|
On January 02 2012 04:46 xlava wrote:
I think its just a matter of Zergs being too greedy. Zergs have a HUGE buffer window versus a FFE or fast Terran expand. Just build like 10 lings, then mass drone. Plus, those lings are useful anyway, you can use them to pick off scouting forces and stalker pokes for example. I don't know why its such a big deal...
Because you're a biased protoss who never got a decent understanding of Zerg
|
Considering Zergs seem to be compensating by just getting another hatch at some other expansion, it seems to just to be pointless and annoying. Why put rocks at the third? It just seems to be making games more awkward and bothersome.
Though rocks at gold expansions are fine imo. Maybe I'm just a biased zerg.
But rocks clearly are anti-zerg in general because zerglings take FOREVER to kill rocks compared to terran and protoss units.
|
I've vetoed tal dar'im altar and shattered temple for these exact reasons.
|
Rocks and gold bases was a good idea back when sc2 was released and everyone did 1 base strategies. Now when everybody plays macro games they are just annoying to T&P and unfair punishment for zergs.
|
taldariem i think its good but shattered i feel it really annoying and is not really necessary
|
Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting.
What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different.
|
It's actually a pain in the ass to whoever wants to take a third, no matter what race they are. Zerg actually tend to have the easiest time breaking down rocks, as they need some units for early defense, and they tend to have map control.
Reactor hellion expands prevent zerg from taking an early third, so that specific build order is almost out of the picture in the current ZvT metagame.
|
|
|
They're just pointless. Why on earth would you want to create another obstacle which works against having a longer macro game. They should just get rid of them and gold minerals altogether.
|
I play Zerg, so I might be biased, but I don't like rocks on the actual expansion.
Maybe on maps like Xel'Naga, where the rocks are on the best effort path to the third, but the third is still reachable from a drone... I really like that sort of map, but only on four player maps, and I can't remember any maps that might be like that in the map pool currently. 
|
On January 02 2012 12:16 Haiq343 wrote:
Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting.
What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different.
Unthinking? The majority of high level games where engagements don't happen until later are because both pros know the advantage goes to the other player when attacking INTO him, thus the smarter choice is to get an advantage elsewhere. Do you really think they're pounding their keyboards thinking "WELL GOSH DUNNO WHAT IM DOING GUESS I BETTER TURTLE LOL!"
|
On January 02 2012 12:52 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:16 Haiq343 wrote:
Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting.
What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different. Unthinking? The majority of high level games where engagements don't happen until later are because both pros know the advantage goes to the other player when attacking INTO him, thus the smarter choice is to get an advantage elsewhere. Do you really think they're pounding their keyboards thinking "WELL GOSH DUNNO WHAT IM DOING GUESS I BETTER TURTLE LOL!"
If it's always the best choice (and it is), then no, there's not a lot of thought required. Incentivising an alternative, forces additional choices into the game, choices that everyone is clearly aware wouldn't exist otherwise. Would you like a third base? Yes, always. But if it's a little less safe, then I need to be safe, and if I'm investing in an army of some kind, I'd better use it, even beyond the initial rock destruction.
I don't think any player thinks of what they're doing as turtling, even the ones who blatantly turtle all the time. I do however think that if they're forced to invest in units, for whatever reason, and then aren't putting those units to use, that they're wasting resources which makes turtling less powerful than it might otherwise be.
Again, I don't think every map needs rocks, but I don't see the problem with forcing players to weigh a different choice. Even if it's one that's decidedly inconvenient.
|
On January 02 2012 12:16 Haiq343 wrote:
Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting.
What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different.
Don't you think it's more entertaining if you need an army to take a third because the opponent is actually doing something, rather than some weird thing in the map? Taking a fast third on the maps is greedy and really does need to be thought out well.
Technically it would be less variety anyway, as you don't have the option to take a third without an army.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with rocks at a third. Whether it makes for bad map design depends on how it fits in with the rest of the map. That said, I don't think I've yet seen the map that's better for having rocks at the third.
|
Reasons have probably come up before, but whatever.
I think they are bad design. What do rocks on the third really force to happen in the game? It means you need to make units before you third, and instead of taking towers, pressuring you opponent, or any of the usual stuff you do with units, they go to your third to break rocks. So they force you to build units before a third. Units that can't do much else.
Now what if there weren't rocks? What would you need to take a third? It depends on the map. Some maps it would be quite reasonable to take an extremely fast 3rd, before you really even make units. (See terminus, especially Thorzain vs Fruitdealer in the TSL). Other maps your third is just too exposed to take before you have an army, so, as Day[9] puts it, you need to slam out a fuck ton of units off 2 base to get your third.
Basically, if you take out the rocks, the rest of the map dictates how your expanding patterns play out, which seems like a good thing, if you make good maps.
|
I would say it is more just lazy map design and a quick, probably not the best, fix for a map.
|
On January 02 2012 13:08 Haiq343 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:52 Tyrant0 wrote:On January 02 2012 12:16 Haiq343 wrote:
Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting.
What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different. Unthinking? The majority of high level games where engagements don't happen until later are because both pros know the advantage goes to the other player when attacking INTO him, thus the smarter choice is to get an advantage elsewhere. Do you really think they're pounding their keyboards thinking "WELL GOSH DUNNO WHAT IM DOING GUESS I BETTER TURTLE LOL!" If it's always the best choice (and it is), then no, there's not a lot of thought required. Incentivising an alternative, forces additional choices into the game, choices that everyone is clearly aware wouldn't exist otherwise. Would you like a third base? Yes, always. But if it's a little less safe, then I need to be safe, and if I'm investing in an army of some kind, I'd better use it, even beyond the initial rock destruction. I don't think any player thinks of what they're doing as turtling, even the ones who blatantly turtle all the time. I do however think that if they're forced to invest in units, for whatever reason, and then aren't putting those units to use, that they're wasting resources which makes turtling less powerful than it might otherwise be. Again, I don't think every map needs rocks, but I don't see the problem with forcing players to weigh a different choice. Even if it's one that's decidedly inconvenient.
It's not always the best choice, it's fairly circumstantial, and it makes the assumption the player has perfect knowledge of this. Convenient for you, someone who wants variety in play. And no, you're just forcing a choice between committing to two base or taking a huge risk and expanding to an undefendable location. If anything, it completely limits the possibilities of openers to two base only.
You throw out these vague blankets of descriptions upon games, generalizing any and all passivity as turtling. I'm not even sure if you know what you're talking about.
|
Yes, rocks at thirds are terrible game design. They need to go just like gold bases do.
|
I think it's there to help out ZvP, so that Zergs don't grab a third immediately after seeing Protoss FFE. Not much to do with ZvT IMO. You would have been perfectly capable of bringing down the rocks at the normal timings at which you would have been able to take a third in ZvT.
|
no. it depends how the third is related to the natural, what the layout is etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
