| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
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? | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
| ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
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. | ||
|
scarper65
1560 Posts
| ||
|
shishy
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
LazyScout
United States223 Posts
| ||
|
bennyaus
Australia1833 Posts
Sidenote: You cannot expect Zerg to have the same or similar openers in BW as in SC2, also, as it is a completely different game, with a different number of workers/ai/units/builds/etc. | ||
|
Mrvoodoochild1
United States1439 Posts
| ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
bennyaus
Australia1833 Posts
| ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
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. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 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. He meant having three hatcheries in total before putting down your pool. You only build two. Also...what do ling-tight buildings have to do with three hatch before pool not working? | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
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. Well if you have to absolutely dump minerals into not zealots, you can always Carrier or Pylon art though Pylon art probably causes the enemy to leave more often. | ||
|
2WeaK
Canada550 Posts
 Medusa) it would be a better use of rocks. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
|
Fred Flintstone
Germany73 Posts
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. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
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. 1. Was not conventional. 2. Did not have Queens do the same function as they do in SC2. What a terrible topic starter. 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. Was never "more and more" common. It's only common on maps that didn't have rocks on thirds and were easy to take/defend (Terminus). You don't even say why it's "pro terran" at all ._. | ||
|
Phobbers
773 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote: 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, the zerg can way outmacro terran or protoss (mainly protoss) because of the larva inject mechanic. Or, the toss can kinda just scout it, and you know punish the zerg for being greedy? | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote: 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, the zerg can way outmacro terran or protoss (mainly protoss) because of the larva inject mechanic. so your point is any map without rocks on 3rd base is a zerg map? lol get out of here :D | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
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. Since you are going to correct people's grammar, it would be "Yes, you are a biased* zerg. Anyways. I believe that rocks at the natural third are a huge problem for Zerg. 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. If both players want to go eco-builds, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that Zerg is allowed to start a third. Zerg cannot compete with the other two races when on the same amount of bases for the same amount of time... That's just not how Zerg was meant to be played. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
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. Do the same thing Zerg does. Have less workers on the base than you normally would to free up more population for a larger army. | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
TDA/Shattered I always just flood some lings when mineral saturated but before making more drones for gas, and I guess it works, but I do think rocks outright blocking the placement of the expansion are not the way to go. I think rocks to block paths to open up later are okay, as long as the paths arent ridiculously bad for you. Like I said, Entombed Valley is heading in the right direction. | ||
|
LazyScout
United States223 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote: 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. ya because you can't attack them or anything to stop them | ||
|
DMII
Germany92 Posts
However, since Zergs really want to get their bases up fast, I think it puts the favor more towards the other races. If the third is easy to take I can understand, why it is blocked, but in this case I would prefer having a third with less resources over a blocked one with full resources. In other words: I wouldn't call it bad map design, since the intention is a good one, but I think there are more reasonable options, which achieve the same goal. But as a Zerg I can't say, that I am not biased, so I am interested to see what others think. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
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. | ||
|
Complete
United States1864 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 incorrect btw. Try walling in your natural as protoss. | ||
|
aviator116
United States820 Posts
also, don't try comparing BW to SC2. very different, and if you go 3 hatch before pool in SC2 (it was never that common in BW anyways), i wish you luck and hope the other player never scouts before the ten minute mark. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
| ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
| ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:40 PH wrote: Three hatch before pool wasn't common in BW. The conventional and safer opener is still 12 hatch, 11 or 13 pool. It does happen, but not regularly. He meant having three hatcheries in total before putting down your pool. You only build two. Also...what do ling-tight buildings have to do with three hatch before pool not working? Because if you do a three hatch before pool build, then you have no zerglings and a probe can easily wall off your ramp. If you want to prevent that, then just patrol a drone. But he can make it behind your mineral line as well, so patrol another drone and make another drone following the probe. Three drones, you wont have much an eco. | ||
|
cosmo.6792
161 Posts
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. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
| ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
The problem with rocks for zerg is not so much that it blocks the expansion, but that zerg has to devote all its larva early game to drones to maintain econ with the other races (more specifically protoss when they chrono their probes). Then when units are finally made they are usually tied up to holding a push. At what point can zerg reasonably say "Ok, hes not attacking and I have units, time to knock down those rocks"? Chances are its after he held a push and already has a 3erd somewhere else. Of course you could say "Oh, why dont u just make zerglings then early game? Zerg does - but the amount of lings needed to take down rocks in a reasonable time would require at least 16, which puts zerg back by at least 9 drones or so compared to their opponent. Actually now that I think about it, rocks arn't bad specifically for zerg either. Protoss units are also just as tied as zerg's. After all you need at least 3-4 stalkers patrolling the sides for drops and everything else is usually out in front to stop a push. If blizzard really wanted rocks so damn much, then why are they set to being 2k hp with 3 armor? iCCup shown with some of their maps that rocks arn't really so bad if they are toned down so they can be cleared in a more reasonable matter. | ||
|
S_SienZ
1878 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:51 Flamingo777 wrote: Since you are going to correct people's grammar, it would be "Yes, you are a biased* zerg. Anyways. I believe that rocks at the natural third are a huge problem for Zerg. 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. If both players want to go eco-builds, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that Zerg is allowed to start a third. Zerg cannot compete with the other two races when on the same amount of bases for the same amount of time... That's just not how Zerg was meant to be played. A common technique when going Mutalisk was to take a far away third(which may not have rocks), since you will have the mobility and map control advantage. And yes, there is every reason to have a disadvantage based on the map based on build orders as well, for instance if you try to play a macro game with a fast third on a map with a difficult to take third, while your opponent actually factors in the map he is playing on and chooses a build to be aggressive and limit your bases, you are supposed to be at a disadvantage, he is playing to the map and you aren't. Just because zergs can power more with workers than the opponents, doesn't necessarily mean you have to have more bases. Sure your army won't be as strong as your opponents, but zerg units are naturally cheaper and weaker. That's why zerg counterattacks in the first place, so they can avoid the direct engagement (which is unfavorable unless you are ahead to mass extra units since they're naturally weaker), and backstab instead. Edit: Cosmo.6792 's post analyzes it really well actually, his post is pretty definitive. Nice job. | ||
|
Amlitzer
United States471 Posts
