|
...or yet another map thread.
This struck me just some days ago. I wanted so badly to make some post somewhere titled something like: "Lost Temple - Where's my third base!?" and just bash on the new design of Lost Temple.
Because I'm almost always depressed when I play Lost Temple. Simply because it's very hard for me to plan for the late game like I usually do. My plan is always to play a ~20 minute game but if I can end it without risking too much before that I will.
Now in Brood War this was all pretty straightforward. There was always a third base waiting for you and unless you really rushed for it you would be able to take it quite comfortably once your unit production from 2-base economy started kicking in.
In StarCraft 2, on Lost Temple, you can only do this on cross-positions. Now think. Which games do you enjoy the most (regardless of what race you play) on Lost Temple? Cross-positions or other positions? I'm thinking most will say cross-positions.
A couple of days ago I translated my thinking to all other ladder maps and just came to the hypothesis that the maps feel bad not only because they aren't big enough and/or there are imbalances. But also because basically all third bases are awkward. Let's do a quick review.
Blistering Sands
Two possible ways to get a third. The gold is not too bad but it's in low ground and you have to destroy the rocks. Because it's mostly an aggressive map and you'll want to keep an eye on the backdoor it's awkward.
The other choice is pretty far away. Again, it's not too bad but it's awkward.
Jungle Basin
Need I state my case? Either the middle or one of the bases on the sides. All are far away. Perhaps terran has the easiest if they get a planetary in the middle. In PvZ protoss can feel a little bit less awkward taking the middle as well.
Still awkward.
Xel'Naga
Have to break rocks regardless. The gold is far away and close to middle. Dangerous. The other possibility is not that bad; it's pretty close and not too close to your opponent.
This gets a pass.
Scrap Station
Again... The third is awkward. You can't really "rush" to take it and feel safe. Also, it's very close to your opponent's third as well so there's a constant tension there.
Steppes of War
In terms of awkwardness in getting the third expansion I would say that Steppes of War is actually pretty good (that is, not awkward). Sure, you have to break down rocks but it feels like you expand away from your opponent and it's on high ground.
This gets a pass.
Lost Temple
This classic map has been absolutely destroyed. The mineral expansions have been replaced by... nothing! There's two gold expansions that only come into play on certain positions. Incidentally, that's the only time when it's fun to play this map.
From being the most standard of maps (despite other positional imbalances) this map now feels awkward.
Metalopolis
It's okay on certain positions. Again, these positions are the ones where the fun games spring up. Cross-position or close-by-air gives you a pretty comfortable third expansion. Not without risk but still comfortable.
This doesn't get a pass because close-by-ground positions are just terrible.
Shakuras Plateu
A definite pass. Your opponent is always pretty far away from your third. If he is close-by-air you can just expo to natural of the base vertically opposite from you. If he is cross-position you can choose between three expos. Your designated third, the one in the middle behind the rocks and the natural of the base vertically opposite from you.
A very good map in this respect.
Delta Quadrant
Could have been good but unfortunately it is not. The in-base expansion is covered by rocks. Because the map is pretty aggressive due to short rush distances (depends on positions) it can be hard to get a good timing down for breaking the rocks and expanding there.
If you don't want to do that, you have to expand in front of your base. Again due to the aggressive nature of the map this can be pretty risky. There's a gold pretty close by that feels great if it's cross position. Useless otherwise.
Still I feel this map could have potential if it was a bit bigger. But it doesn't quite get a pass.
2. What about maps in Brood War?
Take a look at them:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Maps#Maps_currently_used_in_Leagues
First of all, notice how they are all huge and the absolute vast majority either 3 or 4 player maps. That's been commented on again and again. But, notice also how much more comfortable you would feel putting down a third expansion on these maps then on the current ladder maps. They basically hand you the second expansion on a silver plate and make you reach out a little more before getting a third.
Sometimes positions can make it so you have to take another third. But because of the size of the maps, this never really feels too bad. You just know that it's something you have to do. Your opponent knows it. It's no big deal.
Conclusion
The awkward third base is currently a major problem in starcraft2 that hasn't (as far as I know) really been mentioned except that some may think it included when they ask for bigger maps.
I want to know if other people feel the same way. Because if they do, then that's something I would've liked to see emphasised a lot more in the critique toward the maps. Reading ICCUP Diamond's post he does mention that the maps punish expanding and that it is a core part of StarCraft. But there's no constructive criticism. It doesn't say why they punish expanding.
So do I have a point? Is it so obvious that I'm an idiot for making this thread?
Poll: Do you feel awkward taking a third base in StarCraft 2?Yes (410) 82% No (71) 14% Indifferent/Other (16) 3% 497 total votes Your vote: Do you feel awkward taking a third base in StarCraft 2? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Indifferent/Other
And for comparison. What about in Brood War?
Poll: Do you feel awkward taking a third base in Brood War?No (171) 69% Indifferent/Other (54) 22% Yes (22) 9% 247 total votes Your vote: Do you feel awkward taking a third base in Brood War? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Indifferent/Other
|
I do miss the way that in Brood War a lot of build orders just specifically included a 3rd base and that usually it wasn't a problem to take it. There was just always a next step.
