Rock Bottom - by Johanaz
version 0.9 - published on EU

144x122
12 bases (2 gold)

In light of recent events I figured I need to start over. I want to move away from "map makers map" towards more of an "easy to read - fun to play" approach, or as Plexa put it: "easy to learn - difficult to master". With that in mind I set out to create a 2 player map where the layout can be understood at a glance. I stole the main-nat-3rd setup from Havens Lagoon by Timetwister22 and built it into a rotational symmetry map with XNC-like golds.

Yeah I know, "golds on XNC - PF - imba imba!!" yeah well, that´s why I post this early concept here so that you guys can comment and I can learn.

Angled:+ Show Spoiler +

Analyzer:+ Show Spoiler +

Tileset is based on Xil but with just about every rock texture from other tilesets.
Lighting is "Mar Sara night test" with slightly heightened contrast.
So far zero doodads - I didn´t want to spend too mcu time on texturing yet but I guess I cant help myself

My plan is to keep posting-changing-testing until the map is rock-solid and provide excellent gameplay.

Version 0.8:+ Show Spoiler +

Angled:+ Show Spoiler +

Analyzer:+ Show Spoiler +

Natural choke:+ Show Spoiler +

Version 0.6+ Show Spoiler +

146x122

Angled:+ Show Spoiler +

Analyzer:+ Show Spoiler +

About natural openess:+ Show Spoiler +

Natural choke is 14 units wide which means 5 buildings, however ramp to nexus can be walled with just 2 buildings:

VOD of a test TvZ casted by Destructicon: link

Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler +

v 0.9:
map size 144x122
changed far NW/SE bases into low ground
remodeled high grounds
added crystal clusters in center (LoS/pathing blockers)
tinted low grounds darker blue

v 0.8:
shrunk map to 144x120
changed center layout - towers - gold bases
tightened natural choke

v 0.6 original post

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

November 14 2011 09:54 GMT

Hi Johanaz

I think it is a good approach to show maps early on instead of discussing everthing in a small public (chat).

First I want to comment on the general layout. While one expands toward the enemy, one always expands onto higher cliff levels - nevertheless the area of control turns around. The map kind of twists in itself if you follow a linear progression, making a mapsplit very difficult. For controlling four regular bases, I have basically to watch over four chokes that all are positioned along the middle or the diagonal axis.As an alternative, one could take third, gold and the first base on the ccw direction (together with the tower) - but nobody would be comfortable sitting so close to the opponent's gold/fourth and his army. So the last way to look at the expansion pattern is nat > gold and the predictable discussion around imba-golds/mules/CC.

must difficulties are produced early on with a third that has one (far) away entrance, the ramp towards the nat and the conjunction between gold and nat that has four paths leading into.

another difficulty comes from the XNWT positioning. It comes in a bit late in mid/lategame when you should be able to scout anyway.It helps with the fourth/fifth, but it is a bit odd.

Th central lowground has some nice terrain. I like how it narrows down on one side (the dialonal of the cliffs/holesl is not parallel to the diagonal of the highgrounds on the sides). Maybe it should be the other way around? leaving a bigger area infront of the nat and fewer space infront of fifth? this could also allow to move the third a bit closer to the nat's choke.

interesting concept here with the long valley, but thin look a bit too complicated, difficult to play and also a bit big/open.

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

November 14 2011 13:03 GMT

These golds are really horrible!

Other then that quite solid. Very defensive and macro oriented ...

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

November 14 2011 13:06 GMT

This is really hard to predict how it will play out. I think my preference as a player would be to take the third and then the gold as my 4th. I don't think the golds are too bad as they dont control important terrain, but they are still vulnerable. I can only identify two 'weaknesses' from my perspective;
- The XNTs seem a bit misplaced, as samro pointed out
- The double highground expo seems a bit weird; mostly because the highground doesn't need to be there. Other than holding the base, it doesn't provide any strategic advantage to have as most of the action would be focused on the lower grounds.

