a176 Profile Blog Joined August 2009 Canada 6685 Posts #1



In particular its that most of the maps have bases that have your mineral line easily cannoned because its facing against some terrain. That is you bring along a MSC or overlord to give vision for the cannons. Or even use unit walkthrough with a probe by clicking on the minerals. I know its understandable that as a team, you can punish the cannoner who might have little to no defense in their base, but the player being cannoned, what the point in a win if you had nothing to do with it?



And then there's the 2 base maps. Is it 2010 again? Why are there still 2base maps on the ladder?



Queen's Nest





2 of the spawns have mineral lines facing terrain, wide open to cannoning.

The middle 2 watchtowers are virtually useless because they are hidden behind destructible rocks.

Aside from the naturals, the only other bases are 2 open golds in the middle of the map, and 2 rocked golds.



Silent Dunestop





I literally have not yet played on this map, possible because every single player out there has vetoed it.

The middle base has 2 ramps.

The mineral line is exposed to cannoning.



Temple of the Preservers





There isn't too much to say about this map aside from it being 2 base map.

Like there is literally only extra gold and island expansion per team.

And the mains are ridiculously small.



There are some newer maps on the ladder which do a bit better but again have exposed bases.



Shadow Reactor





Vaults of Secrets





I'm not sure, but would all this cannoning and rushing behavior increase players mmr? Because there are many players that are on this diamond/masters ladder who obviously do not know how to play at that level, which makes the experience even that more frustrating. I decided to start playing 3v3 recently. I was not prepared for what awaited me. Blizzard deservedly gets a bad rap for some of its maps. but to think these maps are still in the rotation - and that people put up with them, it boggles my mind.In particular its that most of the maps have bases that have your mineral line easily cannoned because its facing against some terrain. That is you bring along a MSC or overlord to give vision for the cannons. Or even use unit walkthrough with a probe by clicking on the minerals. I know its understandable that as a team, you can punish the cannoner who might have little to no defense in their base, but the playercannoned, what the point in a win if you had nothing to do with it?And then there's the 2 base maps. Is it 2010 again? Why are there still 2base maps on the ladder?2 of the spawns have mineral lines facing terrain, wide open to cannoning.The middle 2 watchtowers are virtually useless because they are hidden behind destructible rocks.Aside from the naturals, the only other bases are 2 open golds in the middle of the map, and 2 rocked golds.I literally have not yet played on this map, possible because every single player out there has vetoed it.The middle base has 2 ramps.The mineral line is exposed to cannoning.There isn't too much to say about this map aside from it being 2 base map.Like there is literally only extra gold andexpansion perAnd the mains are ridiculously small.There are some newer maps on the ladder which do a bit better but again have exposed bases.I'm not sure, but would all this cannoning and rushing behavior increase players mmr? Because there are many players that are on this diamond/masters ladder who obviously do not know how to play at that level, which makes the experience even that more frustrating. starleague forever

dAPhREAk Profile Blog Joined July 2010 Nauru 12390 Posts #2 yes.



shadow reactor is especially a fucking horrible map with the middle base so easily cannoned and tanked. honest to god--look how fucking far you would have to send your workers to stop the cannon rush??? jesus christ man.



blizzard makes the shittiest team maps.

Nyvis Profile Joined November 2012 France 278 Posts #3 The main problem I see is the size of the maps. It's ridiculously small and lacking in bases!

I don't see why you can't have way bigger maps, since early aggression is way better in team games (you can focus one player), having larger maps would balance that and add more space for bases. You can't macro AT ALL on those maps, unless your team sacrifice all hopes of expanding to let you do so.

CrazyF1r3f0x Profile Blog Joined August 2010 United States 2106 Posts #4 I think it's hilarious how bad the maps are, it's like the guy who used to make the 1v1 maps got demoted to making 3v3 and 4v4 maps. "Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery."

Perdac Curall Profile Joined June 2011 242 Posts #5 It would seem you have not considered the consequences of your ideas. Imagine 3v3 with 3-4 bases per player, each side has 3 maxed armies, that's 600 supply per side, 1200 in total. Imagine the lagfest. You can't treat team games the same as 1v1, they are two completely different animals. Maybe in sc3 latency and lag won't be an issue, but I doubt it. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell

Seohce Profile Joined October 2010 United Kingdom 394 Posts #6



Why can't we have some macro 3v3 maps? And by macro I mean three+ bases for each player.



I play 3v3 sometimes casually with friends and it's frustrating how bad the maps are. There are loads more problems with them than you highlight in this thread.Why can't we have some macro 3v3 maps? And by macro I mean three+ bases for each player. On June 26 2013 07:15 Perdac Curall wrote:

It would seem you have not considered the consequences of your ideas. Imagine 3v3 with 3-4 bases per player, each side has 3 maxed armies, that's 600 supply per side, 1200 in total. Imagine the lagfest. You can't treat team games the same as 1v1, they are two completely different animals. Maybe in sc3 latency and lag won't be an issue, but I doubt it.



Then you can just turn your settings down a notch or two? I don't really accept this argument. Then you can just turn your settings down a notch or two? I don't really accept this argument.

BuddhaMonk Profile Joined August 2010 778 Posts #7 It's true that you can't have maps be proportionally as big as 1v1 because of performance issues.