I think a nice compromise is to give the player the option between two equally viable third expos. They can either take a slightly closer third base with rocks blocking it, or let them have the option to take another slightly further third expo with no rocks on it. You can also mess around with the number of total minerals, number of mineral patches, and geysers offered to differentiation the third expo (something I know blizzard is currently very against for asinine reasons). Another option is to have rocks blocking only part of all of the minerals but not where the actual CC/nexus/hatch goes. This way terran loses the advantage of being able to preemptively build their third before the other races realistically can. | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote: 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. As a toss, I would love the rocks to not be there on the 3rd on Tal Darim so I could take it as I am doing my initial harass of the Zerg's 3rd. I don't see how the rocks naturally favor Zerg over Toss. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
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 thing that makes me question the intent of "rocks on 3rd" as a concept in the game (and the reason why I used the word 'is') is the way the macro abilities of each race works. The MULE works fine on one base, as we saw in GSL season 2 oh so long ago. Terrans in general had a harder time figuring out how to go about expanding because their macro is just so damn good off one base. Chronoboost has no investment required and works fairly equal regardless of the number of bases a Protoss is on. Generally 2 or more bases will be preferred as one can fully saturate a single base rather quickly. When lacking the option of expanding however, Protoss can make due. Larva inject on the other hand... Requires 150 minerals, 2 supply, and 1 hatch per queen in order to be properly utilized. Comparing the 3 races, Protoss actually makes workers the fastest in the early stages of the game. See any pro PvZ to see how Protoss can generally stay 3-5 workers ahead of Zerg through the early game. Zerg comes in second for worker creation speed, but has no way to super saturate existing bases and must therefore expand to further bolster his economy. Terran brings up the slow 3rd, but easily has the best harass and most cost-efficient armies well into mid-game and can generally compete due to the simple threat of killing their opponent outright. All that sounds good and all, but the thing you find when you try to do a 3 hatch build yourself is that you can't afford the queens. A well put-together 3 hatch build will get 1 queen for an incredibly long window of time (otherwise you end up cutting drones, and then what was the point in going 3 hatch?). So I must give up my macro mechanic in order to take a quick 3rd, but often time, there is no reasonable 3rd to take. Offending maps in the pool include Shattered Temple, Tal'darim Altar, and to a lesser extent, Xel'Naga Caverns (just no viable 3rd in general on this map, nothing really to do with rocks). Anyway, thinking about all this. I assume Blizzard purposefully designed the queen to be incompatible with mass expanding early on, which is fine because zerg would probably have too much larva otherwise, and that would be much worse from the design perspective. The problem however comes when they turn around and design 1/3 of the map pool to hinder Zergs attempt to mass expand in general, leaving ONLY the queen, which doesn't lend itself on to mid-game as much as one might assume. I hope I'm making sense, it's time for bed -_- | ||
|
S_SienZ
1878 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ralethon
United States141 Posts
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. | ||
|
Nate.F
918 Posts
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? | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
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? | ||
|
Nate.F
918 Posts
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? | ||
|
tdynasty
Canada220 Posts
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. | ||
|
acrimoneyius
United States983 Posts
No, they're not a good feature. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:30 Nate.F wrote: 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. | ||
|
LucidityDark
United Kingdom139 Posts
| ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
I think you are being biased. | ||
|
ePdeLay
Australia220 Posts
| ||
|
Nate.F
918 Posts
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. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:16 cosmo.6792 wrote: 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: 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 | ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
might be better to change the stats on rocks before deciding that we are better off w/o them | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
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. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
-stOpSKY-
Canada498 Posts
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
edit: emphasis on hate. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On January 01 2012 16:30 Nate.F wrote: 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. | ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote: 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! | ||
|
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 | ||
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
Gold expansions should be removed, even though as Terran I can abuse the hell out of them. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Rocks wouldn't be a problem then, but it is still bad map design. Its just so boring. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
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. I agree early 3rds can be too good, both for Zerg and t/p in the correct scenario however I do not think rocks are the solution. It is better maps imho Better maps=more gg=more skill= less whining Amirite? I am fine with rocks just not on top of expo locations | ||
|
shadowboxer
United States224 Posts
| ||
|
mango_destroyer
Canada3914 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
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. Owning a gold gives you liberty to drop excessive amounts of cannons with no penalty on your macro, to be fair | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
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? in BW terran could barracks before depot... the blocked base is bad map design. from memory, most of the proleague broodwar maps were at least twice as big as taldarim... to the point where each player having about 5-6 bases is completely normal. sc2 is a completely different ball game, as indicated by the only 3 'safe' bases to take and any extra are almost always in super boring passive games. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
Macpo
453 Posts
| ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
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... how does that favor zerg exactly but yeah, sen does this on taldarim zvp. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
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. But what about maps like daybreak? No rocks on bases on that map and you see alot of multi base vs mutli base in ZvT and ZvP. not trying to argue because i totally get your point, but i feel like this should be fixed by better map design. not gimmicks like rocks on expansions which is like a band-aid on a gaping wound. Why no fix the main problem rather than try to cover it up? | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Lings are only useless if you don't use them. If they try to push off two base, lings can easily counter. 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. Leenock all-inned so much because Naniwa was playing extremely greedy and never changed to respond to it game after game. 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". 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 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 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. | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
Perhaps it would be better to have blue and gold mineral expansions mixed instead of having a full gold expansion. Although I'm not sure if something like that is doable in the map maker. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
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. 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 PS: I still think rocks are awful  | ||
|
Hossinaut
United States453 Posts
IMO, gold bases are imba for T with mules IIRC, GSL doesn't have rocks blocking expos aside from the possible 4th location @ Xel'Naga Fortress, but I could be wrong http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/GSL_Maps If its balanced at the highest level of play to NOT have rocks, why do we need them on ladder? I understand @ golds and stuff, but beyond that, it seems stupid. I think destructible rocks and the upcoming (HotS) area-blocking rocks are really bad for the game, as they add ways for lesser players to beat better players via some gimmick. In this case, not being able to take a third and then losing because all of your units are WAY less cost-efficient (ZvP Tal'Darim specifically). This feels gimmicky to me. Ofc, the whole seems just as gimmicky. If those colossus were say marines and the roach/ling were say colossus, then Terran is screwed. Likewise, if those colossus are roach/ling and the roach/ling is colossus or tanks, Zerg is screwed. These seem like really bad game design to me. | ||
