[M] (4) Hardened Heart

+ Show Spoiler [old] +

This map is a revisitation of the dual reflectional and rotational symmetry goals that I had for Xel'Naga's Folly. However, unlike the rest of my published SC2 maps to date (save one), I decided to not use a dual natural approach as I've had other alternative natural layouts I've been wanting to explore. I am nowhere near done with the dual/multiple naturals concept, but the natural in this map has been on my mind for some time.

Basically, the geometrical restrictions imposed by having both reflectional and rotational symmetry (not just vertical and horizontal symmetry a la Kulas Ravine) mean that you have essentially you have three options for a Main/Nat layout:

1) The natural needs to be along the same axis as the main base (when the main base is along an axis, either cardinal or diagonal).
2) There needs to be dual naturals.
3) The natural needs to be in-base, somewhat like a 2v2 layout.

In the last case, you essentially have double mains in each main base area rendering eight spawn positions, two of which are scoutable in the same sweep. I think most would balk hard at this last concept for a 1v1 map (which, to me makes it an intriguing idea for a future map...) and it simply hasn't crossed my mind yet as something I'd like to try to make work.

Actually, there is another case, but it is sort of a mix between the first and third cases, but in that case you get a "pizza" map where you really wind up with eight slices of main/nat. Again, this is an intriguing concept for a future 1v1 map, but definately much more challenging of the norm than I wish to perpetrate with this map since I intend to submit this to the February MOTM, if not also any other contests that come up in the near future.

Anyway, the first option was what I wanted to explore for this map so after my first decision of "are the mains going to be along the cardinal axis or diagonal axis" (diagonal just makes certain things easier, for example, minerals are always 1x2 and never 2x1 ... yet -- someday!) was whether the natural should be in front of or behind the main. I chose to go with in front of the main since this again makes certain things easier. If you build behind, you essentially only get two attack angles on the base unless you leave a lot of air space behind it. Also, then you have to deal with the forward main which, for the logistics I wanted to explore in this map, would cause more problems than I wanted to deal with.

So then the next issue to deal with is the third. As with the main and natural, there are really only two options for this, along the axis or not. Along the axis will give you four of that base, not will give you eight. As there were eight bases left until the sixteen base "limit" for a four player map, I decided to go with the latter option. While I would not have had a problem with having every base along some axis (difficult to fit more than two along each...) I didn't want every base on this particular map to be such since doing so would essentially prevent the pathing and expansion pattern I wanted to explore (basically, I wanted just two 3rd options, instead of the three granted by putting yet another base along the diagonal axis and the final one along the cardinal axis, or the four granted by putting both other bases along the cardinal axis ... or I guess even the solitary one granted by squeezing both other bases along the diagonal...).

So, what was this idea for a pathing and expansion pattern? Well, there were two main goals I wanted accomplish with this map. The first, is more of a "utilization of technique" goal and the second is more of a "game play / map flow" goal. The technique I wanted to really make use of on this map was ramps. This map has ramps. But more specifically, I wanted to expand upon what can be done with ramps to create strategic positional play. In most of my maps I have attempted to do this to some degree, but the interesting ramp usage was limited to one or two new-ish idea. On this map, I really wanted to plumb the depths of ramp usage, and the main thing I came away with while testing some of this stuff was that Blizzard needs to fix how the editor handles ramps. There are quite a few bugs when placing ramps in interesting configurations. But my main gripe with the current implementation of ramps are that there are no ramp corners. I'm sure this has been bitched about before, but I'd just like to sign that petition for Broodwar-like hacked ramp corners where one direct of ramp can flow into another direction of ramp seemlessly. Another annoying fact, similar to ramps lacking seamless corners, is the fact that ramps will not seemlessly merge perpendicularly to the side of cliffs. Those things, being said, there are a few non-bugged, interesting configurations of ramps that are possible, a couple of which I use on this map.

The first interesting configuration I'd like to point out is the set of diagonally opposed "downhill" ramps leading into the natural. The way diagonal ramps work, there are two configurations (of single wide diagonal ramps) that are possible, I will call these the "white" and the "black" ramps. The reason I name them such is that they work similarly to the White and black bishops in chess. When working with a diagonal ramp you are either on a "white" or "black" diagonal. If you make a diagonal ramp on a "white" diagonal, and then create an opposing ramp also on a "white" diagonal such that they are as close as possible without overlapping (and consequently the second overwriting the first), what you will actually get is a "walled off" ramp alley such that units from the low ground cannot path onto the meeting of the ramps. This can be done with cardinal direction ramps too, except that cardinal direction ramps do not also glitch the terrain where the ramps meet. The terrain glitching is the unfortunate side effect of this configuration of opposed "white" to "White" or "black" to "black" ramps (I think this should be one of the easier fixes for Blizzard...). The next same "color" configuration is similar to the first, in that it creates a blocked path. In this configuration, you extend one wall two contiguous diagonal tiles perpendicular to the ramp direction and then plop your opposing ramp. In this configuration, only one edge of the ramp will meet in the middle and there should be no glitching of terrain. You will notice there is no third configuration along this same diagonal where the edge of one ramp is in the middle of the opposed same "color" ramp. This is where the opposite color ramp comes into play. When you oppose opposite "color" ramps in a "closest without overlapping" fashion, the only configuration you can get is where the edge of one ramp is in the middle of the opposing ramp -- the edges will never be exactly opposed. Additionally, you will notice that this configuration will never give you ramps that "touch". The ramps will have a little extra space between them which is pathable by any current ground unit (though a tight squeeze).

Moving on to the cardinally opposed "downhill" ramps between the thirds. With cardinal direction ramps, you do not get the "white" and "black" effect. For a single wide cardinal direction ramp, there is only the "same color" opposed effect, where you either have one of or both edges touching. In like fashion to the diagonal version, both create an un-path in the perpendicular direction. To create the "opposite color" effect, you need to expand the ramps to at least double wide. An interesting difference occurs in this configuration as well. While we have achieved the "edge in the middle of the other ramp" part of the effect, we have managed to create a configuration of land that is not universally pathable by all current ground units. Particularly, the Tank and the Thor do not path through this configuration. Interestingly, the Ultralisk, Archon, and Immortal, (and Colossus? is this a surprise?) still path through this configuration.

There are "uphill" ramp configurations that are not on this map because they generally tended to be more buggy (terrain glitching) and to some degree less interesting in their gameplay implications (partly just because they were buggy). Anyway, why are these opposed ramp situations interesting? Well, the main reason is that they allow for some interesting positional play. In the open configuration, you can create a tunnel of sorts where your army is forced into a line rather than a ball. Additionally, the line of units is travelling through an area that has no vision of what is up those claustrophobically close hills. This can be used to force a decision of whether to go through, or around based on the fear of cross directional play. This not only comes into play while in the midst of the canyon, but coming out of it as well. If there is no surround ambush inside the canyon, there may very well be a very strong concave wall resisting anything squeezing through the end of the canyon. While control of the canyon allows for usage of the high ground, actually pushing through the small opening out into the clear could be very dangerous against strongly defended concave. So while, movement through these canyons is not impossible it certainly restricts completely from movement of large armies and forces decisions that require careful planning. In the closed configuration, movement is restricted and an interesting ambush dynamic is created. The ambushers on the low ground can surround the boxed in ramp canyon, however, those being ambushed have the high ground advantage on at least one side of the canyon. If the ambusher has control of the opposite side it can be very difficult for the defender to push out. On the other hand, the ambusher will have his forces split in order to maintain the contain, making a push into the defender's position less viable and therefore less likely.

Anyway, I feel like I've accomplished the "utilization of technique" goal to a large degree, and hopefully, it will spawn some thoughts for other usage from other mappers.

The "game play / map flow" goal I had has been summed up this week in the "circle syndrome" and "fortress effect" threads: don't do them. (Seriously, Barrin, you are going to have to let someone else name some mapping concepts, too!) Basically, I wanted to minimize both of these on this map while still allowing for options of expanding (and attack/harassing). I feel like, to a greater or lesser degree I have succeeded in minimizing the "fortress effect" and have permitted just enough of "circle syndrome" for it to have a positive effect (i.e. not too much of it). The reason I think my layout is more or less a success at this is because of the ways in which you can zone control parts of the map. Obviously, as a defender, you want to be able to concentrate your defenses in a critical mass against an attacking army and you want to do this in a strong position. As you expand, this, in theory is supposed to get more difficult, however, as the circle syndrome theory suggests is not supposed to become impossible. The difficulty in defending more (read: spread out) bases *should* lie in controlling a more forward (common?) choke/strong position than the position needed to defend the last subset of bases. If thought of in terms of sports, the defender always wants to be between the attacker and the goal. The attacker wants to get around the defender. If the goal is large, the best chance you have of deflecting is to be in the middle and as close as possible to the shot to cut off the angles. Obviously, in a war game part of the goal *is* your army, and reinforcement is a big part of keeping you "defender" in position, so your position can't be too forward (unless it is a contain). The different points at which you can zone control parts of the map (as opposed to full on map control) I think allow for sufficient placement of the "defender" such that you can defend the subset of bases you have at the time and that minimal defenses can be pulled to ward of harassment that can go the long way around to reach certain areas. Without concrete examples in pictures/games that is just my assertion and how it feels having tested it a few times. As your presence becomes more centralized, it seems you can, for the most part defend more bases in the direction you are expanding. You will still be open to attack (harass) from the wings, but from a centralized position your "defender" should have the mobility to step in and stop it. Yeah, I'm starting to ramble on this point now -- let's just say to me it feels like it is doing the right things.

Touching on contains, the way I designed the naturals with two back doors on the wings was to avoid making the two base contain too strong. As the middle lies, as I mentioned, I think it is strong for zoning control. Taking control of the middle on the enemy's side, especially with some sort of siege technology, seemed like it could be quite strong and allow for certain builds to be OP. So to prevent seeing that most games, I felt that two single wide cardinal direction ramps, covered with rocks in the narrow back corners of the natural was a good way to help alleviate those concerns. This way, a third can still be taken and defended even in the face of a strong contain at the front without having to resort to alternative mobility options. While it adds a little bit of risk to the natural, the scoutability of potential aggression, defendability, and relative distance of these backdoors, I think makes them much more likely to be used for defensive purposes. However, I do also think that they allow for some good later game harassment options as well.

Now that last two features that I want to discuss are much less of solid goals and more of cutesy things I wanted to try out. The first of these is the arrangement of the natural. Why have the path go through the minerals? Well, the answer to this is partly "just because". It was an idea I've had for a while and I wanted to use it and see what it looked like and how it played out. Secondly, because it is only one of three possible configurations in a reflectional/rotational symmetry. The other two configurations are: 1) having the minerals flipped the other way so that the attacker would have to come through them up the ramp, and 2) straddling half the patches on each side of the base. The latter option was not as attractive because you still have the issue of getting your army in /around the base and workers and patches but you take up so much more of the area surrounding the base. Plus, full saturating then requires more workers since the "third man on the patch" will sometimes bounce a long way between the two groups of patches -- I don't think people viewing this for competition would give bonus points for that. The former option was less attractive because it simply gives you less room to fight/wall at the front. I didn't want two main routes out of the natural, which would have been paired with this option, because that complicates fast expand builds, etc. that I would then be yelled at for. So all in all, having the minerals righ tin front of the ramp seemed like the best way to go. As I tested it, it seems to work pretty well for a few reasons. Before you expand, the mineral help you by blocking the pathing of incoming rushing units. This means that it is harder for the attacker to use all of his units effectively in any attempt to bust up the ramp. Of course, it makes it somewhat more difficult to stop a contain if it is inside your natural and you are stuck in your main, but I have yet to see that in action to know whether it is "too bad" to be viable. The other way that it seems to work is when there is an attack into the natural and for whatever reason your army is in your main. Any harassment must first get around your base, and then into the worker line. So even though your army has to go around/through to start to defend, the attackers agro is already on other things which helps your units survive longer to defend. Also, it is just a quick Ctrl-click & Right-click to get your nat works safely into your main without too much worry of huge losses. Some may argue that this denies a certain degree of strategy, which I suppose is fair, on the other hand, once inside the mineral line the harassment also has a quick path into the main (if the opposing army is not in the way to stop it). Anyway, at least my initial impressions are positive to neutral. I think it is better than the other two approaches.

The other last feature is the "ignore placement restrictions" minerals at the 3rds on the ramps. "Why" you might ask. The real reason for this one is just "because". It seemed like a cool idea. It is easy to do. It hasn't really been done before. Just because. Against anything that gives vision, the same effect could have been achieved with LOS blockers (well, sort of, then you wouldn't be able to see/attack out... unless you gave each base a watchtower...... or made the whole base higher, of the back path lower...... so... yeah, it actually does play somewhat of a strategic / map space management role), but why not spice it up a bit and make the bases more interesting?

Overview
(90 degrees)


(Game angle, full map)


Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +

Details
+ Show Spoiler ['Beauty' shots] +
+ Show Spoiler [Creep connections] +
+ Show Spoiler [Wall-offs] +
+ Show Spoiler [Siege range] +