|
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote:Show nested quote +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, the zerg can way outmacro terran or protoss (mainly protoss) because of the larva inject mechanic.
so your point is any map without rocks on 3rd base is a zerg map? lol get out of here :D
|
On January 01 2012 15:32 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
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.
Since you are going to correct people's grammar, it would be "Yes, you are a biased* zerg. Anyways. I believe that rocks at the natural third are a huge problem for Zerg. There is no reason that any race should be put at a slight disadvantage simply due to the map if another race chooses a certain build. If both players want to go eco-builds, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that Zerg is allowed to start a third. Zerg cannot compete with the other two races when on the same amount of bases for the same amount of time... That's just not how Zerg was meant to be played.
|
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.
Do the same thing Zerg does. Have less workers on the base than you normally would to free up more population for a larger army.
|
I'm down with the way they did it in this new map, Entombed Valley. You can make the hatchery but it's still in your best interest to break the rocks.
TDA/Shattered I always just flood some lings when mineral saturated but before making more drones for gas, and I guess it works, but I do think rocks outright blocking the placement of the expansion are not the way to go. I think rocks to block paths to open up later are okay, as long as the paths arent ridiculously bad for you. Like I said, Entombed Valley is heading in the right direction.
|
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
ya because you can't attack them or anything to stop them
|
I think it is rather Pro-P than Pro-T, since a fast third is the macro-oriented approach to deal with the very common FFE.
However, since Zergs really want to get their bases up fast, I think it puts the favor more towards the other races.
If the third is easy to take I can understand, why it is blocked, but in this case I would prefer having a third with less resources over a blocked one with full resources. In other words: I wouldn't call it bad map design, since the intention is a good one, but I think there are more reasonable options, which achieve the same goal.
But as a Zerg I can't say, that I am not biased, so I am interested to see what others think.
|
You are just a biased zerg, though as Antisocialmunky pointed out, rocks may be done a little too often. However, there should be a variety of maps, with both rocks and no rocks on them. Different maps are an extremely important part of the game and helps drive multiple diverse strategies. If there was only maps without rocks (or only maps with), that would be far worse for the game balance.
Rocks only make an expansion slightly more difficult to take(or rather, take a little more planning to take, it's really not harder if you start early), while not making it more difficult to hold. Map variety is an absolutely essential part of the game.
|
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.
This is incorrect btw. Try walling in your natural as protoss.
|
you can just veto tal'darim altar and shattered temple if you really don't like it.
also, don't try comparing BW to SC2. very different, and if you go 3 hatch before pool in SC2 (it was never that common in BW anyways), i wish you luck and hope the other player never scouts before the ten minute mark.
|
It's annoying when they block the third for sure but I think the issue is just rocks in the game in general. They're boring, they're gimmicky, and they will never gain a positive reputation after the horrors they put players through at launch (Blistering Sands and old Shakuras AAARRRGGGHHH). Very seldom are they used in a way that feels meaningful in the game (The use of them on Daybreak for example is quite smart, while on Entombed Valley they feel completely unnecessary in most cases other than that raised expansion, which shouldn't be there in the first place), but in the vast majority of cases they just feel like they are slowing the game down in a way that isn't needed or they are making up for a bad design decision. When they are used well it is fine but it seems only a few mapmakers (Primarily the Prime mapmakers who make the GSL maps: LS, Jackie, Winpark, etc.) have actually figured out how to use them in a way that doesn't impede progress to the game.
|
Ill let everyone else argue about rocks and stuff, but i must point out that there is no way you could double expand before pool on this game. The games are too different and agression is much more effective in SC2, so do not expect that to become standard at all.
|
On January 01 2012 15:40 PH wrote: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. Show nested quote +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?
Because if you do a three hatch before pool build, then you have no zerglings and a probe can easily wall off your ramp. If you want to prevent that, then just patrol a drone. But he can make it behind your mineral line as well, so patrol another drone and make another drone following the probe.
Three drones, you wont have much an eco.
|
On January 01 2012 15:25 Jermstuddog wrote:
Is rocks on 3rd bad for SC2 in general? or am i just a biased zerg?
I know people don't want to hear this, but rocks do serve a legitimate purpose in game design. Without rocks at the 3rd, every Zerg will go early 3rd hatch whenever a Protoss or Terran fast expands. Every single Zerg. Every single time. Is that good for game balance? Probably. Is that good for game design? Nope. Because the worst thing you can do to a game is make it completely predictable. Without the rocks, you might as well play the first 10 minutes of every FE game on auto-pilot because everyone will do everything the same way every single time.
The rocks delay the 3rd hatch long enough to give Protoss & Terrans a chance to deny it. Thus, not all of them will start the game turtling and macroing off of 2 bases. Many of them will actually build units to attempt the 3rd base denial. Without rocks, a Protoss that Forge Fast Expands or a Terran that 1-rax expands cannot stop an early 3rd hatch. It's impossible. And if they can't stop that 3rd hatch, they will not even bother trying. Instead, they will just turtle and macro like crazy instead of building units. The Zerg meanwhile macros off of 3 hatch. You end up having two sides going 200 max supply army quickly and clashing. You might as well be playing BGH.
Is that balanced? Sure. Is that good game design? Uhhhhh... no.
I don't think Rocks are unfair at all. Zerg can go hatch first safely against T or P. But going Nexus or CC first against Zerg is suicide. Unlike Zerg, Terrans and Protoss must delay their FIRST expansion by making a few buildings first, be it barracks or forge. I think it's only reasonable for the zerg to delay their SECOND expansion by building a few units first.
It takes about 50 drones to saturate the main & natural, before the 3rd hatch becomes useful. Do people really wanna see games where Zerg build 50+ drones before building more than 4 zerglings? Ugh.... again, it's like BGH. Balanced? Yeah. Good game design? No.
|
It's more like because of the imabalances in SC2, rocks at the third are needed just to give P a chance in the matchup.
|
People seem to forget that rocks existed in BW as well - in the form of neutral buildings mind you. And their function was not to block expansions (exception being island expansions), but instead to open up attack paths which were actually quite meaningful.
The problem with rocks for zerg is not so much that it blocks the expansion, but that zerg has to devote all its larva early game to drones to maintain econ with the other races (more specifically protoss when they chrono their probes). Then when units are finally made they are usually tied up to holding a push. At what point can zerg reasonably say "Ok, hes not attacking and I have units, time to knock down those rocks"? Chances are its after he held a push and already has a 3erd somewhere else.
Of course you could say "Oh, why dont u just make zerglings then early game? Zerg does - but the amount of lings needed to take down rocks in a reasonable time would require at least 16, which puts zerg back by at least 9 drones or so compared to their opponent.
Actually now that I think about it, rocks arn't bad specifically for zerg either. Protoss units are also just as tied as zerg's. After all you need at least 3-4 stalkers patrolling the sides for drops and everything else is usually out in front to stop a push.
If blizzard really wanted rocks so damn much, then why are they set to being 2k hp with 3 armor? iCCup shown with some of their maps that rocks arn't really so bad if they are toned down so they can be cleared in a more reasonable matter.
|
I didn't realise that with all the hellion play and 11/11 rax around Zergs were even considering 3 hatch before pool. LOL.
|
On January 01 2012 15:51 Flamingo777 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2012 15:32 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
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. Since you are going to correct people's grammar, it would be "Yes, you are a biased* zerg. Anyways. I believe that rocks at the natural third are a huge problem for Zerg. There is no reason that any race should be put at a slight disadvantage simply due to the map if another race chooses a certain build. If both players want to go eco-builds, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that Zerg is allowed to start a third. Zerg cannot compete with the other two races when on the same amount of bases for the same amount of time... That's just not how Zerg was meant to be played.
A common technique when going Mutalisk was to take a far away third(which may not have rocks), since you will have the mobility and map control advantage. And yes, there is every reason to have a disadvantage based on the map based on build orders as well, for instance if you try to play a macro game with a fast third on a map with a difficult to take third, while your opponent actually factors in the map he is playing on and chooses a build to be aggressive and limit your bases, you are supposed to be at a disadvantage, he is playing to the map and you aren't.