I do think we've come a long way already. Back in the beta even expanding to the natural was rare.
|
Disagree about Delta Quadrant tho...it's definitely one of the safer maps to take a third. If Steppes of War gets a pass, Delta should as well. But honestly, I don't mind quick micro orientated games, and this balance of macro/micro maps is quite nice. '
But thank the f- they removed Kulas and Desert.
|
Yea to take a third in sc2 you almost have to be ahead since expansions are almost an offensive move. We need more maps like SoW (without the rush distance).
Many maps have great places for a third like DQ, but the rush distance just ruins it. It all comes back to the maps being too small.
|
I disagree about LT. The gold expansions are placed very well and you can pretty much always take a third. If you and your opponent got close ground spawns you can still expand to the gold when you have an advantage, otherwise you can just expand across from your opponent, if you're not playing heavy Tanks or something immobile like that.
LT is great, the cliffs should just be parking lots that demand a toll when you want to park vehicles on it.
|
DQ is stupid to have so many expo's when there is such a little rush distances.
And I feel that Jungle Basin could use a expo right by the side of the rocks, before the high-ground side expo. That would add a new easy to defend third, which would still be kind weird to take due to the rocks, and makes two attack paths so its ok.
I just HATE how Blistering sands works. Nothing goes into your attack path, everything is waay too weird. I wish some BW maps were actually on the ladder.
|
how is lost temple awkward to take a 3rd? unless you are close positions you have 4 easy expansions to take.
I think the bigger problem is that most people dont play for the late game and dont feel the need for a 3rd as they can do most stuff 'adequately' on 2 base
|
I agree, it is really awkward to take a third on most maps. Like you said, on Metalo and Lost Temple, the third COULD be fine unless you get close positions, in which case it becomes worse than steppes of war. In reality, Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine had MUCH less awkward thirds but they were both removed.
|
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third.
|
On January 07 2011 23:02 clusen wrote:
I disagree about LT. The gold expansions are placed very well and you can pretty much always take a third. If you and your opponent got close ground spawns you can still expand to the gold when you have an advantage, otherwise you can just expand across from your opponent, if you're not playing heavy Tanks or something immobile like that.
LT is great, the cliffs should just be parking lots that demand a toll when you want to park vehicles on it.
But that's the thing. If you can only take it when you're ahead then it's bad. You're supposed to be able to take it if the game is even (in my mind).
|
Feels pretty good on LT and metal as long as its not close. LT is a fine map in pretty much any MU as long as its not close position. Cliffdrop openings hardly work anymore vs good players. Kill his nat, but he leaves it, counters and kills you.
Fine on steppes, thats really not the problem with this map, the problem is you never play that long. Same goes for DQ, you have your nat and a back rock expansion, but again never that long games.
Shakuras actually has the most awkward 3rd, but map size makes up for it.
Scrap station is fine aswell. Xelnaga only has good 3rd for terran, who doesnt want a PF in the middle of the map?
Jungle basin and blistering has very weird 3rds, jungle basin being suicidal.
|
I had such an awkward third base until my second girlfriend. Just gotta practice, dude.
+ Show Spoiler +Zergs always get to third base.
|
On January 07 2011 23:02 clusen wrote:
I disagree about LT. The gold expansions are placed very well and you can pretty much always take a third. If you and your opponent got close ground spawns you can still expand to the gold when you have an advantage, otherwise you can just expand across from your opponent, if you're not playing heavy Tanks or something immobile like that.
LT is great, the cliffs should just be parking lots that demand a toll when you want to park vehicles on it.
LT you can only take a third as terran in close positions - and even for terrans its hard to take the gold as third if you havent won already.
@ DQ this map is the worst in the pool yeah you can take a natural but the third inside that is blocked with rocks is so stupid -
ZvP if you try to clear the rocks you get forcefielded, and they just kill your outside expo and its basically gg.
XvT if you take the backdoor you can get dropped and abused - i hardly ever used the backdoor expansion before i had my side of the map anyway. [now this crappy map is veto´d]
|
On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third.
This is basically it right here.
Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently.
|
Good topic. You can see that most SC2 maps nowadays are just weird 2 base timing pushes.
This also weakens zerg more than the other races because they need the 3rd more
|
On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently.
have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran.
User was warned for this post
|
i put indifferent/other because i like that some maps cater to long-game play, while others are more suitable for 2base strategies, whihc varies up the gmae and forces the plyaer to be good at both forms of the game.
and im 2900 diamond before the "bronze" comments start coming in
|
I actually thought that LT is the only map with safe third (gold) with all positions except close ground.
|
Yeah I think the current map pool definitely isn't perfect, but similar to what RyanRushia said, I think you just need to take what you're given and have a 2 base plan ready to avoid putting yourself in the weak position of playing a strategy that requires taking a third base.
|
Great topic, really liked this one.
|
Everytime I try to take a third on Jungle Basin, it just feels like I'm not allowed to. Can't really position my army anywhere that doesn't make it run into an extremely tight choke wherever the T/P decides to attack. Hell, the whole map is one long chokepoint.
|
people seem to forget something drastically between the difference in bases
at bw and starcraft 2.
in starcraft 2, it doesn't matter how many probes are mining until you reach full saturation.
if you want to take a 3. base, you would need around 60-70 probes to fully saturate it.
the starcraft 2 mineral / gas gathering system doesn't really support multi-basing.
also the 6 workers needed for gas.
if you want the additional income from a third base, you have to produce an obsurd amount of probes.
if you got 60-70 probes @ 3 bases, you got a fucking tiny army, especially if you have units like colossi (6 supply rofl wtf, or immortal 4)
it's not only the maps that have to change, also the mineral / gas gathering.
keep that in mind please.
|
Am I the only one who looked at the thread title and then was surprised to find that it was about Starcraft?
OT: I think this is closely related to map size. On a lot of maps the position of what would be your third is very close to either your opponent's third or his natural. And because a lot of the maps only have 8 bases total on them, it's not like you can try to sneak a hidden expo over on the other side of the map.
|
where's the "no except back in the days of pvz" option lol
|
I feel like almost all the ladder maps would be easily fixed if they just disabled close spawn positions like they did with shakuras. LT, Meta easily fixable with close disabled. Delta is kinda weird, I guess you can make it only far spawn, but then it basically becomes a 2 player map.
|
To an extent you're right but I disagree with you a bit here.
Blistering Sands - I find it's easiest to sim city block in your natural, break your backdoor rocks and use that as your main entrance. Then the most natural third is the non-gold nearest to you. You can fairly quickly move between your 3rd, your main, and the blocked path natural. From there I generally push to the gold nearest your opponent for the 4th, if the game goes that long. I don't think this is a very awkward 3rd.
Jungle Basin - I don't find the middle third a problem here. It's close to your opponent, yes. But you want to have your troops in the middle anyway, it's natural to take your third in the direction you push. The logical fourth is the one which is connected to your natural.
Xel'Naga - This map has a nice easy 3rd in the gold or the non gold near you. Yeah you have to break rocks but is that really such an issue? The gold is in the middle of the map, where you want your army to be and having your army here secures your fourth as well.
Scrap Station - This I agree with you, I don't much like this map you can't really consolidate a safe area with your army like you can on other maps, the "back door" rock passage always poses a threat. Couple that with close air positions and I really think that maybe I'm misplaying this map.
Steppes of War - This one also makes sense, the natural third that they give you leaves you open on two fronts, but at the same time it is still possible to defend both. It's as you say, awkward.
Lost Temple - Cross map as you said is easy. Close positions there's no way around moving to a new main. I agree with your assessment here.
Metalopolis - Again as you said, cross map and close air there are natural 3rds. Close ground you really have to play an aggressive 2 base to try and take your third right between you. All the while you have to keep scouting a big map for hidden thirds.
Shakuras Plateau - Agree with your assessment, easy 3rds abound.
Delta Quadrant - Here I disagree with you again. I think the natural back third coupled with the more open natural play nicely. Throw in some low ground 4th options (1 of which potentially protecting the natural back third if you spawn cross posns or clockwise from your opponent. I don't see breaking some rocks as a big ordeal, do it slowly with just a few units well in advance of when you intend on taking your third. After reading your post again I didn't realize people don't take the front door expo as their natural. Always seems to me to take way to long to break the rocks for a natural. Yes it's more open but a defensive building or two, some map awareness and staying defensive it's an easy enough natural to secure. The third as your rock "back" expo is a piece of cake if you take it as a 3rd.
|
I only feel akward taking a 3rd in very few maps. Obvious spawning close on Lost Temple as Zerg. Other than that I only dislike taking a 3rd on Jungle Basin and Scrap Station. All other maps I feel it's no problem, except close on LT, but that map is so terrible when spawning close.
But I feel it's a valid discussion in regards to the map. But I also think so many have just recently got used to 2-basing that it will take a while before more standard transitions are decided, and when to time the 2nd expansion. Taking a 3rd is easy once you find the correct strategy to do so.
But I play the OP Zerg race, so what do I know 
|
On January 07 2011 23:10 pullarius1 wrote:I had such an awkward third base until my second girlfriend. Just gotta practice, dude. + Show Spoiler +Zergs always get to third base.
haha hilarious.. but in all seriousness..
I feel like I have a hard time getting a third base sometimes, as I am a zerg user. Even games where you think you're safe... its hard as F to hold a third...
the maps with hard to reach thirds are a blessing and curse for a zerg player. Considering how hard it is just to beat a 2 base opponent that's P/T..... i don't mind its not as easy for them to take a third either. However, I don't really think that's true, because both races are very adept at turtling and once they get their third its usually GG for me..
zerg is hard enough. anyone who thinks zerg is OP obviously havent actually tried them, and should work on their own weaknesses as protoss/terran because when both are played flawlessly and sometimes non-aggressively, they become near impossible to beat. I'm 2800 so I know a tinny smidgen of what I speak.
|
holy shit! I just remembered LT in BW had a 3rd base lolololol
|
When do people stop comparing BW with SC2?
easy third base?
cmone. Dont get lazy wtf is this. Next topic will be something like: "when will blizzard make maps with islands only?"
|
Racial imbalances set aside, isn't it interesting how certain maps really cater to certain playstyles? I know the concept is pretty broken, but the idea is interesting, no? That Zerg gets encouraged to play aggressive or whatever.
|
On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran.
How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing.
It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game.
|
On January 08 2011 01:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran. How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing. It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game.
You can't say "hey look at this player he doesn't do X thus the game is designed not to do X". That's ludicrous. In fact this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
|
no problems on taking 3rds even on close posi not seeing problems there. PF, t2 nydus, sentry + warpin. Seems to be even more save then it was in bw. But on bw maps there were only 1 or 2 ways to your opponent and it was easy to switch intercept any ground force, and air wasn't an options.
So you could build up a defense line and have one half of the map. and no one dared to push because it would cost alot. Up until the spell casters arrived which could force movement against the overpowered siege units ^^.
There is one map designed that way in sc2 and its steppes of war, so funny that one of the smallest maps is one of the best macro maps hehe, well the map seems a bit problematic for toss though.
And it surprises me how many zergs like shakuras as i think its strongly terran favored. With only one ground way the others protected by rocks and so of the track and three expansions so close together you can defend them with one pack of siege tanks.
Might not like all the maps in the pool but thats the point of this pool, it has a huge variety of different maps, that play completly different. And this is obviously for balance testing as well. But it allows a lot of diversity in play, that people neglect though ^^.
edit: also try to compare your income with 60 workers scattered on 3 bases and with 60 on two bases not counting gas
|
On January 08 2011 01:14 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran. How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing. It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game. You can't say "hey look at this player he doesn't do X thus the game is designed not to do X". That's ludicrous. In fact this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Why? It's perfectly valid. If top ranked players do not take a third, there must be a reason, which is explained in the first post.
|
I think its pretty obvious that the maps in the pool are trash, with the exception of shakuras.
But really, their have been so many threads regarding that the maps are huge issues ect.
We don't need anymore threads telling us the maps are bad, or its killing sc2, or the third is awkward. Its widely accepted that these maps are bad in all aspects.
I've heard ICCUP has tried to negotiate with blizzard, but failed? I'm not sure if thats true.
Regardless we need to help iccup, it can't JUST be iccup that pushes blizzard.
For the love of god, everytime i look at steppes of war I think i'm playing 1v1 bloodbath.
We as a community need to rise up and tell blizzard what we want, ICCUP can't do it alone.
|
On January 08 2011 01:22 Touch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:14 Numy wrote:On January 08 2011 01:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran. How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing. It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game. You can't say "hey look at this player he doesn't do X thus the game is designed not to do X". That's ludicrous. In fact this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Why? It's perfectly valid. If top ranked players do not take a third, there must be a reason, which is explained in the first post.
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.
|
On January 08 2011 01:23 Smigi wrote:
We as a community need to rise up and tell blizzard what we want, ICCUP can't do it alone.
IMO the best way to do this is to play ICCUP custom games, if Blizzard starts to see them becoming more popular than ladder, they will probably react.
|
i want to slap you for writing this ^^
|
Could delta quadrant be improved if say... only spawned cross positions and the rocks were deleted? I have the map veto'ed permanently. But I feel this change could drastically improve the map, even if they can't change the size of the map without rebuilding, this could at least balance the map a touch more.
|
ye for LT on close proz i fell pressured into ending on 2 base but close air not as much, nad on JB AHHHHHH FUUUCCCKKKK its impossible (i play zerg)
|
DQ third base is terrible not because of the ability to drop, lock people in their base etc, but because it's insanely positionally imbalanced.
|
On January 07 2011 22:35 ParasitJonte wrote:
Conclusion
The awkward third base is currently a major problem in starcraft2 that hasn't (as far as I know) really been mentioned except that some may think it included when they ask for bigger maps.
the balance team is a doing a shitty job (imo) is exactly because of that, just look at how strong is terran 2 base play - it is INSANE. obviously terran is the race they put most of the time/effort in development and try to load up a very hard/insane AI, all of them are revolving around the 2base play. the design team seems to think this game should focus on maximum 2base play.
why did i mention terran in my post at all?? because we all know P/Z cant have an effective army 200/200 army with 2bases.
|
|
|
I thought this was a topic about reaching 3rd base with a girl for a minute, then I realized it was in SC2 General.
