a great map, though I think it would be in best interest if it were CROSS ONLY. This is because a third of someone's can be VERY close to someone's main which is unfair.
neobowman
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Canada3324 Posts
June 27 2012 04:57 GMT
#48
Looks nice. I think you should push the thirds up to the fourth base high ground cliff instead of having a seperate cliff behind it. So have the mineral line up to the edge of the high ground. Keeps with the theme of having to control certain areas to do well. I don't think you need the destructible rocks in the middle. Otherwise, it looks good.
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 27 2012 05:01 GMT
#49
On June 27 2012 13:55 insaner wrote:
It's a great map, though I think it would be in best interest if it were CROSS ONLY. This is because a third of someone's can be VERY close to someone's main which is unfair.

I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
June 27 2012 05:35 GMT
#50
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 13:55 insaner wrote:
It's a great map, though I think it would be in best interest if it were CROSS ONLY. This is because a third of someone's can be VERY close to someone's main which is unfair.

I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.

It's more than that actually, but you are correct in your hatred of it.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
Thaniri
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1264 Posts
June 27 2012 06:33 GMT
#51
It seems fundamentally skewed in favour of Terran. The way gas is restricted on the third base, means that Terrans, who use mineral based armies, will be at an advantage to gas based armies. Also, how the hell can you hold a fourth base to tank pressure? You won't mine, and it is a bit chokey so you can't exactly get them out of there easily.

I think tomorrow I am going to play many many TvTs and I think I will choose random non-tournament maps for a change. This seems good.
Cyro
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United Kingdom20285 Posts
June 27 2012 08:25 GMT
#52
Im kinda concerned about taking third in PvT, the map is big but it seems any third that is dropped before thermal lance is done will just die to a single medivac drop, and after thermal lance, terran could just bring a few vikings with his drop/s and kill all of your workers if not your base if you took it there. The "other" third is waaaaaaaaay out on the map, and impossible to take before like the 11-12 minute mark for protoss, yet terran should be not only able to secure their mineral third (with the more powerful ranged units and "better" drops) but planetary the fourth as well, and it is completely unkillable unless protoss brings his entire army
"oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88
blamous
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States377 Posts
June 27 2012 15:40 GMT
#53
This looks great. Looking forward to play testing and seeing what good players think. Nice work ProdiG! Thanks for your work!
Get YOUR games cast on NuubCast!
Kmatt
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1019 Posts
June 27 2012 16:03 GMT
#54
If I might weigh in on the discussion over the cliff near the third, perhaps having both reduced income and the cliff to worry about are too much of a deterrent to taking that third. It doesn't really seem economic to have to invest the most in defending the base with the least return. Perhaps leaving it as a cliff-less low income base or an endangered normal income base would be enough of a threat to break the spell of too much passivity in getting up to 3 base play.
We CAN have nice things
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-27 20:20:57
June 27 2012 20:18 GMT
#55
Working on v1.1 which will include a ramp up to the cliff that overlooks the third so that you can make expand and then defense it, as well as a small bridge from the 4th expansions to the mains for blink stalkers and reapers to use. You'll be able to put pylons/turrets/units/whatever on top of the cliff to deter incoming drops, as well as make for a neat place to put proxy pylons

As for the comments in regards to the middle of the map, I'm not going to change anything (at least not yet). The idea of the map is to break up deathball armies and use positioning and tactics as opposed to "zomg i lost because i couldnt atack move 200 suply of roach thru a choek diz map is ass." I like the idea of being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and designed the Xel'Naga Towers to be a significant element in dealing with positioning. As with anything however, testing will tell. I'm open to the ideas of widening certain areas up or shrinking the high ground ramps a little bit, but I'm not going to do anything like that without looking at a handful of games.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Thaniri
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1264 Posts
June 28 2012 21:34 GMT
#56
I played TvT's with 2 different mid master terrans.

We don't like it.

http://drop.sc/209605
http://drop.sc/209604
http://drop.sc/209603

Points I hate:
- Main is too large. Too easy to get dropped on it.
- The mini third is stupid, impossible to hold the big third.

Points we all hate:
- FUCK ROCK TOWERS.
- The watchtowers are imbalanced, you can't take the logical third if your opponent gets a position on you. That position then becomes unbreakable without spending twice as much as him to combat.
- Why is there a cliff to the min third, it just deters even more from taking it.

