I think it would be considered fair to say that rocks blocking bases is considered anti-zerg and pro-terran. If I am overstepping on my assumption here, let me know.

As the game evolves, double expand openers are becoming more and more common for zerg, and many maps put zerg in a horrible position simply due to there being rocks.

For those who don't now, 3 hatch before pool was a common opener in BW, so it's not unrealistic to expect the same in SC2.

Is rocks on 3rd bad for SC2 in general? or am i just a biased zerg?

mastergriggy

United States1312 Posts

January 01 2012 06:28 GMT

I think the better question is are rocks really needed in starcraft 2 at all?

llKenZyll

United States853 Posts

January 01 2012 06:29 GMT

The only map where this is a problem is Taldarim Altar.
And there will never be such thing as even two hatch before pool because of the way buildings work in SC2. No matter what, every building when next to another is ling-tight, so it allows for easy ramp-blocking.

scarper65

1560 Posts

January 01 2012 06:29 GMT

I think that they are really bad map design. They make it really hard for zerg players to take quick thirds, which is something they often have to do in order to compete with terran and protoss. Rocks on the 3rd base favor terran and protoss over zerg and they are just a hassle for everyone.

shishy

United States115 Posts

January 01 2012 06:30 GMT

Rocks and gold minerals are more or less the only things I have issues with lol, and I think they should both be removed (Even GSL maps are amazing without gold minerals!)

LazyScout

United States223 Posts

January 01 2012 06:32 GMT

rocks should never be used to block expansions

bennyaus

Australia1833 Posts

January 01 2012 06:32 GMT

It is worse for Zerg in ZvP than it is in ZvT. It does hurt ZvT, but not so badly as long as your other viable 3rds aren't too far away. An example is Taldarim, where you can reasonably expand away from the Terran, and not to your 3rd, and you aren't at a massive disadvantage as compared with just expanding to your 3rd.

Sidenote: You cannot expect Zerg to have the same or similar openers in BW as in SC2, also, as it is a completely different game, with a different number of workers/ai/units/builds/etc.

Mrvoodoochild1

United States1439 Posts

January 01 2012 06:32 GMT

Are* rocks not is rocks. Also, rocks at thirds does not put zergs in a "horrible" position. In TvZ, most zergs go two base muta or ling infestor, both builds don't utilize a fast third base. In PvZ, it puts zerg at a slight disadvantage if the toss does a ffe build, but it's not that big a deal. Yes, you are a bias zerg.

Antisocialmunky

United States5912 Posts

January 01 2012 06:32 GMT

Its over done.

aristarchus

United States652 Posts

January 01 2012 06:34 GMT

#10

It's a map feature that is bad for zerg, but every map feature is good or bad for some race. It's good for zerg when the main is small or the ramp position makes FFE extremely hard. Are rocks at the third so bad that it can't be easily balanced with other map features? My guess is no, but really no one who doesn't play the game at a pro level is qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

MorroW

Sweden3522 Posts

January 01 2012 06:35 GMT

#11

its bad for gameplay and balance

bennyaus

Australia1833 Posts

January 01 2012 06:37 GMT

#12

oops misposted ^^ see above.

CecilSunkure

United States2829 Posts

January 01 2012 06:37 GMT

#13

I think rocks are just fuckin annoying. If something in a map is legitimately annoying me as a player, the design has failed at least for me.

Gold minerals are kinda okay, would be more fine if there were rich vespene as well (protoss player) as what the hell am I ganna do with a shitload of Zealots? Drop my army's pop efficiency, that's what.

United States6173 Posts

January 01 2012 06:40 GMT

#14

Three hatch before pool wasn't common in BW. The conventional and safer opener is still 12 hatch, 11 or 13 pool. It does happen, but not regularly.

On January 01 2012 15:29 Lebzetu wrote:
The only map where this is a problem is Taldarim Altar.
And there will never be such thing as even two hatch before pool because of the way buildings work in SC2. No matter what, every building when next to another is ling-tight, so it allows for easy ramp-blocking.

He meant having three hatcheries in total before putting down your pool. You only build two. Also...what do ling-tight buildings have to do with three hatch before pool not working?

Antisocialmunky

United States5912 Posts

January 01 2012 06:40 GMT

#15

On January 01 2012 15:37 CecilSunkure wrote:
I think rocks are just fuckin annoying. If something in a map is legitimately annoying me as a player, the design has failed at least for me.

Gold minerals are kinda okay, would be more fine if there were rich vespene as well (protoss player) as what the hell am I ganna do with a shitload of Zealots? Drop my army's pop efficiency, that's what.

Well if you have to absolutely dump minerals into not zealots, you can always Carrier or Pylon art though Pylon art probably causes the enemy to leave more often.

2WeaK

Canada550 Posts

January 01 2012 06:42 GMT

#16

I liked the rocks on Xel'naga Watch Towers on Testbug. Also, if they're used to block certain paths , but have a lot more health/more rocks to make it so it's not exploitable in early game (think (Wiki)

Medusa) it would be a better use of rocks.

Froadac

United States6733 Posts

January 01 2012 06:44 GMT

#17

From a purely spectator standpoint, I think it's fine for narrowing chokes, but otherwise rocks fail.

Fred Flintstone

Germany73 Posts

January 01 2012 06:45 GMT

#18

On January 01 2012 15:25 Jermstuddog wrote:
I think it would be considered fair to say that rocks blocking bases is considered anti-zerg and pro-terran. If I am overstepping on my assumption here, let me know.

As the game evolves, double expand openers are becoming more and more common for zerg, and many maps put zerg in a horrible position simply due to there being rocks.

For those who don't now, 3 hatch before pool was a common opener in BW, so it's not unrealistic to expect the same in SC2.

Is rocks on 3rd bad for SC2 in general? or am i just a biased zerg?

you're just a biased zerg. SC2 is not BW and rocks are there for a reason. if there are no rocks blocking the third, zerg can way outmacro terran or protoss (mainly protoss) because of the larva inject mechanic.

Torte de Lini

Germany38463 Posts

January 01 2012 06:47 GMT

#19

For those who don't now, 3 hatch before pool was a common opener in BW, so it's not unrealistic to expect the same in SC2.

1. Was not conventional.
2. Did not have Queens do the same function as they do in SC2.

What a terrible topic starter.

As the game evolves, double expand openers are becoming more and more common for zerg, and many maps put zerg in a horrible position simply due to there being rocks.

Was never "more and more" common. It's only common on maps that didn't have rocks on thirds and were easy to take/defend (Terminus).

You don't even say why it's "pro terran" at all ._.

Phobbers

773 Posts

January 01 2012 06:48 GMT

#20

On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote:

Show nested quote +

you're just a biased zerg. SC2 is not BW and rocks are there for a reason. if there are no rocks blocking the third, the zerg can way outmacro terran or protoss (mainly protoss) because of the larva inject mechanic.

Or, the toss can kinda just scout it, and you know punish the zerg for being greedy?