I personally don't understand the map structure of making a 3rd base so hard to take. Expanding should already be a risk, they shouldn't make it an even bigger risk by putting it withing 5 seconds of your enemy's natural. Even players in the GSL are cheesing even more than they would like to because macro games are hard to achieve for certain map/spawning locations.
|
I like the third base on lost temple and it seems pretty easy to take since its disconnected and in the middle so the enemy has to be dropping, in the air, or going through the front to get harrassment which seems reasonable to protect vs anything but that horrible close pos across spawn. I think that having destructible rocks is a nice add on to keep zerg players from expanding really quickly but honestly in general im not a huge fan of it. Nice topic though i think this is the reason many dont like the map pool on ladder, besides the fact that using the same maps for like a year is just stupid 
|
Yes, as a zerg player i find that the biggest hump to get over in a game is getting to that third base. blizzard really does not want games going beyond 2base, it's kind of disappointing.
|
On January 07 2011 23:27 Elefanto wrote:
people seem to forget something drastically between the difference in bases
at bw and starcraft 2.
in starcraft 2, it doesn't matter how many probes are mining until you reach full saturation.
if you want to take a 3. base, you would need around 60-70 probes to fully saturate it.
the starcraft 2 mineral / gas gathering system doesn't really support multi-basing.
also the 6 workers needed for gas.
if you want the additional income from a third base, you have to produce an obsurd amount of probes.
if you got 60-70 probes @ 3 bases, you got a fucking tiny army, especially if you have units like colossi (6 supply rofl wtf, or immortal 4)
it's not only the maps that have to change, also the mineral / gas gathering.
keep that in mind please.
and getting 60-70 probes isnt normal for you? wtf?
Ok Im sorry but this can't be right at all, do you just 2base until your main runs dry or something? you can hardly support a 200/200 army on two bases so I dont know why the army size would make a difference.
|
Lol. Sorry about the thread title hahahaha. Didn't think about girls and bases; we don't have that same jargon in Swedish :p. It's mostly just "did you get into her undies?".
|
On January 08 2011 01:14 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran. How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing. It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game. You can't say "hey look at this player he doesn't do X thus the game is designed not to do X". That's ludicrous. In fact this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
What I said is only part of it. There's so much that leads me to speculate that this game was designed for mostly 2 base play. The maps and the AI's build orders are the biggest ones.
Btw, I know there are a lot of Zergs that think they need to have a 3rd base. 2 saturated bases on 3 hatches could keep up with 2 base Terran for a decent amount of time (of course you eventually have to take your third, but not as quickly as you think).
|
I don't see why you call LT from SC1 ("SC1") better than LT from SC2 ("SC2"). SC2 is invariably better.
- In SC1, your third is out in the middle of the map with no choke. In SC2, your third is on a peninsula. This makes it much easier to defend with siege tanks, spine crawlers, or photon cannons because you have less ground to cover.
- Not to mention that your third is a mineral only expansion in SC1.
- The only way for Zerg to take a third gas in SC1 is to get Lair and get drop tech. It's much easier to expand to the island expansions in SC2 due to the changes in Nydus worms. Also, Nydus worms can be used offensively much easier in SC2 compared to SC1, so it's almost always better to go Nydus anyway compared to overlord drop tech.
So, SC2 is better because your third is easier to defend, offers gas, and because it's easier for Zerg to take a third gas.
|
it breaks my heart everytime i think about playing sc2 on BW style maps. I feel like the game could be 100x more fun.
|
I'm going to shamelessly steal from that other "map pool is killing SC2 barrrghlll" thread on the forum right now, because this is a very good point:
On January 07 2011 21:23 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 20:46 Adebisi wrote:On January 07 2011 20:37 iEchoic wrote:
The problem is that the map size is very strongly tied to game balance, moreso than any RTS I've ever played in my life. This is because zerg can massively out-macro both other races when not pressured, and the ability to pressure decreases with larger map size.
If every map was as large or larger than shakuras plateau, Z would be horrendously OP. We actually kind of need stuff like DQ, LT, etc because they force the game to be balanced.
I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but it's a necessary evil and the game will need to be massively revamped before better maps are possible. it just starts to feel like the spawn larva mechanic is almost impossible to balance around. Yep, I've felt like this for a while. It's not necessarily impossible to be balanced, but you have to make a lot of concessions (like on maps) when one race's unbounded worker production is so far ahead of the others. The spawn larva mechanic means that very large maps will never be balanced.
