|
![[image loading]](http://a.imageshack.us/img641/1555/enigmathreadbanner.jpg)
Enigma is the first map of a series of five to be released between Sept. and Oct. 2010. The title comes from the song “The Enigma of Torments” by Archons. It is a 4 player macro-oriented map with large rush distances.
Search "iCCup" to play.
View on prodiGsc.com for all latest info, updates, changes and more!
Version 1.1
![[image loading]](http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7922/4enigma11.jpg)
Features
-Safe natural
-Alternate route to natural blocked by destructible rocks
-Close 3rd base. Was originally intended to have only one High Yield Geyser but HY Geysers have the pathing bug and I cannot fix it :<
-Xel’Naga Towers around the center providing vision over key areas of the map
-Center has 12 Rich Mineral Patches with 500 minerals in each, as well as 4 Vespene Geysers all blocked by a destructible rock. This is intended for super (120min) lategame.
-Center is unbuildable
Version 1.1 is up!
Changes:
+ Show Spoiler +-Moved the Xel'Naga towers so they don't watch the exit from the third, but rather the lane units walk down around the center. -Made the center unbuildable except for the area where you place the town hall, and four 2x2 spaces around the town hall for defensive buildings -Dropped the Gold mineral fields down to 500 per patch from the original 750 -Dropped the center geysers down to 1500 per geyser from the original 2500 ![[image loading]](http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9223/sc2editor20100914213003.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6793/enigma11changes34.jpg)
http://www.prodiGsc.com - I will be posting all of my maps and anything else SC related here. This website will contain the most up-to-date information for all of my creations. It is currently under construction (lol aesthetics?) however there is some content there already. Check it out!
|
To be honest I think this is the best looking map you have done. It also has a relatively wide centre good for flanking as Zerg. I can't wait to try this map out. To bad I don't think its on SEA 
|
On September 09 2010 17:11 WarChimp wrote:To be honest I think this is the best looking map you have done. It also has a relatively wide centre good for flanking as Zerg. I can't wait to try this map out. To bad I don't think its on SEA
Thank you. Currently it's only on US, but I plan on publishing it on other realms once I am content with the feedback from the community and any changes I may make.
|
Looks great!
I'm trying to find something bad to say about it, but can't really seem to find anything 
Which "close third" did you want to have the HY geyser? The one connected to the natural through the destructible rocks, or the other one?
I like the middle. The LoS blockers are negated if you control the watch towers, but it makes for a nice dynamic. Can you drop units/build on those ridges around the gold? Siege on there would suck.
Nice overlord parking spots anyway. Also nice for reapers to stop Zerglings from moving out. Pretty much their only use though...
How big is that main, 2 tumors to connect it with the natural?
Would be a funny lategame, terran camping the middle gold with PF's and Zerg taking the rest of the map and Sauron Zerg'ing in there. Could be a UMS, hehe
|
Awesome looking map. I love how it's huge and heavily macro oriented. It has minimal chokes, wide flanking routes and more expansions than I've ever seen on a 1v1 map in sc2. I'd love to see maps like this become more common.
I also like the size of the mains, they look roughly the same size as Xel'naga Caverns, which I think is perfect.
|
I love your maps, and this one starts off well by have easy to take 3rds and 4ths, which could create fun, macro games, but a couple of things i really dont like about this map.
A) the middle expo is ridiculous. It is pretty much an instant win to whoever can take it, and thus if a player gains any sort of map or positional control, they have almost no chance to lose, and the defending player has no chance for a comeback (in high level play). This applies to every map with double expos, especially double GOLD expos.
B) destructible rocks are meh, not a biggie
C) the layout is like so many 4 player maps, where the path to attack the other player is too one dimensional, and leaves few options for positional decision making.
IMO you make great maps, but I REALLY would like to see you make more 2 player maps instead of 4. 2 player maps allow for much greater variety and dont have the RNG factor, imagine how much better metalopolis/lt games would be if you could only spawn cross positions. The games would last longer, and you would see more skill based games, and less 1 base all ins.