|
jjhchsc2
Korea (South)2393 Posts
THEY ARE TERRIBLE!!!! | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
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 It s'all good, it's been fun, sorry if I was a little harsh at first. Rocks covering minerals sounds interesting, even though gas is the more important resource expansions give you. I definitely agree that the rocks sometimes feel like an excuse for bad maps, though one of the things I truly love about starcraft is that there are so many different maps that the game never feels stale. I never liked those lurker eggs in bw, but it was different, and that in and of itself was cool. It's getting way late here now though, it be time to go. Happy New Year Everybody! | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
Medusa multiple stacked neutral buildings with a ton of health, requiring midgame splash damage units to take down. | ||
|
CookieMaker
Canada880 Posts
When they block the only viable natural 3rd though (TA), terrans and especially protosses have an advantage by easily knowing the playstyles a zerg is forced into. | ||
|
Shiger
Sweden118 Posts
| ||
|
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. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On January 01 2012 20:30 WarheadsByLink wrote: I wouldn't mind rocks so much as a Z if they removed the armour on them ^^ Other races have early access to +bonus vs armoured but Zerg don't really get much (apart from spines / ultra IIRC). Early game you're realistically looking to kill rocks with lings which are incredibly slow to do so because of the armour. I've tried getting lots of early creep spread going so I can re-root a spine to the 3rd on tal darim to help break rocks but still that's a bit wonky =p A bonus vs Armored is not as important as a high single burst damage output to minimize the armor effect (not the armor type, the armor value). DTs don't have any bonuses, but they will kill rocks fast. Roaches and Hydras kill rocks decently fast as well. The problem for zerg is that you must indeed produce those units to kill them, instead of droning (but once you get those units, you kill them fast, no problem). Your first set of lings is not enough. | ||
|
psteeleneg
48 Posts
| ||
|
Hardigan
Switzerland1297 Posts
| ||
|
Luppy1
Singapore177 Posts
| ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
These sort of rocks are there to prevent a zerg from getting an expansion up without any units, which is on some maps quiet needed. So these rocks are there to balance out the map. Rocks themself have a nice armor, so that the t1 units do really bad against them. So if you want to clean rocks fast you would need the t1,5 units. But no one forces a mapmaker to use rocks, they could use 0 armor debris if they think it would be better for their map. just have to note those specialty in the loadingscreen. | ||
|
Bswhunter
Australia954 Posts
| ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
On January 01 2012 21:06 FeyFey wrote: rocks on the 3rd favor terran because you can build your CC before killing the rocks, this advantage can easily be avoided, if the rocks block the minerals and gas instead of the place where the nexus or hatch or cc will be. That way everyone can kill the rocks while building. These sort of rocks are there to prevent a zerg from getting an expansion up without any units, which is on some maps quiet needed. So these rocks are there to balance out the map. Rocks themself have a nice armor, so that the t1 units do really bad against them. So if you want to clean rocks fast you would need the t1,5 units. But no one forces a mapmaker to use rocks, they could use 0 armor debris if they think it would be better for their map. just have to note those specialty in the loadingscreen. I really like the idea of rocks blocking minerals and gas instead of the nexus location! Great idea. | ||
|
secretary bird
447 Posts
| ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
| ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
| ||
|
Kyhol
Canada2575 Posts
It would be a completely different story if the loch ness monster was in place of every rock. GL getting your 3rd, nessy is beast. | ||
|
Humposaurus
Netherlands86 Posts
| ||
|
werynais
Germany1780 Posts
| ||
|
Dariusz
Poland657 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:28 mastergriggy wrote: I think the better question is are rocks really needed in starcraft 2 at all? Rocks should be only on gold bases and certain pathways. This would fix so much problems. Zergs could take normal 3rd fast, and Terrans/Zergs couldnt abuse gold rushes anymore. | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2013 Posts
On January 01 2012 21:56 Humposaurus wrote: Just beat rocks with paper. Problem solved. You win the thread good sir | ||
|
Sepi
Finland231 Posts
| ||
|
winthrop
Hong Kong956 Posts
some protoss players use that depot for voidray charging they should fix the ground not add an ugly thing. plus: supply depot in Terminus RE is really good idea, (maybe antiga shipyard good too), but to abuse it in every map definely is not a good map design | ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
On January 01 2012 22:15 winthrop wrote: supply depot too some protoss players use that depot for voidray charging they should fix the ground not add an ugly thing. plus: supply depot in Terminus RE is really good idea, (maybe antiga shipyard good too), but to abuse it in every map definely is not a good map design I think things like that go beyond map design into game design territory. | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
Taldarim is pretty balanced, but the extremely open middle is very good for Zerg, which explains why Zerg is only slightly disadvantaged here due to rocks. With a free third, I think ZvT would be balanced and ZvP would be Zerg favoured. | ||
|
TheDraken
United States640 Posts
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 | ||
|
Bodzilla
Australia472 Posts
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. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Fredbrik
Denmark28 Posts
| ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
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. | ||
|
XChoke
Australia45 Posts
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... | ||
|
trinxified
Canada7774 Posts
We don't want to rely on cheese to win now do we? | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
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 | ||
|
PopcornColonel
United States769 Posts
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). | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
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. | ||
|
kcbgoku
Poland156 Posts
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. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
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. | ||
|
Diizzy
United States828 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
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. | ||
|
EdSlyB
Portugal1621 Posts
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. | ||
|
QNdie
Poland210 Posts
| ||
|
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
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? | ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
This user has been banned by Dustin Browder. | ||
|
Maxd11
United States680 Posts
| ||
|
Big G
Italy835 Posts
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. | ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
Quick third hatch can still be good though and rocks do hurt zerg more then other races. Rocks shouldn't have armor imo and should have a little less hitpoints, this way lings can kill rocks a bit easier. I think rocks now are always 2000hp with 1 armor which is just too sturdy for many maps, small rocks like 750hp no armor could be good imo especially for some golds. Gold itself tends to need rocks to be fair to avoid zerg being able to expand first to them. The rocks itself don't need to have so many hitpoints though, just a slight hurdle so you can't kill them superquick should be enough imo. | ||
|
Purind
Canada3562 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/index.php?title=File:Arkanoid.jpg&filetimestamp=20110627164356 Cocoons blocking all but 4 bases (and those 4 bases happen to be your spawn locations). Double rows of destructible buildings. Destructible buildings blocking every single possible path. Dustin Browder would looooove this map. In fact I'm shocked this isn't in the SC2 ladder pool. Only thing that would make it better is a gold expo in the middle of the map (you guessed it, blocked by destructible rocks) | ||
|
CluEleSs_UK
United Kingdom583 Posts
| ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
So yeah... depends a lot on the map and the 3rd. They shouldn't really need to block the 3rd, but blocking it can be used to limit the early game of the zerg on maps where terran/toss don't really have much chance of being aggressive. | ||
|
drgonzhere
United States447 Posts
| ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
On January 01 2012 17:10 Let it Raine wrote: i two hatch before pool what is this post Ok, ill go try and hatch before pool and proceed to get cannon rushed | ||
|
The Final Boss
United States1839 Posts
| ||
|
Termit
Sweden3466 Posts
| ||
|
scruffeh
England196 Posts
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. Use the money to build extra gateways to reinforce quickly when you lose your maxed army? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
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? Based on not only this post but others as well, I'd say "Yes, sir. You are a biased Zerg." | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:32 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: Are* rocks not is rocks. On January 01 2012 15:32 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:Yes, you are a bias zerg. Maybe grammar isn't your speciality. On the topic of rocks, I think Blizzard intended them originally for one thing, but now just uses them in place of good map design. I don't think they are biased towards one race or another (zerg will have units out to destroy the rocks, not to mention there are two base strategies for Zerg as well). Finally, I think it would be much more interesting if there were some maps that didn't have rocks at all. | ||
|
typedef struct
United States84 Posts
The game would be fine without them, but they don't hurt it. | ||
|
VirgilSC2
United States6151 Posts
On January 02 2012 00:44 Lebzetu wrote: Ok, ill go try and hatch before pool and proceed to get cannon rushed .....what? I'm pretty sure Hatch before Pool is like the most common Zerg opener there is? "Two hatch before pool" a.k.a. Hatch First? I mean, I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around your comments simply because they're so wrong I can't even begin to take you seriously. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
| ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On January 02 2012 01:42 VirgilSC2 wrote: .....what? I'm pretty sure Hatch before Pool is like the most common Zerg opener there is? "Two hatch before pool" a.k.a. Hatch First? I mean, I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around your comments simply because they're so wrong I can't even begin to take you seriously. AFAIK hatch before pool is common in TvZ but not in PvZ. | ||
|
Durp
Canada3117 Posts
On January 02 2012 01:48 BlitzerSC wrote: AFAIK hatch before pool is common in TvZ but not in PvZ. Hatch before pool in ZvP leaves you pretty open to cannon denying your expo, as pylons can block off the position behind your natural, and a cannon can be used to deny the hatch. Forcing a zerg to cancel the natural is worth the pylon investment (you cancel the cannons as soon as hatch is canceled) I'm not a fan of destructible rocks. In theory they're neat, but when so few units can cause so much damage early in games, having to send my DPS units out (protoss here) from behind walls is scary, since I'm not risking sending my sentries with them. I really only see rocks having a purpose to block gold bases, which is a location that does not need to be easily accessible. | ||
|
Nakas
United States148 Posts
On second thought, maybe making maps that eliminate balanced build options for specific races would be as lame as hell. | ||
|
Hulavuta
United States1252 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DSYyH.png) User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Gemini_19
United States1258 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:48 Phobbers wrote: Or, the toss can kinda just scout it, and you know punish the zerg for being greedy? Or just take a quick 3rd of their own? | ||
|
JackDragon
525 Posts
The point is that a quick thirdis way more beneficial for a zerg then a protoss. If you see a very quick third base your best bet is to try and punish because you will never get even economicaly while still staying safe if you take a quick third. Remember that a third hatch is 1 more unit producing structure for zerg while protoss only can build workesr from the nexus reducing the units and unit producing structures drastically. Rocks at the third on taldarim gives the protos the ability to punish if zerg go for a quick third at a more vulnurable position. | ||
|
Glurkenspurk
United States1915 Posts
On January 02 2012 02:37 JackDragon wrote: The point is that a quick thirdis way more beneficial for a zerg then a protoss. If you see a very quick third base your best bet is to try and punish because you will never get even economicaly while still staying safe if you take a quick third. Remember that a third hatch is 1 more unit producing structure for zerg while protoss only can build workesr from the nexus reducing the units and unit producing structures drastically. Rocks at the third on taldarim gives the protos the ability to punish if zerg go for a quick third at a more vulnurable position. You're kidding right? Quick thirds for protoss are becoming more popular and are incredibly good. Obviously not at 4-5 minutes like zerg does, but taking an 8 minute 3rd is good as hell if you don't want to do a 2 base timing. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 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. Is that all you ever say? It is one of the most pompous replies one can give. Instead of indulging yourself in the minute pleasure you gain from such a derogatory response, say nothing at all. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11085 Posts
Not really on either count. Punishing the third depends on the map and it imo more putting on pressure than punishing a third. Taking a quick third is pretty damn hard/ impossible on some maps without tech/ good placement of the third etc. Actually think maps without a rocked third are just poorly designed. | ||
|
Candles
United Kingdom103 Posts
For that reason I'm happy with 3rd rocks. I think it's the only matchup it matters in and I think it helps balance a currently Zerg favoured matchup. | ||
|
Glurkenspurk
United States1915 Posts
On January 02 2012 03:15 Candles wrote: Hmmm frankly I get annoyed when watching PvZ, when, the toss FFE and the Zerg double expands. It seems to take forever before either player can apply any kind of pressure. Inevitably the Toss will go stargate and the games just feel dull to watch and seemingly quite Zerg favoured. For that reason I'm happy with 3rd rocks. I think it's the only matchup it matters in and I think it helps balance a currently Zerg favoured matchup. So map balance should be based on what people find most entertaining to watch? So I guess all maps should've been steppes of war when MKP was still playing super micro heavy 2 rax. If anything, quick 3rds make it more fun. You get to watch the zerg sit on the edge of being too greedy and trying to make just enough units to defend the almost inevitable 2 base pressure at the 3rd. | ||
|
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
Edit: I play zerg, so there is nothing more annoying than having to take my fourth as my third and my third as my fourth. Its pointless. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 03:09 Sabu113 wrote: Not really on either count. Punishing the third depends on the map and it imo more putting on pressure than punishing a third. Taking a quick third is pretty damn hard/ impossible on some maps without tech/ good placement of the third etc. Actually think maps without a rocked third are just poorly designed. you mean like shakuras, antiga and daybreak? maps on which protoss can take a fast third against fast third zergs and therefore are some of the best PvZ maps right now? rocks on TDA are fine, rocks on antiga would just plainly make ZvX impossible(not as if it was good for zerg right now, but still not superimba) just a question of the map wether rocks are good (lead to balanced scenarios) or bad. | ||
|
TBone-
United States2309 Posts
Also work on your argument more before posting a new thread. Your first argument was just wrong in the fact that zerg can just expand somewheres else and your second argument is bringing in a whole different game. | ||
|
Grampz
United States2147 Posts
| ||
|
EdStruction
Germany15 Posts
Rocks still are a way to stop zerg from playing very fast 2 expansions but are still able to get destroyed by lings a little bit faster I think that would do the trick | ||
|
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
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? If you go 3 hatch before pool, you just kinda die to any form of early aggression. Maybe on some really big maps it might work - like Alter if there were no rocks, but its really risky. SC2 is just a different game than BW. Honestly the rocks are just an annoyance. I just take my third elsewhere at the same time. Edit: Well you might not instantly die. Maybe if a toss does a FFE and you blindly go for a 3 bases before pool it might work. Same for a terran doing a helion opening and double expanding off that, but the fact is your basically doing it blind and there is so much shit that can kill you, its just better to go hatch->pool. | ||
|
Candles
United Kingdom103 Posts
