These times are based on TLMC standard: the time it takes for a worker to reach one town hall location to another, give or take a second due to human rounding.
Horizontal Spawns Main to Main = 57 seconds Natural to Natural = 42 seconds
Vertical Spawns Main to Main = 58 seconds Natural to Natural = 43 seconds
Cross Spawns Main to Main = 65 seconds Natural to Natural = 50 seconds
3 and 9 o’clock bases split and moved closer to mains for better distance proportioning
Mid map 6 and 12 o’clock bases added as an alternative third for vertical spawns
Xel’Naga towers moved to centre map for better positional control
Terrain
3 and 9 o’clock positions opened up and ramps added for better terrain flow
Mid map manmade bridges raised and extended to provide more dynamic mid map control and pathing
v1.0
General
Initial release
Map Concept
Version 2.0 of Sol Crossing vastly changed how the map plays compared to the original design, but in a way that still adheres to the original concept I wanted to create. Both feedback and additional play testing showed that the original design didn't consistently create the kind of games I was hoping for. What v2.0 represents is a middle ground between the kind of design I wanted and player expectations for a competitive map. To clarify, here were the concepts:
Horizontal Spawns Strong nat-nat air harassment to spice up what would otherwise be mostly standard game play.
Vertical Spawns More inclined for an extended 2-base mid game, focusing more on tempo-based play instead of passive macro and forcing players to expand somewhere other than the "expected" third base.
Cross Spawns Your generally expected, standard macro game.
I really wanted each spawn combination to play differently from one another, so the map would be exciting and different for a longer duration of time. Such a thing also brings strategy more to the map side, where players are focused more on early game scouting to determine their game plan instead of going in with a pre-set plan, and in some cases forsaking early scouting altogether.
I'm particularly happy with this update, as I feel it moves the map from experimentation to competitive viability. I'd also like to thank everyone for their constructive feedback in this thread. It's always a big help when people offer alternative view points and thought processes with the goal of making something even better.
Strategy guide? Yes, normally this is where I'd talk about the map concept, but I feel this one is far enough out there that some initial direction on how to play the map would be more useful. Do note that this is a work-in-progress; I'll continue to flesh it out, but for now please enjoy by expanding the spoiler.
Please note that these strategic tips are made with the map design's intent. Players are ever creative and may find alternative/better solutions for both timing and macro based strategies. There is also not a lot of emphasis on mirror match ups, as both players have the same tools and options available to them.
Terran - Drop play still a powerful option - Tank timings can be a thing
Protoss - Might want to reconsider blink - Mothership core critical for macro
Zerg - Mutalisks are a good skill toi have - Trade a third for a nat -> profit
Taking a third
In what might be the most obvious statement ever, acquiring a maximum economy on this map is going to take more work than simply shifting your army ball into a slightly more forward position.
Which base to take
Vertical Positions
By its very design, this positional spawn is meant to encourage more aggressive strategies over passive macro-oriented play.
Terran
The island expansion is a rather convenient option for Terran
Can also consider the horizontal main/nat provided investment is made in static defence; easier to take as a 4th and 5th, though.
Protoss
For normal purposes, the horizontal main/nat
Utilizing warp prism strategies, you can play much like a Terran and take the island
Zerg
The horizontal main/nat is the way to go
Taking the island is technically possible, but would require investment in overlord drops or nydus early on; better as a recovery option should a nydus or doom drop strategy fail to end the game, or taken normally later in the game
Horizontal/Cross Positions
These spawns offer more breathing room for macro play than vertical spawns, with a (slightly) more natural process for taking and holding 3+ bases.
Terran
Take the 3/9 o'clock bases ezpz
Natural expansion flow
Protoss
Take the 3/9 o'clock bases ezpz
Natural expansion flow
Zerg
One option is to take the 3/9 o'clock bases like the other races, though you're more susceptible to some powerful 2-base timings
Taking vertical main/nat gives you more breathing room for counter-attacks, greater opportunity to engage in mid, less chance of getting positionally cut off between nat/third
How to hold the base
Terran
3/9 o'clock
Good simcity, use the watchtower, control the ramp between nat/third.
Have a map presence; if they're making a major push against your simcity side, you want to know about it before it's hitting you.
Use positional play to zone the map.
