|
On January 01 2012 15:51 Flamingo777 wrote:
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.
Errrr......wut?
If that were the case why do we bother with having map diversity at all? Certain maps favour certain strategies and therefore favour certain races. With 3 different races there will never be a map that's completely balanced across all match-ups.
|
On January 01 2012 15:32 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Its over done.
I agree. It wouldnt be a issue if it wasnt becoming a go to map design gimick (both covering thirds/gold/blocking expo in some way and just the use of rocks in general). I would love to see some new maps come out that dont use them. Ironically the only map on ladder that doesnt use them at the moment is metalopolis and its become an issue due to the gold base.
|
On January 01 2012 16:04 Fyrewolf wrote:
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.
so by your logic due to need for map variance you should disadvantage a race, no matter how slightly?
|
On January 01 2012 16:16 cosmo.6792 wrote:Do people really wanna see games where Zerg build 50+ drones before building more than 4 zerglings?
You DO realize that about 90% of ZvP games right now have both Zerg AND protoss building well into the 50s on workers before the first engagement right?
|
On January 01 2012 16:19 shinyA wrote:
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.
give P more of a chance? are you implying that the ZvP matchup is horribly in favour of the zerg?
|
The real question is why does one new ladder map have zero rocks, and the other 8 destructible debris
Imo rocks are made so that people dont just make static defenses and 3 quick bases. Forces a minimum amount of units and delay to get third.
I dont really think it'z anti zerg.
After all, a zerg can cross map expand which I think is even more favorable compared to clustering your expansions.
I think as a Protoss player, having to destroy rocks to secure a third is much more significant then to a zerg.
Afterall, a zerg should have map control in the early game. So him scouting my third is inevitable, him killing those rocks might annoy him but he can do it with much greater ease then a protoss player.
|
They are not really a "design", they are a feature.
No, they're not a good feature.
|
On January 01 2012 16:30 Nate.F wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2012 16:04 Fyrewolf wrote:
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. so by your logic due to need for map variance you should disadvantage a race, no matter how slightly?
The disadvantages aren't intentional, it's simply to create variety in play, and that's perfectly fine. Also to your below comment, you sarcastically mention that ZvP is horribly imbalanced, implying it isn't. Then you look at the match-up as a whole and it turns out rocks at the third doesn't swing PvZ massively into P's favor either.
I despise rocks, though.
|
PvZ is a funny matchup. If Zerg can't expand to a third, then they're forced into a a timing attack, all in or to expand somewhere else (unless they can somehow break the rocks down fast). If they can fast expand to a third then they're ahead of the toss unless he can somehow fast expand to a third, timing attack or he'll have to accept that he's behind.
|
I may say then that no-rocks in a SC2 (where rocks exist) map 3rd is Z favored.
I think you are being biased.
|
i used to do 3 hatch on scrap station
|
On January 01 2012 16:39 Belha wrote:
I may say then that no-rocks in a SC2 (where rocks exist) map 3rd is Z favored.
I think you are being biased.
how is it Z-favoured? there are builds that the other races can do to be on an even footing.
for example in ZvT terran can go double CC after reactor hellion for a fast third.
protoss can take a fast third off FFE.
after that their gameplan can just all lead to starving the zerg on 3 bases.
|
On January 01 2012 16:16 cosmo.6792 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
good lord some people are ignorant. nexus first vs a 14/14 is safe pretty much all the time you can even 17 nexus against a 14/14 on some maps. Every time a zerg tries to hatch first it is vulnerable to a pylon block or a cannon rush or zealot stalker pressure. The ONLY way a zerg can punish a nex first is to blindly open with an early pool which is horrible vs gate first/early pressure. Get your shit strait. So many games a protoss get their natural up BEFORE the zerg's natural.
On maps with no available 3rd you end up equal in drones or oversaturated with a protoss that Nexus first or FFE's and then what? you bang it out with roach ling vs way more cost efficient units?
On January 01 2012 16:31 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2012 16:16 cosmo.6792 wrote:Do people really wanna see games where Zerg build 50+ drones before building more than 4 zerglings?
You DO realize that about 90% of ZvP games right now have both Zerg AND protoss building well into the 50s on workers before the first engagement right?
God forbid you actually have to scout a greedy zerg and react accordingly
|
big problem with rocks is the high armor value. surface area plays a big role too, so a handful of lings hitting rocks for 2 damage each is rly awful
might be better to change the stats on rocks before deciding that we are better off w/o them
|
On January 01 2012 16:26 Jermstuddog wrote:
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 zerg economy has changed radically from BW to SC2. In my opinion it has become very (too?) homogenous with the other races and much simpler to manage.
In BW the zerg relies on low saturation, many bases. You just can't do without making many hatches in BW.
Not the case anymore in SC2 with queens. Now you can't do without making queens. Therefore there is no reason to put so much emphasis on expansions.
You cannot "power" drones in BW off 3 hatch pool like you can off 2 bases 2 queens in SC2 and remain safe unless the enemy opened 14CC. In which case no player has any visible advantage.
My advice is to look at the worker count and not the base count.
|
How is this pro terran if you look at ZvT? It's pro protoss for sure in PvZ, but for ZvT?
|
I would like to see rocks and gold bases taken out of SC2. I really dont think they are needed.
|
I hate rocks blocking any expansions.
edit: emphasis on hate.
|
On January 01 2012 16:30 Nate.F wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2012 16:04 Fyrewolf wrote:
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. so by your logic due to need for map variance you should disadvantage a race, no matter how slightly?
I shouldn't dignify this with a response, since you are obviously so convinced rocks are "bad" that nothing will change your mind and you likely have little to add to this anymore, but I will anyway. I don't believe rocks at the third disadvantage any race over another. If you want a third there, start knocking them down earlier. Or take a different third, and actually try using strategy, like using mutalisks for map control and working the angles for counterattacks to keep him from really being able to do much about it. Rocks at the third only disadvantage certain build orders/strategies, not any race. And you should have to factor in the map into your strategy.
|
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.
Wow buddy. Get more posts under your belt before belting out genius like that on the forums. People might not take you as seriously as you deserve!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
