| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On January 12 2012 09:01 Sergio1992 wrote: Apologize for me asking, but what does 9m2g mean? Or 7m2g? I'm not able to understand these acronym  m = mineral nodes g = gas geysers The numbers indicate how many of each. | ||
|
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
I was seriously hoping the OP was a professional mapmaker/insider and that this would be a sort of a guide. Oh well, the discussion so far has been instructive. Thanks for this thread, really helps a lot in understanding the map aspect of the game | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On January 12 2012 11:51 Abort Retry Fail wrote: I was seriously hoping the OP was a professional mapmaker/insider and that this would be a sort of a guide. Oh no he didn't. :p But seriously, as my spring term at university is kicking in, I shall be mapping less heavily. I will, however, go as far as to say that the first three bases are generally how I try to think of a concept, and is without saying the starting point for most of my maps. I also try to add some funky feature to a map that theoretically will work fine, but that's perhaps another topic. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On January 12 2012 11:51 Abort Retry Fail wrote: I was seriously hoping the OP was a professional mapmaker/insider and that this would be a sort of a guide. I am making a guide after a few more questions are asked in the coming weeks. On January 12 2012 11:51 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Oh well, the discussion so far has been instructive. Thanks for this thread, really helps a lot in understanding the map aspect of the game I am glad you find this helpful! Every few days there will be a new specific topic for the mapping community to discuss on when it comes to melee map production. We've seen the opinions of tournament organizers, players, and the average viewer, but I am doing something different. I want the mapping community to open their minds, so people can see how map-makers operate in these areas as opposed to players and viewers. | ||
|
Vod.kaholic
United States1052 Posts
I remember on the initial version of GSL's dual sight, terrans complained about the layout of the third as being too open, too far from the other bases, and easy for zerg to abuse with the mobility of mutas and zerglings. That's just an example, but how do concerns about the dynamics that result from the layout of third bases factor into the map making process? What properties do map makers prefer in which situations and why? | ||
|
Sergio1992
Italy522 Posts
On January 12 2012 09:05 Phried wrote: 9/7 minerals, 2 gas. In reference to resources available from each base. On January 12 2012 09:06 IronManSC wrote: m = mineral nodes g = gas geysers The numbers indicate how many of each. Thank you | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
for example there has been a time when protoss was considered the op or the easy race. when you felt like you lost the game if protoss was able to get up to 3 bases. nowadays you see alot of 2 base allins because thirds are often too hard to defend and protoss are struggling a bit. in the current state of the game the it seems that the third almost needs to be safe like a second natural, relatively close to your nat, with a defendable choke that gives you an advantage. also, there has been a time when multiple expansion patterns were the cool thing to do. but in reality it is very hard to pull off and will most of the times lead to circle syndrome problems. often maps that are more clear about which bases you are supposed to take will produce more solid games/less base trading scenarios, even tho many people will say that map split is bad. imho it only is when the gameplay is too static. for example, when you only defend one major choke like on shakuras plateau. another thing that is often not given much thought is the air vulnerability. you probably don't want to expose your mineral like to muta/dropship harass too much. try to avoid having too much air space around your main mineral line. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
Because they are used in nearly all of the games and in many games (or most games if used in GSL) it doesn't even go beyond the third. The first three bases are therefore 80% of the map basically. Are rocks ever okay at your third? Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup? If Zerg has a good alternative they can expand to instead of that blocked third, and if it's okay that this favors Terran over Toss as well (cos Terran can build CC and destroy rocks later). I wouldn't say something like this is always bad, in general the layouts you see around here shouldn't add rocks to their thirds tho ; ) One thing you should keep in mind when blocking the path to the third with rocks like on Entombed Valley or Xel'Naga Caverns: That makes it very hard for Zerg to defend their third against air harrass early on. How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third? The main should be pretty big so it doesn't feel awkward to build production buildings later (think about lategame toss massing gates for example). Also the smaller your nat is the bigger your main should be. Also in general the easier it is to secure ressources the bigger the main should be for all the production Toss/Terran have to build. Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map? Main/nat in corner. If you want maximum of distance put the nat in the very corners cause nat to nat distance (or main ramp to main ramp distance basically) is the most important. Any other thoughts or tips for the viewers? Be creative with your first three bases. So often I see the same old main on double height, nat on highground and then the ramp as nat choke here. The safer the bases are from attacks , the more vulnerable you can make them to harrass. Try some unpathable cliffs around main/nat for air harrass for example, or a lowground cliff for drops. Have the main on one highground and the nat on another highground. Make inbase nats with interesting vulnerabilities etc There's lots of possibilities for interesting setup of the first three bases, be creative ; ) | ||
