[I] Proper Mineral Placement

Monochromatic

United States998 Posts

November 11 2012 19:21 GMT

This is something I was thinking of doing for a while, but I've put it off until today. I want to catalog every mineral placement as a resource for mapmakers to use. This is mainly for newer mapmakers, but it is still helpful if you are wondering how to make certain base layouts. (IE: Atlantis Spaceship's 3 gas base) If you feel I am missing any important ones or ones that you want to see, please tell me which ones I should add.

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 +

Gas:

Made by Uvantak

+ Show Spoiler [Old] +

Special: + Show Spoiler +

Made by Uvantak

Atlantis Spaceship: (I might of messed up the one side, Included LOS blockers.)
+ Show Spoiler +

Shattered Temple:
+ Show Spoiler +

Again, if I messed any up, or if you want to see any specific ones, please ask.

Fatam

1986 Posts

November 11 2012 21:44 GMT

This is cool for newer people to see what is "acceptable". Afaik, the standard is 2 "back" mineral patches, which means those 2 patches are 4 squares away from the CC/Hatch/Nexus instead of 3.

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

November 11 2012 23:04 GMT

http://i.imgur.com/aw0ty.jpg that one seems wrong

Quakecomm

United States344 Posts

November 11 2012 23:05 GMT

Thanks for this post!

AbideWithMe

207 Posts

November 11 2012 23:08 GMT

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.

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

November 11 2012 23:52 GMT

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

November 12 2012 00:03 GMT

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 +

Fatam

1986 Posts

November 12 2012 00:46 GMT

There's like 30+ variations lol it would be a lot of pictures if you want to post all of them

Quakecomm

United States344 Posts

November 12 2012 04:00 GMT

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

November 12 2012 04:03 GMT

#10

On November 12 2012 13:00 Quakecomm wrote:

Show nested quote +

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 States998 Posts

November 12 2012 04:29 GMT

#11

Sorry about the last one, looks like it moved slightly while copy pasting, I'll fix the photo.

EDIT: Should be fixed now.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

November 13 2012 08:36 GMT

#12

Can any "pro" map maker confirm those to be the standard mineral placement?

RFDaemoniac

United States544 Posts

November 13 2012 08:59 GMT

#13

I've been trying to avoid minerals that are connected at just the corner, are corner connected mineral patches (in one place) really standard?

Otherwise a safe bet is to just take the mineral placements from Ohana (all but the top natural).

opisska

Poland8852 Posts

November 13 2012 09:05 GMT

#14

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?

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

November 13 2012 09:46 GMT

#15

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

November 13 2012 11:43 GMT

#16

On November 13 2012 18:46 moskonia wrote:

Show nested quote +

So if the difference does not matter, why does it matter to you?

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

November 13 2012 12:05 GMT

#17

You should include the configuration from the mains (and several other bases) on Ohana, it is a very useful configuration especially because it is effectively symmetrical along a 45 degree axis.

Flopjack

United States51 Posts

November 14 2012 23:27 GMT

#18

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"?

iamcaustic

Canada1509 Posts

November 14 2012 23:35 GMT

#19

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 +

This one is wrong, OP. The outer 4 mineral patches and the vespene geysers should be moved down 1 unit.

Fatam

1986 Posts

November 14 2012 23:36 GMT

#20

I think 2 back minerals is just the amount that you need to make the mineral line not cover too large of an arc around the town hall. It's not set in stone though, there are some major maps w/ later expansions that have 1, 3 or 4 back minerals.

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.

1 2 3 Next All

Please or register to reply.

[I] Proper Mineral Placement

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming