As everyone might know, maps are always a point of contention for the community, particularly Zergs. While there will always be X-favoured maps, it is probably a good idea to establish a consensus as to what makes a map especially playable. My definition of a very playable map is, from most important to least:
1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds
Things like rotational balance goes without saying. These kind of maps lean towards macro play, although a strong 2 base timing is feasible, but not mandatory. Out of a pool of 9 maps, it would be good to have 5 maps that adhere to this standard.
Now let's take a look at some of the greatest (imo) BW maps. I have chosen these maps because the first few have a long, long history of playability. Most of these maps are fan favourites too, so as to avoid excessive controversy...
You will notice that most if not all of these maps adhere to the ground rules that I have suggested (except #6 of course).
Of special note is that on most of the maps, the third is set on high ground or in an extremely enclosed area that is easy to fortify. If this is not the case, as like in Benzene, then you cannot conduct an attack into the natural without going through the third.
Also note that armies in BW tend to occupy maybe 30% more space than in SC2, and that there was a real high ground advantage in the form of a punishing miss chance.
All these factors suggest that defending territory was considerably easier in BW than in SC2. In SC2, with less time to reinforce due to many factors, and the removal of high ground advantage, it seems reasonable to conclude that even more defensive features should be incorporated into the map.
Well, this is not the case. Let's take a look at the infamous Zerg Sight, or 2-base sight, or whatever you want to call it:
Notice how open the low-ground third is. This, of course, incontrovertibly tends to lead to 2 base all-ins especially for Protoss, which I think gets boring after a while. Even supposedly "okay-ish" maps like Daybreak feature the third on low ground, with a massive path leading right into it.
Meanwhile, we have utter disasters such as Arid plateau and Metal, where the natural is not even safe, let alone the third. Then a polar opposite in Calm before the Storm, where the third is literally invulnerable.
Instead of having wildly varying maps, there should be a core set of maps that are more or less similar to what I have laid out in my 6 points. Once again, these maps disfavour all-ins, encourage taking bases at a gradual pace, but have enough opportunities to reward aggression if timed well, WITHOUT turning the game into a base trade scenario.
Then of course, we can have a few outliers that can be vetoed...such as, um,
Outlier!
A very strange map, but at least it can still be FFE-d on, so it is not that wacky and rushfest promoting.
Generally you want to promote variety and unorthodox strategies, which is why a few of these maps are in. But they are inconsistent at best, and in the case of a still developing game, it is probably in the interest of the general public to have most of the maps be "standard".
Till today, the only SC2 map that fits this bill, and unsurprisingly the most popular map is Shakuras Plateau. It is also statistically rather balanced with PvT suffering a little pre ghost nerf, but that is not specifically due to the map.
Let's have more maps like Shakuras, and less maps like Arid/Metal/DS, to encourage viewer friendly games!
Wow...I think your definition of "playable" maps is really small and actually kind of boring. It all maps were like this, I think the game would get stale very quickly.
Also, I have seen a ton of great, very viewer friendly games on Metal. What about Crossfire? I know it is a "crappy" map by your definitions, but have you even watched games on it? It seems like most of those games turn out to be friggin epic.
What I think is that the variety in maps is such a huge factor and needs to be played with more. Even though certain maps are hard to play on or harder for certain races, that is what makes the game and the player storylines interesting. To me, if all maps were like Shakuras, or with similar features, then the game would be dull. Also, as a spectator, I liked some of the maps that everyone hated like Desert Oasis because it forced games and situations that were uncommon, outside of everyone's safety zone. This led to some amazingly interesting games.
EDIT: I agree that those guidelines are just that, some things to think about but should not be rules or outlines that demand to be followed.
Great write up. Mapmakers, especially Blizzard need to realize this: That Brood War was made balanced and exciting because of the maps. And those maps promoted a huge variety of macro-based tactics and strategies.
I'd love to see some of the former BW-pros that are now SC2-pros duke it out on some of the classics, would be nice to see if they''re as good in SC2 as well. If that is indeed the case, I'd love to see Destination, Andromeda, Blue Storm & Fighting Spirit in the map pool.
On December 23 2011 17:43 TheAmazombie wrote: Wow...I think your definition of "playable" maps is really small and actually kind of boring. It all maps were like this, I think the game would get stale very quickly.
Also, I have seen a ton of great, very viewer friendly games on Metal.
What I think is that the variety in maps is such a huge factor and needs to be played with more. Even though certain maps are hard to play on or harder for certain races, that is what makes the game and the player storylines interesting. To me, if all maps were like Shakuras, or with similar features, then the game would be dull. Also, as a spectator, I liked some of the maps that everyone hated like Desert Oasis because it forced games and situations that were uncommon, outside of everyone's safety zone. This led to some amazingly interesting games.
I don't know what you are smoking, but shakuras is hardly small in my book. Maybe about average. If you're talking about the BW maps, then it is more difficult to provide an objective game-to-game comparison.
And playing on desert oasis is like smashing my head into the monitor repeatedly.
On December 23 2011 17:43 TheAmazombie wrote: Wow...I think your definition of "playable" maps is really small and actually kind of boring. It all maps were like this, I think the game would get stale very quickly.
Also, I have seen a ton of great, very viewer friendly games on Metal.
What I think is that the variety in maps is such a huge factor and needs to be played with more. Even though certain maps are hard to play on or harder for certain races, that is what makes the game and the player storylines interesting. To me, if all maps were like Shakuras, or with similar features, then the game would be dull. Also, as a spectator, I liked some of the maps that everyone hated like Desert Oasis because it forced games and situations that were uncommon, outside of everyone's safety zone. This led to some amazingly interesting games.
I don't know what you are smoking, but shakuras is hardly small in my book. Maybe about average. If you're talking about the BW maps, then it is more difficult to provide an objective game-to-game comparison.
And playing on desert oasis is like smashing my head into the monitor repeatedly.
Yeah, I know...the map was HARD. That is the point. It forced creative and interesting play and for me as a spectator, that was exciting. It took people out of their comfort zones. I hated playing on it as well, but I am commenting more from the spectator aspect.
I never said Shakuras was small...I just said that if every map was similar to it, then I think it would be dull.
Because SC2 is a new and different game, map balance is going to be hard to achieve until Legacy of the Void comes out. I don't think you should compare BW maps to SC2 maps since they're completely different, and I don't think anyone can truly criticize map makers because the game is constantly evolving, unlike BW which is somewhat stale at this point in time.
There will be no way to have amazing balanced maps until all the major balancing is done for sc2, aka when the last expansion comes. You list Dual Sight saying it's not that good of a map now. But at the time it was brought into play protoss were playing the whole get 3 base, get a giant deathball and zerg couldn't win. So Dual sight was made so it was harder to get a 3rd so zerg wouldn't suffer as badly. Yet, as zerg starts to figure out how to beat the death ball anyway, it suddenly goes from a minor-zerg friendly map to a major-zerg friendly map.
You can see Daybreak & Calm before the storm kind of swinging in the opposite direction. They are much bigger maps that allow you to take a 3rd that is safer. You know why? Because now Zerg is dominating the other races because they aren't able to get a 3rd and as long as they can scout well and defend the 2 base push they have nothing to worry about.
Maps right now, are just trying to balance the game the best we can. Remember, Shakuras got changed a whole bunch as well. Remember if Toss or Terran spawned horizontal positions from a zerg they could wall of the natural and just attack the zerg through the super choked off back door. If you didn't force cross positions then, shakuras was a terrible map. Now, with the removal of the back door (Because zerg was suffering) it became better. Although, it's still a somewhat garbage map overall because you can so easily split the map and zerg then don't have a chance. How often do we see Terran or Protoss grab 4 base and then just make sure the zerg can't take more then 4 base. Now what? Zerg can't win.