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
Because it usually defines what builds are viable and how the map gets played out. On bad layouts most matches detoriate into 1-Base/2-Base allin-play because Naturals/Thirds are too hard to defend. But a good layout should always offer the possibility of long-term play/strategies. Are rocks ever okay at your third? Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup? That depends. I am a strong believer that players should be given (at least) two viable options to take a third, with varying degrees of risk/reward. Rocks can play a role in this, for example, there can be two options to take a third, but one is blocked by rocks, but on the other hand it's a lot easier to defend. How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third? Mains are usually big enough to house all the production facilities one will need, but not all of them will be entirely safe from i.e. siege tanks. I find it hard to balance when it is okay for stuff to be siegeable, and when it's not. At first, i made almost everything not siegeable, which resulted in very long paths and drawn-out maps. Make sure your mains offer enough space for terran macro, since they need the most space of all races. You can make smaller Mains if you have a natural which offers more space. Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map? Personally, i like layouts which feature a natural which is easy to take and defend, and that reflects in the way i make maps. The classic layout would be mains placed right into an edge of the map, ressources in an arc around the edge and natural very close to it, third somewhere very close to the main's plateau, but more open than the natural. I'm actually not a big fan of this, even though it's the basic thing to do at first and solves how one should lay out expansions patterns. It's not easy to stray away from it, but i think it just might offer more interesting maps and more possibilities of how to place thirds. Any other thoughts or tips for the viewers? Study the most popular maps. You will be stunned just how close bases are placed on them. On almost every map you can fit ressources of two different bases onto a single screenshot. Even just the direction of the arc of ressources can have a much bigger impact than you might think! | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:21 lefix wrote: i feel like the answer to these questions is constantly changing with the meta game. for example there has been a time when protoss was considered the op or the easy race. when you felt like you lost the game if protoss was able to get up to 3 bases. nowadays you see alot of 2 base allins because thirds are often too hard to defend and protoss are struggling a bit. I disagree. What you mentioned here is something that is solely dependent on game balance. How a protoss plays on 2 or 3 bases does not change the fact that the 3rd will always be there regardless, and so when it comes to map design, it will be laid out as if they were going to play on 3 base anyways. Even if a protoss all-ins on 2-base, terran and zerg still probably want 3 bases. Meta-game will always change, 3-base wont. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
For example, Tal'Darim Altar has an extremely narrow choke between the main and natural when compared to the overall size of the map. During the early stages of some match ups like TvZ, this can be a crucial benefit to a defending Terran. They can easily wall off with a few buildings and effectively hide which tech harass they are opening with. The same holds true in a PvZ. Protoss also need to wall off so they can get a good 3 Gate Sentry expand rolling. However, later in the game this choke becomes a nightmare for the Protoss. Bulky armies of Stalkers, even with Blink, become extremely funneled through this choke when a Mutalisk harass needs to be held off. More generally speaking, do you think map designers purposefully implement some features of your first three bases to both help and hinder you throughout the game? | ||
wrl
United States209 Posts
