|
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.
...because of the rocks.
love,
zerg player
|
guys 3 hatch before pools is a moot point because queens exist lol.
it's more efficient to just get queens.
They are annoying blocking expansions, i personally think they should only be for opening up new attack paths around the map.
|
For me its simple
sc2 is a strategy game
Strategy games depend on depth and bredth of tactics
rocks remove many lines of play and force other lines of play
So they are probably bad.
They *could* be good in situations way down the line when things have been understood in their unhindered form and people start finding that super macro builds are imbalanced *AND* that it is not possible to scout and switch to a build to exploit them.
EG if terran and protoss start doing fast expands on every map then z is likley to start taking fast third (like atm imo) - BUT right now t and protoss have builds that really punish a double expanding zerg before the 6-7 min mark. If those builds did not exist then using rocks to slow the expansions down *may* be ok. I can still pick several huge holes in the argument based on the game today. But I am talking about some imaginary version of the game that does not exist that may have some flaws (god knows why) that make rocks work.
I think rocks blocking bases is really bad.
I think if the maps were much bigger and the game was designed to go on for 40+ minutes then rocks could have some very interesting uses in map flow mechanic but right now most maps feel like your 4th and 5th bases are close to the opponent so the scale is too small for them to have the kind of *subtle* effect they need to noe be game breaking. IE i think they foint work in SC2 but i think they could work in some rts games.
|
Rocks at thirds are too race favoring, uninteresting and limit the available amount of strategies, so i'd definitely call them a bad map feature.
|
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?
I think rocks at the third is just as anti-terran as anything else. Rock city a.k.a shattered temple, I have to spend a good chunk of my army destroying rocks if I want a 10 minute third whereas they need to be near my choke defending otherwise.
Zergs got an easier time pulling back from the rocks in good positions due to their speeds.
Regardless, I agree that rocks should be gotten rid of. I'm sort of on the border with the hots rocks that add rocks as obstacles to terrain when damaged. Those have strategical implications. The rocks of WoL are just annoying and limit strategies.
|
On January 01 2012 22:55 Fredbrik wrote:
Rocks at thirds are too race favoring, uninteresting and limit the available amount of strategies.
I actually think it opens up strategies - creativity comes from having restrictions put on the person. Anything that enforces some type of restriction I think is useful and interesting. Metolpolis has restrictions - the wide open natural is less safe for anyone expanding than say Shakuras.
I use to hate rocks but as Zerg I've now accepted it and suddenly I enjoy having that restriction. I've been toying with taking a very quick far away 3rd and then getting a Macro hatch in my natural around 50-60 food (haven't refined the exact timing). I want them to see it and assume the macro hatch, with some lings and spines is a 2 base all-in timing...
|
No rocks at 3rd is almost instant win for Zergs unless cheesed before 10 minute mark.
We don't want to rely on cheese to win now do we?
|
yep, rocks at third = lame anti-aggression feature.
Do you want to hit your timing and not get a third? Do you want to get the third while moving out but miss your timing? You should be able to do both.
Also, I think in "Is rocks on 3rd just bad map design" it is actually correct to use "is" instead of "are", because you're referring to the single concept and not the multiple rocks.
On January 01 2012 23:25 trinxified wrote:
No rocks at 3rd is almost instant win for Zergs unless cheesed before 10 minute mark.
We don't want to rely on cheese to win now do we?
If they take 3 hatch before pool it's not cheesing to kill them
|
On January 01 2012 15:44 Froadac wrote:
From a purely spectator standpoint, I think it's fine for narrowing chokes, but otherwise rocks fail.
Yeah I agree with this. I'd like to see more crevasse-style maps where rocks can be used to widen chokes (or maybe some sort of toggle-able rocks where the rocks can go back and forth between blocking chokes and opening them).
|
On January 01 2012 23:25 trinxified wrote:
No rocks at 3rd is almost instant win for Zergs unless cheesed before 10 minute mark.
We don't want to rely on cheese to win now do we?
Then why don't we have have a 80% ratio prozerg in GSL, since they don't use these shitty rockful blizz maps ?
Or maybe by cheese you mean "attack". But then, is it so hard to attack a player ? You know, punish him for being greedy ? But I guess you'd have to learn to actually scout and react then.
|
Ofcouse it's a bad design. If you want balance and a good design in a game you make sure everyone has equal chances. Rocks on third and gold minerals are so pro-terran. David Kim said this many times that races have their strong sides and weak sides and they don't necessarily need to be equal, but I don't buy this.