Never got far enough because I kept dieing trying to attack or trying to take a FUCKING tower.

+ Show Spoiler +
Rock towers are idiotic
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
June 28 2012 22:14 GMT
#57
On June 29 2012 06:34 Thaniri wrote:
I played TvT's with 2 different mid master terrans.

We don't like it.

http://drop.sc/209605
http://drop.sc/209604
http://drop.sc/209603

Points I hate:
- Main is too large. Too easy to get dropped on it.
- The mini third is stupid, impossible to hold the big third.

Points we all hate:
- FUCK ROCK TOWERS.
- The watchtowers are imbalanced, you can't take the logical third if your opponent gets a position on you. That position then becomes unbreakable without spending twice as much as him to combat.
- Why is there a cliff to the min third, it just deters even more from taking it.

Never got far enough because I kept dieing trying to attack or trying to take a FUCKING tower.

+ Show Spoiler +
Rock towers are idiotic

Chill out, man. I'll check the reps. Thanks for posting these.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Broodie
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
Canada832 Posts
June 28 2012 22:48 GMT
#58
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.


I think this map needs a band-aid

Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg
SilentLiquid.Broodie - Author of Tango Terminal, Ophilia RE, Cajun Quandary, & The Beneath
monitor
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2404 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-28 23:19:40
June 28 2012 23:19 GMT
#59
On June 29 2012 07:48 Broodie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.


I think this map needs a band-aid

Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg


I don't like enforcing cross positions, and I don't think it is necessary on this map. However I will say that if your map is going to be bad 75% of the time instead of 0%, it makes sense to do the 0% by enforcing cross spawns. But ultimately it is better to just redesign the map as a 2p map or a working 4p map with no space restrictions.
Mapmaker & TLMC Judge. Amygdala, Frostline, Crimson Court, and Korhal Compound (WoL).
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
June 28 2012 23:22 GMT
#60
On June 29 2012 08:19 monitor wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 07:48 Broodie wrote:
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.


I think this map needs a band-aid

Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg


I don't like enforcing cross positions, and I don't think it is necessary on this map. However I will say that if your map is going to be bad 75% of the time instead of 0%, it makes sense to do the 0% by enforcing cross spawns. But ultimately it is better to just redesign the map as a 2p map or a working 4p map with no space restrictions.

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.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
Existor
Profile Joined July 2010
Russian Federation4295 Posts
June 28 2012 23:37 GMT
#61
Cliff near 3rd? Like Lost Temple? You really want same mistake?
-NegativeZero-
Profile Joined August 2011
United States2141 Posts
June 29 2012 00:08 GMT
#62
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.
vibeo gane,
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-29 00:30:10
June 29 2012 00:28 GMT
#63
On June 29 2012 08:22 NewSunshine wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 08:19 monitor wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:48 Broodie wrote:
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.


I think this map needs a band-aid

Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg


I don't like enforcing cross positions, and I don't think it is necessary on this map. However I will say that if your map is going to be bad 75% of the time instead of 0%, it makes sense to do the 0% by enforcing cross spawns. But ultimately it is better to just redesign the map as a 2p map or a working 4p map with no space restrictions.

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.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
monitor
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2404 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-29 00:40:17
June 29 2012 00:35 GMT
#64
On June 29 2012 08:22 NewSunshine wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 08:19 monitor wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:48 Broodie wrote:
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.


I think this map needs a band-aid

Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg


I don't like enforcing cross positions, and I don't think it is necessary on this map. However I will say that if your map is going to be bad 75% of the time instead of 0%, it makes sense to do the 0% by enforcing cross spawns. But ultimately it is better to just redesign the map as a 2p map or a working 4p map with no space restrictions.

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).
Mapmaker & TLMC Judge. Amygdala, Frostline, Crimson Court, and Korhal Compound (WoL).
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-29 00:42:31
June 29 2012 00:40 GMT
#65
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.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
June 29 2012 00:54 GMT
#66
Oh, yeah just quoting the conversation not directed at you. ^^
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
Aunvilgod
Profile Joined December 2011
2653 Posts
June 29 2012 17:46 GMT
#67
I don´t like the natural textures at manmade cliffs. The rest is awesome quality as always.
ilovegroov | Blizzards mapmaker(s?) suck ass | #1 Protoss hater
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-17 17:49:51
July 17 2012 17:48 GMT
#68
Map updated to version 1.1!
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!