On January 02 2012 03:18 Odal wrote: So map balance should be based on what people find most entertaining to watch? So I guess all maps should've been steppes of war when MKP was still playing super micro heavy 2 rax. If anything, quick 3rds make it more fun. You get to watch the zerg sit on the edge of being too greedy and trying to make just enough units to defend the almost inevitable 2 base pressure at the 3rd. Well as I already said I think it's very difficult for Toss to punish a zerg that takes a quick 3rd when they FFE and I think we can all agree that balances races is something maps are there to do. PvZ is undoubtedly Zerg favoured at the highest level at the moment and I think two of the main issues are quick 3rds in response to FFE and Mutalisks. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
But destructible rocks (and collapsable rocks) are a good idea for opening and closing new paths. I like them when they're used that way. Only when it's balanced, of course. | ||
|
Pazuzu
United States632 Posts
On January 02 2012 03:30 EdStruction wrote: i think rocks on the third should have less armor than they do now Rocks still are a way to stop zerg from playing very fast 2 expansions but are still able to get destroyed by lings a little bit faster I think that would do the trick I agree just lessening the health/armor would help tremendously. Someone much earlier mentioned how zergs vT always go ling infestor/ling muta etc before taking a third, but that seems to be because of the base situation. Since the terran goes for a timing push right before the zerg is able to take a third in a reasonable amount of time, that pushes the zerg towards a two base style opener. If there were third bases that are as easy to take as the natural, it would certainly open up the door for new development (though I can't say whether or not that would affect the match up etc, ill leave that up for discussion), and certainly push towards more macro games which is what as spectators people want more. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 03:37 Candles wrote: Well as I already said I think it's very difficult for Toss to punish a zerg that takes a quick 3rd when they FFE and I think we can all agree that balances races is something maps are there to do. PvZ is undoubtedly Zerg favoured at the highest level at the moment and I think two of the main issues are quick 3rds in response to FFE and Mutalisks. the winrates are Z 54:46 P as far as i know for november (waiting for december stats) and yes it is impossible to punish a zerg for a fast third as 2base toss by attacking. however harassment and fast thirds as P are having a huge impact on ZvP right now. | ||
|
LXR
357 Posts
| ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
On January 02 2012 03:52 Big J wrote: the winrates are Z 54:46 P as far as i know for november (waiting for december stats) and yes it is impossible to punish a zerg for a fast third as 2base toss by attacking. however harassment and fast thirds as P are having a huge impact on ZvP right now. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.png ps. dont quote the tlpd stats as facts for balance when a large amount (or maybe even a majority) of the games are between two unknown players/ 1 pro vs 1 unknown and very rarely is it two top pros versus each other. | ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:12 Let it Raine wrote: http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.png ps. dont quote the tlpd stats as facts for balance when a large amount (or maybe even a majority) of the games are between two unknown players/ 1 pro vs 1 unknown and very rarely is it two top pros versus each other. 279 games in november. Assuming something like equal distribution (even though T is more popular) that gives us, like 93 games per MU to base a judgment on. Not nearly enough. | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:18 Shiori wrote: 279 games in november. Assuming something like equal distribution (even though T is more popular) that gives us, like 93 games per MU to base a judgment on. Not nearly enough. oh wow, thanks i didn't realize that. tlpd stats are worthless in my eyes, is all im trying to say. are you happy knowing that protoss has 2 wins and 1 loss in the month of December because of a bo3 between Ira(p) and dana(z)? (one of countless examples) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:12 Let it Raine wrote: http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.png ps. dont quote the tlpd stats as facts for balance when a large amount (or maybe even a majority) of the games are between two unknown players/ 1 pro vs 1 unknown and very rarely is it two top pros versus each other. not enough games in korea per month... i'm not gonna argue monthly trends based on those 50games stats. tlpd stats are fine. enough data to judge based on them. | ||
|
JackDragon
525 Posts
On January 02 2012 02:59 Odal wrote: You're kidding right? Quick thirds for protoss are becoming more popular and are incredibly good. Obviously not at 4-5 minutes like zerg does, but taking an 8 minute 3rd is good as hell if you don't want to do a 2 base timing. Ofcourse that depends on the map and how quick "fast third" is. A third on 8 min is fast indeed, but I would not say that it is very safe on all maps (Xelnaga, Metal, Shakuras, in my opinion). It is safe on others Antiga especially.I would however argue that a 8 min third for protoss is still a worse position for the protoss if a zerg takes a 4 min third. Especially since you have to abandon all pressure on the zerg letting him drone and tech up freely. I still think that rocks at the third on taldarim is an okay solution since they buffed the yield for the ladder map. On shattered it might be worse since the map is smaller and bases closer to your opponent, but I don't know how much that effects the zerg. | ||
|
BeanerBurrito
1010 Posts
| ||
|
Windd
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:39 BeanerBurrito wrote: Starcraft 1 didnt have rocks, Starcraft 2 had rocks in the slowed down nooby games to protect the new players from rushes, do we really still need rocks on maps? I feel like no rocks would be a lot better for solid strategy development on every map in sc2 c&c has oil refineries, why doesnt sc2 have them? i feel like no rocks would imbalance nearly every map we are playing right now and therefor a lot of strategies had to be questioned. | ||
|
paintfive
785 Posts
| ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
xlava
United States676 Posts
| ||
|
TyrionSC2
United States411 Posts
We don't NEED a third before the 7 minute mark anyway. If you're desperate to have it then just make a macro hatch next to the rocks, mine with the macro hatch till you kill the rocks, then make your real hatch. ez. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:45 Haiq343 wrote: Not always having an easy third is fine. Game variety is a good thing, not every game needs to be a macro up and deathball each other, or deathball and whoever re-balls faster wins. It's not that rocks are brilliant, or should be used more, but they aren't inherently bad. Just because as a zerg you can't always take an easily defended third before investing into an army presence (that you then might use offensively) doesn't mean anything intrinsically. It can also require that army to be somewhere it might not otherwise be, opening attack avenues. Allowing taking the third to be a pivotal point in the game is reasonable sometimes. Perhaps overly common however. i agree. the one problem with this is that terran still can always go fast 3base, so rocks to block thirds should only be on maps that balance this t-advantage out in vP and vZ. | ||
|
Like a Boss
502 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
But on taldarim I feel like the rocks actually slow the terran down because if the terran is playing especially smart they can sneak in a 3rd command center pretty quickly because of mules and the rocks just slows that down. For example in the blizzard cup, MMA was able to take quick 3rds on maps like antiga shipyard but on taldarim the zerg can get a 3rd in many different naturals since the map is so big and terran isn't the most mobile race. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:39 BeanerBurrito wrote: Starcraft 1 didnt have rocks, Starcraft 2 had rocks in the slowed down nooby games to protect the new players from rushes, do we really still need rocks on maps? I feel like no rocks would be a lot better for solid strategy development on every map in sc2 actually there were pro maps that did have rocks, they just looked like minerals and you needed a worker to remove them. They added strategy and made for exciting matches. I'm not saying SC2 rocks do anything like that, but they kind of fulfilled that function on blistering sands with a secondary base entrance but it wasn't nearly as elegant. It was mostly "i have a bigger army and can destroy your rocks quicker so now you must play defensive", but it's the same concept. | ||
|
alpinefpOPP