Island
Missile turrets are your friend here
Take advantage of your third being impenetrable by ground to put on the pressure; don't let them establish a formidable air presence
Protoss
3/9 o'clock
Good simcity, use the watchtower, control the ramp between nat/third
Have a map presence; if they're making a major push against your simcity side, you want to know about it before it's hitting you
Use observers and/or oracle revelation to keep tabs on your opponent so you can out-position them; forcefields and AoE will wreck a big army trying to brute force through
Adjacent main/nat
Mothership core is key; photon overcharge and recall will give you the mobility and stopping power necessary to defending a farther location
Take a page from Zerg's book; if faced with a 2-base timing against your third, counter-attack to trade your third for their nat. Make sure to have recall to get back home and defend an economy advantage.
Against lighter harassment, static defence isn't actually awful.
Island
Better as a follow-up to a 2-base warp prism timing (e.g. storm drop, sentry ramp block, sentry/immortal, DT warp prism expand, etc.) when these don't end the game.
Zerg
3/9 o'clock
Mid-map engagements are key. You want to prevent your opponent from reaching a powerful position and exploiting the corridor-like nature of the base location.
Consider tactics like mutalisk harassment or ling backstabs to keep your opponent at home until you can amass a powerful enough army to engage in mid.
Adjacent main/nat
If faced with a 2-base timing against your third, threaten the counterattack into their natural. You hold the distance advantage; disrupt their economy faster than they disrupt yours, and get home to stage a surround if they try to last-ditch bust through your nat.
Against lighter harassment, static defence and a handful of units can deflect.
About Galaxy eSports: We're an organization focused on helping build the SC2 mapmaking and North American competitive scenes. Follow us and keep up with our progress!
One of my favourite things is a nice paintjob on rocky cliff edges. Very well done there! ;D
Definitely love the idea of this map and I don't think you could ask for a better execution. Not sure SC2 as we know it will hold up to it, but maybe that's the point. Why O why don't we get something like this instead of Alterzim to get stuck in the map pool and make people actually figure it out and give us something new?
p.s. The use of this map comes with a 6month overhead cost of protoss 2base deathball allin games.
No offense, but this looks like a map straight out of the WoL beta pool. Super faraway thirds and fourths, island bases, weird watchtower placement, ...
I think the idea of a faraway third that is also a long way away from your opponent isn't bad, but here it seems impossible for both players to go up to four bases when spawning horizontally, and I think this concept would work much better on a 1v1 map.
Aesthetics are great, I always liked the Mar Sara look a lot.
Although the layout might feel pretty straightforward I do like this map quite a bit. Having the choice of the super far away third or the very close island 3rd is awesome. I love where you put the watchtowers even if others disagree because it helps with taking that base if you're forced to take it as a third. The only thing I don't really like about it is that the middle is pretty boring. It's just a giant flat square with some "bridges" and the overall pathing might be a little dull as well. For instance, even making those "bridges" in the middle high ground with ramps on each end would make it more interesting imo.
On April 12 2014 15:25 EatThePath wrote: p.s. The use of this map comes with a 6month overhead cost of protoss 2base deathball allin games.
It's become my opinion that any truly interesting map will see an influx of 2-base all-ins to start, as people take the time to figure out how to reliably secure expansions and play out a macro game. If people can immediately look at an overview and say "oh yeah, that's how you take 3-4 expansions", then I feel like a lot of the potential strategy in StarCraft is left on the table.
It is, however, a very fine line. If you do it wrong, then what you thought was "people have to think a bit more how to take a third" becomes "it's impossible for X to take a third" and your map gets banished to the netherworld of bad map designs. One of my goals with Sol Crossing is to push that boundary and see how far we can take it. The strategy guide in the OP is to help give the community a first step in the discovery process.
On April 12 2014 18:19 Semmo wrote: I like this a lot. Even though there are couple of obvious problem I see, well done!
This is my big gamble: do those obvious problems negatively impact overall gameplay, or does it only mean the creation of a different meta game? If it's the latter, then the end result is a boon to both players and spectators of the game. If it's the former, then the map will get binned.
I can't quite remember the exact number for nat2nat, but it was acceptable for all spawns. Something like ~40-45 seconds. I'll be testing the differences again for the TLMC entry, so I'll put that information in the OP when I have the exact number.
On April 12 2014 22:09 And G wrote: No offense, but this looks like a map straight out of the WoL beta pool. Super faraway thirds and fourths, island bases, weird watchtower placement, ...
I think the idea of a faraway third that is also a long way away from your opponent isn't bad, but here it seems impossible for both players to go up to four bases when spawning horizontally, and I think this concept would work much better on a 1v1 map.
