EPTThe awkward third base - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
| ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 08 2011 02:41 Comeh wrote: Unfortunately, a lot of the newer sc2 players don't understand that awkward really translates into "nearly impossible to defend against well executed build orders" or "Really only feasible of taking when you are ALREADY dramatically ahead and will win regardless". This, unfortunately, lends to less exciting and diverse game play, making it more predictable and stale. Perfectly explained. A lot of posts here go along the lines of: "it shouldn't be easy and cozy." That misses the point however. And by that logic, then why not just make all 2nd expansion awkward as well. The result of that would of course be a lot worse games (even worse than what we have now). | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:16 ParasitJonte wrote: Perfectly explained. A lot of posts here go along the lines of: "it shouldn't be easy and cozy." That misses the point however. And by that logic, then why not just make all 2nd expansion awkward as well. The result of that would of course be a lot worse games (even worse than what we have now). I think what people don't understand is taking a 3rd quickly is still risky in BW maps, it's always risky. The problem is SC2 maps make it way hard to get on top of it being risky. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
Jungle, Meta close and LT close are very imbalanced. ZvT on Jungle you pretty much can't win as zerg if the terran is decent and knows what he is doing. | ||
StuBob
United States373 Posts
| ||
|
eloist
United States1017 Posts
Hey, that paranoid android map totally is scrap station. | ||
|
AntisocialGR
Greece21 Posts
| ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
edit: whoot 1k! | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
| ||
|
Minimi][
Germany43 Posts
because you wont build more than 75 harvesters and 60 harvesters are 2 base saturation. Even as zerg often times it is easier to make a macro hatch an delay the third until your main starts to dry out. | ||
|
J.E.G.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On January 08 2011 05:03 Minimi][ wrote: You actually dont need a third base in 3/4 of the games because how the economy in SC2 works, because you wont build more than 75 harvesters and 60 harvesters are 2 base saturation. Even as zerg often times it is easier to make a macro hatch an delay the third until your main starts to dry out. You need way more gas than 2 bases. So waiting on 2 bases will not be good for you. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On January 08 2011 02:33 Smigi wrote: The 3rd is awkward. For one, the cliff. Especially in ZvT. It literally kills the match-up on that map, period. Also, close positions Lost Temple is almost as big of a joke as steppes of war. Close positions Lost Temple makes all-ins stupidly more effective then they already are in ALL match ups. On top of that, the third gold expansion is NOT a gimmie. yes it has a tight choke, good for static defense and all. But First off, you need to kill off the rocks, secondly THE GOLD EXPANSION CAN BE HIT FROM BOTH CLIFFS THAT SURROUND IT. A Thor can deny 2-3 of the mineral patches from the cliff A High templar can storm the mineral line from the cliff A Siege Tank straight up can attack the hatchery/nexus from the cliff. and so forth.. Lost temple is not balanced size wise (close positions by ground), and it DOES have an awkward third. If you have a 3rd base out before you can protect vs a cliff drop, then you are doing something BADLY wrong. The expansion cliff is so dangerous because you can straight up rape a zerg's critical and very necessary natural before you they even get anything that can remotely compete in firepower. Most Z have only zerglings/roaches at that point in the game. By the time you get a third, you should have air units, or at the very minimum, strong enough units to just straight up take out the threat cost effectively. | ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
| ||
|
Omni17
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
Touch
Canada475 Posts
On January 08 2011 01:25 Numy wrote: Ah, I see your point. To be honest, with the new AI and the nerf of Siege Tanks (compared to BW), it really is difficult to take a 3rd base. For Zerg though, it's still very much the same, bases are taken quite quickly, but as for MUs such as PvZ and ZvZ, the number of bases is still very much similar to BW.That's a completely different situation. The poster I quoted said David Kim did not take a 3rd in some random in house tournament thus the GAME is not DESIGNED to have quick 3rds. Yet the first post talks about how maps are pigeon holing 2 base play not that the game is designed for 2 base play. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
Personally, I like the fact that a map can achieve two different styles of play based on spawn positions. People (zergs, and I say this as a zerg, albeit a bad one) might claim that certain spawns come down to luck, but I think close spawns on Lost Temple versus Terran is the only one I can agree with- not necessarily even because of the tank/thor cliff drop, but because of the contain potential at the Xel Naga. On Metalopolis, can still find yourself cornered, but you can do so in a much more open capacity. That being said, I think its more important to have a balanced map pool as opposed to balanced maps, in tournaments at least. On ladder, just downvote ones you hate ^_^. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:54 Two_DoWn wrote: I think this is the biggest problem in the current map pool. All of the bad factors discussed to death in the current map pool, too small, positional imbalances, and just straight up stupid spawns (metal close is closer than stepps) make it incredibly hard to get and secure a third. This in turn just makes massing off 2 base the safest strategy, or trying to all in before the opponent can get to a 2 base mass (ie 2 rax). edit: whoot 1k! Perhaps that was the reason why the map was specifically used by WCG? | ||
| ||