United States134 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13407 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:35 MorroW wrote: its bad for gameplay and balance I think we need to add a very particular caveat to this statement. IMO, it is bad for gameplay and balance when gold bases don't exist. When gold bases exist, rocks not at the gold 3rd means Zerg can get too far ahead of protoss. A perfect example was the ESV Korean Weekly. On many of the maps, every time Protoss went for a FFE, the Zerg would go for a fast third at the gold. Which put them much much further ahead of most protoss players. This was especially bad on Katrina AE, where there is a expo in behind the main and then a gold 3rd not too far from the main ramp. Zergs would take the gold first, use the gold mineral boost to get their fourth abnormally quickly and make additional drones and spines. When gold bases don't exist rocks are bad for gameplay and balance I agree. But as long as gold bases exist they need to be either really far away/in a bad position or have rocks on them simply for the P/Z matchup. Not trying to be a dick or anything with this post to MorroW but I think it needs to be said. Gold bases first, rocks on thirds second. Rocks on Blue thirds are especially stupid though (im looking at you tal'darim) On January 02 2012 09:45 emc wrote: I don't mind rocks on taldarim, but I hate them on shattered since you can't get a surround on the 3rd rocks very easily and is much more pro-terran since all their cheap units are ranged. But on taldarim I feel like the rocks actually slow the terran down because if the terran is playing especially smart they can sneak in a 3rd command center pretty quickly because of mules and the rocks just slows that down. For example in the blizzard cup, MMA was able to take quick 3rds on maps like antiga shipyard but on taldarim the zerg can get a 3rd in many different naturals since the map is so big and terran isn't the most mobile race. As a protoss player I hate the rocks on the third on tal darim. I can either apply pressure to the Zerg at a reasonable timing or I can destroy the rocks at my third. Its hard to apply pressure and expand. I can't do a 4 gate void ray pressure off FFE and expand behind it vs. Z. I also can't do a 4 gate off 1 gate FE and expand behind it vs. T. I can't easily take the pocket fourth adjacent to my natural as my third. Its too far away by ground to easily defend if I try for a faster third, it provides poor options for sim city, and it expands towards the opponent 1/3rd of the time (rotational symmetry and all that jazz). While the rock covered third isn't super easy to defend if the opponent goes for air like muta or heavy drop play, it does provide me with a good sim city option vs Z, it also doesn't expand towards the opponent and the distance between nat and 3rd by ground (defending ground attacks) is not too far. More and more i feel like downvoting Tal'Darim as toss and this whole hard to take fast third is making me come closer to actually doing it. | ||
|
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
| ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On January 02 2012 04:46 xlava wrote: I think its just a matter of Zergs being too greedy. Zergs have a HUGE buffer window versus a FFE or fast Terran expand. Just build like 10 lings, then mass drone. Plus, those lings are useful anyway, you can use them to pick off scouting forces and stalker pokes for example. I don't know why its such a big deal... Because you're a biased protoss who never got a decent understanding of Zerg | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Though rocks at gold expansions are fine imo. Maybe I'm just a biased zerg. But rocks clearly are anti-zerg in general because zerglings take FOREVER to kill rocks compared to terran and protoss units. | ||
|
stormchaser
Canada1009 Posts
| ||
|
Manical
Sweden42 Posts
| ||
|
AndreiDaGiant
United States394 Posts
| ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different. | ||
|
CatNzHat
United States1599 Posts
Reactor hellion expands prevent zerg from taking an early third, so that specific build order is almost out of the picture in the current ZvT metagame. | ||
|
Deleted User 109835
629 Posts
| ||
|
sbroon
United Kingdom23 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBoxSC
United States582 Posts
Maybe on maps like Xel'Naga, where the rocks are on the best effort path to the third, but the third is still reachable from a drone... I really like that sort of map, but only on four player maps, and I can't remember any maps that might be like that in the map pool currently.  | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On January 02 2012 12:16 Haiq343 wrote: Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting. What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different. Unthinking? The majority of high level games where engagements don't happen until later are because both pros know the advantage goes to the other player when attacking INTO him, thus the smarter choice is to get an advantage elsewhere. Do you really think they're pounding their keyboards thinking "WELL GOSH DUNNO WHAT IM DOING GUESS I BETTER TURTLE LOL!" | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On January 02 2012 12:52 Tyrant0 wrote: Unthinking? The majority of high level games where engagements don't happen until later are because both pros know the advantage goes to the other player when attacking INTO him, thus the smarter choice is to get an advantage elsewhere. Do you really think they're pounding their keyboards thinking "WELL GOSH DUNNO WHAT IM DOING GUESS I BETTER TURTLE LOL!" If it's always the best choice (and it is), then no, there's not a lot of thought required. Incentivising an alternative, forces additional choices into the game, choices that everyone is clearly aware wouldn't exist otherwise. Would you like a third base? Yes, always. But if it's a little less safe, then I need to be safe, and if I'm investing in an army of some kind, I'd better use it, even beyond the initial rock destruction. I don't think any player thinks of what they're doing as turtling, even the ones who blatantly turtle all the time. I do however think that if they're forced to invest in units, for whatever reason, and then aren't putting those units to use, that they're wasting resources which makes turtling less powerful than it might otherwise be. Again, I don't think every map needs rocks, but I don't see the problem with forcing players to weigh a different choice. Even if it's one that's decidedly inconvenient. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 02 2012 12:16 Haiq343 wrote: Why are so many people totally in support of unthinking turtling/econ to start all games on all maps in all match-ups? No offense broskis, but that's dumb. Also boring to watch (which may or may not matter to you individually). If needing an army to take a 3rd is required, either by necessitating the army to actually open the expo or because you need to be defend a larger distance, that's not intrinsically terrible. And once the army is out and about, more interesting things can happen. Not that it would be good if that was always the case. Variety is a good goal. Different maps should play differently, that's interesting and exciting. What the rocks do could be accomplished in other ways. Perhaps more successfully and more interestingly. It's worth considering. But people shouldn't be so anti-geology just because it makes the game different. Don't you think it's more entertaining if you need an army to take a third because the opponent is actually doing something, rather than some weird thing in the map? Taking a fast third on the maps is greedy and really does need to be thought out well. Technically it would be less variety anyway, as you don't have the option to take a third without an army. | ||
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
| ||
|
Vilonis
United States130 Posts
I think they are bad design. What do rocks on the third really force to happen in the game? It means you need to make units before you third, and instead of taking towers, pressuring you opponent, or any of the usual stuff you do with units, they go to your third to break rocks. So they force you to build units before a third. Units that can't do much else. Now what if there weren't rocks? What would you need to take a third? It depends on the map. Some maps it would be quite reasonable to take an extremely fast 3rd, before you really even make units. (See terminus, especially Thorzain vs Fruitdealer in the TSL). Other maps your third is just too exposed to take before you have an army, so, as Day[9] puts it, you need to slam out a fuck ton of units off 2 base to get your third. Basically, if you take out the rocks, the rest of the map dictates how your expanding patterns play out, which seems like a good thing, if you make good maps. | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On January 02 2012 13:08 Haiq343 wrote: If it's always the best choice (and it is), then no, there's not a lot of thought required. Incentivising an alternative, forces additional choices into the game, choices that everyone is clearly aware wouldn't exist otherwise. Would you like a third base? Yes, always. But if it's a little less safe, then I need to be safe, and if I'm investing in an army of some kind, I'd better use it, even beyond the initial rock destruction. I don't think any player thinks of what they're doing as turtling, even the ones who blatantly turtle all the time. I do however think that if they're forced to invest in units, for whatever reason, and then aren't putting those units to use, that they're wasting resources which makes turtling less powerful than it might otherwise be. Again, I don't think every map needs rocks, but I don't see the problem with forcing players to weigh a different choice. Even if it's one that's decidedly inconvenient. It's not always the best choice, it's fairly circumstantial, and it makes the assumption the player has perfect knowledge of this. Convenient for you, someone who wants variety in play. And no, you're just forcing a choice between committing to two base or taking a huge risk and expanding to an undefendable location. If anything, it completely limits the possibilities of openers to two base only. You throw out these vague blankets of descriptions upon games, generalizing any and all passivity as turtling. I'm not even sure if you know what you're talking about. | ||
