EPTHow would you play it? I'm wondering if this wouldn't be a great idea given the current meta state, because it would allow for more risks, as far as I can tell, and possibly at an earlier time.
Mandatory protected natural for every map?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
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. | ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
How would you play it? I'm wondering if this wouldn't be a great idea given the current meta state, because it would allow for more risks, as far as I can tell, and possibly at an earlier time. | ||
|
Durnuu
13322 Posts
The only map I can remember that did it kind of right was Vaani Research Station because 1) the 3rd was open 2) it wasn't on high ground (unlike Dusk Towers for example). But it had other issues. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
| ||
|
kugHop
Luxembourg44 Posts
| ||
|
RealityTheGreat
China564 Posts
| ||
|
yubo56
690 Posts
A pattern i haven't seen explored much is the novice maps from the beginning of WoL. So short rush distance but rock protected. There's a lot of hate lately for small maps but maybe rocks could put the emphasis on 2 base play rather than one. Probably still an awful idea but would probably be better than in base natural | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Overall having 1 map in the pool that has an inbase natural is fine, more than that orients the meta towards heavy turtle or silly cheeses. | ||
|
xenonn40
United States282 Posts
| ||
|
Zaxon
Belgium209 Posts
| ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
| ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
Too bad the maps often turn into a all-in fest when the natural slighty harder to defend than average | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
| ||
|
DSh1
292 Posts
On February 19 2018 20:10 Durnuu wrote: Maps with inbase naturals (if that's what you mean) are almost always awful. Defending 3 bases behind one choke is NOT good gameplay. The only map I can remember that did it kind of right was Vaani Research Station because 1) the 3rd was open 2) it wasn't on high ground (unlike Dusk Towers for example). But it had other issues. However in TLMC they said, maps where 3rd is not defendable are downright vetoed... . | ||
|
orvinreyes
577 Posts
| ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
I am however a fan of variation in the map pool. So having one map with a backdoor or whatever is fine. But not all of them. | ||
|
GothGirlGames
167 Posts
A none-gold abit closer then on boardwalk but with same small area and small exit blocked by a rock. 1. It would be safe to take directly but make a bad military base. 2. Give safe economy but not really allow you to turtle since an attack would overwelm the base if did that. Or more like a normal natural but with tiny rocks to shot down. Normal rocks is 2000 hitpoints? These could be like 500 just to give that tiny wall without needing to put alot of buildings down. | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
On February 20 2018 04:52 GothGirlGames wrote: I wouldn't mind if had a semi-protected natural. A none-gold abit closer then on boardwalk but with same small area and small exit blocked by a rock. 1. It would be safe to take directly but make a bad military base. 2. Give safe economy but not really allow you to turtle since an attack would overwelm the base if did that. Or more like a normal natural but with tiny rocks to shot down. Normal rocks is 2000 hitpoints? These could be like 500 just to give that tiny wall without needing to put alot of buildings down. Why do you think there needs to be rocks? What purpose will this serve? Why do people think we need a protected/semi-protected natural? All races have the tools to secure all the bases they need provided they utilize their race properly. Why do people want this again? | ||
|
GothGirlGames
167 Posts
On February 20 2018 05:03 ReachTheSky wrote: Why do you think there needs to be rocks? What purpose will this serve? Why do people think we need a protected/semi-protected natural? All races have the tools to secure all the bases they need provided they utilize their race properly. Why do people want this again? 1. I have claimed no need, but most maps seems to have rocks that be removed or shot down to change the pathways temporarly, it seems the most natural way to use what the game already got. 2. A wall serve the purpose of delaying the time in which your enemy can start attack you. 3. Nobody else then the thread starter has said it good. You are confusing people who choose to debate the topic with people who want it/think it is a good idea. | ||
|
Obamarauder
697 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
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
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
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
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
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
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
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
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 States702 Posts
On February 19 2018 21:24 -NegativeZero- wrote: no | ||
|
Creager
Germany1921 Posts
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 States1601 Posts
| ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1144 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
 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
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
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
| ||
|
themusic246
United States213 Posts
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
Chad3101 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
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. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On February 21 2018 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: could the ZvX issue be resolved by having a high hit point creep source at a 3rd base? or perhaps some sort of creep dynamic within the 2 base setup that affects income rate? That's a really interesting idea, but I think that Blizzard (and hence mapmakers, for the most part) are going to shy away from it because it's less elegant a solution than designing the map with an open natural (or some other design) in the first place (new/beginning players would be very confused, think about how long Blizzard waited before adding neutral depots/destructable rocks). Depending on how it is implemented it could be hard to balance, either giving Zerg players a huge advantage or end up being utterly useless. It's a very clever idea nonetheless. | ||
|
YourFavoriteTerran
33 Posts
On February 19 2018 21:31 kugHop wrote: Protoss would turtle into an unbeatable air army, Terran would turtle into an unbeatable mech army and Zerg would have zerglings run in circles around hatchery while broodlors and other siege units set up Zerg-Woodstock outside the opponents bases, this would just bring back the "good" old days of swarmhost sieges. Did you just say Terran and unbeatable mech army in the same sentence? Terran is down by 5-8% in every matchup at Grandmaster level. | ||
| ||