|
Please don't think I'm crying imba. Just something I think is valid to point out, is with the high mobility of zerg and creep spread that gives speed and vision to zerg. I feel the awkward 3rd affects them less. Zerg will always be taking bases sooner and this requires they have mobility to defend. However, the fact remains that in SC2 unlike BW, when the zerg is ahead by one base, you are behind. Typically, zerg will have some extra lings around that he can afford to have out of position clearing destructible rocks (they can get right back into position super fast). Playing against good macro zergs on maps such as lost temple can be very scary for me as protoss. Because I can't let them get that 3rd gold but if I pressure them and my army gets trapped and killed by speedling with roach,hydra, or muta. I probably don't have a chance unless they make some huge blunder . As Toss I have to rely on force fields in the early game to keep my army from getting trapped and killed. But when I take a 3rd base on lost temple, I have to hold the tower to be able to defend all the paths into my bases. FF is much less effective in the middle area of the map because there are so many angles to bypass them and if the zerg can afford to throw away a few lings and bait out my ff's. Which I feel I have to deploy most of the time, I won't be able to replace that energy fast enough for the real push and I can't make a push of my own at that point without the FF. Furthermore, it can be risky to have my army clearing the destructible rocks because the gold is an easy area to get trapped in, and difficult to stop them from rushing into my main while clearing them (since I'm relying of FF in early battles anyway). My response has been to play very cheesy and aggressively against zerg, simply because it gives me a higher chance of victory. I'd love to play a macro game every game. In these situations, I just haven't figured out how. As of late, I've been tying to use the forge fast expand in order to get that 2 base economy up sooner. Which has helped provide me with a larger force at the time when I want a 3rd. The downside is, when I forge FE, I sometimes have trouble dealing with muta harass because of all the crap I have to put in the way makes it hard for me to get from my main to my natural quickly, let alone defend it and be able to take a 3rd. I'm not saying there is anything wrong balance wise, just that I've been a bit stumped on how to handle this complex situation, except for going all in and not letting the game progress to that point. Many are going to say "make phoenix duh" but I can't blindly go phoenix and I have to have the robo units to supplement my gateway units. Especially vs hydra. Having zealots, stalkers, sentries, and phoenix is a hefty gas demand. None of these untis are very cost effective vs hydras. I've read plexa's pvz guide, but have been unable to really adhere to it. I would love any detailed advice any high level players could provide that would make me feel less awkward about this. Otherwise, I just keep forcing 4gates down zergs throats before they get there 2nd up. (They often BM me for this) It's actually quite effective, even when they have 4 spine crawlers. (You just have to wait till you have enough warp waves of units together and plenty of ff) Sorry zergs, but you're right, I'm bad at macro games against you and I can't figure out how to manage it specifically because of what the op has brought up.
Edit: I failed to mention that I also play terran, I don't feel nearly as awkward in TvZ on lost. Mainly because of cliff tank/thor harass, and defense of these positions. Also, I can make extra bunkers and salvage them if they become unnecessary later, or are just in the way. Also, the fact that so many terran units can be used for very effective harass. It is easier to keep the zerg in check and punish greed. (MM drops, thor/tank cliff drops, Hellions harass, banshee harass, viking overlord harass, even viking landing harass which has become less popular lately, raven harass ect) With stim marines, the low cost of missile turrets (with hi sec range and +2 armor available as well), thors and vikings great anti air range,Muta harass isn't nearly as scary or difficult to repel.
|
Blizz likes to say that they want a varied and interesting map pool, but this was the first thing I thought about when I heard that statement. The Blizz pool loves to punish expanding, and the majority of maps are set up to reward 1- and 2-base play. They do not want you to take third, and this is a huge problem with their map pool in my opinion.
So, agreed, 3rd base in LT is often awkward.
|
On January 08 2011 02:25 mangoloid wrote:
Blizz likes to say that they want a varied and interesting map pool, but this was the first thing I thought about when I heard that statement. The Blizz pool loves to punish expanding, and the majority of maps are set up to reward 1- and 2-base play. They do not want you to take third, and this is a huge problem with their map pool in my opinion.
So, agreed, 3rd base in LT is often awkward.
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.
|
It's 'awkward' because it shouldn't be a free, easy to gaurd expo. That's why unless you gaurd me well on delta, I'm having 3 bases protected by tanks in almost the same spot for all base.
It's 'awkward' so you have to plan, and execute it, and know you can take it due to pressure, harassment, prior battle win
Never sleep on the hidden expo, or cross map expo. Can alter enemies build for the first bit it kicks in, and you roll through battles because they think you're on 1 base still
The map pool is spread. I can get a third easy as hell on say delta, and Steppes, xelnaga, and metalopolis. It's all dependent on how you play the map, really.
|
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.
|
You should have made the poll race specific because I think that up to 90% of the yes-sayers are either toss or terran.
|
Terran player here & no I don't think it's a problem even on these maps that I think are all a bit too small. Just buy some time to set it up and try to position your army so you can go kill his natural and main if he attacks the third. If he doesn't attack it in time - instant PF and turtle a bit.
For some reason most people I play against don't like taking thirds so I'll usually have to postpone that a bit just to be safe. Or then it's a zerg who tries to take it super early just when I have my big tank/1-1 rine timing push ready -.-
You can take 3rd early when you are ahead enough early on but you really have to learn how to "sense" it.
But I kinda understand it being awkward for protoss early on.
Once stoned templars with dem gay daring amulets are out Protoss can take like every base on the map safely though so it's a tradeoff in a way.
I'm a scrub though so that's just how I feel, don't go thinking any of it is valid knowledge.
|
I feel awkward taking third base IRL.
|
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).
|
On January 08 2011 04:16 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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.
|
The map pool third bases are all too far away to encourage taking a third base. It is encouraging that in spite of this, we still see a lot of third base taking, so when the maps improve it should be even better.
|
So much false info in this topic.