|
arsenic
United States163 Posts
| ||
|
Oktyabr
Singapore2234 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On January 02 2012 15:16 Lord_J wrote: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with rocks at a third. Whether it makes for bad map design depends on how it fits in with the rest of the map. That said, I don't think I've yet seen the map that's better for having rocks at the third. I think I can give ya that much. | ||
|
wOrD yO
Australia119 Posts
| ||
|
tdynasty
Canada220 Posts
If you looked at Terminus when it Had no rocks. Protoss was the heavy favorite on that map. Rocks at the third in my opinion are meant to prevent quick three hatch, and even more so to prevent protoss from teching and taking a third which if goes unscouted is too strong. Rocks at the third HELP zerg players. If you play zerg and want to macro game. You should be open to expanding at locations strategically thought out. In ZvT taking a third is something you need to do with forces, because otherwise 1 marine squad can deny that hatch. In ZvP rocks can be annoying on certain maps like shattered temple, but to counter that, the open natural is also annoying to wall off. Arguing about Rocks in map balance is interesting, but truthfully I think we need more maps in the ladder pool to make these kinds of problems more situational. I'm still waiting for a gold mineral only map, I think this would shatter peoples minds. | ||
|
Oktyabr
Singapore2234 Posts
On January 02 2012 17:54 tdynasty wrote: I think people are forgetting. If you looked at Terminus when it Had no rocks. Protoss was the heavy favorite on that map. Rocks at the third in my opinion are meant to prevent quick three hatch, and even more so to prevent protoss from teching and taking a third which if goes unscouted is too strong. Rocks at the third HELP zerg players. If you play zerg and want to macro game. You should be open to expanding at locations strategically thought out. In ZvT taking a third is something you need to do with forces, because otherwise 1 marine squad can deny that hatch. In ZvP rocks can be annoying on certain maps like shattered temple, but to counter that, the open natural is also annoying to wall off. Arguing about Rocks in map balance is interesting, but truthfully I think we need more maps in the ladder pool to make these kinds of problems more situational. I'm still waiting for a gold mineral only map, I think this would shatter peoples minds. Protoss was nowhere near the heavy favorite in ZvP prior to the rock change. They won't be taking a third anywhere near as fast as Terran/Zerg under any circumstances, and previously there were rocks leading to there, which could easily be broken down. Right now there are rocks at the third and the way there is sealed, hence that is one less point of entry for Toss to worry about. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 02 2012 17:54 tdynasty wrote: I think people are forgetting. If you looked at Terminus when it Had no rocks. Protoss was the heavy favorite on that map. Rocks at the third in my opinion are meant to prevent quick three hatch, and even more so to prevent protoss from teching and taking a third which if goes unscouted is too strong. Rocks at the third HELP zerg players. If you play zerg and want to macro game. You should be open to expanding at locations strategically thought out. In ZvT taking a third is something you need to do with forces, because otherwise 1 marine squad can deny that hatch. In ZvP rocks can be annoying on certain maps like shattered temple, but to counter that, the open natural is also annoying to wall off. Arguing about Rocks in map balance is interesting, but truthfully I think we need more maps in the ladder pool to make these kinds of problems more situational. I'm still waiting for a gold mineral only map, I think this would shatter peoples minds. Protoss was heavily disfavored in ZvP on old Terminus (though protoss was heavily disfavored in ZvP generally for a periode of time) rocks in TvZ are the worst, because Terran doesnt need any change in bo (anx standard double expand bo still works) while zerg is limited to 2base muta, 2base infestor or 2base cheese. that being said it still balances out on certain maps like TDA with the mutafriendlieness and the open spaces all over the map. and generally you always want to take a third and then build your forces ad zerg in a 3hatch scenario. the rocks not only turn that upside down (often over a min of droning lost) but still delay your third by a min or so in which your investment (units) doesnt even provide mapcontrol, dropdefense or force another bunker. usually it shakes up build orders enough to make other builds superior to any form of early third. gold only maps... i can imagine terran BOs: rax-->CC,CC,CC,CC,CC,CC,CC... income rates T: 10.000 P/Z: 2.500 | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On January 02 2012 20:55 Big J wrote: gold only maps... i can imagine terran BOs: rax-->CC,CC,CC,CC,CC,CC,CC... income rates T: 10.000 P/Z: 2.500 And now we know why GSL has removed gold bases from all their maps. A feature that heavily influences one race while having little-to-no consequence for the other races is a feature that does not belong in competitive maps. I think that statement applies to rocks on third and gold bases. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 03 2012 00:03 Jermstuddog wrote: And now we know why GSL has removed gold bases from all their maps. A feature that heavily influences one race while having little-to-no consequence for the other races is a feature that does not belong in competitive maps. I think that statement applies to rocks on third and gold bases. nope... you can balance it out. TDA is the perfect example for this. the map is sooo good for mutas (and ling/bling) that the map still is very good for zerg in ZvT. if you can find a way to do this for gold only maps, i'm ok with them... but you won't find it without severly changing how a map should be played, therefore creating a completly new metagame and therefore such maps not becoming anything more than funmaps. rocks are situational. they limit you to 2base or risky 3base, just like open fronts limit a terran to extra bunkers or risky expanding | ||
|
Gemini_19
United States1258 Posts
On January 02 2012 02:37 JackDragon wrote: The point is that a quick thirdis way more beneficial for a zerg then a protoss. If you see a very quick third base your best bet is to try and punish because you will never get even economicaly while still staying safe if you take a quick third. Remember that a third hatch is 1 more unit producing structure for zerg while protoss only can build workesr from the nexus reducing the units and unit producing structures drastically. Rocks at the third on taldarim gives the protos the ability to punish if zerg go for a quick third at a more vulnurable position. Quick 3rd's for toss are RIDICULOUSLY beneficial. Of course you aren't getting a 5 minute 3rd or anything, but getting a 3rd at 9-10 minutes is REALLY good. If the zerg takes a quick 3rd, there's basically nothing they can really do to pressure a quick 3rd by you, so it's really easy to take that at that time. You just gotta know how to play it and have the proper defenses up in time. Then you can power off 3 bases for a long time if the map has a difficult 4th or even take a really quick 4th as well like that SlayerSBrown style. | ||
|
Zdrastochye
Ivory Coast6262 Posts
| ||
|
jonaa
Netherlands151 Posts
| ||
|
striderxxx
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
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. I don't think 3 hatch before pool will ever become norm in WOL because of queens. Players did that back in BW because they needed larva, but with injects, that problem can be averted. Now 3 hatch before pool is actually less than optimal since you have no tech or defense yet did not gain much more economy. Nevertheless, that still depends on the rest of the map, such as the location of any gold bases, or location of the 3rd (safe vs exposed). | ||
|
HackBenjamin
Canada1094 Posts
On January 04 2012 05:42 striderxxx wrote: is it me or do only zerg players complain about rocks? Insightful. Rocks and Gold bases are game breakers. The game should be about 2 guys fighting eachother, not 2 guys fighting eachother and rocks. | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
