[M] (2) TBA WIP

---

On August 23 2012 14:34 FlaShFTW wrote:
distance from 3rd to nat lengthened? BLASPHEMY!

---

---

On August 23 2012 14:38 Rukis wrote:



Lol.. I know, I know, but I was thinking more of BW type maps.
Not exactly BW maps but typical maps that would be quated as
BW maps if made in such a way.

Although they have lots of those, why not put some in tournament pools?

---

---

On August 23 2012 14:53 FlaShFTW wrote:

what? BW maps have distant thirds because of the gameplay. in BW, 2 lurkers at the top of a ramp could stop 9001 mnm. Tanks with depot wall could destroy any amount of units. Reavers with cannon support would tear through everything.

In SC2, you don't have these space control units. HotS would help this greatly ofc with swarm lords. Tanks are already there, I guess sentries if you want but they aren't enough and aren't equal to BW. Thats why you have to have your entire army defending.

Ofc, it helps that the AI going up ramps was terrible in BW and things didn't ball up as easily.

---

---

On August 23 2012 15:28 -NegativeZero- wrote:
I'm a huge advocate of the BW style of maps with further expansions that are easier to defend, even if it would play out slightly differently in SC2. It definitely forces more map awareness - maybe army splitting, though this is less likely. Even if it isn't possible to completely hold off an attack with a couple strategically placed units, I think if maps used more 1-width ramps at further expansions it would actually be possible to stall with static defense plus several units at the top long enough for your army to move across the map to defend. Another advantage of this is that with bases spread out, the defender has more time to prepare if they lose a base, rather than just losing base after base in rapid succession.

---

---

On August 23 2012 16:17 Fatam wrote:
I did the "far away bases with small ramps" thing on Yog's Winter with the 4ths, I think it makes for good gameplay (then again I am a bit biased, to be sure). Far away bases that are also open tend to encourage base trades. Then again, the open-minded person might ask "what's wrong with base trades?". A good question - I think the only answer is that people generally only like seeing them once in a while, not as a common occurrence.

---

---

On August 23 2012 16:31 lost_artz wrote:
I agree with the general statement put forth by the OP. We do cater a bit to much to specific play-styles and map layouts. Mixing things up a bit every now and then would definitely encourage players to innovate new play-styles based off different map designs. Granted this could lead to boring game - allins, base trades, etc. but you don't know until you try.

---

As for ideas that might change the meta-game I'd love to see a map where players cannot cross the middle of the map (via ground) before for the 5min mark. This could be accomplished via something like destructible rocks blocking the main routes through the center of the map that would automatically destroy themselves at 5mins thus opening the map up to standard play.

---

---

On August 23 2012 16:34 iamcaustic wrote:
As someone who's been experimenting with the concept of having further-away bases, I don't see it working well unless you really choke up the paths reaching the third so it's more defendable with less. Potential issues involve things like fungal and forcefields, which are very powerful in small chokes, so you'd have to make sure the chokes are key points (like a single-width ramp) rather than narrow paths that extend some distance. I'm cutting it close on Quarantine Zone, and the path between natural and third may need to be widened a bit pending further testing.

---

---

On August 23 2012 14:53 FlaShFTW wrote:

what? BW maps have distant thirds because of the gameplay. in BW, 2 lurkers at the top of a ramp could stop 9001 mnm. Tanks with depot wall could destroy any amount of units. Reavers with cannon support would tear through everything.

In SC2, you don't have these space control units. HotS would help this greatly ofc with swarm lords. Tanks are already there, I guess sentries if you want but they aren't enough and aren't equal to BW. Thats why you have to have your entire army defending.

Ofc, it helps that the AI going up ramps was terrible in BW and things didn't ball up as easily.

---

---

[B]SC2's units force maps to be the way they are. They prohibit gameplay interactions/map design evolution from taking place, because of the limitations of the units.

---

---

On August 23 2012 18:28 Rukis wrote:



No i don't believe this, I think if it took 10 years to perfect bw it will take that much to fully understand sc2 and the maps with it will change. BW maps will and can come back, matter of fact. in HOTS i beleive the map that i think is possible with change how WoL is in meta-game.

---

---

On August 23 2012 18:35 Qwyn wrote:


Not BW maps. Cause and effect. In order for BW style maps to come back then SC2 would have to have BW style units! I think that units at this point influence the meta much more than maps. Part of it is that map design has become so much more technical and precise. Map makers already have the fundamentals down. And they are restricted, NOT because of lack of creativity, but due to the requirements and limitations of the units (and the economy) in SC2.

I always read about how map makers have so many good ideas they would like to implement. It sucks balls. But, you just become complacent with the way things are, holding onto hope that it might become better.

---

---

On August 23 2012 22:23 Qikz wrote:
Could you use LOS Blockers to make defending the ramp easier with smaller amounts of units? Maybe you could do it around the middle of the ramp so only the units at the top could fire or something?

---