Just because zergs can power more with workers than the opponents, doesn't necessarily mean you have to have more bases. Sure your army won't be as strong as your opponents, but zerg units are naturally cheaper and weaker. That's why zerg counterattacks in the first place, so they can avoid the direct engagement (which is unfavorable unless you are ahead to mass extra units since they're naturally weaker), and backstab instead.
Edit: Cosmo.6792 's post analyzes it really well actually, his post is pretty definitive. Nice job.
|
Rocks give terran an innate advantage for several reasons. For one, the rocks keep the T's opponent on equal bases. The opponent can try and take a risky hidden expo, but with the ease in which T has access to drop tech it's highly unlikely it will last long. Secondly, the terran can start building his third expo before the rocks are down. This means the terran can get his third up faster than anyone else. If a protoss or zerg lay down their third before the rocks are down then it ends up being off-center and less efficient than the terran's third.
I think a nice compromise is to give the player the option between two equally viable third expos. They can either take a slightly closer third base with rocks blocking it, or let them have the option to take another slightly further third expo with no rocks on it. You can also mess around with the number of total minerals, number of mineral patches, and geysers offered to differentiation the third expo (something I know blizzard is currently very against for asinine reasons). Another option is to have rocks blocking only part of all of the minerals but not where the actual CC/nexus/hatch goes. This way terran loses the advantage of being able to preemptively build their third before the other races realistically can.
|
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
As a toss, I would love the rocks to not be there on the 3rd on Tal Darim so I could take it as I am doing my initial harass of the Zerg's 3rd. I don't see how the rocks naturally favor Zerg over Toss.
|
I guess i shouldn't have said "the same" rather, similar.
In BW, it was possible to go hatch hatch pool np.
In SC2 it's more commonly pool hatch hatch, but it's the same concept (as generally 0 or 2 lings are made for clearing out cannons/pylons).
The thing that makes me question the intent of "rocks on 3rd" as a concept in the game (and the reason why I used the word 'is') is the way the macro abilities of each race works.
The MULE works fine on one base, as we saw in GSL season 2 oh so long ago. Terrans in general had a harder time figuring out how to go about expanding because their macro is just so damn good off one base.
Chronoboost has no investment required and works fairly equal regardless of the number of bases a Protoss is on. Generally 2 or more bases will be preferred as one can fully saturate a single base rather quickly. When lacking the option of expanding however, Protoss can make due.
Larva inject on the other hand...
Requires 150 minerals, 2 supply, and 1 hatch per queen in order to be properly utilized.
Comparing the 3 races, Protoss actually makes workers the fastest in the early stages of the game. See any pro PvZ to see how Protoss can generally stay 3-5 workers ahead of Zerg through the early game.
Zerg comes in second for worker creation speed, but has no way to super saturate existing bases and must therefore expand to further bolster his economy.
Terran brings up the slow 3rd, but easily has the best harass and most cost-efficient armies well into mid-game and can generally compete due to the simple threat of killing their opponent outright.
All that sounds good and all, but the thing you find when you try to do a 3 hatch build yourself is that you can't afford the queens.
A well put-together 3 hatch build will get 1 queen for an incredibly long window of time (otherwise you end up cutting drones, and then what was the point in going 3 hatch?).
So I must give up my macro mechanic in order to take a quick 3rd, but often time, there is no reasonable 3rd to take.
Offending maps in the pool include Shattered Temple, Tal'darim Altar, and to a lesser extent, Xel'Naga Caverns (just no viable 3rd in general on this map, nothing really to do with rocks).
Anyway, thinking about all this. I assume Blizzard purposefully designed the queen to be incompatible with mass expanding early on, which is fine because zerg would probably have too much larva otherwise, and that would be much worse from the design perspective.
The problem however comes when they turn around and design 1/3 of the map pool to hinder Zergs attempt to mass expand in general, leaving ONLY the queen, which doesn't lend itself on to mid-game as much as one might assume.
I hope I'm making sense, it's time for bed -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
