It's time for a little bit more of an easier topic to discuss between map-makers. Last week we talked a little bit about map concepts. This week it's about something more common: your first three bases in the game. How these bases are laid out determines the playstyle between two players.
For anyone who is unaware, these map design questions are specifically for map-makers to gather and give their perspectives and feedback on melee map design according to each topic. This has nothing to do with gameplay balance or player perspectives, but for map-maker's opinions and thoughts. In the end I'll make a nice collaboration thread containing all the topics ^^
Map-makers, let's answer a few questions about the main, natural, and third for anyone who might be interested in melee map-making. I don't want to keep these threads for map-maker answers only however... any discussion on the topic matters!
You can also check out a live stream video I did a while back on your main, natural, and third to give you a better idea of what this looks like as you're working with your 3-base setup in the editor. Watch it Here
Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design? Are rocks ever okay at your third? Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup? How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third? Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map? Any other thoughts or tips for the viewers?
On January 11 2012 08:30 Barrin wrote: oh yeah i luv optional thirds but that makes responses too complicated :D
optional thirds with vastly different attributes FTW.
Never thought about optional thirds so much, but I assume what you mean is that there are 2 "potential thirds" which may be viable in certain situations?
For example: Tal'Darim altar's "4th" will often be taken as a third by Zerg so they don't waste time breaking rocks?
Speaking of rocks: what's the thought about desctructable rocks within the main which simply block production space / size of the main in the early game where in-base cheeses can happen? Or, ignoring rocks, is the concept of an "expandable main" worth exploring?
Expandable main sounds cool. You could have more production space later in the game but not have to worry about proxies there. And you will have to find a good time to actually move your units back there to take them down, which could be fairly difficult. It is a cool concept.
As far as thirds go, there are sort of two standard places for thirds to go. One hugged up against the main somewhere, and one on the far side of the natural from the main. Most maps with two possible thirds have one of each of these. Some maps have bases in both sections but only one really works as a third (Bel'Shir Beach for example.) The one hugged up against the main can be at various distances from the natural, anywhere from right in front of it to the complete other side (if the main isn't in the corner of the map,) but if it's very far away it probably won't work as a third.
I'd like to explore other possible thirds besides these two ideas, or at least variations which are interesting. Other than in-base naturals, there isn't much more creativity involved in the first three bases.
if you put rocks anywhere near, at, or in the path of a third base, chances are you probably work for blizzard. or are terrible at making maps. or u hate zerg? y u hate zerg?
A lot of this is very opinion-based and has to do with a map maker's specific style. With that said, I like maps that have optional thirds, interesting layouts, and the mains are usually in the corners. I believe that mains should usually be placed there to reduce the potency of air harassment, which plays a big role in TvP and with Mutalisks, in my opinion.
Also, I occasionally prefer features that increase spectator value over balance. I also try to make up for it by balancing out other areas differently though. I can't really think of a good example at the moment.
Destructible Rocks These can add a lot of dynamic to the game. I usually have rocks on my maps and use anywhere from two to six rocks. I tend to avoid anymore than six rocks because it makes the map more complicated than it should be. I never place rocks at a third, though I will use them to block the path to a potential third on some of my maps.
Single Entrance Expansions I really like these, but tend to put them far away from the mains. I recently watched a PvP on Metalopolis where one of the players went for blink Stalkers and took the far main as his natural while his opponent went for Robo tech. After watching that game, I decided that most maps should have some sort of expansion that players can take secretly or for other, more interesting reasons, whether or not it is balanced (in my opinion this doesn't really affect balance, players will just have to scout better, and increasing the skill is a good thing).
Islands ... I am not sure what to think of them at the moment. I've never really used them. I think semi-islands have a place in SCII, full islands might. I am really not that sure.
Gold Mineral Expansions: I do not use gold expansions anymore because of how imbalanced they can be.
Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design? Because it's where your base is, it will depend how easily you can take a natural, how easily you can take a third. This alone can tell if it's more of a macro map or not. Can you FE because the natural is safe enough? Should you 2 base all-in because the 3rd is too unsafe?