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.
|
I read the topic title, and thought this was about girls n stuff XD
|
*browsing BW maps on liquipedia*
Hey, that paranoid android map totally is scrap station.
|
I can't say I'm enjoying the current map pool however you have to account for mule/chronoboost mechanisms practically allow you to get a strong eco on 2base pretty fast compared to BW
|
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!
|
I feel like it depends alot on race. Z will always feel awkward on Jungle, but Terran's should love the layout since they can expand toward their opponent, which is advantageous. Same with P, except in PvT where expanding away can be more useful. So, right now I think that the thirds just hurt Z MORE than the other races. However, maps like Blistering certainly suck taking a third whatever race you're playing.
|
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.
|
It's awkward for both people playing.
|
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.
|
On January 08 2011 02:33 Smigi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 02:25 mangoloid wrote:
Blizz likes to say that they want a varied and interesting map pool, but this was the first thing I thought about when I heard that statement. The Blizz pool loves to punish expanding, and the majority of maps are set up to reward 1- and 2-base play. They do not want you to take third, and this is a huge problem with their map pool in my opinion.
So, agreed, 3rd base in LT is often awkward. 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.
|
I don't really have a problem taking a third on any map except blistering sands. Thing is a lot of the 'easy' thirds in SC2 are mineral only. I can't really see bothering to expand there unless there's a gas there, or if he just needs something because his main is mined out. I feel like gas is just so much more important in SC2, you can't have a non-gas expansion, but if it's too easy to get your 3rd base of gas then it makes the game so much more chaotic to play.
|
Now that I think of it, the maps are very awkwardly designed T.T
|
On January 08 2011 01:25 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:22 Touch wrote:On January 08 2011 01:14 Numy wrote:On January 08 2011 01:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran. How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing. It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game. You can't say "hey look at this player he doesn't do X thus the game is designed not to do X". That's ludicrous. In fact this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Why? It's perfectly valid. If top ranked players do not take a third, there must be a reason, which is explained in the first post. 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. 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.
|
I don't mind, and actually sometimes prefer to have it awkward. But where does it end, and why does it matter? I feel awkward every time I try to take a fifth base, personally... That doesn't mean the maps are broken because none of them allow for it easily..
|
I see where you are going with all this, but there should be a clear distinction from awkward and bad, I think. This is not to say the maps are good, but that the lack of encouragement for 3base+ macro games on some maps and in some positions is lackluster.
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 ^_^.
|
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?
|
On January 08 2011 05:27 Touch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:25 Numy wrote:On January 08 2011 01:22 Touch wrote:On January 08 2011 01:14 Numy wrote:On January 08 2011 01:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:On January 07 2011 23:16 idonthinksobro wrote:On January 07 2011 23:13 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 07 2011 23:05 Jago wrote:
You are non "entitled" to a free and easy-to-defend third. This is basically it right here. Like it or not, Starcraft 2 seems to be designed for it to be comfortable to remain on two bases for a long time. A third is not a requirement anymore for any race as the game is currently. have fun in the bronze league, or you play terran. How cute. A new poster trying to be an elitist and contributing nothing. It seems that Starcraft 2 is designed for long two base play. Have you guys watched the in-house Blizzard tournament finals that Day9 casted? That pretty much explains everything. Dayvie, balance designer and top 200 player, rarely takes a third and when he does, it's pretty late into the game. You can't say "hey look at this player he doesn't do X thus the game is designed not to do X". That's ludicrous. In fact this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Why? It's perfectly valid. If top ranked players do not take a third, there must be a reason, which is explained in the first post. 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. 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.
Hate to break it to you, but siege tanks really weren't nerfed, especially considering overkill isn't there.
What really was nerfed about siege tanks was the lack of spider mines. Really limits what you can do with mech.
|
Watching SlayersBoxer vs Hyperdub in the GSL code S, I was so happy to see him playing a strikingly BW style, and taking a 3rd/4th so quickly. Of course, the map he did it on (Shakuras) is pretty much the ONLY one in the pool that makes it possible.
I don't know if it's by design or accident, but Blizzard maps facilitating 1/2 base play more than anything else is a major problem in my opinion, and is definitely holding back new and more exciting playstyles.
Link to referenced game (Boxer part starts at 36:00):
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dVhj0jFrVc
|
Great OP, really thorough analysis of an important issue.
I think you are perfectly right on steppes of war, interestingly enough, every once in a while games do go into later stages on this map and then mostly the third isn't that big of a deal. Still the map itself remains ridiculous even in lategame, but the third isn't the problem there, which leads to some pretty good games.
On the other hand, the problematic third is the reason why I don't see a long-term future for xel naga caverns. The gold base is very open and the expo in the back is vulnerable in 3 ways. 1. you can harass it from the back, 2. you can attack it the classic way and catch your opponent off guard, 3. you can just attack the front while your opponent secures this expo after you eg. faked an attack there or did a drop. I always feel extremely vulnerable when I have to take my third on xel naga.
|
I think the fact that most maps accommodate 1/2 base plays is the greatest hindering factor of SC2. The play-styles just don't have a chance to develop off 2 base styles. The economy of 2 bases begs for another expansion and it's at 3+ bases that games get truly epic.
Let me say, that in no way do I find the current quality of SC2 play boring or lame at all. The GSL's have been entertaining, and personally, I thought the finals of Dream Hack were amazing. I think it was game three, where Mana broke the contain, where I literally screamed in my dorm room panicking my roommates.
