EPTI think (as a Zerg player) that blocking 3rd rocks can be OK as long as the 3rd base is relatively close to the 2nd (ie Taldarim Altar).
Is rocks on 3rd just bad map design? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
I think (as a Zerg player) that blocking 3rd rocks can be OK as long as the 3rd base is relatively close to the 2nd (ie Taldarim Altar). | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
However, how annoying it is when you're in the middle of a fight and you want to slip in a quick expand to capitalize on your position, and there it is, you forgot to destroy the rocks (or simply didn't have the time or the possibility to put ressources in its removal). No Nexus for you...ever... This shit has obviously been designed for Terran (as most of this game I guess ;D), you just put down a command center wherever and deal with the rocks afterwards...and start raining mules on gold minerals. I consider gold minerals to be kind of the same problem. On maps like Antiga (not anymore I think?) and Metalopolis, when the Zerg just takes the gold as his third (or even second), you know you're on a timer and you're going to have to do something drastic really quickly or this shit is getting out of hand. Zerg knows that too and is just watching you struggle with a big toothless smile on his face, greasy sticky hair, while spamming SDDDDDDDDDDD (that's how I picture Zerg players who take the gold, yup). You can try light pressure, but you're on a razor thin edge and if the pressure doesn't do enough it's gg roach spam k thx, so most of the time you have to 2 base all in. It's not that it's imbalanced, but it's forcing too easily a certain form of gameplay from Protoss, and I think that's bad design. So I would say, no more rocks, but no more gold bases. Rocks put Zerg at a disadvantage, and gold put Protoss at a disadvantage. | ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
On January 01 2012 18:57 Talic_Zealot wrote: They should revert to what the BW inspiration for them was. For instance the stacked temples on the BW map  Medusa multiple stacked neutral buildings with a ton of health, requiring midgame splash damage units to take down.Unfortunately that's impossible since Blizzard decided the only zerg unit with splash damage should kill itself when it attacks. | ||
|
Meega
Germany35 Posts
they are bad map design and are bad for gameplay and balance. Therefor i strongly agree with removing rocks or at least removing rocks from third bases. I also think gold minerals should be removed like GSL already did or they should just fix the MULEs. I think Blizzard is going to remove gold bases and rocks, its just a matter of time - because blizzards always needs months to realize what the community and tournament map makers allready know. | ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
| ||
|
hypnossc2
144 Posts
Thats the reason i veto Taldarim Im ok if rocks block the path to 3rd | ||
|
Joefish
Germany314 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:28 mastergriggy wrote: I think the better question is are rocks really needed in starcraft 2 at all? This. Let's think about one year back when maps were as big as one fourth of tal'darim. Everybody cheesed or built 48645 cannons to survive early rushes. More macro oriented maps emerged => hour of FEs. Nowadays Zerg can even sometimes take 3rd before 7min mark Oo Imagine what could be possible without rocks! No rocks, no gold => more interesting games imho.. | ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On January 01 2012 19:28 Joefish wrote: This. Let's think about one year back when maps were as big as one fourth of tal'darim. Everybody cheesed or built 48645 cannons to survive early rushes. More macro oriented maps emerged => hour of FEs. Nowadays Zerg can even sometimes take 3rd before 7min mark Oo Imagine what could be possible without rocks! No rocks, no gold => more interesting games imho.. No rocks = Zerg max out at the 12 minutes mark = Terran and Toss just macro in their base and don't attack until maxed ( 20 minutes ) Fun game... | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On January 01 2012 19:28 Joefish wrote: This. Let's think about one year back when maps were as big as one fourth of tal'darim. Everybody cheesed or built 48645 cannons to survive early rushes. More macro oriented maps emerged => hour of FEs. Nowadays Zerg can even sometimes take 3rd before 7min mark Oo Imagine what could be possible without rocks! No rocks, no gold => more interesting games imho.. More like before 5 min. Double Blizzard achievement unlocked! | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On January 01 2012 19:09 ZenithM wrote: Balance wise, I don't mind them in PvZ, Zerg can really get out of control otherwise, and it makes them play "reasonable" once in a while. However, how annoying it is when you're in the middle of a fight and you want to slip in a quick expand to capitalize on your position, and there it is, you forgot to destroy the rocks (or simply didn't have the time or the possibility to put ressources in its removal). No Nexus for you...ever... This shit has obviously been designed for Terran (as most of this game I guess ;D), you just put down a command center wherever and deal with the rocks afterwards...and start raining mules on gold minerals. disadvantage. Wow, this is a CLASSIC "Rock is fine, but scissors are op - Regards, paper". | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On January 01 2012 19:46 BlitzerSC wrote: No rocks = Zerg max out at the 12 minutes mark = Terran and Toss just macro in their base and don't attack until maxed ( 20 minutes ) Fun game... Just like any pvz on shakuras ? | ||