Are rocks ever okay at your third? Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup? Depends how easy and safe the third is. I feel like on the version of Terminus where there is only 1 choke for 3 bases then rocks on the third can be good. Especially since Terminus is such a big map as well, it makes zerg way too powerful when they can get a 3rd hatch, right next to their natural in about 5 minutes. Now, if the map isn't huge and the 3rd isn't super close then rocks actually blocking the 3rd is a bad idea. Instead, use them to create another choke into the 3rd!
How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third? Main bigger then Natural which is equal in size to the third is how I tend to space them out. Although, lately I've been trying out maps where the Main is smaller and the natural is bigger. Doing that makes 1 base play less strong because it's easier to scout if the main is smaller and has less room to hide buildings. Also, it'll make people want to do fast expand builds so they have more room to build more buildings. 3rds it depends how easy they are too hold. They should be kind of choked away since you want them to feel safer.
Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map? Corners or Cardinal Directions (North,East,South,West)
You know what SC2 maps are missing? Maps that allow Zergs to take another starting location's natural as their third. It forces the opponent to choose to attack one location (either the Zerg's natural or the 3rd), and allows Zerg to get flanks due to reinforcements coming from another base. They should design bigger maps to allow for this type of expansion in mind.
These "close thirds" just help promote turtle play and aren't really interesting.
On January 11 2012 11:06 SkimGuy wrote: You know what SC2 maps are missing? Maps that allow Zergs to take another starting location's natural as their third. It forces the opponent to choose to attack one location (either the Zerg's natural or the 3rd), and allows Zerg to get flanks due to reinforcements coming from another base. They should design bigger maps to allow for this type of expansion in mind.
These "close thirds" just help promote turtle play and aren't really interesting.
Think 4P maps like Metalopolis. These allow secret expansions in those areas, and this can actually work if you have a mobile army.
I really like how GSL's version of Tal'Darim Altar's 3rd is a half base without the rocks.
I have a curious question for the veteran map-makers on the amount of minerals per base. How drastic a change does adding or removing a single patch of minerals affect the gameplay? I've done some searches on the forums about this topic but there wasn't really any conclusion that I gathered from those discussions, so I wanna ask this here again.
-Does making a 9m2g Main, with a 7m2g natural + a half base (5m1g) 3rd work? -Or is the metagame still unstable for the maps to be creative with different number of mineral patches?
I don't think changing mineral counts adds that much to the game, but it makes it more difficult for spectators and casual players to understand. Keeping it in simple terms of "bases" is easier, though perhaps not necessary. I want to explore mineral only expos/thirds. These have a strong contrast to normal bases so they are easier to understand at first glance, while being more impactful on the game itself.
Mineral only expansions are underused in favor of half sized bases, but I really think they should be explored.
On January 12 2012 01:29 LanZ wrote: I really like how GSL's version of Tal'Darim Altar's 3rd is a half base without the rocks.
No it is not. That was like version 0.9 iirc. It never made it to GSL. GSL used Tal'Darim LE. How does this keep getting confused?
Q: Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design?
Because the first three bases in most cases is the first 20 minutes of the game.
Q: Are rocks ever okay at your third? Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup?
Rocks at the third (like Tal'Darim LE) are silly. They present many inherent advantages to Terran. However I think Metropolis concept where breaking rocks just makes for easier defense might be something very interesting.
How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third?
Main: Can eb map dependent. We have seen many sized and shaped mains that play little to no effect on the game. Just an overall decision if you want a super huge main or not.
Second: If open make sure it's easily wall able, if its a closed natural with few attack routes maybe make it harder to wall? idk so much about this one.
Third: This is the whole reason I replied to this post was to answer this question. I think that Cloud Kingdom's area to protect the third may be on to somethign after seeing MvP vs. Lucky. The concept that Lucky tried to abuse was that the third of Cloud Kingdom is very long but there is not much space to run back to kite and split. I feel like this type of base design may be something to be looked at with regards to P or T just turtling on 3 bases forever. If gives each of the other races ways to bust the turtle as they just can't kite forever. Every race has a matchup where they can abuse this, and I think it's something subtle but major for the future of maps.
Q: Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map?
The question is always "rocks blocking 3rd in some way shape or form?"
Never. Unless you want Zerg to hate you. It takes time for players to break rocks, and if you want a 3rd early game, like zerg, you'll need to break them down quickly. Lings take too long to do that, and while you could be making drones, you are forced to make extra lings to bust them down faster. You also lose the productivity that those lings could be doing like poking in, holding towers, etc.
It might have been one of the GSTL pre-seasons which showed TDA in it's original form. Actually, I think there were two stages, one with four more gold mineral bases somewhere in the middle and then a version which still had half thirds and no rocks but without the golds. Blizzard added the rocks and made them full expansions and then GSL switched, IIRC.
Anyway.
Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design?
Well, for one, they are used the most often in games, and the time in the game where they are used is the least variable from game to game. This means that "standards" are a lot easier/important to find in the first three bases. Typically you can get up to three bases while still in the "opening" of the game when players are still following some pretty strict instructions they had prepared for themselves (with programmed reactions, of course.) I don't think that getting to the fourth base and beyond should be considered not crucial, but there's a lot of wiggle room due to the fact that there are so many in-game possibilities by that time, the better player often already has an advantage and can take a fourth more easily than the opponent because they are already ahead, and so having the proper amount of defenders advantage isn't too important.
You also want your map to stand out from the others in every game played, so something unique about the first three bases is a good idea.
Bases become very important because Zerg always wants to stay up in bases. A third needs to be available so a FFE can be responded to with a fast third. Less importantly, a fourth needs to be available without too much more work so a Protoss can't turtle on three when the Zerg can't get a fourth.
Are rocks ever okay at your third? Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup?
Cautiously. Some maps have rocks blocking a quick path to the third but also have an entrance which can be defended at a point in front of the natural somewhere (unlike Xel Naga Caverns where the distance around to the third on the far side is too long.) Actually blocking the expansion itself I would frown upon if it's using a normal rock with full HP and Armor, and I don't condone adjusting the stats on Rocks without giving them a new model. Some weak rocks, preferably with lower armor so Zerglings can kill them faster, might be acceptable. Alternatively, rocks between the point for the hatchery and the minerals, like on Testbug, might work well.
Other times, if there are two possible thirds, maybe one is further away and one is blocked by rocks. This way Terran/Toss have a hard time defending the far one and are forced to kill the rocks, but Zerg could take the other one if they need to.
How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third?
I don't think this is too crucial, but I think there should be a little space in each. If you are encouraging multi-base play, you can enlarge the third and nat and shrink the main. I think the mains should at least have a little room for production. All together you should be able to comfortably fit enough production buildings to spend off of three bases, anyway, which the majority of it being in the main and optionally more in the nat than the third.
Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map?
It doesn't make too much difference as long as they are close together and far from the opponent, usually on the far side fo the map. More creative placement usually will require a larger map, but could be done. Close air positions are okay as long as it isn't too close. There's freedom here. I haven't worked much with 4p maps lately, but I would say they should pretty much fit into the four corners or else the rush distance will most likely be too short, unless you do something special (which I do encourage.)
Any other thoughts or tips for the viewers?
I think it's important that Zerg doesn't get stuck on the same number of bases as their opponent.
Ramps are pretty much standard to fix PvP, but other methods could possibly be done in order to make PvP acceptable but mix things up a bit for the other matchup. You have to be creative to add some kind of defenders advantage which does not rely on rush distance or the ramp. I think HOTS will make this better with their Protoss cannon thing, maybe it will be enough to swing it into the defender's side without a ramp.
Island expos are cool. In the first three bases they have potential. If unblocked and close by they can be good for terran, so that will have to be made up another way. Units like Reapers could make those attached-islands really interesting, while Blink Stalkers can also harass them. They can also be blocked with rocks or creep to prevent a fast Terran expo there if the map calls for it.
Changing the number of resources at a base is an option to balance the first three bases as well. High Yield gas can be interesting but are usually used for fourths, but could be used for optional thirds as well.
EPT