So with all this said... 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What? 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds Completely agree 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce Defends. You say Shakuras is a good map but if you take your 3rd, you can take a 4th and it's pretty much free. It all depends on the size of the map really. 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. True, yet why not have open spaces by your natural and have the middle more choked off? Now if a terran or toss move out they have more chokes in the middle to fight off the zerg who is most likely trying to surround you. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. Nothing is wrong with CBTS 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds XWTs & Rocks, I really don't see a problem. Golds, I agree get rid of them. As long as rocks play a strategical role they are great, it gets shitty when they are placed on every expansion. As for XWTs, it all depends on the maps, if maps have too many flanking paths then suddenly you will get maps with too many base races. Remember orignally BaseTrade (Bel'shir) Beach?
Ever notice how BW adaptations in SC2 always suck? They're different games, with different overarching strategies, where macro means something different than it did in BW. Believe it or not, but this is STILL a young game, with many, many map innovations and realizations to come. If you start making restrictive ground rules, you're only going to stifle creativity, both in play and maps.
Also, this thread stinks of "map aspects that benefit Terran are imba!"
You do know BW and SC2 are two totally different games? Map designs will be far more different than maps in BW, and I think its very dangerous if people start to analyze BW maps and try to bring concepts into SC2. Though that has worked well to some extent, the different aspects of SC2 will cause maps (bearing the best played games) to be made differently than BW maps. So yes, your rules apply to the current metagame state of the game, but I'm sure as time progresses maps will look much different. There can never be set templates because the game will always change. Don't forget expansions coming out too!
On December 23 2011 18:10 SidianTheBard wrote: 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What?
I believe he means, "The mineral line and/or nexus shouldn't be able to be attacked by tanks placed outside of the natural". Think of Tal'Darim for an example of map in which this isn't the case.
On December 23 2011 18:14 aksfjh wrote: Also, this thread stinks of "map aspects that benefit Terran are imba!"
Some might very well be undesirable. Things like abundant chokes can probably be exploited by other races as well with an adjustment in playstyle, but considering that siege tank based armies win or lose depending on positioning, an excessively favourable terrain risks breaking TvZ.
I would like to also point out, like I have before, that the pathfinding differences also leads to something else, which oftely is forgotten. Ground units are way more efficient at going where they have to, whereas air units feel relatively similar so map size becomes a bit of a three dimentional consideration.
On December 23 2011 18:10 SidianTheBard wrote: There will be no way to have amazing balanced maps until all the major balancing is done for sc2, aka when the last expansion comes. You list Dual Sight saying it's not that good of a map now. But at the time it was brought into play protoss were playing the whole get 3 base, get a giant deathball and zerg couldn't win. So Dual sight was made so it was harder to get a 3rd so zerg wouldn't suffer as badly. Yet, as zerg starts to figure out how to beat the death ball anyway, it suddenly goes from a minor-zerg friendly map to a major-zerg friendly map.
You can see Daybreak & Calm before the storm kind of swinging in the opposite direction. They are much bigger maps that allow you to take a 3rd that is safer. You know why? Because now Zerg is dominating the other races because they aren't able to get a 3rd and as long as they can scout well and defend the 2 base push they have nothing to worry about.
Maps right now, are just trying to balance the game the best we can. Remember, Shakuras got changed a whole bunch as well. Remember if Toss or Terran spawned horizontal positions from a zerg they could wall of the natural and just attack the zerg through the super choked off back door. If you didn't force cross positions then, shakuras was a terrible map. Now, with the removal of the back door (Because zerg was suffering) it became better. Although, it's still a somewhat garbage map overall because you can so easily split the map and zerg then don't have a chance. How often do we see Terran or Protoss grab 4 base and then just make sure the zerg can't take more then 4 base. Now what? Zerg can't win.
