|
I decided to start playing 3v3 recently. I was not prepared for what awaited me. Blizzard deservedly gets a bad rap for some of its maps. but to think these maps are still in the rotation - and that people put up with them, it boggles my mind.
In particular its that most of the maps have bases that have your mineral line easily cannoned because its facing against some terrain. That is you bring along a MSC or overlord to give vision for the cannons. Or even use unit walkthrough with a probe by clicking on the minerals. I know its understandable that as a team, you can punish the cannoner who might have little to no defense in their base, but the player being cannoned, what the point in a win if you had nothing to do with it?
And then there's the 2 base maps. Is it 2010 again? Why are there still 2base maps on the ladder?
Queen's Nest![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aLbRzcM.jpg)
2 of the spawns have mineral lines facing terrain, wide open to cannoning.
The middle 2 watchtowers are virtually useless because they are hidden behind destructible rocks.
Aside from the naturals, the only other bases are 2 open golds in the middle of the map, and 2 rocked golds.
Silent Dunestop![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wiVahhj.jpg)
I literally have not yet played on this map, possible because every single player out there has vetoed it.
The middle base has 2 ramps.
The mineral line is exposed to cannoning.
Temple of the Preservers![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L32CtHN.jpg)
There isn't too much to say about this map aside from it being 2 base map.
Like there is literally only extra gold and island expansion per team.
And the mains are ridiculously small.
There are some newer maps on the ladder which do a bit better but again have exposed bases.
Shadow Reactor![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bCoJJY1.jpg)
Vaults of Secrets![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5meLS5N.jpg)
I'm not sure, but would all this cannoning and rushing behavior increase players mmr? Because there are many players that are on this diamond/masters ladder who obviously do not know how to play at that level, which makes the experience even that more frustrating.
|
yes.
shadow reactor is especially a fucking horrible map with the middle base so easily cannoned and tanked. honest to god--look how fucking far you would have to send your workers to stop the cannon rush??? jesus christ man.
blizzard makes the shittiest team maps.
|
The main problem I see is the size of the maps. It's ridiculously small and lacking in bases!
I don't see why you can't have way bigger maps, since early aggression is way better in team games (you can focus one player), having larger maps would balance that and add more space for bases. You can't macro AT ALL on those maps, unless your team sacrifice all hopes of expanding to let you do so.
|
I think it's hilarious how bad the maps are, it's like the guy who used to make the 1v1 maps got demoted to making 3v3 and 4v4 maps.
|
It would seem you have not considered the consequences of your ideas. Imagine 3v3 with 3-4 bases per player, each side has 3 maxed armies, that's 600 supply per side, 1200 in total. Imagine the lagfest. You can't treat team games the same as 1v1, they are two completely different animals. Maybe in sc3 latency and lag won't be an issue, but I doubt it.
|
I play 3v3 sometimes casually with friends and it's frustrating how bad the maps are. There are loads more problems with them than you highlight in this thread.
Why can't we have some macro 3v3 maps? And by macro I mean three+ bases for each player.
On June 26 2013 07:15 Perdac Curall wrote:
It would seem you have not considered the consequences of your ideas. Imagine 3v3 with 3-4 bases per player, each side has 3 maxed armies, that's 600 supply per side, 1200 in total. Imagine the lagfest. You can't treat team games the same as 1v1, they are two completely different animals. Maybe in sc3 latency and lag won't be an issue, but I doubt it.
Then you can just turn your settings down a notch or two? I don't really accept this argument.
|
It's true that you can't have maps be proportionally as big as 1v1 because of performance issues.
For me what I don't get about the 3v3 maps is why do they even have maps like Green Acres where there's only 2 viable expansions? Whether the maps are bigger or smaller, at least make them fair with expansions.
|
3v3 maps have always kind of been silly. Its fun to play at times, but I almost never have seen a map that I thought was good.
|
|
|
Absolutely agree and I think this is one of the biggest things that hurts casual player retention for the game too.
|
On June 26 2013 07:15 Perdac Curall wrote:
It would seem you have not considered the consequences of your ideas. Imagine 3v3 with 3-4 bases per player, each side has 3 maxed armies, that's 600 supply per side, 1200 in total. Imagine the lagfest. You can't treat team games the same as 1v1, they are two completely different animals. Maybe in sc3 latency and lag won't be an issue, but I doubt it.
since you don't play 3v3 or 4v4, i can tell you that most of the current 4v4 maps have 3-4 bases per player, and no its not a lagfest.
|
I'm tempted to say anyone who plays 3v3 deserves it. But I won't say that. I'll just think it.