Aesthetics are great, I always liked the Mar Sara look a lot.
This map design was heavily inspired by Brood War maps, which the beta maps were also inspired by, so it's not entirely surprising there are similarities. This is, however, a 1v1 map, so I'm not sure what you mean by that (maybe a 2 spawn map?).
On April 12 2014 23:17 SidianTheBard wrote: The only thing I don't really like about it is that the middle is pretty boring. It's just a giant flat square with some "bridges" and the overall pathing might be a little dull as well. For instance, even making those "bridges" in the middle high ground with ramps on each end would make it more interesting imo.
It's intentionally boring for the sake of Zergs, who will have to deal with so much else about the map that their gameplay style will inevitably have to be completely re-thought from current styles you see on current 4 spawn maps like Frost and Alterzim. At least I have a few little high-ground pods players can have fun with.
Overall, mid is the "Zerg part" of the map. It's what Zerg wants to control, it's where they want to engage the opponent's army. I like having designs that focus on 1-2 major concepts, and this one focused on 3rd base design and the side corridors.
Well some problems I see are (Sorry I didn't mention when I said there were some): 1. When spawning vertically, when you have to defend 4~5 bases the two players are too close together because atm the center is too small. I think for the top and bottom center, you have to expand it so that they can move further away from each other.
2. Because the thirds really only have one point of attack, all ins and deathballs would be very strong here. it'd be a good idea to give the defender an advantage. Something like a pseudo-cliff using xel-naga you already have and LOS blockers would be good.
3. Terrain is awkward at the nat. I think this is what I mean by "flow" or the geometry of the map; little awkward parts of the map like this can make all ins too strong etc.
I think number 1 is the biggest problem here, but yeah.
On April 13 2014 11:56 Semmo wrote: Well some problems I see are (Sorry I didn't mention when I said there were some): 1. When spawning vertically, when you have to defend 4~5 bases the two players are too close together because atm the center is too small. I think for the top and bottom center, you have to expand it so that they can move further away from each other.
2. Because the thirds really only have one point of attack, all ins and deathballs would be very strong here. it'd be a good idea to give the defender an advantage. Something like a pseudo-cliff using xel-naga you already have and LOS blockers would be good.
3. Terrain is awkward at the nat. I think this is what I mean by "flow" or the geometry of the map; little awkward parts of the map like this can make all ins too strong etc.
I think number 1 is the biggest problem here, but yeah.
I figured these were the things you were considering, which is why I didn't bother to ask for them myself. Like I already mentioned, it's a gamble on my part. Either they force a different meta or the map will be binned. They are deliberate choices though:
1. I designed the map to play differently in different spawns. Vertical spawns in particular are meant to be more aggression-focused (as in, 2-3 base games, only sometimes reaching 4-5 bases). Kind of what you'd expect for certain Brood War maps. That said, I do believe there are ways to hit these macro-style games with these spawns, but I expect them to utilize more split group-based aggression and army movement, rather than death ball unless you're committing to a major attack (in which case, the distance between major armies in mid is moot). Either way, for the start of the map's lifespan it's pretty safe to assume most players will be doing 2-base styles in vertical spawns before they figure out how to hold them reliably.
2. This sort of stuff is already outlined in the strategy guide, as it's a fairly obvious consideration.
3. I actually designed it this way for two reasons. One was to help normalize rush distances, but the bigger one was giving the players the ability to have a highly defensible nat. The attacker is not only in a long choke, but the defender has the high ground from the main. With the aggressive nature of the map and the big question mark regarding taking thirds, I felt it'd be almost impossible for the map to have legs if players were not only having to adapt their strategies and defend their third/additional expansions on opposite sides of the map, but also have to worry about being unable to reliably hold their nat as well.
The overall idea for the longer corridor came from the Brood War map Ground Zero.
Well, you seem to be very defensive about your map and don't seem to want to change. Your map, your decisions I guess, but I feel like the map'll go to waste if it stays as is.
I don't think the map will play out as you want it to play out because SC2 is too different from Brood War. And you seem to be completely ignoring the "flow" bit which was evident from the other "Geomancy" post.
On April 13 2014 15:15 Semmo wrote: Well, you seem to be very defensive about your map and don't seem to want to change. Your map, your decisions I guess, but I feel like the map'll go to waste if it stays as is.
I don't think the map will play out as you want it to play out because SC2 is too different from Brood War. And you seem to be completely ignoring the "flow" bit which was evident from the other "Geomancy" post.
