Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (80 users) | |
|
| xeqwist August 10 2012 02:53. Posts 54 | Profile # |
Hi, the other day I was sitting and drawing concept sketches for a map, the map has a very short rush-distance (think Steppes of War/Incineration Zone) and I thought of how I could design natural that was easy to take even on a small map.
The first thought that might came to my mind was an in base expo, like Delta Quadrant:
+ Show Spoiler +
Obviously the rocks would have to be removed if it was on a smaller map, but then I feel like the expansion almost becomes to easy to take.
After more thought I came up with* another design, which still allows for a safe FE but doesn't feel too passive or easy to take in my opinion.
*-I haven't seen this particular design elsewhere, but if you have, please tell me about it.
Here's a quick test I made (ignore the random aesthetics, etc.):
+ Show Spoiler +
So now I want to hear your opinion on whether or not this design is viable, or if you have another idea that suits the purpose better, let me hear. Also you're very welcome to use this design if you find a use for it. |
| | xeqwist.195 EU | ♥ BitByBit ♥ MarineKing ♥ | Marine good unit. |
|
|
 Sea_Food Finland. August 10 2012 03:01. Posts 1612 | Profile Blog # |
| So its low rush distance like steppes of war. Natural is siegable from low ground like steppes of war. Actually I think its worse because on your map its harder to get to the low ground to kill the units. I think you should just make shakuras plateue esque natural. |
|
|
| NewSunshine United States. August 10 2012 03:03. Posts 1014 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 03:01 Sea_Food wrote:
So its low rush distance like steppes of war. Natural is siegable from low ground like steppes of war. Actually I think its worse because on your map its harder to get to the low ground to kill the units. I think you should just make shakuras plateue esque natural.
That's not how the map will be, it's unmodeled terrain. He's asking about the viability of the obvious concept, not the other things. |
| | [ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine] |
|
|
| TibblesEvilCat United Kingdom. August 10 2012 03:16. Posts 766 | Profile # |
| i think it's fine, unusual, and will need testing to make sure, certain cheeses wont be the main play for the map |
| |
|
| a3den August 10 2012 03:19. Posts 480 | Profile # |
| Path between the main ramp and the rocks is longer for the defender than for the attacker, I don't think the idea is bad but your test layout doesn't appeal to me. |
| |
|
| Yonnua United Kingdom. August 10 2012 03:34. Posts 1039 | Profile Blog # |
| Can you warp over the rocks? If the answer is yes, you can 4 gate and most PvP builds won't have the 7 or so sentries needed to FF the two ramps. |
| | PartinG | NaNiwa | Creator | Mvp | Bomber | Oz | FanTaSy | JangBi |
|
|
| Callynn Netherlands. August 10 2012 04:23. Posts 877 | Profile # |
I think this design looks very fun. It is important to take the current metagame into thought when designing new naturals like this one. The fact is that Protoss will actually have a (slightly) harder time expanding on this type of expansion than with the currently popular FFE because the Probe building the nexus is not near the ramp to block it off.
Then comes the other things you need to consider, such as rush timings that are able to break down these kind of rocks decently fast. These are Marauder proxies, Roach all-ins and 4 gates (all timed from 5:00 to 6:30 roughly).
While I do not personally know how long these rushes would need to take down 2000 hp rocks (I am too lazy to test it for now, but I suggest you try that for your concept) there is a possibility that you are making it too hard to defend the natural against these types of pushes. This is mainly because once the rocks are broken, you basically end up with some sort of choked up Blistering Sands (except that the 'backdoor' requires the maindoor choke passage, which probably makes your design fine).
I think this kind of positioning is also slightly a disadvantage to Zerg. For a different reason than Protoss, they will need to connect their natural with their main with their first creep tumor and as such do not cover their main ramp with creep initially (unless if they invest in the first two tumors instead of inject, which is a huge setback for Zerg). I suppose Zergs could opt to not initially connect their natural with creep and instead cover their ramp first for defensive purposes. This leaves for an interesting strategic choice that will never show in the classic natural. For this reason I think your setup seems very good.
Lastly, for Terran I think this kind of base positioning is by far the most unbalanced. Tanks will be able to cover the natural from the main high ground and Terran is the only race not dependending on building positioning as much (because most buildings can fly and do not require creep or pylon power). Terran will have the easiest, guaranteed early expansion I feel from what you have shown and that is something that needs to be thought about. A second backdoor (another rock path to the natural or main) will make Protoss too weak, so this is not a solution to the Terran advantage I am seeing. However, perhaps you should simply make this type of map and see how it plays out, it certainly looks interesting!
|
| | Comparing BW with SCII is like comparing a beautiful three-master sailing ship with a modern battlecruiser. Both are beautiful in their own way, both perform the same task, but they are worlds apart in how they are built and how they are steered. |
|
|
| ArcticRaven France. August 10 2012 05:04. Posts 1165 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 03:34 Yonnua wrote:
Can you warp over the rocks? If the answer is yes, you can 4 gate and most PvP builds won't have the 7 or so sentries needed to FF the two ramps.