+ Show Spoiler [Omnivium 1.1 Top-down] +
[image loading]
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
garlicface
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada4196 Posts
July 17 2012 18:07 GMT
#69
Big fan of the cliff/blink bridge. Hope this map gets its time to shine.
#TeamBuLba
Cyro
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United Kingdom20285 Posts
July 17 2012 18:30 GMT
#70
Looks good, not first pick in any P matchup for me, but im noob
"oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
July 17 2012 21:16 GMT
#71
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.
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
oOOoOphidian
Profile Joined January 2011
United States1402 Posts
July 17 2012 21:21 GMT
#72
Clever design. I like that it allows for blink/reaper/elevator play, just without making it overly strong.
Creator of sc2unmasked.com
FakeSteve[TPR]
Profile Blog Joined July 2003
Valhalla18444 Posts
July 17 2012 21:34 GMT
#73
your posts are so beautiful josh
Moderatormy tatsu loops r fuckin nice
FroznSmoke
Profile Joined July 2012
Germany8 Posts
July 17 2012 21:42 GMT
#74
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.
MarineKing Thorzain HasuObs
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-17 22:11:00
July 17 2012 22:07 GMT
#75
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
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-17 22:10:51
July 17 2012 22:08 GMT
#76
double post fail
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
tehemperorer
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2183 Posts
July 17 2012 22:22 GMT
#77
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.
Knowing is half the battle... the other half is lasers.
oOOoOphidian
Profile Joined January 2011
United States1402 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-17 22:37:02
July 17 2012 22:32 GMT
#78
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.
Creator of sc2unmasked.com
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
July 17 2012 22:36 GMT
#79
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.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
nicotn
Profile Joined September 2010
Netherlands186 Posts
July 18 2012 00:25 GMT
#80
I like the ridges in the back of the third, it reminds me of Condemned Ridge.
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-18 02:19:56
July 18 2012 02:19 GMT
#81
On July 18 2012 09:25 nicotn wrote:
I like the ridges in the back of the third, it reminds me of Condemned Ridge.

Some might argue that's more a cause for nightmares and flashbacks, but I agree, and it also happens to work out better this way.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
July 18 2012 05:30 GMT
#82
On July 18 2012 07:07 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
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)

I'm not sure what the clicking on the tower has to do with it, although obviously this matters a lot for destructible tower functionality (does that attack or move to the tower?), but I'm sure a lot of people don't click ON the tower. I sure don't. And I also count on being able to stand near, instead of flushly adjacent to, watchtowers in order to give as much leeway as possible for running with a worker, or whatever.

Obviously it's not a big deal, but maybe you should change the model size to 75% or something, just to let people know it's not quite a normal tower? Pros would definitely notice (and be aggravated) if they lost tower vision quicker than expected after moving away, and it'd be good to somehow communicate the altered tower settings.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
Carmine
Profile Joined September 2010
United States263 Posts
July 18 2012 05:35 GMT
#83
I really like this map, both its looks and how I think it would play. I wish my buddies liked playing on new maps because it would be a blast.

The ease of defending the 3rd from ground based armies and the reduced income of it should make taking a 3rd and then moving out on the map and securing posistions much more important.

I also like what you did with the bridge from 4th to main. Making it useable for the defender and still easily defenceable. It is great that we can get blink stalkers and collossus between our mains and our 4th. This is so refreshing after playing so many games on antiga or metalopolis where it seems like the first person to park tanks next to the mains wins.

I think that adding the condemned ridge style ramp to the 3rds cliff is a good idea, although I think i would prefer there not even be a cliff there. It just seems like it is trying to force something, or that it is just one more place to remember to check for pylons. That is the same reason i dont like the little fog of war boxes in the mains like on metalopolis or antiga. Obviously it wont be too big of a problem as players will adapt, it just feels forced.

