EPTUser was temp banned for this post.
Is rocks on 3rd just bad map design? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
matiK23
United States963 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Elean
689 Posts
It's something map editor can use to get a map less zerg favored. Of course, they don't have to put a rock with 5000hp and 3 armor. But honestly, the game is currently evolving fast enough with the balance changes, there is really no need to experiment with rocks. Maybe in 2 or 3 years, it will be interesting. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:48 Fyrewolf wrote: 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. So a zerg opens 14/14 so they dont get blocked. or a zerg opens hatch first in zvt and the terran responts with a 1 rax expo. seeing as 2 base toss or terran is much better outside of the zerg hitting an all in timing what is the response? take my 3rd but oh wait rocks are on it. Eco vs Eco openers with rocks on 3rds are complete bullshit especially with how much worse zerg units are at breaking down rocks. When i offrace rocks piss me off but no where near as much since i have a linear worker production rate in addition to units that can kill rocks much faster. Look at shattered temple, vs a Nexus first or 1 rax expand wtf is the safe late game option? all inning your opponent that's the safe option. + Show Spoiler + Do gsl maps have rocks everywhere blocking expansions? nope but they dont cater to casual play | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:15 firehand101 wrote: 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. watch the TLO vs WhiteRa games LOL. | ||
Falling
Canada11512 Posts
Or at least the way Blizzard uses them. I think they saw how temples were used in pro BW maps and got super excited about creating specifically designed destructible rocks and just used them everywhere. But really failed to understand how and why destructible buildings were actually used by BW map makers. There were actually very few destructible buildings in BW and they NEVER blocked expansions. I don't know the full history of map making, but it seems to me that it was only later on that map-makers got creative with the destructible buildings although they usually gravitate towards standard style maps. The closest you got was those little minerals on Python which simply prevented Terran from fast expanding by floating to the island. You transport one worker in and they pick up the 8 minerals and the expansion is free to expand. Easy- but you needed drop technology so it balanced it for all the races. The coolest use of destructible buildings was Neo-Medusa where the buildings blocked a backdoor entrance to the base. It's the sort of thing Blizzard tried in their Beta maps. Anyone remember Blistering Sands with that stupid backdoor entrance? Yeah. Unsurprisingly we don't have those sorts of maps anymore. But it was a failed understanding on why Neo-Medusa actually worked. First. Stacked temples. 10 of them I think. So that meant you had to destroy 10 individually, basically blocking it in the early to early mid-game. However, splash would damage all of them. So once you teched to lurkers, archons, or siege tanks it was possible to siege them down. However, that also gave time for the defender to defend. In addition, it was a long, winding path along a ridge to get to the down ramp and into the main base. Combined with buggy ai, it was difficult to push through that lane, and the defender could still block them off multiple times. However, it was very worth getting up there as you could siege/ storm/ lurker? their mineral line. But it wasn't game over once you busted the stacked temples. Neo-Medusa Apparently PvT was imba, but to this day, I think it's such a cool concept. (I also play P and Bisu did really well on this map so....) There were a couple uses of buildings. Troy I think had a weird gate system because refineries blocked more than geyesers, so the early game would let certain units in, but if they were destroyed, you could get other units in? I never played Troy, but it somehow worked as gates. Basically, there were tricky ways that map makers found to make the map more interesting and give different areas to fight over. NONE of them involved blocking off expansions for the sake of blocking off expansions because... expanding past 2 base is bad??? It's just boring, frustrating and a waste of time and I can't wait until they are eradicating and never come back. tldr Rocks at 3rd bases are dumb. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:54 mapleleafs791 wrote: So a zerg opens 14/14 so they dont get blocked. or a zerg opens hatch first in zvt and the terran responts with a 1 rax expo. seeing as 2 base toss or terran is much better outside of the zerg hitting an all in timing what is the response? take my 3rd but oh wait rocks are on it. Eco vs Eco openers with rocks on 3rds are complete bullshit especially with how much worse zerg units are at breaking down rocks. When i offrace rocks piss me off but no where near as much since i have a linear worker production rate in addition to units that can kill rocks much faster. Look at shattered temple, vs a Nexus first or 1 rax expand wtf is the safe late game option? all inning your opponent that's the safe option. + Show Spoiler + Do gsl maps have rocks everywhere blocking expansions? nope but they dont cater to casual play It's funny you say that. I never realized before now that I all-in drastically more because of rocks at my 3rd. Wow, I never put that together. haha | ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
