what about money maps?

[mc2]

i think blizzard should not allow money maps to be made so i can learn to NOT use it :P

i'm very dependent on them

[Bumbaloe]

If there aren't money maps made, it means there aren't special map editors that can stack units. I want special map editors that can stack units, because hopefully they will also be able to have P12 triggers. :D

[mc2]

yeah the unit stacking thing is CRAZY.....

[Bumbaloe]

Yup, that's how you can have 50 workers mining what appears to be the same mineral.

[red_dragoon]

Yeah, they should let 50 scv's mine1 mineral, then we wouldn't need to expand bases ;p I love money maps personally ;p

[Bumbaloe]

Yeah, they should let 50 scv's mine1 mineral, then we wouldn't need to expand bases ;p I love money maps personally ;p


If 50 scv's mined one mineral, the mineral would deplete too fast. If 50 minerals were stacked, they wouldn't deplete for a very long time. ;)

[orphean]

Since money maps are so insanely popular I can't imagine they would intentionally remove them from the game. Its not like people have to play on money maps after all.

[PainKiller]

Hate money maps..! There is no skills in massing units and sending them do the other bases and the best masser wins >:(
Ofcourse there are som strats and tactics but still......

Down with the money maps! Down with the money maps!

[PlatnumCy]

If there aren't money maps made, it means there aren't special map editors that can stack units. I want special map editors that can stack units, because hopefully they will also be able to have P12 triggers. Cheesy

from what I hear...they will have way better map editors (because of the engine they run) that will allow you do do awesome things like that. Or wait like a month after it comes out and someone will have developed a hacked map editor again.

hope and pray that you can rotate any items you set down to face another direction. ( I have spent hours on the map editor clicking then deleting because it was facing the wrong direction.)

[SpoonGuard]

If there aren't money maps made, it means there aren't special map editors that can stack units. I want special map editors that can stack units, because hopefully they will also be able to have P12 triggers. Cheesy

from what I hear...they will have way better map editors (because of the engine they run) that will allow you do do awesome things like that. Or wait like a month after it comes out and someone will have developed a hacked map editor again.

hope and pray that you can rotate any items you set down to face another direction. ( I have spent hours on the map editor clicking then deleting because it was facing the wrong direction.)


Considering what the warcraft 3 map editor can do, which is highly impressive, I imagine the Starcraft 2 map editor is going to be INSANE.

[10-Neon]

I doubt you will be able to stack in SC2. Stacking minerals was an exploited glitch that largly involved the sprite-based nature of the game. in a 3D game, with an awareness of that kind of exploit, it makes sense that Blizzard will make sure that stacking doesn't happen. No stacking doesn't mean no money maps though, there were money maps before stacking was discovered- they just surrounded the start locations with thick clusters of minerals. Blizzard would have to do sometihng pretty crazy to make that impossible- like make continuous mineral exposure dangerous(like Tiberium), and I really don't see that happening.

Did you know that Blizzard already caters to money map players? There is a money map that ships with the game, can you name it? I bet it will return as a SC2 map as well.

Someone once told me, jokingly, "In my day we had to fight for our minerals!" But it is true, the struggle for resources is what causes most of the really cool stuff to happen in non-money games.

I personally hate money maps. They destroy the huge sections of the game that involve mining. Money games just turn into contests to see who can mass the most units. Battles become big, but they also become boring, the same battle every game. I also understand that there is a large proportion of players that do not need any real depth or variety to be entertained, it is like that with every medium. It is probably a good sign for them, because if you are dedicating less to the game, you are probably dedicating more to your real life. I for one have no real life to speak of, so I have to suffer having to hunt for interesting games.

Sorry if it comes off as elitist, because it is, because I do realize that people are absolutely justified in playing they way they want to play, even if I don't agree with it.

[TheDarkTemplar]

They can be fun if you want some mindless destruction! It's up to whoever's playing if they want to have a mass game or a more strategic game. I, personally, prefer money maps because they generally lead to longer games, which I'm better at. But for StarCraft2 I'm hoping to improve my tactics and strategy!

[Bumbaloe]

The first time I played a money map I wondered how they got the minerals so close to the buildings. I was such a noob. ::)

[mc2]

They can be fun if you want some mindless destruction! It's up to whoever's playing if they want to have a mass game or a more strategic game. I, personally, prefer money maps because they generally lead to longer games, which I'm better at. But for StarCraft2 I'm hoping to improve my tactics and strategy!


True, money maps means less tactics are required, and massing on units usually lead to victory. sometimes it's fun to build and destruct without thinking.........