|
teddyoojo
Germany22369 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On January 01 2012 19:56 vOdToasT wrote: Wow, this is a CLASSIC "Rock is fine, but scissors are op - Regards, paper". Haha well put, it does sound like this, even if it was not my intention. Tl;dr; Rocks: bad for Zerg, good for Terran, annoying for everyone. + Show Spoiler + But less for Terran ;D I don't mind rocks to temporarily constrict paths in a map however, those I find a good idea. In a 2v2 map there are even rocks to block the early access to a Xel Naga, that's an interesting feature. | ||
|
TuElite
Canada2123 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:30 shishy wrote: Rocks and gold minerals are more or less the only things I have issues with lol, and I think they should both be removed (Even GSL maps are amazing without gold minerals!) I would add watch towers to that list as well. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On January 01 2012 20:10 ZenithM wrote: In a 2v2 map there are even rocks to block the early access to a Xel Naga, that's an interesting feature. Testbug has rocks blocking xel naga towers as well. And rocks blocking gold minerals from being mined, but not a command center from landing in the optimal position. I think testbug uses rocks in cool ways. Crevasse as well. All the blizzard maps with rocks always use them in very boring and unimaginative ways in comparison to ESV and GSL maps. Blizzard rocks: -Block expansions -Block paths to your third base Non blizzard rocks: -Change the way the map is played when they are destroyed because they dramatically alter the architecture of the map. For example Crevasse. And not some path to your natural third - this is in the middle of the map. For example: Crevasse. -Block half of a ramp or choke, providing early game defense by tightening the choke point without screwing over the attacker in the late game. For example: Daybreak and many more things. Come on Blizzard, either use GSL maps, or make more interesting maps yourselves. | ||
|
w1nter
Lithuania73 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 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. This is not true for spine crawlers and spore crawlers, see Walling: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Spine_Crawler Also, I fail to see how it follows that there should be no such thing as two hatch because of ling tight wall-ins, please elaborate. | ||
|
WarheadsByLink
United Kingdom75 Posts
| ||
|
HystericaLaughter
Australia720 Posts
I don't like rocks blocking the third for Zerg on Taldarim because Protoss ffe on that map every single time, but the map is so big that you tend to be ok taking a distant third. On shattered temple I feel compelled to go two base muta w/macro hatch IdrA style every single game against Terran because taking the opposite natural as a fast third is just asking for trouble. And Protoss gets a fast, safe third at the back that is much more difficult for Zerg to take. So yes OP I think that rocks blocking third bases hurts game balance by being a disadvantage to Zerg against Terran but especially Protoss on ffe maps. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
I'm actually a fan of the "third is easy to defend when the rocks is down, hard when they're up" variant, though. We see that on Entombed Valley, for instance. Steppes of War, for all it's faults, had the easiest third of the original map pool and for quite a while. I think a Steppes-style nat/third layout on a map bigger than a Pringle might be interesting. A lot of the bad old maps had individual aspects that were good, actually, even if the map as a whole failed. I feel like rocks were overused so much that everyone's hating them on principle now, but rocks to open up paths (Daybreak, Entombed) are still a nifty idea. On January 01 2012 20:12 vOdToasT wrote: Blizzard rocks: -Block expansions -Block paths to your third base In fairness, Shakuras 1.0 and Typhon Peaks had alternative attack paths blocked by rocks, but the paths themselves were so abusive that the rocks didn't help much on Typhon and actually hurt on Shakuras. Jungle Basin also had a backdoor entrance to the natural blocked by rocks, with the architecture on the map making that much less broken than it had been in Blistering Sands. Blizzard maps tend to have a lot of poorly executed ideas, moreso I think then just bad ideas. They seem bad because they're not done well. | ||
| ||
