• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:34
CEST 07:34
KST 14:34
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL50Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?12FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports?
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL Help: rep cant save Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 637 users

[D]Different Natural Design

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
Normal
xeqwist
Profile Joined July 2012
55 Posts
August 09 2012 17:53 GMT
#1
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 +
[image loading]


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 +
[image loading]


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
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Finland1612 Posts
August 09 2012 18:01 GMT
#2
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
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
August 09 2012 18:03 GMT
#3
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.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
TibblesEvilCat
Profile Joined March 2010
United Kingdom766 Posts
August 09 2012 18:16 GMT
#4
i think it's fine, unusual, and will need testing to make sure, certain cheeses wont be the main play for the map
Live Fast Die Young :D
a3den
Profile Joined April 2012
704 Posts
August 09 2012 18:19 GMT
#5
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
Profile Blog Joined October 2011
United Kingdom2331 Posts
August 09 2012 18:34 GMT
#6
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.
LRSL 2014 Finalist! PartinG | Mvp | Bomber | Creator | NaNiwa | herO
Callynn
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands917 Posts
August 09 2012 19:23 GMT
#7
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
Profile Joined August 2011
France1406 Posts
August 09 2012 20:04 GMT
#8
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.
[Govie] Wierd shit, on a 6 game AP winning streak with KOTL in the trench. I searched gandalf quotes and spammed them all game long, trenchwarfare247, whateva it takes!
iamcaustic
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada1509 Posts
August 09 2012 20:05 GMT
#9
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.
Twitter: @iamcaustic
moskonia
Profile Joined January 2011
Israel1448 Posts
August 09 2012 20:22 GMT
#10
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
GDR
Profile Joined July 2011
Canada407 Posts
August 09 2012 20:35 GMT
#11
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 +
[image loading]


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 +
[image loading]

[image loading]


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
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2404 Posts
August 09 2012 20:43 GMT
#12
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]

Also the cliff on Othello can be reached by lings, marines, and zealots but nothing else unless the neutrals are broken.

[image loading]
Mapmaker & TLMC Judge. Amygdala, Frostline, Crimson Court, and Korhal Compound (WoL).
OxyGenesis
Profile Joined May 2012
United Kingdom281 Posts
August 09 2012 20:44 GMT
#13
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]
Maker of Maps inc. Vector, Uncanny Valley and Fissure | Co-Founder of SC2Melee.net
iamcaustic
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada1509 Posts
August 09 2012 21:21 GMT
#14
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.
Twitter: @iamcaustic
GDR
Profile Joined July 2011
Canada407 Posts
August 09 2012 22:04 GMT
#15
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]

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 +
[image loading]


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
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United States2824 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-09 22:39:00
August 09 2012 22:36 GMT
#16
+ 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!

[image loading]

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 +
[image loading]


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.
~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~
GDR
Profile Joined July 2011
Canada407 Posts
August 09 2012 22:43 GMT
#17
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!

[image loading]

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 +
[image loading]


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
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United States2824 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-09 23:11:06
August 09 2012 23:09 GMT
#18
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 +
[image loading]
~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~
moskonia
Profile Joined January 2011
Israel1448 Posts
August 09 2012 23:22 GMT
#19
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 +
[image loading]


Can that wall be blocked by the standard Protoss wall as well? (gate + core + zealot) it seems like it would be a bit problematic.
iamcaustic
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada1509 Posts
August 09 2012 23:39 GMT
#20
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!

[image loading]

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 +
[image loading]


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.
Twitter: @iamcaustic
TheFish7
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United States2824 Posts
August 09 2012 23:50 GMT
#21
On August 10 2012 08:22 moskonia wrote:
Show nested quote +
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 +
[image loading]


Can that wall be blocked by the standard Protoss wall as well? (gate + core + zealot) it seems like it would be a bit problematic.


Just move the gateway backwards 1 square
~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
August 10 2012 01:02 GMT
#22
Honestly I think it looks like kind of a cool idea.

The main issue I see as a zerg player is that I wouldn't have creep in the right places to defend rushes/contains. Maybe if the base was closer to the ramp it wouldn't be as much of an issue? Or maybe that would make it worse? I'm not sure. I'd have to try it out.
xeqwist
Profile Joined July 2012
55 Posts
August 10 2012 01:37 GMT
#23
Sorry for the relatively late response, but I'm glad to see that so many of you have responded!

Obviously there is some problems with the design in the way I presented it. ex. I'd probably have to add some LoS blockers on the other side of the rocks to prevent warp-ins, and the ramps might have to be rearranged to be more balanced considering zerg's creep spread, etc., but I probably will try to incorporate this into the map I'm making since I've gotten quite a lot of positive feedback!
I have a few ideas after looking through all of your replies!

Thanks to everyone who came with their input!! =D

I'm also particularly interested in seeing OxyGenisis' map with a similar concept.
xeqwist.195 EU | ♥ BitByBit ♥ MarineKing ♥ | Marine good unit.
Callynn
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands917 Posts
August 10 2012 09:04 GMT
#24
On August 10 2012 05:44 OxyGenesis wrote:
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]


I think your wide rocks actually pose a bigger problem than the smaller rocks from the OP. You need that choke towards your natural once the rocks are down.
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.
OxyGenesis
Profile Joined May 2012
United Kingdom281 Posts
August 10 2012 10:28 GMT
#25
On August 10 2012 18:04 Callynn wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2012 05:44 OxyGenesis wrote:
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]


I think your wide rocks actually pose a bigger problem than the smaller rocks from the OP. You need that choke towards your natural once the rocks are down.


I'm actually not convinced that you do need the smaller choke as I think the rocks take long enough to break down that the defender has ample time to get defences like spine crawlers up, especially has they have the high ground. I did actually do a version with smaller rocks however, just felt the larger rocks were neater. I would love for someone to do some testing in to viable aggressive builds against this setup, based around breaking down your enemies rocks and the pros and cons of large choke vs small choke. Also whether you can hit the rocks from the low ground is something to be considered.

[image loading]

As for the 4gate issue, I think there is probably a way to use invisible LoS blockers in the rocks and then a trigger that destroys them when the rocks are broke down. That's something I might look in to but using regular LoS blockers is also a fine solution.
Maker of Maps inc. Vector, Uncanny Valley and Fissure | Co-Founder of SC2Melee.net
xeqwist
Profile Joined July 2012
55 Posts
August 10 2012 12:56 GMT
#26
Oxy, I love the atmosphere in that map, I'm not sure about the whole small vs. big choke but I think a smaller choke is gonna actually benefit the attacker as forcefields/tanks(/banelings?) have potential to do more "damage" in chokes. So I think your initial design might be more balanced... not completely sure though.
xeqwist.195 EU | ♥ BitByBit ♥ MarineKing ♥ | Marine good unit.
a3den
Profile Joined April 2012
704 Posts
August 10 2012 18:01 GMT
#27
Oxy : I like bigger rocks better, this layout with the small high ground vantage point leading to the ramp is way better though.
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-10 21:09:51
August 10 2012 20:09 GMT
#28
On August 10 2012 19:28 OxyGenesis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2012 18:04 Callynn wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:44 OxyGenesis wrote:
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.




I think your wide rocks actually pose a bigger problem than the smaller rocks from the OP. You need that choke towards your natural once the rocks are down.


I'm actually not convinced that you do need the smaller choke as I think the rocks take long enough to break down that the defender has ample time to get defences like spine crawlers up, especially has they have the high ground. I did actually do a version with smaller rocks however, just felt the larger rocks were neater. I would love for someone to do some testing in to viable aggressive builds against this setup, based around breaking down your enemies rocks and the pros and cons of large choke vs small choke. Also whether you can hit the rocks from the low ground is something to be considered.

