while talking about bw maps is okay, you should never forget, that the sc2 has a really different eco system, where a player can easily stay 3 base even zerg, and have a superb income for a short amount of time. So in terms of the 3rd/4th base, bw maps aren't really something to consider as an example. While bw revolves around getting and holding the 4th and for zerg staying one base ahead. Sc2 currently seems to revolve around the 3rd base and not be one base ahead of your opponent for zerg. (even if zergies get a 4th you often don't see any hurry of getting drones there.)
On golds i agree, but probably because of other reasons. I think they destroy the comeback factor on maps and that way make macro games a bit less likely to be interesting.
Rocks are something that can add things to the map, so i don't see a reason to not use them. Blocking an easy 3rd for example, so zerg needs atleast some units to take it. I am not talking about the rocks on the hatch place. I am more talking about blocking the minerals and gas with rocks, so a zerg could still plant a hatch there to not slow that down, but will still need units to free up stuff. You could even put more rocks, so someone could scout what the players want there (gas or minerals !). Like the test bug golds, i liked the rocks usage there alot.
xel naga towers are important for terran/toss, removing those towers would mean you would have to make the map more terran favorable.
Untankable ... don't see a reason why, bw had alot of maps where you could drop siege naturals, and medivacs are just slightly faster out then drop ships. and cliffs don't give such a huge advantage like in bw ... and spines can run around. So i think this is even easier to hold in sc2 then in bw ^^. The minerals just shouldn't be completly at the place where the tanks can siege thats all. I miss those lost temple cliffs ... the only problem on lt cliffs was the thors able to hit the hatch not siege tanks. (sieging at the gold works as fine though so i don't really mind)
Also i think there should be crossfire like expansions, i am talking about the ones below/ontop the natural. They have a choke point near the cc/nexus/hatch, which makes it easier to hold for terran and toss against zerg. Otherwise terrans and toss always struggle to take more bases because on current map they are totally open and so easy for lings to rush over. Its somthing to add on a map that otherwise favors zerg play for example. (and zerg can defend those fairly easily as well, burrowed banes or infestors) Blizzard maps have this really often, but tournament maps often revolve around 3 bases, because taking the other start posis takes alot of things to make save and they are often to far away so the opponent can put you out of position when trying to defend those. If something like this would be in the middle it could be held with only a few units for an enough duration to get there without going to far out of position, also many broodwar maps have such expansion. Andromeda for example in the middle right and left.
there is still alot to experiment with in sc2, but in general the maps have to be tested alot to find out if a part of the map works well or not. The end result will be balanced and fun to watch maps, but we are currently still in the testing mode, so guidelines now would only restrict and slow this down. (like crossspawn only crap , just because the map plays different on non cross spawn. Blocking spawn posis is fine but not after 10 games played, because someone didn't trained the map)
PS: the shakuras as good example made me giggle. But i do like the middle of the map, the highground and sight blockers divide this map into 2 parts, and its hard to retake the middle again. And the xel nagas are really essential at defending and attacking the middle. Also its the only real way to attack the 6 bases of the opponent. and going around the army is only possible with drops. Also taking a 3rd depends on what you are against, air units tak the one to the middle, ground units take the natural at the close spawn. So its easy to take a 3rd on this map even against 2 base play.
|
I'm sorry to bump this thread, but I do believe that I have a couple ideas to go about making the contested bases be much more highly sought after rather than be used just as a hidden base. I haven't really seen maps make use of different amounts of minerals in the expansions.
I remember BW using the concept of a richer main base to counter act a macro zerg? Where they used 9/10 mineral fields with the 9th or 10th field being 500 to 1k less minerals than normal. I've seen the safe third in taldarim altar being less mineral fields.
I was wondering why no one has used, for example, lesser patches with HY geysers as safe third? more gas for the zerg and toss to be happy, but less minerals in exchange?
Maybe for 2 player maps, an easy to take base that's in the corner, but really hard to defend? Maybe it should be double HY geysers?
What about using 7 or 6 patches as the standard for expansions? I feel this might improve the problem I keep hearing about there being 70 workers, which is too much supply wasted from an army?
I may sound crazy and insane to say this but I think we're too boxed in with our preconceived notions of what's a standard 3rd/4th like.
I hope my ideas can add on to the discussion, even though I'm just a new person here!
|
EPT