| ||
|
soultwister
Poland80 Posts
rocks blocking a ramp are fine, same goes for blocking your back door, it adds a dynamic to the map, but flat out blocking an expansion, it's just a chore to clean it up, not a strategical decision but talking about the need to get a fast third in SC2? not on these maps, the maps in the current pool are so tiny, if blizzard had ported Heartbreak Ridge or Matchpoint to this game and then blocked the third with some rocks, then yes, that'd be a major issue, taking a third on the current 4v4 maps is like taking a third on Destination or Bluestorm, you need an army to defend it | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:54 mapleleafs791 wrote: So a zerg opens 14/14 so they dont get blocked. or a zerg opens hatch first in zvt and the terran responts with a 1 rax expo. seeing as 2 base toss or terran is much better outside of the zerg hitting an all in timing what is the response? take my 3rd but oh wait rocks are on it. Eco vs Eco openers with rocks on 3rds are complete bullshit especially with how much worse zerg units are at breaking down rocks. When i offrace rocks piss me off but no where near as much since i have a linear worker production rate in addition to units that can kill rocks much faster. Look at shattered temple, vs a Nexus first or 1 rax expand wtf is the safe late game option? all inning your opponent that's the safe option. + Show Spoiler + Do gsl maps have rocks everywhere blocking expansions? nope but they dont cater to casual play it's only a problem when you can't get a full surround on the rocks. else, i find lings take it down just fine. so you have to make a small army before taking your third, boo hoo. maybe i should start complaining that toss has to make cannons to secure their expo. boo hoo. | ||
|
Narcind
Sweden2489 Posts
I do think that rocks at the third is bad for the game however, metalopolis is possibly one of the best, if not the best maps in the game and part of the reason for that is that there's no rocks. Later versions have rocks at the gold, but that doesn't really affect standard play very much, as it's probably going to be your 4th or even 5th base, and at that point you shouldn't have a very hard time killing the rocks anyway. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:54 mapleleafs791 wrote: So a zerg opens 14/14 so they dont get blocked. or a zerg opens hatch first in zvt and the terran responts with a 1 rax expo. seeing as 2 base toss or terran is much better outside of the zerg hitting an all in timing what is the response? take my 3rd but oh wait rocks are on it. Eco vs Eco openers with rocks on 3rds are complete bullshit especially with how much worse zerg units are at breaking down rocks. When i offrace rocks piss me off but no where near as much since i have a linear worker production rate in addition to units that can kill rocks much faster. Look at shattered temple, vs a Nexus first or 1 rax expand wtf is the safe late game option? all inning your opponent that's the safe option. + Show Spoiler + Do gsl maps have rocks everywhere blocking expansions? nope but they dont cater to casual play If you are just going to whine that you find the rocks annoying while obviously not reading the post or actually thinking of a way to deal with there being rocks at the third (instead of whining), then I really am not going to dignify that with a response. | ||
|
Kluey
Canada1197 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:50 Stropheum wrote: 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! Same could go for you! =P As long as he's not some 10 post troll, you should at least give his point credit. I think rocks at the 3rd can play a very important and balancing role in the matchups. Zerg has very powerful options in 2 base timings and a rock-blocked later 3rd. As long as the aspect isn't abused (in the same way) every map, it brings variety to the matchups without breaking the game. If you honestly think that a rock at the 3rd for a Zerg forces a loss at any level/situation, then you need to just play another race or game. | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
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. i two hatch before pool what is this post | ||
|
naggerNZ
New Zealand708 Posts
| ||
|
seansye