Azzur

Australia6250 Posts

November 14 2011 13:06 GMT

I actually think this map may play out quite well. It seems to be well balanced in terms of chokes and openess. For example, the 3rd base is quite defendable but would also stretch the defender reasonably and open up other areas for access. The golds are nice bases to take in a push but there is another path for counter attacks.

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

November 14 2011 13:37 GMT

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Back to the drawing board

AdrianHealey

Belgium480 Posts

November 14 2011 17:54 GMT

I love it.

I'm not sure if it's balanced. As a zerg: I'm afraid that there isn't that much room for surround, but there is much room for back stab.

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

November 15 2011 01:03 GMT

The 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock bases will never really get taken I think. The opposite third is much closer and more defensible, and then the gold and high ground blue bases will serve as a fourth and fifth, but then those last 2 bases are too close to the opponents natural to take and hold well without leaving one's own main base area undefended...

Otherwise this map seems very nice. Solid idea, and good execution.

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

November 15 2011 10:00 GMT

Update!

Did a complete rebuild of the center, plus a lot of minor tweaks. I think the layout has improved overall. What I am worried about is that the map might be harder to read now. You tell me! Thanks.

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

November 15 2011 10:54 GMT

#10

It seems, as a protoss player, that I could quite easily take the golds as my third or fourth in PvZ or even PvP if it makes it to that point. Which, certainly mixes up the game play, however i think golds should be a bit more difficult to take. The simplest thing you could do is to remove the downfall between the minerals and the high ground. Thus a single stalker or roach/hydra could deny mining from the high ground as well as expose it to high templar. colossus or infestor play, much like the 3rd on XNC. Quite simply, i'd need to control much more of the map to hold the golds, making it a bigger investment and greater risk. Not sure if that would exactly fix the golds, as you might have to widen the opening to make Sim City more difficult so zerg has a better chance against terran PF fortified positions.

_Depression

United States251 Posts

November 16 2011 07:02 GMT

#11

As a Terran, it seems pretty straightforward to take the gold as my fourth base, but for some reason I see Zerg taking the gold as their third? It just has a bigger attack surface with plenty of paths to get behind any opponent who tries to take out the base, and then you can double expand backwards with relative ease.

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

November 19 2011 11:52 GMT

#12

Updated to v 0.15:
map size 144x122
changed far NW/SE bases into low ground
remodeled high grounds
tinted low grounds darker blue
added crystal clusters in center (LoS/pathing blockers) + Show Spoiler +

As always I appreciate all feedback. Thanks.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

November 19 2011 12:49 GMT

#13

Is the pathing between minerals smooth or are there smal blockers? what about creep?

I think it is a great fun feature, but it needs to be communicated well, so that people know that there are some dark templer hidden behind the crystal.

terrain could be naturalized a bit. looks very bubble-designed, e.g. non pathable highrounds connecting areas.

a176

Canada6688 Posts

November 19 2011 20:29 GMT

#14

looks great!

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

November 23 2011 09:44 GMT

#15

On November 20 2011 05:29 a176 wrote:
looks great!

Thanks! ^^

In the current layout you can put a pylon on high ground 3rd and warp into the natural behind the wall-off. Does that break the map? It makes the nat kinda hard to defend against early 4gate pressure, but there is room to defend. I´m not sure if I should remove this feature or not. Check out the pics and let me know. Thanks.
+ Show Spoiler +

NaturalHacks

New Zealand77 Posts

November 23 2011 16:47 GMT

#16

looks wicked!

a176

Canada6688 Posts

November 23 2011 18:07 GMT

#17

On November 23 2011 18:44 Johanaz wrote:

Show nested quote +

people will complain anyways so i suggest you change it

in theory though it will not be an issue because i think most people the wall would be from ramp -> nat and the proxy pylon could be just placed anywhere

if you want to keep it, how about making thirds low ground?