If you put in a pointless one-liner from now on, you will receive a mod action. If you're not going to give the OP an actual response that they or someone else can continue off of, then don't bother posting. This warning takes effect after post #31.

Obamarauder

697 Posts

February 19 2018 20:39 GMT

#21

I thought maps like nimbus were pretty good, not much turtling on that map

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

February 19 2018 20:56 GMT

#22

On February 20 2018 05:39 Obamarauder wrote:
I thought maps like nimbus were pretty good, not much turtling on that map

Nimbus was a rushfest because of the ramp to the main.

opisska

Poland8852 Posts

February 19 2018 20:56 GMT

#23

The ultimate evolution of SC2: every game starts with 200 workers, players must kill them to free up supply for army.

Charoisaur

Germany15911 Posts

February 19 2018 21:17 GMT

#24

I personally like inbase-naturals. The ease of securing expansions gets kinda counter-acted by the fact that the in-base natural is usually very vulnerable to harassment. Still every map shouldn't have an in-base natural, just a few.

People use Dusk Towers as an example why in-base naturals are bad but it was actually the map which gave us by far the most entertaining games in 2016. (Maru vs Zest Code A, Maru vs Zest Proleague, TY vs Zest, Nerchio vs Showtime with the 3-pronged attack from Nerchio, TaeJa vs Zest, Stats vs Maru, TY vs Dark, Dark vs Classic, INnoVation vs Dark etc)

LTCM

174 Posts

February 19 2018 21:42 GMT

#25

I'm not understanding all the hate for inbase naturals. Sure I dont think we need all maps to have them but they should at least be present in the game. I find them to be pretty harassable by air and a nice change up.

Then again I don't really ever veto maps cause I like the change and I just want to have fun. I suck at the game so it's not like 100 point higher mmr from better map selection means crap at my level.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

February 19 2018 22:04 GMT

#26

On February 20 2018 06:17 Charoisaur wrote:
I personally like inbase-naturals. The ease of securing expansions gets kinda counter-acted by the fact that the in-base natural is usually very vulnerable to harassment. Still every map shouldn't have an in-base natural, just a few.

People use Dusk Towers as an example why in-base naturals are bad but it was actually the map which gave us by far the most entertaining games in 2016. (Maru vs Zest Code A, Maru vs Zest Proleague, TY vs Zest, Nerchio vs Showtime with the 3-pronged attack from Nerchio, TaeJa vs Zest, Stats vs Maru, TY vs Dark, Dark vs Classic, INnoVation vs Dark etc)

2016 was a complete train-wreck for maps, the worst year on record (2010-2011 could be argued to be worse, but they deserve more leeway). Dusk Towers stood out as a 6/10 map in a map pool of 3/10s.

WeddingEpisode

United States356 Posts

February 19 2018 22:48 GMT

#27

On February 20 2018 01:19 ReachTheSky wrote:
These types of maps lead to the most boring stagnant gameplay. It's not fun to play these and it's also not fun to watch as a spectator. I think you are looking for no rush 10 minute games which is the opposite of what sc2 lotv is.

Well, my idea was just that a mid-game might be more likely.

Loccstana

United States833 Posts

February 20 2018 00:07 GMT

#28

Anyone here want to see more semi island maps? I really loved those kind of maps from broodwar

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

February 20 2018 00:12 GMT

#29

On February 20 2018 09:07 Loccstana wrote:
Anyone here want to see more semi island maps? I really loved those kind of maps from broodwar

Semi-island maps tend to be rather imbalanced (both in BW and SCII), and most people feel like air play is already too prevalent in SCII.

Avexyli

United States694 Posts

February 20 2018 01:57 GMT

#30

On February 19 2018 21:24 -NegativeZero- wrote:
no

Creager

Germany1889 Posts

February 20 2018 02:17 GMT

#31

On February 20 2018 00:27 orvinreyes wrote:
why not go further and just skip the first 5 minutes of the game then. boring AF

Like they did by introducing the 12 worker start?

On topic, while I prefer macro games and usually don‘t shy away from being on the defensive side, I‘d rather not see inbase naturals on every map.