User was warned for this post
|
I generally enjoy this aspect of team because of how chaotic the matches become. Normally I play 1v1's, and only team when I'm on a break, so this might impact the way I see the game mode. As to some of the issues with maps, yes they are annoying, and some maps I just outright veto. Ultimately it's not as bad as you describe. Scenarios where people are canon rushed are actually incredibly rare (I've only encountered 1 or twice in over 50 matches played), and the imbalances of certain maps are exploited nearly as much as they could be.
|
On June 26 2013 07:27 IPA wrote:
I'm tempted to say anyone who plays 3v3 deserves it. But I won't say that. I'll just think it.
Man get out
|
The only map were you get tanked or cannoned pretty much every game is Shadow Reactor. The other ones are quite fine. Plus all the other gametypes are macrofests already so I really like to play 3:3 for the intensity of early game play. Also you can counter on some of them and that is kinda refreshing.
Green Acres is just horrible and I have always vetoed that shitty map. Games are like, one team attacks, if the other team dont hold the game ends since shared bases = death if you cant hold. If they hold both teams secure the naturals, nothing happends for half and hour and everyone keeps trying to get another base for the 3rd guy who is still on one base. That map is retarded and boring as hell.
|
I don't think blizz gives a shit about competitiveness of 3v3 or its maps for that matter.
You should stick to having silly harmless fun instead of going competitive, coz neither the units nor the maps are balanced for 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 2x2x2x2, etc
|
There is far less macro play in 3v3 and 4v4 games than there are in 1v1, especially at the higher levels (hence the number of 2 base maps). Many players in 3v3 and 4v4 can achieve Diamond or even Masters, but really, it doesn't speak much if at all to their skill in 1v1. As someone has already pointed out before; 1v1 and team games are completely different beasts. Early aggression is more viable and common in team games than in 1v1's. Sure, this may be due to the map rotation that's currently in the ladder, but "map balance" isn't really something to worry about or even achievable when there are multiple races going at it in a single game.
|
It does seem especially noticeable in 3v3, considering the 2v2 map pool doesn't suffer from a lot of these problems and even the 4v4 maps tend to allow for 10ish bases per team minimum.
Having tried to play 3s with friends, it's insane to me how easy to cheese it is in 3s when 2s is almost actually competitive and 4s is just who can mass more Void Rays. 
|
Because Blizzard refuses to let the competent maps made for the TLMC be apart of the ladder, for some reason.
Maybe next season!
Yes, the maps are very bad and it is almost impossible to take a third base on most. The new maps, mind you. There are a few which are actually alright.
The sad part is that there are still actually some 2v2 maps which are terrible as well. The only good one that I can recall is Magma Core.
|
Just played 15 3v3 games with some friends. Holy shit the maps are bad. Some of them are unchanged for like 1 year, or even more. And the maps are horrible. I'm closer to one opponent than one allied on a separate base spawns map.
|
The maps may have some issues but they are fine overall, IMO.
-People don't cannon that much
-Stopping cannon rushes isn't that hard if you prepare for it
-Like you said in the OP, cannon rusher's are usually weak at their home base.
I do think they could make some more balanced fun maps though.
|
The maps are indeed truly horrible. It's Steppes of War, Delta Quadrant, Scrap Station and Jungle Basin level off mapmaking.
That being said, I played some teamgames in Season 1, and there wasn't that much cannoning going on. I made it to masters in +-25 games in 2v2, 3v3 and only played 20 games or so in 4v4. So I kinda played from gold to low master level.
The biggest issue is that the maps are so small, which makes teamgames feel really cheap, even though the games I played were pretty ok.
I think they should make the distance between spawns at least 3 times as large, but I guess that would give performance issues to some computers.
|
On June 26 2013 07:30 JP Dayne wrote:
I don't think blizz gives a shit about competitiveness of 3v3 or its maps for that matter.