Easy fix - put LoS blockers underneath. |
| | [EatThePath] I call assassins as my faction. Please tell me we can all agree that in the version of history, Steppes of War will be Jerusalem. |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. August 10 2012 05:05. Posts 794 | Profile Blog # |
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| moskonia Israel. August 10 2012 05:22. Posts 932 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 05:05 iamcaustic wrote:
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made.
No point is made:
1) Scout the cheese? players who do scout good enough wont fall for it.
2) Easy fix with LoS.
3) How easy? not more then normal layout I presume, any reason why it should more then normal?
4) Will need testing, might be possible you will have to break the rocks and defend via the nat ramp, but I think it will be needed to test before commenting about that.
Imo the layout seems cool, would love to see someone good try it out, but would need a 3rd that is further from the opponent, so it might need some clever positioning, we'll see if someone would be able to make it work  |
| | "He who learns to walk, should never crawl again" | |
|
|
| GDR Canada. August 10 2012 05:35. Posts 398 | Profile # |
This is the way I would do it. Even then, it has problems of its own, and I'm not quite sure of it.
+ Show Spoiler +
The biggest problem I thought being if they have the army advantage (which is commonly the case in early expands), and you can't contest them on the low ground. I don't think you can get to your natural-natural ramp fast enough.
My solution to this was to add a small path that allowed small units to pass through. Marines, Marauders, Zerglings, etc...
+ Show Spoiler +
It isn't a perfect solution, but I think it nets the defender a strong advantage allowing them to quickly take position to make a flank. Making what could of been a one-sided fight possibly even. |
|
|
| monitor United States. August 10 2012 05:43. Posts 2279 | Profile Blog # |
I think this is an interesting idea, but it needs at least two changes:
1) LoS blockers behind or in the rocks to block warpins
2) Moving the nat out of tank range from the middle somehow, without creating to much wasted space
Other than that, I'm not sure its exactly the best type of natural because it promotes turtling more than anything else. I'd like it more if there was a cliff for drop harass, but it probably wouldn't work unless theres a ramp or tiny unit path to it from the main. Here's a similar idea from BW:
![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/pics/4240.jpg)
Also the cliff on Othello can be reached by lings, marines, and zealots but nothing else unless the neutrals are broken.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/178_Othello.jpg) |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
| OxyGenesis United Kingdom. August 10 2012 05:44. Posts 278 | Profile # |
That's actually exactly the set up that I have for my new map. It's nearly done so I'll probably release it soon. Here's a sneak peek.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VWCzN.jpg)
|
| | Maker of Maps inc. Vector, Uncanny Valley and Fissure | Co-Founder of SC2Melee.net |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. August 10 2012 06:21. Posts 794 | Profile Blog # |
On August 10 2012 05:22 moskonia wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:05 iamcaustic wrote:
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made.
No point is made: 1) Scout the cheese? players who do scout good enough wont fall for it. 2) Easy fix with LoS. 3) How easy? not more then normal layout I presume, any reason why it should more then normal? 4) Will need testing, might be possible you will have to break the rocks and defend via the nat ramp, but I think it will be needed to test before commenting about that. Imo the layout seems cool, would love to see someone good try it out, but would need a 3rd that is further from the opponent, so it might need some clever positioning, we'll see if someone would be able to make it work
1.) Some of it will definitely come down to scouting, but there are a number of things to take into consideration on this. Overall, it comes down to how reasonable it is to do a clean sweep of every possible nook and cranny a proxy rax could be. Professionals lose to proxy rax on maps like Daybreak, for goodness sakes. At face value, is nice to know that these kinds of tactics can work, but making terrain to be more hidden proxy-friendly isn't something good, in my opinion. There's only so much extra scouting time/lost income one can endure before they start putting themselves way behind against a blind all-in.
2.) LoS blockers can solve that issue. One does have to take into consideration the possible impact the LoS blockers will have on attacking/defending after the rocks are taken out, though. That's something that will require testing.
3.) As a Terran, I'd say way easier than a normal layout. Thanks to the rocks I don't have to worry about flanks early on, so I can just bunker contain the main ramp and rally a strong push on 1-2 bases. By the time the rocks can get knocked out and flanks become an issue, there's no way a Zerg should be able to break through a dedicated contain there, in the same way a Zerg wouldn't be able to just push through a defensive Terran at home.
On a more standard map with a Zerg FE, you'd have to set up your contain in a more open location where the Zerg can get out and surround easier than funnelling down a single-width ramp. This makes it a lot easier for Zergs to break the contain before it really becomes solidified. Also, reinforcement rallies from the natural would obviously arrive much quicker than in the experimental layout.
4.) It's not something that needs testing, it's a matter of distances -- an aggressor would have a shorter travel distance between the main base ramp and the natural than a defender would. Think of Blistering Sands, but on a smaller scale. Also, a defender would have to try and walk down that single-width ramp to defend the natural, which greatly favours the aggressor. There's a reason why people move their armies down to the natural once they take that base, instead of continuing to sit in their main (unless it's something like a PvP where taking the natural has a high risk, and they're prepared to cancel/sack it should things not pan out). Perhaps this concept could be re-adjusted to address this issue, but what's been presented would definitely suffer from it. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| GDR Canada. August 10 2012 07:04. Posts 398 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 06:21 iamcaustic wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:22 moskonia wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:05 iamcaustic wrote:
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made.
No point is made: 1) Scout the cheese? players who do scout good enough wont fall for it. 2) Easy fix with LoS. 3) How easy? not more then normal layout I presume, any reason why it should more then normal? 4) Will need testing, might be possible you will have to break the rocks and defend via the nat ramp, but I think it will be needed to test before commenting about that. Imo the layout seems cool, would love to see someone good try it out, but would need a 3rd that is further from the opponent, so it might need some clever positioning, we'll see if someone would be able to make it work
2.) LoS blockers can solve that issue. One does have to take into consideration the possible impact the LoS blockers will have on attacking/defending after the rocks are taken out, though. That's something that will require testing.
It was so simple! Why didn't we think of it before!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lJPac.jpg)
Seriously, this shouldn't even be a point of contention. The issue of warping in isn't a problem if we apply the method from your own thread on the first page. We could simply set the ground to be unbuildable, and setup a visual represntation that corresponds with this.
+ Show Spoiler +
Voilà! Warping in isn't an issue. Obviously not the best example, but still.
I'm not saying there are not other problems, but certainly this is not one. |
|
|
| TheFish7 United States. August 10 2012 07:36. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
+ Show Spoiler +On August 10 2012 07:04 GDR wrote:
On August 10 2012 06:21 iamcaustic wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:22 moskonia wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:05 iamcaustic wrote:
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made.
No point is made: 1) Scout the cheese? players who do scout good enough wont fall for it. 2) Easy fix with LoS. 3) How easy? not more then normal layout I presume, any reason why it should more then normal? 4) Will need testing, might be possible you will have to break the rocks and defend via the nat ramp, but I think it will be needed to test before commenting about that. Imo the layout seems cool, would love to see someone good try it out, but would need a 3rd that is further from the opponent, so it might need some clever positioning, we'll see if someone would be able to make it work
2.) LoS blockers can solve that issue. One does have to take into consideration the possible impact the LoS blockers will have on attacking/defending after the rocks are taken out, though. That's something that will require testing.
It was so simple! Why didn't we think of it before! Seriously, this shouldn't even be a point of contention. The issue of warping in isn't a problem if we apply the method from your own thread on the first page. We could simply set the ground to be unbuildable, and setup a visual represntation that corresponds with this. + Show Spoiler +Voilà! Warping in isn't an issue. Obviously not the best example, but still. I'm not saying there are not other problems, but certainly this is not one.
Or simply add a few single block LOS blockers nearby the rocks so that you can't build anything right next to them on one side
I think this is a really cool idea, btw. The only change I might make is to put the two ramps very close together, maybe even close enough that a player could wall himself into one base using the normal 2depot + rax wall.
Last edit: 2012-08-10 07:39:00 |
| |
|
| GDR Canada. August 10 2012 07:43. Posts 398 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 07:36 TheFish7 wrote:
Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On August 10 2012 07:04 GDR wrote:
On August 10 2012 06:21 iamcaustic wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:22 moskonia wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:05 iamcaustic wrote:
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made.
No point is made: 1) Scout the cheese? players who do scout good enough wont fall for it. 2) Easy fix with LoS. 3) How easy? not more then normal layout I presume, any reason why it should more then normal? 4) Will need testing, might be possible you will have to break the rocks and defend via the nat ramp, but I think it will be needed to test before commenting about that. Imo the layout seems cool, would love to see someone good try it out, but would need a 3rd that is further from the opponent, so it might need some clever positioning, we'll see if someone would be able to make it work
2.) LoS blockers can solve that issue. One does have to take into consideration the possible impact the LoS blockers will have on attacking/defending after the rocks are taken out, though. That's something that will require testing.