The middle of the maps and the watch towers seem great. I like the rocks because I dont like zerg to be able to see everything on the map with only 4 zerglings. Thanks for the work you put into this
Terran was created third, with purity of tanks.
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-18 10:36:46
July 18 2012 10:36 GMT
#84
GG!
Good map
John 15:13
macncheezeplz
Profile Joined June 2011
United States93 Posts
July 18 2012 13:44 GMT
#85
It's always dangerous to lay bases with mineral lines pointing towards the center of the map. That tends to make those bases too hard to defend. Make sure you deter players from just sticking something like stalkers/tanks/roaches behind those mineral lines and attacking workers. You could possibly put rocks in locations like this: http://imgur.com/tKQzX

If you do decide to add rocks as shown, it may help decrease the open space early on within the map. If the close rush distances seem to be too short, you could possible even extend the rocks like this: http://imgur.com/Tmej8

Rocks are just my way of saying those middle bases seem too hard to defend. Either a small fix like a mentioned or something more integrated may suit the map better.

Either way thanks for posting content like this. : ) Hopefully people like me can start playing on it on ladder.
Sspinner
Profile Joined May 2011
United States26 Posts
July 18 2012 13:51 GMT
#86
seems like the third is too easy to hold
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
July 18 2012 14:37 GMT
#87
On July 18 2012 22:44 macncheezeplz wrote:
It's always dangerous to lay bases with mineral lines pointing towards the center of the map. That tends to make those bases too hard to defend. Make sure you deter players from just sticking something like stalkers/tanks/roaches behind those mineral lines and attacking workers. You could possibly put rocks in locations like this: http://imgur.com/tKQzX

If you do decide to add rocks as shown, it may help decrease the open space early on within the map. If the close rush distances seem to be too short, you could possible even extend the rocks like this: http://imgur.com/Tmej8

Rocks are just my way of saying those middle bases seem too hard to defend. Either a small fix like a mentioned or something more integrated may suit the map better.

Either way thanks for posting content like this. : ) Hopefully people like me can start playing on it on ladder.

If you read the OP, you'll see that's the concept of the map. The idea is that if you want to hold the center expansions you need to position your army near the Xel'Naga Towers as opposed to just straddling three bases easily like on a map like Metropolis or even Antiga Shipyard. Losing the Xel'Naga Towers means your opponent will have vision of the cliff and be able to harass it from the lowground. This is all intentional and is designed to add more tension to the game!
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Xxio
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada5565 Posts
July 18 2012 17:46 GMT
#88
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.
KTY
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
July 18 2012 18:07 GMT
#89
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Xxio
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada5565 Posts
July 18 2012 18:08 GMT
#90
Hm, I can't build an extractor at the 1 gas base at 9 o'clock. I think the geyser is too close to the ramp?
KTY
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-19 15:02:35
July 19 2012 15:02 GMT
#91
On July 19 2012 03:08 Xxio wrote:
Hm, I can't build an extractor at the 1 gas base at 9 o'clock. I think the geyser is too close to the ramp?

Ah, yes they were. I didn't fix them after rotating everything! Amateur mistake. This is what beta is for. Fix published to NA, thanks for letting me know!
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Ragoo
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany2773 Posts
July 19 2012 15:31 GMT
#92
On July 19 2012 03:07 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<


What? Are you sure that you really like this tileset? Because I would never have guessed!
Member of TPW mapmaking team/// twitter.com/Ragoo_ /// "goody represents border between explainable reason and supernatural" Cloud
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-19 15:36:47
July 19 2012 15:36 GMT
#93
On July 20 2012 00:31 Ragoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 19 2012 03:07 prodiG wrote:
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<


What? Are you sure that you really like this tileset? Because I would never have guessed!

hehehehehehe :D It's fun to work with! I like jungle 2nd best (like what I did on Ithaca) but you have to spread out how often you make jungle maps to avoid fraudulence I think~
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
July 19 2012 18:15 GMT
#94
On July 20 2012 00:36 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2012 00:31 Ragoo wrote:
On July 19 2012 03:07 prodiG wrote:
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<


What? Are you sure that you really like this tileset? Because I would never have guessed!

hehehehehehe :D It's fun to work with! I like jungle 2nd best (like what I did on Ithaca) but you have to spread out how often you make jungle maps to avoid fraudulence I think~

Don't use this tileset again, and whatever you do, don't name it "Alamar somethingorother" when you do.

But seriously, try to show some creativity with your next tileset. This tileset was nice, the first time you used it, but it's time to be awesome and make something new. I know you can do it, Vicious looked very nice too.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-19 18:47:03
July 19 2012 18:45 GMT
#95
On July 20 2012 03:15 NewSunshine wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2012 00:36 prodiG wrote:
On July 20 2012 00:31 Ragoo wrote:
On July 19 2012 03:07 prodiG wrote:
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<


What? Are you sure that you really like this tileset? Because I would never have guessed!

hehehehehehe :D It's fun to work with! I like jungle 2nd best (like what I did on Ithaca) but you have to spread out how often you make jungle maps to avoid fraudulence I think~

Don't use this tileset again, and whatever you do, don't name it "Alamar somethingorother" when you do.