You should stick to having silly harmless fun instead of going competitive, coz neither the units nor the maps are balanced for 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 2x2x2x2, etc
i dont really about competitiveness either. but to maybe just replace the areas in the white circles with a hole, or something only reapers can get through. its a matter of just having a fun experience for players of all skill levels. its a question of how capable do you think players are in bronze-gold to stop cannon rushes? and how they feel about being on the receiving end of one?
|
I know that we only just got past the 3-free-bases-in-every-map phase of 1v1 maps, but does that really mean it has to transfer to team maps now?
|
On June 26 2013 07:40 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 07:30 JP Dayne wrote:
I don't think blizz gives a shit about competitiveness of 3v3 or its maps for that matter.
You should stick to having silly harmless fun instead of going competitive, coz neither the units nor the maps are balanced for 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 2x2x2x2, etc i dont really about competitiveness either. but to maybe just replace the areas in the white circles with a hole, or something only reapers can get through. its a matter of just having a fun experience for players of all skill levels. its a question of how capable do you think players are in bronze-gold to stop cannon rushes? and how they feel about being on the receiving end of one?
agreed. its boring to get cannon rushed where there are so few options to prevent/stop it even if you see it coming.
|
I never had complains about the team maps, I vetoed some and felt fine with the others. But Temple of the Preservers is the most idiotic piece of ^$#% ever to be created, the rush distance is the shortest you will ever see and the naturals are impossible to take. This is probably my most hated map of all time, but the rest are relatively fine. I dont find alot of cannon rushes (yet) but WM and reapers usualy end a game on some maps. I guess the TLMC that had team maps will help balance this out if they do choose to put those maps in.
|
Teamplay in sc2 is just not fun at all, and the maps dont help for sure.
|
Blizzard sucks cock at map-making, as you can clearly see when looking at their entire track record of maps. It's incredibly stupid and stubborn of them that they don't just take user-made maps. Or have polls for a large set of maps so PEOPLE can choose what maps they want. I'd say that just about every master league player has a better idea of game balance than blizzard does anyway.
And since there isn't really competitive 2s/3s/4s, Blizzard seems to give even LESS of a shit about the map pool. Team matches are just there to cheese and get portraits. Taking it seriously will result in massive amounts of depression.
|
To just point out, blizzard's 4v4 map pool is almost all-new this season. There is only one map, Writhing Morass which has bases that cannonable in this respect. But the rush distances are much longer and so these are a bit harder to pull off.
So I mean, if as Blizzard, you literally don't give a shit about 3v3, why even have it has a playable option?
|
I dont really see why everyone just want to 15min no rush on every gamemode. It's some weird culture in SC2 that was not present in BW. If you played hunters you played hunters and (almost) noone complained that it was hard to get 200/200 vs other people who could play at all. Now everyone just want to sit back and macro like some BGH thing and do 1:1 strats when they play teams.
The maps are not that bad, some of them are kinda shitty but not as bad as you say. I dont see why you just have to play "4 base style" on 3:3 at all when you can 15min no rush on all the other game modes and even 3 of the 3:3 maps.
|
Its not incredibly hard to prevent cannon rushes. I think instead of complaining about the map layouts you should focus on or discuss the best way to do this (prevent cannon rushes, that is).
|
Yeah maps kind of ruin the fun of 3's/4s. I like to go play with 2 or 3 friends taht are not especially good at the game (from bronze to gold), but most of the game are just giant cheese fests, and to be honest it's kind of hard to defend and enjoy the games, so you basically have to cheese back and coinflip. It's sad because 3v3 or 4V4 games going longer are often hilarious, while cheeses games are just.. well, like 1V1 cheeses but with 3 guys cheesing you (let's face it, by the time your friends bring their army you're dead on maps with separated bases, which there are a lot).
To the guy above, why wouldn't people want longer games? Why are 6/7mn all ins fun? You got no tech, no fun units to play with (unupgraded marines yo, slow banes or slow roaches, gateway units..). So the games are just coinflips with little to no micro, which is not fun for most people I guess... except the try hards who absolutely want to go masters in 4V4 and do sophisticated collective cheeses every game.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. The 3v3 map pool is absolutely awful which is quite a shame because playing team games with friends is a lot of fun if you're not in the mood for 1v1
|
It'd be nice if they added like 1v1 map with 4 spawns to team play (2v2). It sucks that you can't take expo and play a semi normal game...
From what I've played it's only fast timings off one base on most map because the map rarely allows you to expand safely without over committing to early defense.
|
Actually really like some of the new maps the old team game maps were dire
|
On June 26 2013 06:54 a176 wrote:
About queen's nest :
The middle 2 watchtowers are virtually useless because they are hidden behind destructible rocks.
What's wrong with it ? The faster the side is destroying it, the more advantage he'll get in order to see what's happening on the other side. Sure once only one rock is destroyed the other can get there, but that'd mean he'd have to make a little "detour" in order to get to the xel'naga's towers, which can easily be defended.
I don't feel like it's a bad design. Quite the opposite actually.
On the other hands about canons rushes, you're pretty much right about everything.
|
On June 26 2013 07:58 Nimix wrote:
Yeah maps kind of ruin the fun of 3's/4s. I like to go play with 2 or 3 friends taht are not especially good at the game (from bronze to gold), but most of the game are just giant cheese fests, and to be honest it's kind of hard to defend and enjoy the games, so you basically have to cheese back and coinflip. It's sad because 3v3 or 4V4 games going longer are often hilarious, while cheeses games are just.. well, like 1V1 cheeses but with 3 guys cheesing you (let's face it, by the time your friends bring their army you're dead on maps with separated bases, which there are a lot).
To the guy above, why wouldn't people want longer games? Why are 6/7mn all ins fun? You got no tech, no fun units to play with (unupgraded marines yo, slow banes or slow roaches, gateway units..). So the games are just coinflips with little to no micro, which is not fun for most people I guess... except the try hards who absolutely want to go masters in 4V4 and do sophisticated collective cheeses every game.
The intensity and the micro. If you dont agree that there is alot of micro in early game attacks then I dont know what to say. Also in high masters most can defend the early game pushes and you have to tech from there.
And if your ally get attacked by all the opponents just let him die slowly while you and the guy that is still alive counters. Thats the brilliant thing with separated bases, you havent lost the game if you get smacked by some early agression.
|
3vs3 maps are indeed terrible. But if you want a truly awful map making experience, play Coop (at least the Coop ladder in WOL was incredibly bad).
|
On June 26 2013 08:26 RaiZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:54 a176 wrote:
About queen's nest :
The middle 2 watchtowers are virtually useless because they are hidden behind destructible rocks.
What's wrong with it ? The faster the side is destroying it, the more advantage he'll get in order to see what's happening on the other side. Sure once only one rock is destroyed the other can get there, but that'd mean he'd have to make a little "detour" in order to get to the xel'naga's towers, which can easily be defended. I don't feel like it's a bad design. Quite the opposite actually. On the other hands about canons rushes, you're pretty much right about everything.
its useless because no one bothers with it, as every game is a rushfest on that map because there are no extra bases to take, and the relatively short rush distance. thats aside from the usual cannon strat of course.
|
The maps aren't designed to be fair for every player, that's my biggest issue with them. If you look at Green acres for examples, you got two easy to defend natural's and that's it. There is no third natural, you have to take your second base way outside. They are not protected, have different paths leading to them and are easy to snipe. It may be balanced overall but it just sucks to be the one left behind because you can't expand since the map simply forbids it.
I understand the decision to make maps small in team games because of the lag issue, but it's simply annoying to starve for minerals and don't contribute anything to the game since the maps only guarantee two players a stable mid/late game.
It just isn't fun and I'm only playing team games for fun.
You have ten minutes to make something happen and then you vanish into insignificance. The only comfort you have is there's another person on the other side, who is fucked just like you.
|
On June 26 2013 07:40 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 07:30 JP Dayne wrote:
I don't think blizz gives a shit about competitiveness of 3v3 or its maps for that matter.