The rocks take too long to break for a rush to be "unbeatable". Any rush requiring a wall will be easy enough to beat, you only need to wall your initial entrance and then secure your natural with wall/units. Any rush relying on a straight up fight will be so delayed by rocks that the defender will have ample time to prepare. It's not very different from a normal natural at all, there is a slight increased opportunity for the attacker because of the 2 paths, but there will be a wall there anyway if it matters. This design, in general, is just fine. Frankly, it doesn't add that much to the dynamics of the natural; you can just defend in front of the rocks, like a normal FE but with the expo tucked far away from the wall -- beyond the main base in fact. But a little change of pace is good.

You can re-envision this setup as one large main base with an in-base expo, and a block of negative space inside the main base. The real entrance to the main base is probably wider than a 1ramp, but until the rocks obscuring one side of the negative space are broken, the 1ramp is your functional main entrance. Beyond 6 minutes it's a completely normal game except you have this blob of unbuildable terrain in your main base.

On August 10 2012 19:28 OxyGenesis wrote:
As for the 4gate issue, I think there is probably a way to use invisible LoS blockers in the rocks and then a trigger that destroys them when the rocks are broke down. That's something I might look in to but using regular LoS blockers is also a fine solution.

You could also just use the data editor to make the rocks block vision. ^^

But I think normal LosB are fine, it doesn't really hurt anything. Very minor reduction in buildable space which shoudn't have a real effect if you have enough build space in the main base.

edit: I should add that PvZ and TvZ are the only real things you need to consider. The other matchups depend on a "fair fight" compared to the zerg swarming past your wall in XvZ. This is why you can just make a wall at your 1ramp and be fine, the rocks take too long to break for a "rush" to succeed. The design has far more impact in a later attack before the 3base stage of the game, where you can use some tech units with good position to really mangle defensive efforts. But at that point, the defender should have been trying to hold the front area before he gets his position split.

edit2: Actually this does change one thing significantly. Protoss can't deny the natural with forcefields for nearly as long. Usually trapped player has to wait for blink or colossus, or medivacs or tanks, or zerg can be broken in half (literally) with a sentry prism gateway all-in.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
iamcaustic
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada1509 Posts
August 11 2012 17:57 GMT
#29
On August 10 2012 19:28 OxyGenesis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2012 18:04 Callynn wrote:
On August 10 2012 05:44 OxyGenesis wrote:
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]


I think your wide rocks actually pose a bigger problem than the smaller rocks from the OP. You need that choke towards your natural once the rocks are down.


I'm actually not convinced that you do need the smaller choke as I think the rocks take long enough to break down that the defender has ample time to get defences like spine crawlers up, especially has they have the high ground. I did actually do a version with smaller rocks however, just felt the larger rocks were neater. I would love for someone to do some testing in to viable aggressive builds against this setup, based around breaking down your enemies rocks and the pros and cons of large choke vs small choke. Also whether you can hit the rocks from the low ground is something to be considered.

[image loading]

As for the 4gate issue, I think there is probably a way to use invisible LoS blockers in the rocks and then a trigger that destroys them when the rocks are broke down. That's something I might look in to but using regular LoS blockers is also a fine solution.

It's starting to look a lot like a more turtle-friendly version of the Entombed Valley 3-base layout, with that third base just outside the other main base ramp. Can't say I'm the biggest fan of that.
Twitter: @iamcaustic
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 26m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 273
ProTech65
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3023
Zeus 60
Aegong 60
Noble 32
Larva 20
Sharp 5
Bale 2
LuMiX 1
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm206
League of Legends
JimRising 829
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K0
Other Games
summit1g9035
shahzam1181
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV67
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 24
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH195
• Hupsaiya 69
• practicex 39
• Sammyuel 18
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1718
• Rush1410
• Stunt472
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
4h 26m
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
7h 26m
WardiTV European League
10h 26m
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
10h 26m
Big Brain Bouts
10h 26m
Korean StarCraft League
21h 26m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 4h
RSL Revival
1d 4h
FEL
1d 10h
RSL Revival
2 days
[ Show More ]
FEL
2 days
BSL: ProLeague
2 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

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

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

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