text: [D] Do SC2-maps need more diversified expansions?
  Last Edited: 2010-12-17 16:23:27
  December 17 2010 16:21 GMT
  Hi everyone, I'd like to discuss something with you that caught my special attention after watching some BW games again - the problem of the "structure", the "nature" (or something similar to that) of expansions.
  Everything below relates mostly to the creation of custom maps for tournaments since I don't believe Blizz would implement something like that because it would make the game (even more) harder for newcomers.
  We all know what expansions look like in SC2: We have either 8 mineral patches with 2 geysers or 6 gold mineral patches with 2 geysers.
  There's no strategical value to the question "which expansion do I take" whatsoever, the "defendability" is simply all that matters. Now in BW there are all kinds of expansions, mineral-only expos, expos where it's sometimes advisable to place the main close(r) to the gas and just mine gas etc. I think SC2 could profit hugely if there were maps with different kinds of expansions.
  There's one aspect that I think could really add much strategical depth: geysers. In SC2 we have now 2 geyers instead of one as the "standard" type of expansion. Here I think more differentiated expansions could highly improve the strategic diversity of the game. I could think of the "classic" easy to take and hold mineral only expansions, expansions with just one geyser, but maybe also expansions with even three geysers, kinda like the gold expansions "geyser-wise" (those needed to be ridiculously hard to defend obviously) - scouting those expansions correctly and drawing the right conclusions concerning the strategy of your opponent would imo lead to more exciting games. The decision which expansion to take would become much "harder" in the sense that the player always needed to decide which strategy to pursue because the "type" of expansion would be directly correlated to the units he could produce afterwards.
  Also this would add another element of "playing greedy" if you want to call it this way. Right now on most maps it isn't even possible to take the gold right away. Nevertheless I found this always to be something exciting, to see if the zerg gets away with early gold on scrap station for example. If now there were "better and worse" expansions, not only defense-wise but also concerning the "quality", concerning what they yield, this would create a whole new dimension to questions like early aggression vs defensive play.
  What do you think, would you like to see something like that in maps too, or does this sound absurd to you?
  December 17 2010 16:24 GMT
  I think it would be interesting to see, however if memory serves, there is SOME more diversification to expansions on the current map pool (albeit slightly). I think islands only have 7 mineral patches typically.
  I agree that this particular aspect of the current map pool has been overlooked. I suspect that blizzard standardized the maps this way to make their balancing job easier, but I don't see why we can't start diversifying maps as the game progresses.
  December 17 2010 16:31 GMT
  I encourage all of you to look around the Custom Maps section. While most maps use regular bases, 8M3V expos have been seen, 9G, 4V, 16M4V (double expo), and half&half Gold&Blue expos.
  (M=mineral, V=Vespene, G=Gold)
  At this point in the game, messing with main resources is taboo, but otherwise we're trying to broaden the spectrum of expansions!
  United States3765 Posts
  December 17 2010 16:33 GMT
  Yeah it would be nice if we could play on other maps.
  December 17 2010 16:34 GMT
  First you have to get GOMtv and other tournament organizations to actually consider using maps that aren't in the ladder pool. Otherwise this is all moot (and the game is probably in trouble)
  December 17 2010 16:36 GMT
  Island expos tend to have fewer mineral patches, or even the semi-island ones on Scrap Station (the one's behind the rocks that don't get taken that often), don't have 8 mineral patches. Part of the problem is that the gas-less units just scale way too differently than they did in BW, but yea, people should definitely experiment.
  December 17 2010 16:40 GMT
  On December 18 2010 01:36 MoreFasho wrote:
  Island expos tend to have fewer mineral patches, or even the semi-island ones on Scrap Station (the one's behind the rocks that don't get taken that often), don't have 8 mineral patches.
  Perfectly valid point, I forgot about this because I was way too focused on the geysers.
  Part of the problem is that the gas-less units just scale way too differently than they did in BW, but yea, people should definitely experiment.
  This is indeed true. But instead of introducing drastic stuff like double expansions, I think you could slightly tweak the whole system by having some easier to defend expos only have 1 geyser for example. I was originally strongly in favour of the two geyser vs one because I thought it would bring more strategical debth - and it did.
  By playing around with the amount of geysers each expo has, I think this could lead to even more strategical debth.
  December 17 2010 16:47 GMT
  I think in the future these different types of expos should come into play, but for right now i think blizzard just needs to keep stuff simple so they can balance the game out.
  Last Edited: 2010-12-17 16:52:18
  December 17 2010 16:49 GMT
  there are maps that only have 7 patches at every expansion e.g. shakuras
  but well sc2 and bw are different - in broodwar each race had a minearl only unit that were viable in the lategame - in sc2 that is not the case so no gas expansions are totally useless.
  December 17 2010 16:51 GMT
  The main thing I want to see is rich gas geysers. They're in the editor, aren't they? Are they in any maps?
  December 17 2010 18:32 GMT
  Multiple-gas expansions or Terrazine (aka Rich Gas) expansions would be really cool. Problem is that they might swing army compositions WAY in favor of whoever secures them.
  Last Edited: 2010-12-17 18:51:13
  December 17 2010 18:50 GMT
  I agree with WniO. Maps should stay simple while the game is young. Drastically changing the resources at expansions is a very technical variation that calls attention to itself. First I'd like to see some more "organic" variations, such as very large maps or maps with many easily protected expansions.
  Last Edited: 2010-12-17 19:45:36
  December 17 2010 18:55 GMT
  Rich gas geysers are currently extremely bugged (workers run all over the place trying to mine them). Attempts to fix it with pathing blockers have essentially failed.
  WniO summed up the general consensus in the mapmaking forum quite well:
  However, as iGrok mentioned, we community mapmakers have nothing wrong with experimenting with different types of expansions**, but perhaps it's a bit too early to go too far with it.
  I would also like to add that I think 9 mineral field mains would actually be an excellent idea as a standard. The main reason why being how Zerg feel they needto expand immediately. The thing about zerg expanding immediately is that they don't necessarily need the minerals; what they need is the extra larva. If there were 9 mineral fields in the main, then it wouldn't be such a terrible idea to place that first hatchery in your main because you wouldn't need your natural quite so fast. This would greatly diversify zerg openings (zerg being boring is actually quite a problem), but of course the overall balance (which could be done exclusively through map design) would have to compensate for the extra boost for zerg
  December 17 2010 18:56 GMT
  On December 18 2010 01:49 idonthinksobro wrote:
  Marines are the core for any Terran army, super effective in small raid parties.
  Zealots with Charge are ridiculous meatshields and do quite the DPS!
  Zerglings are superfast, do high damage and are very good in punishing the enemy.
  I didn't play BW, but all these units still have their use late- game!!
  Also, I always kindo liked the idea of a 3G, 4B, 3V expansion, nice and colourfull !
  Last Edited: 2010-12-17 18:59:46
  December 17 2010 18:59 GMT
  A problem with them that has come up several times is that it creates potential need to micro your workers to make sure they're mining the gold ones first. While this does indeed increase the skill cap (which isn't a bad thing), it isn't fun... at all.
  December 17 2010 19:09 GMT
  A 9 patch main would be nice because in-base hatch builds would be more viable. The main reason Z needs to expand so fast is Larva, their third resource.
  December 17 2010 19:11 GMT
  I like the idea but mineral only would ruin zerg play seeing as they need lots of gas to get out any sort of anti-air unlike in sc1 where they could get hydras much cheaper D: