|
Hello fellow dwellers of the TL map forum, today I'd like to talk about the validation of open naturals. Are they no longer a possibility like they were in early WoL? Some people (including Blizzard) tried to make them work on the HotS beta, but sadly it was forsaken.
First let us think exactly what is an open natural, we can look at known examples like these two:
Metalopolis: (the extreme version of an open natural)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gVOLb8S.jpg)
Metalopolis was one of the most popular maps back in the day, it was pretty imbalanced on close spawns, but on cross positions it was actually an awesome map because the rush distance covered up (sorta) for the very open natural. I think a natural so open as this can only used for a standard map if the rush distance is very big, or else it would be a micro map.
Arid Plateau: (double entrance)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mgg01UP.jpg)
This kind of natural has a very nice chance to be easily executed in a way for it to make a balanced standard map, it can also have the backdoor covered with a rock tower, so it can be blocked, although personally I prefer if it does not have one. The map was used at a time where people already disliked open naturals, therefore it was never popular, but I think this map would have been great for the current game.
Now, are they really not valid? Or is there a way to make a balanced map using open naturals. Even if there is an easy way to make them balanced, most people will see maps with open naturals as weird and bad and will refuse to play them, but maybe some small online cups will see a good map with an open natural and will put it in the pool, and from there it can gain popularity.
Anyways, before we start with publishing and even making good maps with open naturals, I would like to open a discussion to what is required to be in a map with an open natural. An open natural will likely favor Zerg, although vs hellions it might favor the Terran, these things lead me to believe that an easy 3rd would work good with an open natural since it favors Zerg vs Terran and Protoss vs Zerg.
In my opinion having open naturals be a valid choice of a map feature will improve map diversity a lot and overall make the game better, helping to make bigger maps possible, simply allowing for more unique maps. Even a map with two small entrances will play differently than a map with one entrance and will force player to maybe think about new strategies involving the nat's entrance.
I would love to hear your opinions about if you even can, and how do you make open naturals valid.
TL ; DR
Open naturals used to be a valid map feature, what can we do to make it again be as such? Both on the maps themselves and in the scene.
|
An idea for the natural would be to have an open natural AND a harder & further third so that the progression of Nat->Third would be slower. I've been thinking of something like this but I don't know if it'd be a good idea.
|
Such a map as you described would be a micro map, and most people don't like them, although I would love to see a map like that from you.
|
i thought you could wall with the nexus though on metal?
|
On September 10 2013 22:51 Semmo wrote:
An idea for the natural would be to have an open natural AND a harder & further third so that the progression of Nat->Third would be slower. I've been thinking of something like this but I don't know if it'd be a good idea.
Like most of the BW maps? Zerg in general just gets a third base earlier (just how the race works) but how it was start of sc2 with most maps it was pretty much impossible to defend a third or take it in a reasonble time frame and very short push distances. The bases were blocked and the maps were short a really bad combination.
|
|
|
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs.
On September 10 2013 22:51 Semmo wrote:
An idea for the natural would be to have an open natural AND a harder & further third so that the progression of Nat->Third would be slower. I've been thinking of something like this but I don't know if it'd be a good idea.
This sounds good until zerg, sigh. If P and T can secure the natural, then the 3rd has to be defensible for zerg if they go relatively fast 3rd (somewhat like usual), but this is hard to do and also make it farther than normal. Or, imagine the scenario where Z pressures and then takes a 3rd. The P or T can just mass up for a 2base all in and what is Z supposed to do with a low econ and probably no good tech option that will put a timer on the attack window.
|
On September 11 2013 02:38 Barrin wrote:
Note that we straight up laugh at 90%+ of the maps that were used/popular in Metalopolis' time (and that is generous imo); therefore it's feat of survival is not particularly impressive. Perhaps it survived because it was one of the few "macro" maps. But with Metalopolis' hourglass design it often turned into stagnant 5-6 base vs 5-6 base split map scenarios (generally regarded as boring) as the metagame on it reached its conclusion. This result is counter-intuitive to the very open naturals of Metalopolis, so given this it is fair to say that Metalopolis actually proved the viability of open naturals. Who are 'we'? I still think Metal, Xel'Naga and Antiga are more enjoyable to play on than every single map in the current pool except Polar Night.
That said, open naturals are completely viable. It's silly to suppose they once were, but with mothership core added they suddenly are less viable
On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs.
Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them.
They also make 4gates and sentry/immortals easier to defend and pretty much any timing reliant on forcefields a lot. A small natural choke makes it super hard to micro against forcefield and it's very easy to constrict your movement with forcefields in closed off naturals.
|
Okay, so I took all of the great advises by Barrin and implanted them on a map, tell me what you think:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hTz5vMz.jpg)
It has pretty long rush distance (178 from top of the ramp to the other top of the ramp), the nat is really tucked in into the side of the main, thus allowing ranged units to defend the mineral line without endangering themselves and it's easy to see enemy units coming (the towers cover the middle and their side, although you can break the rocks to get a path without tower vision. The other points are not used that much, but that is because I don't want any base to be "easy", beyond the 3rd you have to work hard on getting extra bases, if it would make that most games are 1 or 2 base all ins, so be it.
I think the map turned out pretty well, took inspiration from a few old maps just for the feels (mostly crossfire and metalopolis). I am thinking maybe making the 8 and 2 bases a bit easier to take by pushing them towards the 3rd a bit, but I am not sure. I think about it since I think Zerg will have a hard time taking the other 4th bases since they are more aggressive.
|
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery?
|
On September 11 2013 03:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs. Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them.
You need bunkers, and if there is a wide surface to cover you can't possibly build enough bunkers to defend the attack on all sides, meaning they will at least be killing some scvs without even having to breach the maginot line if there is one in place.
|
On September 30 2013 11:17 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery?
That, and you can't check the mineral and gas saturation with an overlord because it's just exposed to enemy fire.
On September 30 2013 14:19 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 03:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs. Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them. You need bunkers, and if there is a wide surface to cover you can't possibly build enough bunkers to defend the attack on all sides, meaning they will at least be killing some scvs without even having to breach the maginot line if there is one in place. Good luck trying to repair those bunkers in a choke with forcefields. Apart from that, these attacks are seldom defended with bunkers, people tend to move out into the open nowadays and swarm with SCV's which is superior.
Also,I don't get your point since the colossus outranges the bunkers anyway. It doesn't really matter from what angle you engage if you got 9 range vs 7 to work with.
|
I think with the recent trends with Mothership cores allowing quick expands to be more viable, open naturals are as viable as ever. Before it was quite disadvantageous for protoss but now it seems ok for them, although they'll suffer the most.
|
On September 30 2013 11:17 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery?
You can wall with about 3 3x3 buildings I think, although that is only between the ramp and the main base. I am aware that it is a lot, but the map is supposed to play aggressively, which is the purpose of open naturals. If open naturals would still allow the same expansion timing like on current maps then they change nothing.
On September 30 2013 21:55 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:17 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery? That, and you can't check the mineral and gas saturation with an overlord because it's just exposed to enemy fire. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 14:19 EatThePath wrote:On September 11 2013 03:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs. Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them. You need bunkers, and if there is a wide surface to cover you can't possibly build enough bunkers to defend the attack on all sides, meaning they will at least be killing some scvs without even having to breach the maginot line if there is one in place. Good luck trying to repair those bunkers in a choke with forcefields. Apart from that, these attacks are seldom defended with bunkers, people tend to move out into the open nowadays and swarm with SCV's which is superior. Also,I don't get your point since the colossus outranges the bunkers anyway. It doesn't really matter from what angle you engage if you got 9 range vs 7 to work with.
I am aware that you can't check the mineral saturation, but it is a small price to pay for the other features of the map. You just can't have units on the high ground protect the mineral line and at the same time let an overlord have vision of it.
About colossi and bunkers, the angle does matter since while the colossus will always be able to hit the bunker, if it can hit the SCV's behind the bunker it's a whole different story.
Of course I don't really see how open naturals make it any harder to hold since the best way to stop 1base colossi is to pull workers with stimmed MM, the bunkers are only useful to delay the push for enough time for stim to finish, or for vikings to come out, which you only need when you went CC 1st or went some kind of heavily committed harass, both are not valid requirement for forcing maps to have closed up naturals.
|
My point isn't how many buildings it takes, though I also think it takes too many, my point is about how much of the main ramp you block by doing this. You want to allow people to block part of the ramp if they want to, but not force them in order to use fewer buildings.
For example, what you have is more like this (though even more extreme)
+ Show Spoiler +
Whereas I think this is better
+ Show Spoiler +
Also in both of my above examples the gasses are easy to scout.
EDIT: And would still be even if you have the cliff covering the minerals (though you still can't get mineral saturation). END
Perhaps the entrance is too small small, allowing a full wall-off with 3 3x3 buildings and the cc, but we are trying to introduce the concept to people that otherwise whole-heartedly reject the concept of an open natural.
For me the goal of an introduction to open naturals is to allow the same expansion timing while forcing more units early, keeping people comfortable with their build orders while still making the early game more aggressive.
|
Ah interesting point. I shrank the distance between the ramp and the main building at the natural so you can wall much easier.
I like the current design since it means there are advantages to not walling, unlike the 2nd pic which means it's almost always good to wall off. Because the main is overlooking the mineral line on my map, I don't think a wall is necessary, but a choice.
|
What are some advantages to not walling? Even if you can get away with it because you can shoot down on the mineral line, why wouldn't you?
|
Well as you said in the 1st pic some of the ramp is blocked so getting up into the main is harder, this is the disadvantage to walling in the 1st pic. On the 2nd pic there is almost no disadvantage besides it being vulnerable to ranged attacks, but that is the purpose of a wall anyways, to block attacks.
|
I stilll always soft wall in PvZ, never hard wall for a couple of reasons (except on Bel'shir Vestige)
- It ensures photon overcharge is always in range of the wall
- the canon that guards your wall also guards your mineral line
- ling runbies have to travel around the nexus, buying you more time
- requires less buildngs, no need to make the forge part of it so it can't be sniped easily.
|
Yeah, I feel you on soft walling vs hard walling, but I thought we were talking about not walling at all vs soft walling. I don't see anybody not always at least soft walling when taking a fast expand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uSvrwD3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/beg5bPO.png)
