Is rocks on 3rd just bad map design? - Page 5

On January 01 2012 17:42 bubblegumbo wrote:
Close 3rd expos need to have rocks or it would be too good, especially on these crappy medium size maps that Blizzard keep putting out. Easy to take 3rd expos should be allowed on massive maps but Blizzard does not want those kind of maps. Calm Before the Storm isn't exactly newbie friendly, but its the one map that has the easiest 3rd with no rocks too.
Gold expansions should be removed, even though as Terran I can abuse the hell out of them.

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.

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?

On January 01 2012 18:22 Macpo wrote:
To all my zerg fellows: why not just sending 5 or 6 zerglings in the beginning to kill rocks? then you are exchanging a strategical problem for a slight delay in your bo, which is completely fair knowing that easy thirds favor zergs...

On January 01 2012 18:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
look at a map that does have a relatively easily takeable fast third, metalopolis, short rush distance to compensate. you need something to balance it out or a zerg can just drone up on 3 bases and hold off early pressure no problem.

On January 01 2012 17:31 mapleleafs791 wrote:
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.

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.

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

On January 01 2012 18:26 Fyrewolf wrote:

Um.. what? Are you saying that if you aren't converting 100% of your larva to drones, you are cutting econ? It's not that hard to saturate 2 bases, and you need some army so you don't die.

As someone pointed out, zerg can make a hatch next to the rocks that will become a macro hatch, but will give you another gas geyser and at least a few close mineral patches before the rocks go down and another hatch goes up.



Lings are only useless if you don't use them. If they try to push off two base, lings can easily counter.


Leenock all-inned so much because Naniwa was playing extremely greedy and never changed to respond to it game after game.

Zerg has plenty of potent 2 base timings in addition to 3 base play. It's not so black and white that you will always be behind, unless your playstyle consistently puts you in that position. It's interesting how many zerg players seem to think that if they aren't ahead in bases, that must mean they are behind. It just means you aren't ahead in bases. If you are always playing inherently greedy(not in the dangerous way, just in the always trying to get more bases/drones than the opponent way) is it really a surprise when the opponent has more fighting units?



I noted that I think the rocks happen too often, thus I agree with gsl removing them on some maps, but having rocks is not so gamebreaking as to force you into only one option, nor is it inherently bad map design. It just means you actually have to plan taking your expansion a little more than normal, while leaving it just as easy to defend. In BW there were some maps that had harder to take and defend thirds, and they didn't block any with rocks. But people still had to take that into account about the map when they planned their strategy and build order. I don't think rocks are inherently better or worse for any race. But I think maps with and without rocks are both necessary, they promote different strategies for their situations and are overall better for balance and the metagame.

On January 01 2012 18:32 mapleleafs791 wrote:

Im not trying to start a huge internet argument with you to be honest. Alot of your points are valid. I still fundamentally do not agree with rocks on expansions. Rocks covering minerals sure but not on expansion. You raise good points so i dont want this to turn into another one of those stupid arguments but my issues arnt as a zerg with rocks [although i play zerg so its hard to ignore :D] i just think rocks are an excuse for bad maps. we seem to have some similar point with alot of forum fury in between lol. No hard feeling though. Gotta go to sleep though this shouldnt be keeping me up haha

i agree with the bolded part and when i play thats exactly how i think. my personal opinion is different unfortunately :S. New years alcohol make make it seem otherwise lol. Im sure people hated on lurker eggs at some point (purley speculation as i didnt BW it up) but they were accepted. Maybe im in that group