It was so simple! Why didn't we think of it before! Seriously, this shouldn't even be a point of contention. The issue of warping in isn't a problem if we apply the method from your own thread on the first page. We could simply set the ground to be unbuildable, and setup a visual represntation that corresponds with this. + Show Spoiler +Voilà! Warping in isn't an issue. Obviously not the best example, but still. I'm not saying there are not other problems, but certainly this is not one.
Or simply add a few single block LOS blockers nearby the rocks so that you can't build anything right next to them on one side I think this is a really cool idea, btw. The only change I might make is to put the two ramps very close together, maybe even close enough that a player could wall himself into one base using the normal 2depot + rax wall.
I tried adding blockers. I found it took 3 at least, because a pylon in the middle can even warp across. You could however, put blockers on one side, and then where you would warp in on the other side raise the terrain to act like an overlord spot.
Don't know if thats what you mean't, but yeah I don't think pylon warp in are an issue. There is a number of work arounds.
|
|
|
| TheFish7 United States. August 10 2012 08:09. Posts 1209 | Profile # |
Sloppy, but you get the idea, gives the player the option to wall off in 2 different ways, but prevents pylons being built close enough to the rocks to warp in over them. (assume the lowest level of terrain here is either not pathable, or better yet is the corner of the map) (the nat would be on the left in this case)
+ Show Spoiler +Last edit: 2012-08-10 08:11:06 |
| |
|
| moskonia Israel. August 10 2012 08:22. Posts 932 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 08:09 TheFish7 wrote:Sloppy, but you get the idea, gives the player the option to wall off in 2 different ways, but prevents pylons being built close enough to the rocks to warp in over them. (assume the lowest level of terrain here is either not pathable, or better yet is the corner of the map) (the nat would be on the left in this case) + Show Spoiler +
Can that wall be blocked by the standard Protoss wall as well? (gate + core + zealot) it seems like it would be a bit problematic. |
| | "He who learns to walk, should never crawl again" | |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. August 10 2012 08:39. Posts 794 | Profile Blog # |
On August 10 2012 07:04 GDR wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 06:21 iamcaustic wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:22 moskonia wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:05 iamcaustic wrote:
I think there are too many issues that would arise from this sort of concept.
1.) Terran proxy rax -- you could just float your barracks into the natural (after building on the low ground) and basically just walk in from the back door.
2.) 4-gate -- As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, it's possible to warp in beyond destructible rocks. How might one expect to defend two separate ramps against this kind of rush?
3.) Zerg -- oh how easy it will be to contain a Zerg with this kind of layout.
4.) Holding any sort of strong 2-base all-in -- again, this is an issue with the dual entrance. The positioning greatly favours the aggressor when attempting to defend both the natural and main.
I could probably keep going, but I think the point is kind of made.
No point is made: 1) Scout the cheese? players who do scout good enough wont fall for it. 2) Easy fix with LoS. 3) How easy? not more then normal layout I presume, any reason why it should more then normal? 4) Will need testing, might be possible you will have to break the rocks and defend via the nat ramp, but I think it will be needed to test before commenting about that. Imo the layout seems cool, would love to see someone good try it out, but would need a 3rd that is further from the opponent, so it might need some clever positioning, we'll see if someone would be able to make it work
2.) LoS blockers can solve that issue. One does have to take into consideration the possible impact the LoS blockers will have on attacking/defending after the rocks are taken out, though. That's something that will require testing.
It was so simple! Why didn't we think of it before! Seriously, this shouldn't even be a point of contention. The issue of warping in isn't a problem if we apply the method from your own thread on the first page. We could simply set the ground to be unbuildable, and setup a visual represntation that corresponds with this. + Show Spoiler +Voilà! Warping in isn't an issue. Obviously not the best example, but still. I'm not saying there are not other problems, but certainly this is not one.
Finding workarounds isn't an area of contention. o.o That's why I said that LoS blockers can possibly solve the issue. It's just something I hadn't initially considered when I said warping over rocks could be a big issue -- and is still something that would need to be addressed. Can't just have the rocks all by themselves, or the concept in the OP won't work due to warp-in. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| 1 2 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
![[image loading]](http://www.bigtbrawl.comyr.com/images/Delta_Quadrant.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CfbAp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mlvfm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fwauo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/102LC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l1lHZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/izH1M.jpg)