But seriously, try to show some creativity with your next tileset. This tileset was nice, the first time you used it, but it's time to be awesome and make something new. I know you can do it, Vicious looked very nice too.

I wanted to use this tileset again because I wasn't quite happy with what I did on Edge of Oblivion. I wanted to revisit and improve on what I had created before, and I learned a lot of neat tricks with the doodads and textures that I can use to make everything look more complete. It was mostly a personal experiment, I wanted to see what else I could do with the tileset - taking the things I liked about it from previous maps and abandoning the things I didn't like (or in some cases, were too FPS-intensive.)

I know I can create something new and awesome too, but this time around I wanted to refine what I had already started. Kind of how every map using this since the original Enigma was an improvement on it's predecessor. I can still think of a dozen things that I'd do differently next time, but I'll save those for another map far, far down the road.

In other news
SUPEROUMAN pointed out to me that large units (Ultralisks, etc) can still activate the towers from behind the rocks in certain areas, despite the change that I made to the activation radius. That change to the activation radius will be rolled back, and the size of the rocks increased (SUPEROUMAN is resident expert on the topic since he invented the top secret map technology, he is in fact such a baller that he fixed it for me while I am at work) - expect this change in the next bugfix version.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Semmo
Profile Joined June 2011
Korea (South)627 Posts
July 20 2012 09:36 GMT
#96
On July 20 2012 03:45 prodiG wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2012 03:15 NewSunshine wrote:
On July 20 2012 00:36 prodiG wrote:
On July 20 2012 00:31 Ragoo wrote:
On July 19 2012 03:07 prodiG wrote:
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<


What? Are you sure that you really like this tileset? Because I would never have guessed!

hehehehehehe :D It's fun to work with! I like jungle 2nd best (like what I did on Ithaca) but you have to spread out how often you make jungle maps to avoid fraudulence I think~

Don't use this tileset again, and whatever you do, don't name it "Alamar somethingorother" when you do.

But seriously, try to show some creativity with your next tileset. This tileset was nice, the first time you used it, but it's time to be awesome and make something new. I know you can do it, Vicious looked very nice too.

I wanted to use this tileset again because I wasn't quite happy with what I did on Edge of Oblivion. I wanted to revisit and improve on what I had created before, and I learned a lot of neat tricks with the doodads and textures that I can use to make everything look more complete. It was mostly a personal experiment, I wanted to see what else I could do with the tileset - taking the things I liked about it from previous maps and abandoning the things I didn't like (or in some cases, were too FPS-intensive.)

I know I can create something new and awesome too, but this time around I wanted to refine what I had already started. Kind of how every map using this since the original Enigma was an improvement on it's predecessor. I can still think of a dozen things that I'd do differently next time, but I'll save those for another map far, far down the road.

In other news
SUPEROUMAN pointed out to me that large units (Ultralisks, etc) can still activate the towers from behind the rocks in certain areas, despite the change that I made to the activation radius. That change to the activation radius will be rolled back, and the size of the rocks increased (SUPEROUMAN is resident expert on the topic since he invented the top secret map technology, he is in fact such a baller that he fixed it for me while I am at work) - expect this change in the next bugfix version.


I say don't change the activation radius. That's like changing minerals per trip, a core part of the game I think... Sometimes even destructible rocks I think so as well. Perhaps find a better solution.
Mapmaker of Frost, Fruitland and Bridgehead
Superouman
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
France2195 Posts
July 20 2012 09:49 GMT
#97
On July 20 2012 18:36 kim9067 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2012 03:45 prodiG wrote:
On July 20 2012 03:15 NewSunshine wrote:
On July 20 2012 00:36 prodiG wrote:
On July 20 2012 00:31 Ragoo wrote:
On July 19 2012 03:07 prodiG wrote:
On July 19 2012 02:46 Xxio wrote:
I really wish people would stop using dark tilesets but this map looks like a lot of fun.