Anyways, Good luck!
It's not being defensive; I agree with your points. I just wanted to make it clear that they were deliberate decisions, and elaborate on the reasoning behind making them. I fully acknowledge (and have done so a couple of times already) that it's an experiment that may very well make the map a waste. If it works out, though, it could have huge ramifications for how map design is approached in SC2.
You're absolutely right when you say I'm ignoring the flow with the natural choke, at least for now. My priorities with the design were elsewhere (I outlined my thoughts regarding the nat choke in my previous post). I could certainly take some time to make the flow better while retaining my gameplay intent, as there's nothing really stopping me other than being busy.
Not sure what you're talking about regarding the Geomancy thread, though; that was a poorly written OP causing confusion for basically everyone who joined the thread early. By the time you joined the discussion, my conversation with NewSunshine was finally starting to reveal exactly what the topic was supposed to be about, and you can read the end result: NewSunshine will be fixing the OP to avoid two different conversations from taking place. Or you can imply I have a poor understanding of what design flow is, free country and all.
Your map looks very good, i like the idea! Maybe you could make your 12 and 6 o'clock bases more interesting? Destructable rocks on both sides so you can access it from the left and the right starting position either way. But at the same time it should be a little bit more punishable. Maybe an easy to access high ground, to make it scoutable, at least, or even to put some pressure on it. Without some kind of pressure, it probably would be too easy to defend.
On April 17 2014 05:55 Striker.superfreunde wrote: Your map looks very good, i like the idea! Maybe you could make your 12 and 6 o'clock bases more interesting? Destructable rocks on both sides so you can access it from the left and the right starting position either way. But at the same time it should be a little bit more punishable. Maybe an easy to access high ground, to make it scoutable, at least, or even to put some pressure on it. Without some kind of pressure, it probably would be too easy to defend.
Definitely options I could look into, should those bases end up stale and too difficult to punish, though I want to first let it play out as-is to make sure that's the case. Thanks for the feedback.
The third is very far away and hard to creep. Queen defense vs helion/reaper will be a nightmare. Quite a few early roaches is a must just to get three bases. And even if zerg survives to the midgame, the way I see it zerg can not hold a fourth in a std bio game. Especially after being at a disadvantage up to three bases. And to add salt in the wound, terran can float to the island.
On April 21 2014 20:33 LoveTool wrote: How would you play ZvT on this map?
The third is very far away and hard to creep. Queen defense vs helion/reaper will be a nightmare. Quite a few early roaches is a must just to get three bases. And even if zerg survives to the midgame, the way I see it zerg can not hold a fourth in a std bio game. Especially after being at a disadvantage up to three bases. And to add salt in the wound, terran can float to the island.
Third bases are covered in the OP, but you are quite correct that they'd be harder to connect with creep. This map will not play identically to the current ladder pool for Zergs. Queen defence is identical on two bases, and you're not expected to hold a maximum economy with only queens on this map. I do very much encourage expanding the spoilers in the OP to get a more broad idea on how people are expected to take additional bases.
Early roach timings are a growing early ZvT meta on the current ladder (some of the nastier ones even like to play with burrow). If it was a terrible thing for Zerg, I wouldn't have considered making a map like this. As for the island, it cannot be taken before medivacs due to the rocks. If you keep track of timings, that means a Terran will not be able to begin seriously establishing the base before the Zerg is investing in mutalisks. The isolated nature of the base works two ways -- highly defensible against a ground army, but very weak against air-based assault.
All that said, if you expect to play the 4-6 queen opener where you get 70+ drones before making a ling/bane/muta army, then your assessment is spot on. It is a terrible map for that strategy, and Zergs will find themselves having a very hard time if they try it.
You are missing the point. 4 bases are a requirement for zerg in a macro game - regardless of when to drone. If zerg can't defend 4 bases, zerg is dead long term. Without 8 gasses, zerg can't go into late game.
Creep spread may be the most important aspect of the matchup, regardless if terran goes mech or bio. That creep must connect all four bases as a minimum requirement. To threaten terran to counter push if terran engages poorly, zerg needs some creep spread beyond that too.
With enormous rush distance to any "4th" your map makes this necessary creep spread practically impossible. This effectively kills the map for this MU, and thus for any serious playability.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1fBMICy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y3qr1q7l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hN79M2jl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OSTYmU3l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ljSx171l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hPcj8Cbl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cNVuFOVl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8geqKXQl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I7nR9i7l.png)