I think good map design will dictate the style of game-play sc2 takes, and eliminating maps with close spawn chances would be a good step. <- doesnt necessarily apply to THIS one, but yeah
EDIT: may have came off harsh, overall i still love it, and its better than most if not all but xel naga in the current pool
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
You can place pathing blockers around the high yield gas to prevent the pathing bug. Map itself looks very good. I like the fact it's not another Bel'Shir map.
Some questions i have:
-is the high ground in the mid climbable (reapers/...)?
-can reapers get from the blocked expansion to your main by taking the path opposite to the nat (the path close to the river)?
-can you make a side view? ^^
-when will this map be available at EU? (this is the first map i really want to play and i like it much more then your Fighting Spirit port)
|
the middle expo is ridiculous. It is pretty much an instant win to whoever can take it, and thus if a player gains any sort of map or positional control, they have almost no chance to lose, and the defending player has no chance for a comeback (in high level play). This applies to every map with double expos, especially double GOLD expos.
If fighting spirit taught us anything it's that middle expos are something you can afford to take/hold in the mid game while only having a slight advantage over your opponent, am I right?
|
oh wow, a LOT of questions to answer! i'll quote your post and put my answer in bold i guess
On September 09 2010 17:29 NeoLearner wrote:Looks great! I'm trying to find something bad to say about it, but can't really seem to find anything Which "close third" did you want to have the HY geyser? The one connected to the natural through the destructible rocks, or the other one? The "other one", out in the open.I like the middle. The LoS blockers are negated if you control the watch towers, but it makes for a nice dynamic. Can you drop units/build on those ridges around the gold? Siege on there would suck. Nice overlord parking spots anyway. Also nice for reapers to stop Zerglings from moving out. Pretty much their only use though... yes, but you cannot cliffwalk up directly behind the TowersHow big is that main, 2 tumors to connect it with the natural? yes! i am for 2-3 on all of my maps.Would be a funny lategame, terran camping the middle gold with PF's and Zerg taking the rest of the map and Sauron Zerg'ing in there. Could be a UMS, hehe that was kind of the intention :D
On September 09 2010 17:46 danson wrote:
I love your maps, and this one starts off well by have easy to take 3rds and 4ths, which could create fun, macro games, but a couple of things i really dont like about this map.
A) the middle expo is ridiculous. It is pretty much an instant win to whoever can take it, and thus if a player gains any sort of map or positional control, they have almost no chance to lose, and the defending player has no chance for a comeback (in high level play). This applies to every map with double expos, especially double GOLD expos.
if a player gets positional or map control they could double expand for the same income over a longer period of time. The gold has only 750 minerals per patch so your economy would explode for awhile, but if your opponent was able to draw it out long enough he'd be able to break even (mathematically speaking)
B) destructible rocks are meh, not a biggie
C) the layout is like so many 4 player maps, where the path to attack the other player is too one dimensional, and leaves few options for positional decision making.
IMO you make great maps, but I REALLY would like to see you make more 2 player maps instead of 4. 2 player maps allow for much greater variety and dont have the RNG factor, imagine how much better metalopolis/lt games would be if you could only spawn cross positions. The games would last longer, and you would see more skill based games, and less 1 base all ins.
metal and LT are both mirrored symmetry, whereas this is rotational. This creates a significant change in the way players expand, since two out of the three places your opponent can spawn are just about the same. I have three 1v1 maps in my "set of five"
I think good map design will dictate the style of game-play sc2 takes, and eliminating maps with close spawn chances would be a good step. <- doesnt necessarily apply to THIS one, but yeah
EDIT: may have came off harsh, overall i still love it, and its better than most if not all but xel naga in the current pool
On September 09 2010 17:55 dezi wrote:You can place pathing blockers around the high yield gas to prevent the pathing bug. Map itself looks very good. I like the fact it's not another Bel'Shir map. i still wish the bug didn't exist Some questions i have: -is the high ground in the mid climbable (reapers/...)? yes, but not directly behind the XWT-can reapers get from the blocked expansion to your main by taking the path opposite to the nat (the path close to the river)? no-can you make a side view? ^^ what do you mean?-when will this map be available at EU? (this is the first map i really want to play and i like it much more then your Fighting Spirit port) i will get it published once i feel like the map doesn't need to be changed anymore. I think it's pretty close now, but time will tell.