On January 04 2012 05:42 striderxxx wrote: is it me or do only zerg players complain about rocks? Because it effects us the most | ||
|
NEXUS6
United States413 Posts
| ||
|
Lw247_
38 Posts
| ||
|
Horseballs
United States721 Posts
On January 04 2012 05:53 Lw247_ wrote: In a lot of GSL maps the rocks are already removed as well as the gold bases. (taldarim for example has no rocks at its third) Once TDA hit the ladder, GOM bent over and took blizzard's rocked up thirds like a champ. | ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On January 01 2012 15:45 Fred Flintstone wrote: 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. Really so all the other maps where the 3rds aren't blocked zerg just dominate??? The reason rocks are bad is it just limits gameplay for really no upside. They say it diversifys play styles but it limits them.instead of thinking oh whats zerg going to do you know his 3rd is blocked so he has to do x opener. While if it wasn't blocked he still could open like the last situation but now he has a choice not to | ||
|
Lw247_
38 Posts
On January 04 2012 06:28 Horseballs wrote: Once TDA hit the ladder, GOM bent over and took blizzard's rocked up thirds like a champ. now that's just disgusting haha | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On January 04 2012 06:28 Horseballs wrote: Once TDA hit the ladder, GOM bent over and took blizzard's rocked up thirds like a champ. the 3rd on taldarim had no rocks, yes, but low resources if you wanted to take a true fast 3rd you'd have to take one of the current 4th base locations, or take the fast third and be on essentially 2 1/2 bases it's too bad blizzard seems to think having a base without exactly 8 mineral patches is too complex for the game, because putting a full base in that location probably helped zerg more than the rocks hurt it | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
perfect mass muta map | ||
|
Strike_
Netherlands704 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 04 2012 07:37 Falcor wrote: Really so all the other maps where the 3rds aren't blocked zerg just dominate??? The reason rocks are bad is it just limits gameplay for really no upside. They say it diversifys play styles but it limits them.instead of thinking oh whats zerg going to do you know his 3rd is blocked so he has to do x opener. While if it wasn't blocked he still could open like the last situation but now he has a choice not to well but the solution to this is not to remove rocks, but to remove the map. TDA as it is is already quite good for us zergs. without rocks the stats might just go nuts. same for Terminus. while you can say that ladder TDA was a blizzard invention for ladderplay, GSL TDA and Terminus with rocks are not. furthermore your argument is true for every map in which fast thirds are far away in the first place like Crossfire. also how is the rocks argument any different from a protoss complaining about open naturals (so theoretically his only viavle builds are gateway expands or FFE+stargate to be safe vs roaches) or a terran complaining about neutral depots so he cant do a lowground block (or a thousanf more mapspecific features that limit gameplay). all of those features limit a race but can be balanced out with other mapfeatures. not to say that rocks aren't annoying for me as a zerg, but so are ramps and noone is questioning them. | ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
On January 04 2012 07:37 Falcor wrote: Really so all the other maps where the 3rds aren't blocked zerg just dominate??? The reason rocks are bad is it just limits gameplay for really no upside. They say it diversifys play styles but it limits them.instead of thinking oh whats zerg going to do you know his 3rd is blocked so he has to do x opener. While if it wasn't blocked he still could open like the last situation but now he has a choice not to That and in some of situations, like taldarim, the zerg actually still can take his third right beside the rocks as his future macro hatch and long distance mine while lings kill the rocks slowly and i dont think it actually REALLY changes too too much. or they can take that wierd hard to defend fourth below/above their main if they want to be risky. end point, it doesn't actually STOP them from doing quick thirds on all maps anyway, so it doesn't even work to "force" creativity anyway (which i think is a terrible design strategy anyway). | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On January 04 2012 08:19 Big J wrote: not to say that rocks aren't annoying for me as a zerg, but so are ramps and noone is questioning them. That is a good way to put things in perspective too. Ramps are tolerable because they are a great design feature. While they can be annoying for Zerg more-so than the other races, all races (including Zerg) have ways to utilize ramps in both offensive and defensive manner. Good feature. Rocks are not innately bad, but placing them in positions to block the obvious option for a 3rd base is specifically anti-Zerg, thus making it a bad feature. While rocks blocking bases is mildly annoying for all races, Zerg is the only race that will commonly aim toward taking a 3rd base BEFORE making combat units. Over the course of this thread, my mind has been made up that yes, it is bad map design, and the reason it is bad is because it is a map feature that specifically targets one race while having very little influence over the others. Xel'Naga towers would be more similar to ramps. Love them or hate them, all races CAN utilize them and they don't particularly favor/disfavor any one race with their current implementation, making them a good feature overall. | ||
|
NightHawk929
79 Posts
| ||
|
Orzabal
France287 Posts
On January 04 2012 12:10 Jermstuddog wrote: Xel'Naga towers would be more similar to ramps. Love them or hate them, all races CAN utilize them and they don't particularly favor/disfavor any one race with their current implementation, making them a good feature overall. I disagree. XelNaga tower favoring siege tank positionning. I think more map wihout Xel Naga and Rock on expantion are needed. Rock to block certain way or reduce ramp size are good I think. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On January 04 2012 12:10 Jermstuddog wrote: That is a good way to put things in perspective too. Ramps are tolerable because they are a great design feature. While they can be annoying for Zerg more-so than the other races, all races (including Zerg) have ways to utilize ramps in both offensive and defensive manner. Good feature. Rocks are not innately bad, but placing them in positions to block the obvious option for a 3rd base is specifically anti-Zerg, thus making it a bad feature. While rocks blocking bases is mildly annoying for all races, Zerg is the only race that will commonly aim toward taking a 3rd base BEFORE making combat units. Over the course of this thread, my mind has been made up that yes, it is bad map design, and the reason it is bad is because it is a map feature that specifically targets one race while having very little influence over the others. Xel'Naga towers would be more similar to ramps. Love them or hate them, all races CAN utilize them and they don't particularly favor/disfavor any one race with their current implementation, making them a good feature overall. It's because open thirds off essentially nothing to any race except Zerg and allowing Zergs to take really easy early third (like on Meta) is what makes the Z win percentages unnecessarily high. | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
On January 04 2012 12:10 Jermstuddog wrote: Rocks are not innately bad, but placing them in positions to block the obvious option for a 3rd base is specifically anti-Zerg, thus making it a bad feature. While rocks blocking bases is mildly annoying for all races, Zerg is the only race that will commonly aim toward taking a 3rd base BEFORE making combat units. Uh. No. Taking a 3rd before making combat units is absolutely stupid-maybe in bronze league, but anywhere else you'll die Rocks on 3rd->everybody has to kill rocks to take 3rd->EVERYBODY has to kill rocks And like others have said, you can just put a macro hatch there and have slightly ineffecient mining while you wait for the rocks to die. It's not a problem | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 16 2012 03:11 Active.815 wrote: Uh. No. Taking a 3rd before making combat units is absolutely stupid-maybe in bronze league, but anywhere else you'll die lol maybe you dont play/watch at a very high level. you've honestly never seen a zerg do a 30-35 supply 3rd in response to FFE, in which they've only made perhaps 2 lings, or none whatsoever? really? your other points are thoughtless enough to not require any further comments. | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  69454Calm  7091Bisu 2599Sea  2244Horang2 1210Jaedong 657EffOrt 643firebathero 577Soma 417Mini 399[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing1731 B2W.Neo845 Beastyqt690 hiko586 Lowko296 Hui .230 Happy218 XaKoH  167monkeys_forever110 Mew2King105 QueenE75 CosmosSc2  45ZerO(Twitch)12 elazer5 fpsfer 1 |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
RSL Revival
BSL
GSL
Cure vs herO
SHIN vs Maru
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