United States1722 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:28 mastergriggy wrote: I think the better question is are rocks really needed in starcraft 2 at all? Only for gold expansions. Although imo gold expansion is bad for SC2 also. | ||
|
Dalguno
United States2446 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 01 2012 17:11 naggerNZ wrote: All putting rocks on third do is limit play. Terran and Protoss can take advantage of a fast third just as well as Zerg can. Is that really the position you want to take? You want to suggest that a fast 3rd can't be punished by a Zerg who goes for a fast 3rd? You do realize that Zerg ends up with 100 extra minerals at the end of the process, and about 10x the army producing capability right off the bat. You could probably ling all-in after the 3rd hatch is done and straight up win the game with the mobility and map control afforded by late production from T/P. There is a reason why Nexus/CC first isn't a common strat against Zerg, nor is a 3rd expo before serious production. | ||
|
Sethronu
United Kingdom450 Posts
edit: just look up any of the GSL vZ games on Terminus, with Zergs maxing out at like 12 minutes; THAT is a lot worse than stupid rocks are. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
On January 01 2012 17:07 Fyrewolf wrote: If you are just going to whine that you find the rocks annoying while obviously not reading the post or actually thinking of a way to deal with there being rocks at the third (instead of whining), then I really am not going to dignify that with a response. i am not whining, i am stating a point. When i play zerg and rocks exist my only option is cutting econ to kill the rocks. no problem if my opponent opens with an aggressive build but what if he opens eco? he doesnt have to cut shit as non zerg races have linear worker production. When i offrace my opinion on rocks completely changes. When i play terran i dont care as i can just in base CC kill the rocks and lift over. NO OTHER RACE can do this. any please dont say "im not gonna dignify it with a response" when you respond... doesnt make you "cool" Situations are Opponent opens agressive -> i open agressive. I have a standing army so i can kill the rocks Opponent opens eco -> i have the option to all in or play from behind due to having to make a bunch of WORTHLESS lings i had to make to kill the rocks unless i plan to all in let me quote you " I don't believe rocks at the third disadvantage any race over another. If you want a third there, start knocking them down earlier" so a terran builds an in base CC early and uses the army they will have due to linear production to kill the rocks and lifts their expansion. Zergs cannot do this... Protoss cannot do this that is a clear disadvantage. Whenever i offrace i LOVE it when i have maps vs zerg with a 3rd that has rocks because i can just 1 rax expand and laugh as the zerg has to play 2 base vs 2 base. If they take an early 3rd and i use a timing attack its even more fucked than usual as that couldn't play economical and had to make useless lings. If a protoss goes Nex first and a zerg has no 3rd the WILL end up even in bases and workers which is a loosing battle unless you plan to all in. + Show Spoiler + Maybe try offracing. I LOOOOVE rocks when i play as a terran vs any race as i can lift my CC. I HATE rocks as a protoss vs terran but LOVE them as a protoss vs zerg. Why? because my opponents gets fucked over purely because of the map. ICCcup testbug had it better at least if your going to have rocks, dont favor a certain race when expanding I do have a response to rocks and it is A. you better than them so just out macro them or B. All in them because its not looking good. why do you think leenock all-ined naniwa so much on that map pool. I just think its silly that when i offrace i can play macro or early game timing regardless of rocks but when i play zerg its pretty much "play from behind or all in them". I do take 3rd's somewhere else and competent opponents make its almost impossible to defend. Its fine when i ladder due to the variation in skill but why do you think the gsl doesnt have rocks all over the place? hnmm? Yes my opinion seems zerg biased but even when i offrace rocks piss me off unless i am playing a zerg then i love them, unless i am playing pvt, then i hate them (as well as golds, which i love golds vs FFE protoss as zerg but i undestand why protoss players think this is bullshit and i also think they should be removed) Once again look at gsl maps. There is a reason that they are made that way TLDR: i have a solution, on maps with rocks on 3rds and i dont just wine, if my opponent opens economical to play a late game i will all in them EVERY time because im not going to play from behind due to a map feature, Similarly if im offracing and i get a map with rocks, you better believe im gonna open nex first/1 rax expand because good luck taking a 3rd. This is poor map design. Rocks shouldn't cover building expansions what so ever. ICCup Testtbugs rocks are the "fairest" version of rocks and blizz doesnt use them | ||
| ||