On January 13 2012 05:16 TheToaster wrote: Okay, I've got a question. Do you think some chokes between your original three bases (main, natural, third) serve to benefit both sides, but during different time periods of the game? For example, Tal'Darim Altar has an extremely narrow choke between the main and natural when compared to the overall size of the map. During the early stages of some match ups like TvZ, this can be a crucial benefit to a defending Terran. They can easily wall off with a few buildings and effectively hide which tech harass they are opening with. The same holds true in a PvZ. Protoss also need to wall off so they can get a good 3 Gate Sentry expand rolling. However, later in the game this choke becomes a nightmare for the Protoss. Bulky armies of Stalkers, even with Blink, become extremely funneled through this choke when a Mutalisk harass needs to be held off. More generally speaking, do you think map designers purposefully implement some features of your first three bases to both help and hinder you throughout the game? The main needs a tight tight choke regardless of anything. The fact that it makes moving your army in and out of your base late in the game a pain in the ass is just an unfortunate side-effect, but benefits any sort of air-based harass (which is ultimately good for the game). A better thing to note about TDA would be that there is a longer than average distance between your natural defensive location and the rear of your minerals, making it difficult to cover both. This directly increases the viability of air harass on the main. Typically when designing the Main/Nat/Third you want to include aspects that support non-deathball playstyles without directly making the base difficult to hold. Some examples include: 1. The smokey reaper entrance on Antiga. 2. The backdoor on Xel'Naga Caverns. 3. The unpathable highgrounds around the M/N/3 of Tal'Darim Altar. | ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
On January 13 2012 05:34 wrl wrote: The main needs a tight tight choke regardless of anything. The fact that it makes moving your army in and out of your base late in the game a pain in the ass is just an unfortunate side-effect, but benefits any sort of air-based harass (which is ultimately good for the game). A better thing to note about TDA would be that there is a longer than average distance between your natural defensive location and the rear of your minerals, making it difficult to cover both. This directly increases the viability of air harass on the main. Typically when designing the Main/Nat/Third you want to include aspects that support non-deathball playstyles without directly making the base difficult to hold. Some examples include: 1. The smokey reaper entrance on Antiga. 2. The backdoor on Xel'Naga Caverns. 3. The unpathable highgrounds around the M/N/3 of Tal'Darim Altar. Well Tal'Darim Altar was really just one example. There's a new season 5 map out that has a blue dirt tile set and has rocks between your natural and third. Sorry for forgetting the name, but this is another great example of a ridiculous choke throughout the game. The rocks and choke are definitely a good idea when considering the defending abilities of each race. Zergs can't just ez-mode defend every early third they plop down because of the rocks, Protoss have more protection for their natural from things like Roach all-ins, and Terran get a nice little choke for their tanks to effectively siege up in. But during a macro game, this choke becomes almost non-navigational for the defender. Force Fields can be thrown down, bulky armies can't squeeze through to defend harass. This choke almost forces armies to move down from their high-ground advantage so movement can actually become possible. I'm a Protoss player, but this definitely isn't an "OMFG Why can't my A-click deathball move through my own base?!?!?!". I love the fact that some map features like these uniquely affect each race in a different way, and during different periods throughout the game. | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On January 13 2012 04:51 a176 wrote: the problem with this whole 2/3 base arguement is that sc2 is a static game. the maps do not change so the game does not change, and thusly the players have little incentive to change their playstyles. this is why you see them complain (read: whine) about the defensibility of other bases because they will not bother to learn the timings to build [enough] appropiate defenses and thanks to 1a deathball syndrome, leave some units for defense. basically, what you see in BW play with protoss is what you should be seeing in SC2 play, but it just doesnt happen. blizzard admitting the game is designed around 2 base play doesnt help either. Actually even if the maps don't change, the way the game is played does change because players get better and learn new ways of dealing with pressure, etc. And also the maps do change. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:21 lefix wrote: i feel like the answer to these questions is constantly changing with the meta game. for example there has been a time when protoss was considered the op or the easy race. when you felt like you lost the game if protoss was able to get up to 3 bases. nowadays you see alot of 2 base allins because thirds are often too hard to defend and protoss are struggling a bit. in the current state of the game the it seems that the third almost needs to be safe like a second natural, relatively close to your nat, with a defendable choke that gives you an advantage. I agree with this completely. You'd see protoss get the stalker/collosus/voidray ball of death and terrans & zergs would have no idea what to do against that. If protoss could get 3 base, they won. It was as simple as that. But now as we see players get better and better terrans & zergs are able to play against the S/C/VR ball very well. Sure it's still tough to deal with but it's not impossible anymore. I also agree about it being a main reason why you see so much 2 base all-ins. They are strong attacks that can win games if your opponent doesn't scout correctly. Plus when the 3rd is too far away, it's much easier to try your luck with a timing attack rather then take a super risky, hard to defend third. Safe 3rds are where it's at, especially with players getting better and better and maps getting bigger and bigger. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
