EPTIs rocks on 3rd just bad map design? - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:12 Let it Raine wrote: http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.png ps. dont quote the tlpd stats as facts for balance when a large amount (or maybe even a majority) of the games are between two unknown players/ 1 pro vs 1 unknown and very rarely is it two top pros versus each other. 279 games in november. Assuming something like equal distribution (even though T is more popular) that gives us, like 93 games per MU to base a judgment on. Not nearly enough. | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:18 Shiori wrote: 279 games in november. Assuming something like equal distribution (even though T is more popular) that gives us, like 93 games per MU to base a judgment on. Not nearly enough. oh wow, thanks i didn't realize that. tlpd stats are worthless in my eyes, is all im trying to say. are you happy knowing that protoss has 2 wins and 1 loss in the month of December because of a bo3 between Ira(p) and dana(z)? (one of countless examples) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:12 Let it Raine wrote: http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.png ps. dont quote the tlpd stats as facts for balance when a large amount (or maybe even a majority) of the games are between two unknown players/ 1 pro vs 1 unknown and very rarely is it two top pros versus each other. not enough games in korea per month... i'm not gonna argue monthly trends based on those 50games stats. tlpd stats are fine. enough data to judge based on them. | ||
|
JackDragon
525 Posts
On January 02 2012 02:59 Odal wrote: You're kidding right? Quick thirds for protoss are becoming more popular and are incredibly good. Obviously not at 4-5 minutes like zerg does, but taking an 8 minute 3rd is good as hell if you don't want to do a 2 base timing. Ofcourse that depends on the map and how quick "fast third" is. A third on 8 min is fast indeed, but I would not say that it is very safe on all maps (Xelnaga, Metal, Shakuras, in my opinion). It is safe on others Antiga especially.I would however argue that a 8 min third for protoss is still a worse position for the protoss if a zerg takes a 4 min third. Especially since you have to abandon all pressure on the zerg letting him drone and tech up freely. I still think that rocks at the third on taldarim is an okay solution since they buffed the yield for the ladder map. On shattered it might be worse since the map is smaller and bases closer to your opponent, but I don't know how much that effects the zerg. | ||
|
BeanerBurrito
1010 Posts
| ||
|
Windd
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:39 BeanerBurrito wrote: Starcraft 1 didnt have rocks, Starcraft 2 had rocks in the slowed down nooby games to protect the new players from rushes, do we really still need rocks on maps? I feel like no rocks would be a lot better for solid strategy development on every map in sc2 c&c has oil refineries, why doesnt sc2 have them? i feel like no rocks would imbalance nearly every map we are playing right now and therefor a lot of strategies had to be questioned. | ||
|
paintfive
785 Posts
| ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
xlava
United States676 Posts
| ||
|
TyrionSC2
United States411 Posts
We don't NEED a third before the 7 minute mark anyway. If you're desperate to have it then just make a macro hatch next to the rocks, mine with the macro hatch till you kill the rocks, then make your real hatch. ez. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:45 Haiq343 wrote: Not always having an easy third is fine. Game variety is a good thing, not every game needs to be a macro up and deathball each other, or deathball and whoever re-balls faster wins. It's not that rocks are brilliant, or should be used more, but they aren't inherently bad. Just because as a zerg you can't always take an easily defended third before investing into an army presence (that you then might use offensively) doesn't mean anything intrinsically. It can also require that army to be somewhere it might not otherwise be, opening attack avenues. Allowing taking the third to be a pivotal point in the game is reasonable sometimes. Perhaps overly common however. i agree. the one problem with this is that terran still can always go fast 3base, so rocks to block thirds should only be on maps that balance this t-advantage out in vP and vZ. | ||
|
Like a Boss
502 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
But on taldarim I feel like the rocks actually slow the terran down because if the terran is playing especially smart they can sneak in a 3rd command center pretty quickly because of mules and the rocks just slows that down. For example in the blizzard cup, MMA was able to take quick 3rds on maps like antiga shipyard but on taldarim the zerg can get a 3rd in many different naturals since the map is so big and terran isn't the most mobile race. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:39 BeanerBurrito wrote: Starcraft 1 didnt have rocks, Starcraft 2 had rocks in the slowed down nooby games to protect the new players from rushes, do we really still need rocks on maps? I feel like no rocks would be a lot better for solid strategy development on every map in sc2 actually there were pro maps that did have rocks, they just looked like minerals and you needed a worker to remove them. They added strategy and made for exciting matches. I'm not saying SC2 rocks do anything like that, but they kind of fulfilled that function on blistering sands with a secondary base entrance but it wasn't nearly as elegant. It was mostly "i have a bigger army and can destroy your rocks quicker so now you must play defensive", but it's the same concept. | ||
|
alpinefpOPP
United States134 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13407 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:35 MorroW wrote: its bad for gameplay and balance I think we need to add a very particular caveat to this statement. IMO, it is bad for gameplay and balance when gold bases don't exist. When gold bases exist, rocks not at the gold 3rd means Zerg can get too far ahead of protoss. A perfect example was the ESV Korean Weekly. On many of the maps, every time Protoss went for a FFE, the Zerg would go for a fast third at the gold. Which put them much much further ahead of most protoss players. This was especially bad on Katrina AE, where there is a expo in behind the main and then a gold 3rd not too far from the main ramp. Zergs would take the gold first, use the gold mineral boost to get their fourth abnormally quickly and make additional drones and spines. When gold bases don't exist rocks are bad for gameplay and balance I agree. But as long as gold bases exist they need to be either really far away/in a bad position or have rocks on them simply for the P/Z matchup. Not trying to be a dick or anything with this post to MorroW but I think it needs to be said. Gold bases first, rocks on thirds second. Rocks on Blue thirds are especially stupid though (im looking at you tal'darim) On January 02 2012 09:45 emc wrote: I don't mind rocks on taldarim, but I hate them on shattered since you can't get a surround on the 3rd rocks very easily and is much more pro-terran since all their cheap units are ranged. But on taldarim I feel like the rocks actually slow the terran down because if the terran is playing especially smart they can sneak in a 3rd command center pretty quickly because of mules and the rocks just slows that down. For example in the blizzard cup, MMA was able to take quick 3rds on maps like antiga shipyard but on taldarim the zerg can get a 3rd in many different naturals since the map is so big and terran isn't the most mobile race. As a protoss player I hate the rocks on the third on tal darim. I can either apply pressure to the Zerg at a reasonable timing or I can destroy the rocks at my third. Its hard to apply pressure and expand. I can't do a 4 gate void ray pressure off FFE and expand behind it vs. Z. I also can't do a 4 gate off 1 gate FE and expand behind it vs. T. I can't easily take the pocket fourth adjacent to my natural as my third. Its too far away by ground to easily defend if I try for a faster third, it provides poor options for sim city, and it expands towards the opponent 1/3rd of the time (rotational symmetry and all that jazz). While the rock covered third isn't super easy to defend if the opponent goes for air like muta or heavy drop play, it does provide me with a good sim city option vs Z, it also doesn't expand towards the opponent and the distance between nat and 3rd by ground (defending ground attacks) is not too far. More and more i feel like downvoting Tal'Darim as toss and this whole hard to take fast third is making me come closer to actually doing it. | ||
|
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
| ||
| ||
