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?
Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design? First and foremost, every individual inch of terrain is more important the earlier in the game it is used. In fact, everything matters more the earlier in the game it is. Most games last 18-28 minutes, and in many games the outcome is decided in the first 10 minutes with the rest of it generally echoing what happened then.
You only need three 8m2g bases to have optimal resource income (another two gas if you're macro zerg with hive).
Are rocks ever okay at your third? On the third? rarely. Near the third? often.
Are rocks needed at all in the 3-base setup? No, but once big armies start to happen (which happens to happen at about 3 bases), rocks outside of the 3-base setup become almost negligible (other than a one-time army-out-of-position window).
How do you balance the size of the main, natural, and third? I'm guessing you mean how much buildable room is in them. Two things:
(1) macro maps need more production, so there should be room for this production. aggressive maps dont need so much room.
(2) bigger bases = harder to scout. Do with this as you will.
Where are the recommended places to put these bases on a map? On 4p map, generally in the corners.
In 2p map (it should be rectangular, or the center of the map should be rectangularish), the entrances to the 3-base setup should be on far sides of the map.
Any other thoughts or tips for the viewers? terrible terrible damage is lame
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?
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.
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've been working on a thread (many dozens of hours) to explore this issue. DEATH TO 8m2g!
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.
link on the first part? 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
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.
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.
So, I made this (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283406¤tpage=3#51) post a few months ago about the layout of 3rd bases and how it can change PvZ. Obviously, my information may not be 100% accurate, so take what I said with a grain of salt. Now, I'm not sure if this too much of a "balance" related question, but I was wondering how map-makers think about the architecture of third bases in various matchups and how that can favor one race or a certain playstyle over others.
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?
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.
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.
Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design? 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 ; )
Why is the main, natural, and third layout so crucial to a good map design? 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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
main > nat > third is a very standard method of expanding, but cool layouts can be formed, (desert oasis) where it doesnt need to be so straightforward.
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
As a Terran player and someone who is interested in map design I am really interested in the placement of the 3rd. I like it to be close to the natural or main in a way that it facilitates taking a relatively quick 3rd and defending with siege tanks. Shakuras Plateau and Antiga Shipyard both do this I believe.
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.
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 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.
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.