So with all this said... 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What? 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds Completely agree 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce Defends. You say Shakuras is a good map but if you take your 3rd, you can take a 4th and it's pretty much free. It all depends on the size of the map really. 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. True, yet why not have open spaces by your natural and have the middle more choked off? Now if a terran or toss move out they have more chokes in the middle to fight off the zerg who is most likely trying to surround you. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. Nothing is wrong with CBTS 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds XWTs & Rocks, I really don't see a problem. Golds, I agree get rid of them. As long as rocks play a strategical role they are great, it gets shitty when they are placed on every expansion. As for XWTs, it all depends on the maps, if maps have too many flanking paths then suddenly you will get maps with too many base races. Remember orignally BaseTrade (Bel'shir) Beach?
It seems to me that having to make it hard to expand is a step backwards, not a step forwards, in terms of gameplay development. There are just so much more strategies possible with a greater income than with a lower income, so I think that was an incorrect move. Besides, it was the zergs that needed to shape up their game - and they did just that...the game really needed more time.
Daybreak I would rate as a relatively unsafe 3rd. CBTS is practically a free 3rd. Shakuras, again, is about ideal.
More than 1 entrance to the nat is problematic, if backwater, searing and arid are any maps to go by. I think it is generally detested by the public when it becomes difficult to even take your nat without overinvesting in defence.
About the games being different - yes they are, but in terms of expansion taking they are actually rather similar, or getting moreso. We've come a long way from the days of steppes, delta, XNC and blistering, maps that were very un-BW like and very unfriendly to macro/many-fronted battles, and today we have maps that somewhat resemble BW style macro maps.
Ultimately I think that encouraging taking more bases without actually handing them out free is the right way to go. Such that it's advantageous to battle for expansions, yet not too challenging to retain them.
Bro, dont know what your talking about, but I love arid. I find that the trade off for a difficult expasion (at the begining), is an ezpz third. I also love generally expanding on it. I find that it feels alot more natural than on other maps. Also
On December 23 2011 17:50 jinorazi wrote: maybe i'm trippin but, has there been a map in sc2 with unbuildable ground, like frozen lake or rocks in bw?
needs to be implemented one day.
Blizzard needs to make it that creep can exist on unbuildable ground first, then this can happen. (Im pretty sure its possible, but its not as easy as opening the pathing painter, and just making some ground unpathable.)
On December 23 2011 18:10 SidianTheBard wrote: There will be no way to have amazing balanced maps until all the major balancing is done for sc2, aka when the last expansion comes. You list Dual Sight saying it's not that good of a map now. But at the time it was brought into play protoss were playing the whole get 3 base, get a giant deathball and zerg couldn't win. So Dual sight was made so it was harder to get a 3rd so zerg wouldn't suffer as badly. Yet, as zerg starts to figure out how to beat the death ball anyway, it suddenly goes from a minor-zerg friendly map to a major-zerg friendly map.
You can see Daybreak & Calm before the storm kind of swinging in the opposite direction. They are much bigger maps that allow you to take a 3rd that is safer. You know why? Because now Zerg is dominating the other races because they aren't able to get a 3rd and as long as they can scout well and defend the 2 base push they have nothing to worry about.
Maps right now, are just trying to balance the game the best we can. Remember, Shakuras got changed a whole bunch as well. Remember if Toss or Terran spawned horizontal positions from a zerg they could wall of the natural and just attack the zerg through the super choked off back door. If you didn't force cross positions then, shakuras was a terrible map. Now, with the removal of the back door (Because zerg was suffering) it became better. Although, it's still a somewhat garbage map overall because you can so easily split the map and zerg then don't have a chance. How often do we see Terran or Protoss grab 4 base and then just make sure the zerg can't take more then 4 base. Now what? Zerg can't win.