For me what I don't get about the 3v3 maps is why do they even have maps like Green Acres where there's only 2 viable expansions? Whether the maps are bigger or smaller, at least make them fair with expansions.

packrat386 Profile Blog Joined October 2011 United States 4847 Posts #8 3v3 maps have always kind of been silly. Its fun to play at times, but I almost never have seen a map that I thought was good. dreaming of a sunny day

a176 Profile Blog Joined August 2009 Canada 6685 Posts #9 Green Acres is basically the 3v3 version of http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Deadlock_Ridge . You just need to (or have a teammate) have a more mobile army to help with defense in taking the outer bases. starleague forever

imJealous Profile Joined July 2010 United States 1373 Posts #10 Absolutely agree and I think this is one of the biggest things that hurts casual player retention for the game too. ... In life very little goes right. "Right" meaning the way one expected and the way one wanted it. One has no right to want or expect anything.

a176 Profile Blog Joined August 2009 Canada 6685 Posts #11 On June 26 2013 07:15 Perdac Curall wrote:

It would seem you have not considered the consequences of your ideas. Imagine 3v3 with 3-4 bases per player, each side has 3 maxed armies, that's 600 supply per side, 1200 in total. Imagine the lagfest. You can't treat team games the same as 1v1, they are two completely different animals. Maybe in sc3 latency and lag won't be an issue, but I doubt it.



since you don't play 3v3 or 4v4, i can tell you that most of the current 4v4 maps have 3-4 bases per player, and no its not a lagfest. since you don't play 3v3 or 4v4, i can tell you that most of the current 4v4 maps have 3-4 bases per player, and no its not a lagfest. starleague forever

IPA Profile Joined August 2010 United States 2998 Posts Last Edited: 2013-06-25 22:27:17 #12



User was warned for this post I'm tempted to say anyone who plays 3v3 deserves it. But I won't say that. I'll just think it. Time held me green and dying though I sang in my chains like the sea.

Dreamer.T Profile Joined December 2009 United States 3030 Posts #13 I generally enjoy this aspect of team because of how chaotic the matches become. Normally I play 1v1's, and only team when I'm on a break, so this might impact the way I see the game mode. As to some of the issues with maps, yes they are annoying, and some maps I just outright veto. Ultimately it's not as bad as you describe. Scenarios where people are canon rushed are actually incredibly rare (I've only encountered 1 or twice in over 50 matches played), and the imbalances of certain maps are exploited nearly as much as they could be. Forever the best, IMMvp <3

derpface Profile Joined October 2012 Sweden 895 Posts #14 On June 26 2013 07:27 IPA wrote:

I'm tempted to say anyone who plays 3v3 deserves it. But I won't say that. I'll just think it.



Man get out Man get out gg no re #_< no1 Hydra and Leta fan >_#

Eatme Profile Blog Joined June 2003 Switzerland 3918 Posts #15 The only map were you get tanked or cannoned pretty much every game is Shadow Reactor. The other ones are quite fine. Plus all the other gametypes are macrofests already so I really like to play 3:3 for the intensity of early game play. Also you can counter on some of them and that is kinda refreshing.



Green Acres is just horrible and I have always vetoed that shitty map. Games are like, one team attacks, if the other team dont hold the game ends since shared bases = death if you cant hold. If they hold both teams secure the naturals, nothing happends for half and hour and everyone keeps trying to get another base for the 3rd guy who is still on one base. That map is retarded and boring as hell. I have the best fucking lawyers in the country including the man they call the Malmis.

JP Dayne Profile Joined June 2013 369 Posts #16 I don't think blizz gives a shit about competitiveness of 3v3 or its maps for that matter.

You should stick to having silly harmless fun instead of going competitive, coz neither the units nor the maps are balanced for 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 2x2x2x2, etc

HornyHydra Profile Joined February 2011 Taiwan 222 Posts Last Edited: 2013-06-25 22:31:45 #17 There is far less macro play in 3v3 and 4v4 games than there are in 1v1, especially at the higher levels (hence the number of 2 base maps). Many players in 3v3 and 4v4 can achieve Diamond or even Masters, but really, it doesn't speak much if at all to their skill in 1v1. As someone has already pointed out before; 1v1 and team games are completely different beasts. Early aggression is more viable and common in team games than in 1v1's. Sure, this may be due to the map rotation that's currently in the ladder, but "map balance" isn't really something to worry about or even achievable when there are multiple races going at it in a single game. Prime ♥

contaminant.237 Profile Joined June 2011 Canada 13 Posts #18



Having tried to play 3s with friends, it's insane to me how easy to cheese it is in 3s when 2s is almost actually competitive and 4s is just who can mass more Void Rays. It does seem especially noticeable in 3v3, considering the 2v2 map pool doesn't suffer from a lot of these problems and even the 4v4 maps tend to allow for 10ish bases per team minimum.Having tried to play 3s with friends, it's insane to me how easy to cheese it is in 3s when 2s is almost actually competitive and 4s is just who can mass more Void Rays.

Qwyn Profile Blog Joined December 2010 United States 2772 Posts #19 Because Blizzard refuses to let the competent maps made for the TLMC be apart of the ladder, for some reason.



Maybe next season!



Yes, the maps are very bad and it is almost impossible to take a third base on most. The new maps, mind you. There are a few which are actually alright.



The sad part is that there are still actually some 2v2 maps which are terrible as well. The only good one that I can recall is Magma Core. "Think of the hysteria following the realization that they consciously consume babies and raise the dead people from their graves" - N0

nucLeaRTV Profile Joined May 2011 Romania 781 Posts #20 Just played 15 3v3 games with some friends. Holy shit the maps are bad. Some of them are unchanged for like 1 year, or even more. And the maps are horrible. I'm closer to one opponent than one allied on a separate base spawns map. "Having your own haters means you are famous"

1 2 3 Next All