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"
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
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
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
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~
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!
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?
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?
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?
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...
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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~
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
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 reallylikethistileset? 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~
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 reallylikethistileset? 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.
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 reallylikethistileset? 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.
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 reallylikethistileset? 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.
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 reallylikethistileset? 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.
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)
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
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!
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y13Ex.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pc3Js.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fhwhQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7Yjtj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a5F4a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AVFcT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NOfcJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KESkL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2SrRQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WsMKu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VZ2Ic.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/POgzP.jpg)