I believe that as a community, we have not even scratched the surface of true potential this game offers. I see SC2 still in a teething phase were many match-ups, especially mirror match ups, are just underdeveloped. BW has over a decade (100's of years for a video game) of development which is why new maps really can breathe fresh life into a very young game.
|
A lot of the maps would be better if the rocks in the expansions were removed or at the very least lower the rocks HP. They are being way overused, i mean maybe it could be interesting with something blocking an expansion but that should be something rare and not the standard. Also stacking them like in bw on medusa for instance would be interesting. At least for rocks that blocks short-distance-pushes or whatever.
|
I think a reduction to the amount of mineral patches per base and an increase to the # of bases would be good to see. I think at the moment, income + worker count is so high from 2 bases that that has to be addressed as well. I'd be really, really curious to see how maps work out with say, fewer mineral nodes per base or an additional gas node at your expansion, etc. Obviously, this is harder to determine if/when the game is still being patched, but it's something I've wanted to experiment with for a while.
|
On January 08 2011 06:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I think a reduction to the amount of mineral patches per base and an increase to the # of bases would be good to see. I think at the moment, income + worker count is so high from 2 bases that that has to be addressed as well. I'd be really, really curious to see how maps work out with say, fewer mineral nodes per base or an additional gas node at your expansion, etc. Obviously, this is harder to determine if/when the game is still being patched, but it's something I've wanted to experiment with for a while.
thats a good point and the 2 gases per exp means 3 more scv's per base locked as workers on your supply rather than army compared to bw.
|
On January 08 2011 04:45 eloist wrote:
*browsing BW maps on liquipedia*
Hey, that paranoid android map totally is scrap station.
The sad thing about this is that even though that map looks terrible the third (and fourth) is still easier to take.
Stool of War: Fairly easy to take your third, too bad its impossible to take your natural (PvP/T anyone?).
Crap Station: Oh my god do I actually have to say anything? The island is more viable than any other 3rd on that map, even if you're Protoss. The natural fourth is NEVER taken because not only is it in a little corner and looks kind of out of place, it has those retarded rocks. As if they actually add anything to the map at all.
Rock Caverns: Not only is the map covered in rocks, but it is also so cavernous that every single expansion on the map are so goddamn wide. Not too terrible overall.
Drop Play Temple: Not terrible to take your third unless its close positions but those gold rocks really kill the map for me; they just are saying to me the whole game "LOLOL betcha don't have the time to move your army to kill me long enough for your main to not get dropped or your main army flanked!"
Blood Bath Basin: I don't mind it since I'm Protoss but there are a total of 8 mining bases on that map. Seriously. Poorly designed although tbh I like it overall (IMBA maps eff tee double you eh oh el)
MultiplePersonailty(Metal)Opolus: Either a decent but incredibly wide open map with an easily timed third available or bonecrunchingly tight and impossible to take third. Definitely one of the better maps still.
BS: olololol what third?
Rock Quadrant: There's nearly as many rocks on that map as there are expansions. Funny how there still manages to be as many rock free expansions on that map as there are expansions period on Jungle Basin.
Shakuras Plateau: Isn't even on the ladder anymore OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's also worth it to point out that on many of these maps taking your 4th is a billion times easier than your 3rd. Seriously, after I take the center on Jungle Basin half the time my opponent doesn't want to expand, ever, so I'm like "Wut ev's, double expand time olol". The 4th on BS is a stone's throw away from the third, it's almost easy enough to double expand after you take your 3rd on Lost Temple (I often do do that actually), and a similar story on Metal.
|
I feel awkward about the TIMING of the 3rd, but I don't believe that having expos free and safe and right next to my main to defend and take at my leisure is conducive to exciting matches..
|
this OP understands alot what the issues with the maps are.
the awkward 3rd bases and short rushdistances (nat to nat/main ramp to main ramp distance)
however i start to feel were making too many topics instead of generalizing it as a whole
|
This is StarCraft II, not Brood War.
Until people realize that the games are not that similar people won't be able to enjoy SCII as a competitive RTS. SCII isn't all macro like Brood War was, so likewise the thirds on the SCII maps are going to be more difficult to expand to.
About the map pool: yeah it's not that good. As far as balanced maps in the map pool, I like Shakuras Plateau, Xel'naga Caverns, Jungle Basin, and maybe Lost Temple if the harassment cliff was a bit smaller. I'm not saying LT is imbalanced, all I'm saying is that I'd like to be able to hit tanks with roaches.
|
Getting a third is pretty awkward, but I think that just makes it more of an acomplishment.
There is really nothing you can't do to prevent him from preventing your expand. I don't struggle getting a third on any of these maps.
|
On January 20 2011 04:12 Antares777 wrote:
SCII isn't all macro like Brood War was, so likewise the thirds on the SCII maps are going to be more difficult to expand to.
Yeah... that's kinda the point. The maps are a large part of why SC2 "isn't all macro like BW was", and that's (to a lot of people) a problem. Most people actually like watching macro games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