But I really like this tileset :<


What? Are you sure that you really like this tileset? Because I would never have guessed!

hehehehehehe :D It's fun to work with! I like jungle 2nd best (like what I did on Ithaca) but you have to spread out how often you make jungle maps to avoid fraudulence I think~

Don't use this tileset again, and whatever you do, don't name it "Alamar somethingorother" when you do.

But seriously, try to show some creativity with your next tileset. This tileset was nice, the first time you used it, but it's time to be awesome and make something new. I know you can do it, Vicious looked very nice too.

I wanted to use this tileset again because I wasn't quite happy with what I did on Edge of Oblivion. I wanted to revisit and improve on what I had created before, and I learned a lot of neat tricks with the doodads and textures that I can use to make everything look more complete. It was mostly a personal experiment, I wanted to see what else I could do with the tileset - taking the things I liked about it from previous maps and abandoning the things I didn't like (or in some cases, were too FPS-intensive.)

I know I can create something new and awesome too, but this time around I wanted to refine what I had already started. Kind of how every map using this since the original Enigma was an improvement on it's predecessor. I can still think of a dozen things that I'd do differently next time, but I'll save those for another map far, far down the road.

In other news
SUPEROUMAN pointed out to me that large units (Ultralisks, etc) can still activate the towers from behind the rocks in certain areas, despite the change that I made to the activation radius. That change to the activation radius will be rolled back, and the size of the rocks increased (SUPEROUMAN is resident expert on the topic since he invented the top secret map technology, he is in fact such a baller that he fixed it for me while I am at work) - expect this change in the next bugfix version.


I say don't change the activation radius. That's like changing minerals per trip, a core part of the game I think... Sometimes even destructible rocks I think so as well. Perhaps find a better solution.

Xelnaga tower mechanics are just shenanigans compared to core mechanics like ressource gathering rate.
Search "[SO]" on B.net to find all my maps ||| Cloud Kingdom / Turbo Cruise '84 / Bone Temple / Eternal Empire / Zen / Purity and Industry / Golden Wall / Fortitude / Beckett Industries / Waterfall
iMrising
Profile Blog Joined March 2012
United States1099 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-20 12:43:25
July 20 2012 12:41 GMT
#98
Sorry If I'm wrong, but is it just me or does the expansion at the middle right only have 6 mineral patches compared to the 7 that the other middle expos have?
otherwise very very god job :D would definetly want to watch this in tournaments




(sorry if someone else had already pointed this out, didnt read the other comments)
$O$ | soO
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
July 20 2012 17:13 GMT
#99
On July 20 2012 21:41 iMrising wrote:
Sorry If I'm wrong, but is it just me or does the expansion at the middle right only have 6 mineral patches compared to the 7 that the other middle expos have?
otherwise very very god job :D would definetly want to watch this in tournaments




(sorry if someone else had already pointed this out, didnt read the other comments)

It definitely has seven ;O Might be hard to tell from the overview
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
August 04 2012 17:22 GMT
#100
Map is up and republished for SC2 Arcade. Check it out on NA under the same name "Omnivium BETA - prodiG"

It still needs a few more screenshots for my liking but I have to test Arcade more and learn more about things like filesize restrictions and whatnot. Nonetheless, the map is playable and ready to go, please give it a shot and give me your feedback!
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
Krystianer vs sOs
SKillous vs ArT
MaNa vs Elazer
Spirit vs Gerald
Clem vs TBD
uThermal vs TBD
Reynor vs TBD
Lambo vs TBD
ComeBackTV 623
RotterdaM545
IndyStarCraft 303
CranKy Ducklings97
3DClanTV 76
Rex69
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 545
IndyStarCraft 303
Rex 69
ProTech51
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 3899
Hyun 762
firebathero 730
Mini 646
Larva 629
Barracks 364
BeSt 288
EffOrt 138
Mind 114
Backho 112
[ Show more ]
ZerO 96
zelot 49
Noble 44
sorry 44
scan(afreeca) 41
Free 38
Sacsri 27
Shinee 27
Sharp 24
soO 24
Bale 20
NaDa 11
IntoTheRainbow 9
yabsab 8
Dota 2
XcaliburYe575
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K875
shoxiejesuss484
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor264
Other Games
gofns6260
Happy375
Beastyqt160
SortOf158
ZerO(Twitch)20
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH379
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV486
• lizZardDota2206
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4h 24m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
8h 24m
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
Online Event
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.