You should stick to having silly harmless fun instead of going competitive, coz neither the units nor the maps are balanced for 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 2x2x2x2, etc i dont really about competitiveness either. but to maybe just replace the areas in the white circles with a hole, or something only reapers can get through. its a matter of just having a fun experience for players of all skill levels. its a question of how capable do you think players are in bronze-gold to stop cannon rushes? and how they feel about being on the receiving end of one?
I like the idea of Blizzard being forced to focus on 3v3 and up maps as "casual" and 1v1 as "competitive"
Stuff like making sure maps for 3v3 should be geared toward gold and under.
|
just put in hunters and call it a day
uneven, asymmetrical map where the tide can favor one over the other depending on spawn, adapting to make bad situations work, each game different from spawn...hell yes.
amazing how hunters got played over 10 years with joy and sc2 3v3 maps are pure garbage...is it really that hard to learn from history?
my biggest grief is # of expansions.
|
On June 26 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:
just put in hunters and call it a day
uneven, asymmetrical map where the tide can favor one over the other depending on spawn, each game different from spawn...hell yes.
amazing how hunters got played over 10 years with joy and sc2 3v3 maps are pure garbage...is it really that hard to learn from history?
my biggest grief is # of expansions.
If they learned from history they'd make Fastest Map Ever 
|
On June 26 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:
just put in hunters and call it a day
uneven, asymmetrical map where the tide can favor one over the other depending on spawn, adapting to make bad situations work, each game different from spawn...hell yes.
amazing how hunters got played over 10 years with joy and sc2 3v3 maps are pure garbage...is it really that hard to learn from history?
my biggest grief is # of expansions.
not sure about the original, but BGH had 15 mineral patches, each with 20,000 minerals. so that kinda helped in that respect.
|
man 3v3 and 4v4 maps have always been so heinous they're almost unplayable. just had to stop caring about it and looking at it as meaningless games 
|
On June 26 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:
just put in hunters and call it a day
uneven, asymmetrical map where the tide can favor one over the other depending on spawn, adapting to make bad situations work, each game different from spawn...hell yes.
amazing how hunters got played over 10 years with joy and sc2 3v3 maps are pure garbage...is it really that hard to learn from history?
my biggest grief is # of expansions.
lol. hunters.
blink into neighbor's main base from your own.
tanks (no siege mode required) would come out almost instantly and you can tank opponent from your own base.
reapers on the hills behind minerals.
hellbat drops with medivac boost that take .5 seconds to get to your base.
fungals that hit your workers from opponents base.
colossus that hit your workers from opponents base.
tempests that can hit your whole base from the middle of opponents' base.
god this list is long and i havent even given deep thought to it. it would be entertaining to watch though.
|
On June 26 2013 09:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:
just put in hunters and call it a day
uneven, asymmetrical map where the tide can favor one over the other depending on spawn, adapting to make bad situations work, each game different from spawn...hell yes.
amazing how hunters got played over 10 years with joy and sc2 3v3 maps are pure garbage...is it really that hard to learn from history?
my biggest grief is # of expansions. lol. hunters. blink into neighbor's main base from your own. tanks (no siege mode required) would come out almost instantly and you can tank opponent from your own base. reapers on the hills behind minerals. hellbat drops with medivac boost that take .5 seconds to get to your base. fungals that hit your workers from opponents base. colossus that hit your workers from opponents base. tempests that can hit your whole base from the middle of opponents' base. god this list is long and i havent even given deep thought to it. it would be entertaining to watch though.
Haha yeah hunters would be extremely broken in sc2. But a map similar to hunters could work. We have Breeze from the TLMC that is quite nice actually....... Would be nice to have that one in both 3:3 and 4:4.
The fun thing with hunters was that it kinda blanced itself in a way. Zerg going lings usually from 10pool and Terran going bio ect.
|
The other day I played 3v3 with my friend and afterwards my exact thought was how extremely horrible and boring 3v3 was in comparison to 1v1, 2v2 and even 4v4. I believe this is in large due to how horrendous the maps are (since 4v4 isn't that bad) and there are plenty more problems than highlighed in this post. It's not only cannon rush that are problematic. Alot of the maps are situated so that one guy have a very long walking distance to support his allies, which oftentimes leads to either 3v2/3v1 battles, meaning you have to rush or you very likely to lose to a rush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