So with all this said... 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What? 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds Completely agree 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce Defends. You say Shakuras is a good map but if you take your 3rd, you can take a 4th and it's pretty much free. It all depends on the size of the map really. 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. True, yet why not have open spaces by your natural and have the middle more choked off? Now if a terran or toss move out they have more chokes in the middle to fight off the zerg who is most likely trying to surround you. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. Nothing is wrong with CBTS 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds XWTs & Rocks, I really don't see a problem. Golds, I agree get rid of them. As long as rocks play a strategical role they are great, it gets shitty when they are placed on every expansion. As for XWTs, it all depends on the maps, if maps have too many flanking paths then suddenly you will get maps with too many base races. Remember orignally BaseTrade (Bel'shir) Beach?
It seems to me that having to make it hard to expand is a step backwards, not a step forwards, in terms of gameplay development. There are just so much more strategies possible with a greater income than with a lower income, so I think that was an incorrect move. Besides, it was the zergs that needed to shape up their game - and they did just that...the game really needed more time.
Daybreak I would rate as a relatively unsafe 3rd. CBTS is practically a free 3rd. Shakuras, again, is about ideal.
More than 1 entrance to the nat is problematic, if backwater, searing and arid are any maps to go by. I think it is generally detested by the public when it becomes difficult to even take your nat without overinvesting in defence.
About the games being different - yes they are, but in terms of expansion taking they are actually rather similar, or getting moreso. We've come a long way from the days of steppes, delta, XNC and blistering, maps that were very un-BW like and very unfriendly to macro/many-fronted battles, and today we have maps that somewhat resemble BW style macro maps.
Ultimately I think that encouraging taking more bases without actually handing them out free is the right way to go. Such that it's advantageous to battle for expansions, yet not too challenging to retain them.
Drama, strategies, and excitement revolve around securing that fourth base. The more units you have, the less each individual one matters. Also, it has more potential to appear as two giant balls smashing, and someone wins. From a spectator standpoint, having a more difficult-to-secure fourth is usually an asset.
As for diversity, many late-game scenarios looks just as much alike as the early game scenarios: at that point you have the resources to get everything, and so you do. With a more resource restricted midgame, players need to sacrifice one tech path for maximizing another, and with the unit diversity, this actually allows for more total variety of strategies in the mid game.
I'm speaking in generalities, of course, so specific examples will contradict what I said.
Shakuras is a terrible map balance wise, P and T are heavily favored over Z, as they will be in any map that allows for easy split-map. It's definitely a good map overall, but not really ideal. I'd take daybreak over shakuras as the standard for maps to be honest.
Personally, I like CBTS, I think it's a really good map to have in the pool (only 1 map like it, of course) because it plays differently than most maps, but in a good way.
lol i was really enjoying the read. i then reached the end and realized your conclusion is that shakuras plateau is the most balanced map. this is completely incorrect. the map is extremely P favored vs Z and rather good for T vs z. Thus it is a pretty broken map.
On December 23 2011 19:20 cletas wrote: You had me until you said Shakuras Plateau as best map.
On December 23 2011 19:26 Skwid1g wrote: Shakuras is a terrible map balance wise, P and T are heavily favored over Z, as they will be in any map that allows for easy split-map. It's definitely a good map overall, but not really ideal. I'd take daybreak over shakuras as the standard for maps to be honest.
On December 23 2011 21:20 Kvz wrote: lol i was really enjoying the read. i then reached the end and realized your conclusion is that shakuras plateau is the most balanced map. this is completely incorrect. the map is extremely P favored vs Z and rather good for T vs z. Thus it is a pretty broken map.
The tvz and pvz scores are perfectly reasonable and have a good sample size. The tvp is a little worse perhaps, but still well within the 40-60 confines that blizzard aim for in their map making
Needs more Circuit Breakers. But it's ok, your map choices were good. Would be nice to have some of the neat things that BW added in, like minerals you had to mine out to take back expansions. They're like less obnoxious rocks!
I agree with the points you have made. I dislike the 2 new maps as toss because I can't actually FFE on them. To be fair metal and shattered are similar as well.