|
Finally a good map from you ProdiG
At least, this map gives a gameplay totally different from actual blizz maps, so much money
can you give the dimensions of the map and the time from main to main with a peon?
|
On September 09 2010 18:14 Superouman wrote:Finally a good map from you ProdiG At least, this map gives a gameplay totally different from actual blizz maps, so much money can you give the dimensions of the map and the time from main to main with a peon?
finally a good map from me? o_o
dimensions are 168x164 i think, probe takes 35sec to go from ramp to ramp horizontal/vertical and 40sec cross position
|
On September 09 2010 18:14 Superouman wrote:
Finally a good map from you ProdiG
A little harsh. ProdiG makes good maps, but this would probably be one of his better ones
|
which set of five? links plox?
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I want a Game Angle View (currently there only is a Top Down). That's what i meant (sorry ^^). Ah and which texture set is this?
|
nice macro map. i like it a lot over the ones we're forced to play ><
|
why o why we dont have a maps like that in ladder....
seriously Blizzard should hire you 
|
I dislike the low ground expansion right outside of the natural. It's far too easy to take and not even a mineral only like in one of your other maps. Compare this to something like Othello in Brood War. The third base with gas is relatively close by, perhaps as close as the one here, but it's extremely easy to harass and is dangerous to take. Here, the third base is very closeby, (along with a relatively close 4th base as well) and it's easily defendable. Makes a bad combination imo.
Also, the middle looks a tad on the tight side.
|
Nice. What I like about rotational symmetry is the (on this map) 4th base, the one on the high ground with destructible rocks. If your opponent spawns on either side of you (2/3 chance) there's high probability this base will be contested, as who it "belongs" to will be affected by spawning positions.
I know some people will claim that the 3rd is "too close" or "easy" to take, but IMO that is bullshit. Sure, terrans can tank up and defend it as well as their nat. But in the meantime, Zerg and Protoss can grab the entire map. So that is not a balance issue, in my opinion, it is a design decision saying that you want this to be a macro map, which I like.
I am usually negative towards destructible rocks in general, but I think the role of the rocks in this map is quite good. That said I am not 100% sure.
Another thing I am not 100% sure of is the middle expansion. I have heard some people claim that bases in the very middle of the map can lead to one sided games. But on the other hand, it can of course lead to conflict over the area, which would be very cool. That said I am not sure if there actually needs to be an expansion there or not, but of course its your map and your decision. Personally I would consider other ways to draw contest over the area, such as repositioning the watchtower(s) to be more in the center inside the walls.
|
I think its quite an improvement to your other maps. 2 points.
I have mixed feelings about the fact that theres bigger distances base-to-base, but the center is quite small, forcing the players into rather choky area. It may turn out good but im not sure about that.
Also im splitted about the flat path between the bases. it has worked for metalopolis pretty well, but it might get boring after a while.
the thing i really dislike is the gold expo. the reason that it seems to contrict movement and flanking options, because its taking the largest part of the center. The center layout could make up for some nice flanking and stuff, but if its blocked by gold minerals it seems to more and more force players in a straight up fight at the one flat path (unless cross positions).
The los blockers could come in rally handily if the center was opened for flanking / feinting / by-passing
otherwise aesthetics are nice, but not overdone in center area. wich is imo, the way it should be.
greetings,
madsquare.
|
Very very nice, it looks a lot like fighting spirit but seems more adapted to SC2. I also like the fact that the map is pretty big.
And thank you there is no destructible rocks on every expo !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