thirds if spaced far enough apart from the natural do not need rocks, but ones that are too close should have some form of block, whether its the xel naga approach or direct like tal darim. the balance of the size should be relative to the overall design of the map, things shouldnt be clunky... they should flow. reccommended places for expos should be on the edges of the map, if they are in the center, then there needs to be some choke points, or a reason for them, for example meta but NOT like antiga where they just kinda ... are there for w.e i think people cluster f over a certain map or map type, and rip off that layout, 1/2/3 when drawing things on your own shouldbe the way to go... IMO there should never ever be rules guiding a mapper no matter what level he/she is, some of the best layouts in the future will bare little resemblence to the popular ones right now | ||
|
Carmine
United States263 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WLYYO.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NHH77.jpg) Both of those expamples have a 3rd that is close to the main but this idea could be even used for one that is decent distance from the main by using the layout of the natural to help. Here is a mockup. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O0l7o.jpg) I was also thinking about rocks usefulness in the first 3 base. Obviously you don't want a backdoor to the main or rocks at your natural. Rocks at the 3rd are generally bad but some think it is not too bad. I don't like it because I think taking a quick 3rd as Zerg should be a reasonable response to a FFE, although honestly I don't know too much about ZvP. Then I thought about the rocks used to be part of the choke of the natural or as a back door to the natural. I don't know if those are good or bad but I am open to some opinions on it. I am worried whether or not they would buy enough time for someone who FEs to get up adequate defense. | ||
|
LanZ
35 Posts
On January 19 2012 15:42 Carmine wrote: *snip* I was also thinking about rocks usefulness in the first 3 base. Obviously you don't want a backdoor to the main or rocks at your natural. Rocks at the 3rd are generally bad but some think it is not too bad. I don't like it because I think taking a quick 3rd as Zerg should be a reasonable response to a FFE, although honestly I don't know too much about ZvP. Then I thought about the rocks used to be part of the choke of the natural or as a back door to the natural. I don't know if those are good or bad but I am open to some opinions on it. I am worried whether or not they would buy enough time for someone who FEs to get up adequate defense. I am wondering how much it affects the game if the fast third that the zerg takes is not the proper third (near the main base, closer to natural, etc) in the map. Is there a huge disadvantage to a zerg if he would take a much further base as a third? From how I look at it, I know that the static defenses are a bit weak, but if there's enough of them, maybe it would work out? Does making your opponent's army decide between the third or the main help out with better flanking and out positioning for you? (As was seen in Fruitdealer's games vs Terran during the early stages of SC2) One of the editions Tal Darim Altar had this, but the change for it was that Blizzard wanted a simpler understanding of a full base. In conclusion: A farther third for better resources, or a safer third with lesser resources is what I had in mind when thinking of this situation. | ||
|
Carmine
United States263 Posts
On January 13 2012 15:27 WniO wrote: reccommended places for expos should be on the edges of the map, if they are in the center, then there needs to be some choke points, or a reason for them, for example meta but NOT like antiga where they just kinda ... are there for w.e I like expos in the center of the map. Without them the only reason to use the center of the map is to walk to the other side. An example of this is Taldarim Alter. Also I think without them it makes it very hard for Terran to expand towards Zerg. Expanding towards somone who is playing harass style (ling/bane/muta or bio against mech) is so important. Likewise they should have the option of expanding away. Crossfire is an example of a map where you can only expand towards each other after the 3rd. I believe that those bases in the middle of antiga are the only thing that makes it possible to play a macro game agianst Zerg. Without those you would have to rely on so much aggression because there would be no way to defend your expos and your main at the same time. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Maru vs SHIN
MaNa vs MaxPax
Maestros of the Game
Classic vs TriGGeR
Reynor vs SHIN
OSC
MaNa vs SHIN
SKillous vs ShoWTimE
Bunny vs TBD
Cham vs TBD
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Astrea
Classic vs sOs
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs Ryung
ByuN vs Zoun
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
GuMiho vs Cham
ByuN vs TriGGeR
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