I might give entombed another chance and remove metal for a while. Close air metal is still really close by ground and things like one base all ins from Z and T are a pain there.
On December 23 2011 22:13 Ziktomini wrote: Shakuras is an absolutely terrible map. Any decent Terran or Protoss should be able to destroy Zerg on it.
On December 23 2011 19:26 Skwid1g wrote: Shakuras is a terrible map balance wise, P and T are heavily favored over Z, as they will be in any map that allows for easy split-map. It's definitely a good map overall, but not really ideal. I'd take daybreak over shakuras as the standard for maps to be honest.
On December 23 2011 21:20 Kvz wrote: lol i was really enjoying the read. i then reached the end and realized your conclusion is that shakuras plateau is the most balanced map. this is completely incorrect. the map is extremely P favored vs Z and rather good for T vs z. Thus it is a pretty broken map.
The tvz and pvz scores are perfectly reasonable and have a good sample size. The tvp is a little worse perhaps, but still well within the 40-60 confines that blizzard aim for in their map making
a) Map forum! b) statistics... b1) Shakuras for example is terribly imbalanced statswise, no matter how nice you make it sound in arguments. b2) other maps like Antiga Shipyard sound superterrible (short rush distance, huge positional imbalances due to rotational symmetry, too hard to take bases after the 3rd, one XNW and high ground covering every attack path, rather open natural) but in fact turned out very well statistically and from a gameplay point of view.
Good article but you forgot to mention that Andromeda has a same level natural. In general I find BW maps take a bit more creative licence than SC2 maps and it saddens me a little, because something as simple as an in-base same height natural would never be accepted as it stands now into a tournament map pool. I agree with your guidelines but at the same time think there should be a moderate 'breaking' of the rules like we see with BW maps.
Antiga is rather well balanced too, with about 45% in the 3 matchups, although I did not cite it because someone would inevitably complain about rotational issues. Shakuras is quite well balanced statswise over 3k games. The end.
I think "4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle." is really missing from the general sc2maps. Yes there would still be deathballs but atleast you get some possibility to do some sneaky attacks running around said ball without forcing the player to rely on nydus, drops or warps.
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Tal'Darim as one of the most balanced maps. Though it may not follow ~2, it does for the rest, and is probably one of the most balanced maps out there:
I also noticed the low power of defensive advantages. I tried to enhance them in the TL map contest winner Cloud Kingdom, you can notice the high number of chokes around the expands to give a good defensive position around them while still having open spaces after the chokes and also the three large stripes in the middle
On December 23 2011 18:52 MetalSlug wrote: I think Matchpoint is a Map that would work in SC2 as well as it did in BW. Some tournament should give that map a chance ^^
Daybreak is in a way kinda similar to Matchpoint I think.
On December 24 2011 00:03 Hassybaby wrote: I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Tal'Darim as one of the most balanced maps. Though it may not follow ~2, it does for the rest, and is probably one of the most balanced maps out there:
TvZ: 434:421 ZvP: 369-383 PvT: 424-428
Each one is under the 52-48 mark
In tournements maybe. But on ladder it is insanely favored tovards zerg. We learned that back when metalopolis got removed. Also those stats don't(for obvious reasons) include mirror matches, but as most of you know PVP on taldarim is a mess.
On December 23 2011 17:43 TheAmazombie wrote: What about Crossfire? I know it is a "crappy" map by your definitions, but have you even watched games on it? It seems like most of those games turn out to be friggin epic.
What? oO Of course there were good games on Crossfire (there were good games on Steppes of War too.. ;D) but most matches on Crossfire at the GSL tend to be 1-2 base allins. From a viewer perspective my least favorite map.
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![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/237_Fighting%20Spirit.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/188_Destination.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/175_Andromeda.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/147_Python.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/403_Icarus.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/407_Benzene.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/445_Dual%20Sight.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/504_Outlier.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/447_Shakuras%20Plateau%202.0.jpg)