Someone in this thread said rocks slightly favor terran, so does gold and someone also said that this is not a big deal. But the point is it's not important how big of a deal this is, the point is this shouldn't be a deal at all.
If mechanics of a certain race are it's strength than it's allright, but you can not put objects on the map that favor or cripple only one race and claim it's OK because they don't have to be equal.
I understand they're trying to put more interesting stuff into this game, but they didn't think that trough and now it is just poorly designed.
|
On January 01 2012 23:25 trinxified wrote:
No rocks at 3rd is almost instant win for Zergs unless cheesed before 10 minute mark.
We don't want to rely on cheese to win now do we?
So you're saying attacking a greedy zerg that gets no defense and does the typical noob tactic "I get 90 drones without any units and afterwards i'll have so much that you won't be able to deal with this" is cheese?
nr20 anyone?
Getting rocks is limiting. Limiting things is bad. There's no need for rocks as it CAN be a really good strategy to get this really fast 3rd, but it can also be easily punished by everyone.
|
rocks can suck it.... blocking an expo is just stupid. i understand if its on gold minerals but cmon.
|
On January 01 2012 15:28 mastergriggy wrote:
I think the better question is are rocks really needed in starcraft 2 at all?
Exactly, and in HOTS we get collapse able rocks... sigh.
|
Rocks on Taldarim Altar 3rd are a pain. If you want to get ahead of a protoss fast expand (the 'normal' protoss opener on TA) you have to build more lings to destoy the rocks (and they take forever to be destroyed anyway) or expand to other places where you while very exposed. Sometimes the risk is far more greater than the income.
And if zerg gets greedy both Terran and Protoss have ways to punish them.
So rocks blocking 3rd expands are bad in my humble opinion.
|
Is it me or do zergs always complain about maps? I think it puts zerg at a disadvantage in ZvP, as that is the matchup I experience as a protoss. That doesn't mean it should be taken out of the game, does everything that doesn't favour your race have to be taken out of the game? I mean, the map pool still needs improvement, if blizzard got dual sight and bel'shir and put them in there zerg would be extremely powerful. Your winrates are good, it's preety balanced; quit whining.
|
Rocks on third is worst for Protoss imo... Zerg can put an aux hatch there and Terran can lift and drop their cc right as the rock break.... There's no such thing as a macro Nexus, unless you're hongun, and Protoss buildings sure as hell can't fly.
I feel like rocks on third COULD be okay if it's like the rocks on thirds that just block the minerals rather than the placement of the CC/Hatchery/Nexus...
The better question is: Should gold mineral bases ever NOT have rocks at them? Should golds exist at all?
|
I think all rocks should be abolished,they're silly,altough it would be cool if all gold bases had rocks.
This user has been banned by Dustin Browder.
|
I think that rocks are an interesting map mechanic. They can be annoying but that is the purpose right? Just send a few units to break down the rocks at your earliest convenience. You can even use spine crawlers or cannons to break them slightly faster. If you need to take a fast third base take your usual fourth. This often makes it even more safe to take the third when the rocks are broken and helps with map control/creep spread. This said I think blizz could do a better job with their placement of the rocks and the balance of their maps.
|
eh, I guess that Blizzard wants a relatively safe third, but not a really fast third. Which is intendend, I assume, to prevent a straight and boring escalation of expansions.
A Zerg that wants an early third has to choose between a less safe expo, a macro hatch or something in between (you know, hatch next to the rocks close to one geyser).This is good, I think.
First of all, it leads to some variety in map design and consequently in strategy; then it forces some strategic thinking for the Zerg AND his opponent, who can eventually put pressure on the zerg's third.
What i DON'T like is its application on certain maps, for example Tal'Darim... where the fourth base is always a nightmare. Personally I would lower the rocks' hp to 1500 or something like that (remove the armor perhaps), so 10 lings could break it in a reasonable amount of time.
Actually there is no reason to mantain the same stats for rocks that have different purpose.
A rock/debris blocking a backdoor could be more robust, have more armor (which for example forces roaches or stalkers instead of lings/zealots), have less exposed surface (same), or even have some sort of regeneration (so you can't just damage it every time your troops are idle).
A rock/debris blocking an expansion should be quite the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
