EPT[I] Proper Mineral Placement - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Flopjack
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
Kuato
United States5 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 13 2012 17:36 moskonia wrote: Can any "pro" map maker confirm those to be the standard mineral placement? Eh, they aren't exactly standard, but standard is an odd thing to be thinking about when it comes to minerals. Most of the common mineral layouts can be found in Blizzard maps, but Korean mapmakers tend to use rather unique mineral layouts, Daybreak is a prime example of this. Back when I was a newb, I just wanted my mineral lines to be shaped properly, and have a similar overall look, which I suppose these do. There is some room for personal style in mineral placement, but it's an odd place to look for it. | ||
|
Drake Merrwin
Canada130 Posts
- Close minerals have a max of 2 workers to saturate fully and far take 3. This is important to note because standard base normally has 2 close 6 far or 4 close 4 far. Some times, like Ohana's main, 3 close. - Vertically aligned minerals should have a space of at least 1 block. If they don't it can be easy for players to miss click. - Gas cannot be further than 2 blocks past the town hall. This also helps with building placement. It's easy to see how you can rework this to function the same from all angles. Standard 4 close 4 far + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bsrIS.jpg) Standard 2 close 6 far + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vWF3n.jpg) Buildings (applies to Zerg buildings as well) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8P4sE.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3UpkF.jpg) | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 30 2012 09:06 TheFish7 wrote: I thought it was a no-no to put geysers directly next to a min patch? It is. Take those bottom three mineral patches in that first example, and shift them left 1 unit. EDIT: Okay, so since everyone keeps messing up the basic, standard mineral placements, here you are: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/egBvg.jpg) This is as standard as you can get. Cardinal and 45 degree mineral lines, one geyser on either side. If you're a new mapmaker and aren't comfortable doing non-standard things like having 2 geysers on one side or unique resource placement, just use this image for reference and you should be good to go. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GlwYD.jpg) It's got better positional balance (both geysers are at the same position relative to the main building,) and on that other one it might take 4 workers to mine fully in some positions. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:25 Gfire wrote: This should be the standard for 45s, shouldn't it? It's got better positional balance (both geysers are at the same position relative to the main building,) and on that other one it might take 4 workers to mine fully in some positions. This way works great as well; just a minor shift of a couple of the top minerals compared to my example (in the post above Gfire's) to allow units another space to pass through the mineral field. Geyser locations are identical. New mapmakers should definitely use either one of these examples for making 45 degree mineral lines -- NOT what's posted in the OP. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
ScorpSCII
Denmark499 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kxo8F.jpg) | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States998 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:59 iamcaustic wrote: This way works great as well; just a minor shift of a couple of the top minerals compared to my example (in the post above Gfire's) to allow units another space to pass through the mineral field. Geyser locations are identical. New mapmakers should definitely use either one of these examples for making 45 degree mineral lines -- NOT what's posted in the OP. What you posted is in the OP for a 45 degree one. I should probably label them, as I have 2 different ways to make 45 degree bases. One of them was from Bel'Shir Vestige, which was the newest map at the time. Also, I'd like to know which ones are messed up, so I could fix them in the OP. Thanks for correcting my mistakes, though. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On November 12 2012 09:03 TheFish7 wrote: The last one under "Standard" has one patch behind 2? imo should look like this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n52dp.png) I would also include the configurations from Cloud Kingdom's main, and 3rd base. I am fond of those configurations (lol) Also, the first one can also look like this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q2ATh.png) this is the ohana formation | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 12 2012 08:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Mineral lines will take up way too much space, making for some very awkward base proportions. Also, making mineral stacking obsolete is a bad thing imo. Mineral stacking will always apply because there will always be 1 or 2 patches centered closest to the face of the CC, which are optimal. The closest you could place mineral patches is probably this (below) which is as compact if not more so than typical mineral patch placements. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TJRVn.jpg) Or maybe this. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/02hvl.jpg) In any case it's better (or standard at least) to have 2-3 patches that are 4 squares away instead of 3 squares away, which causes the base to require 2-3 more workers for full saturation and lets high APM players eek out a slim mineral advantage with worker micro in the early game. Nice thread, good basic resource. Now we need a thread about advanced mineral placements.... :O | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On December 12 2012 05:49 ScorpSCII wrote: Wouldn't a symmetric mineral placement work the best? That type of mineral placement puts 4 mineral fields at 4 units distance, whereas the standard is 2 mineral fields at 4 units distance. Basically means income is gonna be a bit slower than is standard and puts a greater emphasis on forcing workers to mine from closer patches. --------------------- On December 12 2012 06:58 Monochromatic wrote: What you posted is in the OP for a 45 degree one. I should probably label them, as I have 2 different ways to make 45 degree bases. One of them was from Bel'Shir Vestige, which was the newest map at the time. Also, I'd like to know which ones are messed up, so I could fix them in the OP. Thanks for correcting my mistakes, though. The reason I don't recommend the OP is because there are a number of non-standard placements masquerading as standard. While you do have the placement that Gfire posted in there, it's buried in with a bunch of weird ones, making it overly confusing for new mapmakers. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 12 2012 07:51 iamcaustic wrote: The reason I don't recommend the OP is because there are a number of non-standard placements masquerading as standard. While you do have the placement that Gfire posted in there, it's buried in with a bunch of weird ones, making it overly confusing for new mapmakers. It might be best just to use caustic's picture with the 8 basic directions as the first image. I think it's good to have examples with geysers on one side and other options that are centered on NNW instead of N or NW, or whathaveyou. The important thing is that it shows examples of mineral placements that have the correct proportion of close/far patches and a few holes between the minerals. It doesn't really matter that much what the minerals look like as long as it's symmetric across both sides or all 4 sides of the map, and it's a small issue for a map to have. | ||
|
Daumen
Germany1073 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On December 12 2012 09:32 Daumen wrote: Is it right that in the last picture of "Standard" the Top Minerals are 3 Squares far away from the Main Building and the lower Minerals are 4 Squares away? :O No, it is not. Please refer to this post or this post for standard 45-degree mineral placement. | ||
|
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
On December 12 2012 07:51 EatThePath wrote: Mineral stacking will always apply because there will always be 1 or 2 patches centered closest to the face of the CC, which are optimal. The closest you could place mineral patches is probably this (below) which is as compact if not more so than typical mineral patch placements. Or maybe this. In any case it's better (or standard at least) to have 2-3 patches that are 4 squares away instead of 3 squares away, which causes the base to require 2-3 more workers for full saturation and lets high APM players eek out a slim mineral advantage with worker micro in the early game. Nice thread, good basic resource. Now we need a thread about advanced mineral placements.... :O another concern is aesthetics. Those mineral placements simply don't look as good or "natural" as the standard ones. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 12 2012 14:09 thenexusp wrote: another concern is aesthetics. Those mineral placements simply don't look as good or "natural" as the standard ones. Yeah definitely. I could see some special aesthetic settings like an industrial/science facility with squared up minerals and gas platforms, but everyone is used to staggered arc. btw does anyone else spend way too much timing choosing which mineral model to use for each particular patch? >< | ||
| ||
