| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Monochromatic
United States999 Posts
They are split into standard, which are normal bases used on multiple maps, and special, which are bases used on only one map. Without further ado: Standard: + Show Spoiler + Special: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Myny6bX.jpg) Made by Uvantak Atlantis Spaceship: (I might of messed up the one side, Included LOS blockers.) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ftKrZ.jpg) Shattered Temple: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TBsj7.jpg) Again, if I messed any up, or if you want to see any specific ones, please ask. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
The NEW rule is to try to avoid putting your geysers directly diagonal or 1 square off of diagonal of the town hall, as this can sometimes cause them to require an extra worker. There was a reddit thread/diagram about this which was quite well done. Of course if you have older maps that do this, it's fine, as a lot of GSL and other official maps suffer this problem. The reason it's bad is that even if the map's mineral lines are mirrored perfectly, the top player's geysers' efficiency will be slightly different from the bottom if the geysers are diagonal from the town hall. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
 | ||
|
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
| ||
|
AbideWithMe
207 Posts
This would make early double worker stacking and such obsolete. What is the downside of this? Why does nobody do it? It could also be used to get rid of the "mule wasting minerals" problem. | ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
On November 12 2012 08:08 AbideWithMe wrote: Just a general question of somebody who has no idea about map making. Would it be a problem to make a mineral line with every mineral patch equally far away from the CC location? This would make early double worker stacking and such obsolete. What is the downside of this? Why does nobody do it? It could also be used to get rid of the "mule wasting minerals" problem. Mineral lines will take up way too much space, making for some very awkward base proportions. Also, making mineral stacking obsolete is a bad thing imo. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
imo should look like this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n52dp.png) I would also include the configurations from Cloud Kingdom's main, and 3rd base. I am fond of those configurations (lol) Also, the first one can also look like this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q2ATh.png) | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
On November 12 2012 09:03 TheFish7 wrote: The last one under "Standard" has one patch behind 2? imo should look like this + Show Spoiler + I would also include the configurations from Cloud Kingdom's main, and 3rd base. I am fond of those configurations (lol) Also, the first one can also look like this + Show Spoiler + isn't the first one under "standard" the same as the cloud kingdom example? thanks for correcting the last one, it looked wrong to me as well, but as a newbie mapper, i wasn't sure  | ||
|
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
On November 12 2012 13:00 Quakecomm wrote: isn't the first one under "standard" the same as the cloud kingdom example? thanks for correcting the last one, it looked wrong to me as well, but as a newbie mapper, i wasn't sure oh sorry, i see the diffrence | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States999 Posts
EDIT: Should be fixed now. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Otherwise a safe bet is to just take the mineral placements from Ohana (all but the top natural). | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
You could even match this to other features of the map - for example when there is a wider natural, could you make mining in the main more efficient so that we can effort more buildings for the wall and vice versa? | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On November 13 2012 18:05 opisska wrote: Wouldn't it be better if the minerals were as nonstandart as it gets? I know that it goes gainst the wishes of Blizzard, since they want everything to be 8m2g, they probably also want it to be pretty standard. But creating minor differences in income (balanced for all positions on the map) could create different builds and strategies for different maps, don't you think? You could even match this to other features of the map - for example when there is a wider natural, could you make mining in the main more efficient so that we can effort more buildings for the wall and vice versa? No that is silly, the difference is minor and would really not affect build order at all, only delay them a few if there was reduced income, there is absolutely no reason to go non-standard minerals, that is why I want to know if those here are standard (I keep messing up my mineral lines). | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On November 13 2012 18:46 moskonia wrote: No that is silly, the difference is minor and would really not affect build order at all, only delay them a few if there was reduced income, there is absolutely no reason to go non-standard minerals, that is why I want to know if those here are standard (I keep messing up my mineral lines). So if the difference does not matter, why does it matter to you? | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
| ||
|
Flopjack
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:27 Flopjack wrote: I appreciate that we have some guides on mineral placement, but I don't see many whys or numbers. Is there a set amount of minerals that must always be closer to the base vs those which are further? Does it matter on which base it is? What's the logic here, outside of 'this is how someone else did it"? As far as mineral patches are concerned, Blizzard's standard model has 6 patches being 2 or 3 units away (as close as you can get them to a town hall building), and 2 patches being 4 units away (i.e. an extra space further than the others). This is the model I tend the follow, and recommend newer mapmakers to follow as well. Beyond that, it's a matter of aesthetic placement. ----------------- + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D8a1k.png) This one is wrong, OP. The outer 4 mineral patches and the vespene geysers should be moved down 1 unit. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
2 is standard, but I think slight differences is fine, so long as it's the same on both sides of the map. I'm in the camp that wants to mess with mineral lines and gases greatly (for instance, I think expansions where the gas geysers and mineral patches have a bit of distance between them is very interesting, as you can put your expo right next to the gas for max gas, right next to the minerals for max minerals, or inbetween for a balanced approach), but Pro players will likely resist this kind of thing greatly, as it messes with the timings / build orders they have memorized. Personally, I think the game should be more about impromptu decision-making and less about memorized build orders and timings. This is the same idea behind a lot of variants of chess (especially the ones where the starting positions of the pieces is randomized) - when you throw a wrench into things it becomes more about the player's skill, and less about his memorization of the standard openings. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jy4iNMP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fDkKige.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5mzY9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3MY3F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AxSzC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nrjZP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5iOfN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bqgQF.jpg)