NoobSkills

United States1597 Posts

February 20 2018 06:09 GMT

#32

The game has already taken out the "early game" of broodwar. The early "all in" is almost done, even though they evolved into pressure + harass + expand, so they weren't all the way in. Giving someone more free time eliminates this even further. The time lost between starting workers and your choice of expand, "all in", or somewhere in between, has not made the game more interesting to watch, only given one avenue to start your game. A protected natural further narrows your decision path on a game that is still new, and still could have seen many amazing moves. I wish they would revert, but this would just be too much.

SHODAN

United Kingdom1060 Posts

February 20 2018 08:05 GMT

#33

I don't even know anymore. I probably didn't even know in the first place

deacon.frost

Czech Republic12129 Posts

February 20 2018 08:14 GMT

#34

It wouldn't encourage the aggressive play one would think of, but rather greed play as was already stated. But let's revert it - do you have any examples of pro games where this helped? Give us examples of pros using this for the aggression! Maybe there's a map with some concept that could work

I generally don't count 2 rax proxy or another 1 base all-ins as this would happen on any map as the player doesn't have any intentions of using the in-base natural.

Thanks!

algue

France1436 Posts

February 20 2018 10:00 GMT

#35

This also raises issue of map makers not being able to really test their maps which greatly limits how creative they can be.

At the moment any new map concept has to be done right on first try because the only way to get your map played is to get it on the ladder and if it's considered cancerous by the players you can bet your ass that any new iteration of your map or your concept will never make it again.

Pocket expansions and backdoors are the only two weird/innovative concepts that were given a few tries on the ladder and even then it was like 3 or 4 tries at best.

It's understandable though since ladder maps are tournament maps and there's money on the line, players, especially pros don't wanna be a random mapmaker's guinea pig. However Blizzard isn't doing much to allow more maps to be tested. I think CS:GO style operations would do a lot of good to Sc2.

leublix

493 Posts

February 20 2018 11:04 GMT

#36

Inbase naturals suck so hard for PvP, it makes every game a coinflip.

For the other match-ups I don't mind it too much as long as the third isn't too easy to wall. If one map in the map pool has this feature it's ok imo. It doesn't make the game more fun though.

mishimaBeef

Canada2259 Posts

February 20 2018 13:40 GMT

#37

dunno if this was mentioned but what if the in-base natural building was able to be scouted by a nearby watch tower to assist in knowing whether the opponent invested in a second base

themusic246

United States211 Posts

February 20 2018 17:42 GMT

#38

Inbase maps are good if done correctly and if there is only one in the pool imo. As long as the inbase nat is exposed to drops/easy nydus (again imo).. it creates very different games and completely different builds which is refreshing, but shouldnt replace "standard" setups completely. Another reason why we dont see a lot of them is the fact that they are natoriously hard to balance against the turtletoss golden armada.

Its like salt in a meal, maybe just add a little to spice up the map pool every now and then (same with pocket thirds, unique rush maps etc), but dont eat a spoonfull of salt at once :3

RogerChillingworth

2830 Posts

February 20 2018 20:54 GMT

#39

I would just like to see crazier maps with weirder features instead of the insta-3-base maps we've been seeing a lot of. There are ways to make bases that are more spread out not so terrible for Terran, for example, by messing with high ground and so forth. I'm not a map maker, but the TL finalists don't excite me that much, as a viewer, barring one or two.

Qwyn

United States2779 Posts

February 20 2018 20:56 GMT

#40

The thing about a safe natural is that the benefit it provides is asymmetric across different races. In a ZvX matchup, unless the matchup is a ZvZ the other race is going to benefit much more heavily from the protected base than the Zerg is. They'll be able to execute a few more dirty timings faster than they normally would and the Zerg doesn't really derive any benefit (we might even prefer a forward natural since it lets us get creep out onto the map faster).

I'm not a fan of free bases. One of the most general principles of map design is that as you expand, you should be expanding outwards (that is, further and further towards the middle/perimeter of the map) and each successive expansion should be riskier than the previous.

Obviously at this point in the game's life cycle natural expansions are considered to be a given. However giving all maps safe naturals removes an entire stage of the game from consideration that is an essential part of keeping players honest and on top of their fundamentals.