Long games are better at measuring a player's ability, because the player will have to build up a base fast and resist rushes from enemies, then climb up the tech tree as the game progresses.....this will test how well the player utilises all units of a race.....

eg: if your using protoss, instead of just a victory from a swarm of zealot rushing into enemy's base, a long game would test the player's ability on using the clumpsy dragoons, the high templar, dark templar, dark archons, reavors, carriers, abiters, etc

[Drift]

i think blizzard should not allow money maps to be made so i can learn to NOT use it :P

i'm very dependent on them


money maps are retarded, ruins the point of expanding, when you can just sit there with 50 drones pulling out huge amounts of minerals/gas because they dont have to go anywhere

one of the most important tactics in the game is expanding, the more ground you have the more advantage you have against your enemy, at least tahts the case in regular, non-money map games

[orphean]

money maps are for a different type of game. a game where you can focus exclusively on your base/tech tree and creating huge, massive armies.

not everyone likes that kind of game but that's what money maps are really good at giving you.

[mc2]

yes........actually one of my new year resolution for 2006 was to give up money maps and practise more on normal maps.....but i couldn't.....especially when i use protoss i run out of money in the end....

and tips as to how to let go money maps? ;-)

[Fenix]

Train on maps with very little minerals offline, then when you're used to that, switch to regular. You'll feel unbelievably wealthy.

[10-Neon]

Find a group or channel with players that only play non-money. It'll be easier to find good non-money games and learn good strategies.

[carlsjr11]

will they still be in sc2??

[Trooper_Lozer]

well one thing i would like to see is a fastest, but with diefferent terrain, so the map is not just this borign set of boxes... i think blizzard is gonna make the official version though, because they are very popular. O and same with Zero Clutter.

[carlsjr11]

im so with u..... mabey 1 tree or 1 mountain lol

and deffinitly an official version i think fastest maps are fun to play every once in a while, breaks up the repedity of low money maps

[EonMaster]

fastest maps are the best. The rapid pace makes the game just that much more fun to play. The feeling of continually being rushed makes my game play become more focused on strategy rather than mass forces.

[10-Neon]

This thread is making me sick. Money maps exist to filter out all strategy from the game, boiling out all of the fun so all you have left is a bunch of clicking queues.

I am hoping that the features like structure queues and multi-building selection will make money maps less interesting.... that way, maybe fewer people will play them, and I can have more people to play with on the real maps. Well, it hasn't happened in any game, ever, but I can hope....

*Note, merged with older thread of same topic.

[EonMaster]

Whats wrong with money maps? I say they are much more fun then regular maps. Everyone has larger armies, so the battles are more epic and much more entertaining to watch and the replays are fun to watch, I watch them multiple times before they get boreing.

[10-Neon]

Money maps take out the whole aspect of the game related to land and resource control, using the terrain, hiding information from the enemy, and in most games, all early-game strategy involving first-tier units. It just boils down to dull, homogeneous armies beating against other dull, homogeneous armies until someone's dead.

[ijffdrie]

sounds like war

[EonMaster]

so no 1st tier units are used, so? I rarely use first tier in regular maps except for base defence anyway. I go for goliaths and tanks when I'm terran and use marines only for defence in bunkers.

I agree with drie, using large armies of the same unit to beat the crap out of others does sound a lot like war. And on mineral maps, people usially tend to build different units, tank and goliath for terran, hydralisk and lurkers for zerg, and dragoons and carriers for protoss.

[10-Neon]

The game is made for all units to be used in different situations, supporting one another in order to maximize the effectiveness of the group. On money maps, all of this subtlety is washed out by the fact that everything is played so close to the unit cap, in wide open environments, with no mineral limitations to speak of. Most actions are spent giving orders to structures to build more cannon fodder, the rest are spent briefly ordering large groups to their deaths before returning to the management of the build queue.

With the more streamlined interface of StarCraft II, you'll find out, very quickly, that any "fast-paced action" on money maps in the original game has been torn away. It will be boring to simply select your 20 gateways and press the hotkeys for your favorite unit 5 times, then wait for them to build before selecting the lot of them with one drag, and ordering them to kill themselves. What was several hundred keypresses before, will be somewhere around... 8. Will the uncountable keystrokes saved by the interface be used to improve players' games tactically? Well, in some cases, probably, but there is only so much micro you can do when you're maxed out on exactly two types of units.

[EonMaster]

Mineral map are the fun ones to play. Large armies fighting to thier doom are much more fun to watch than a few marine and medics with tanks rolling into an enemy town. THe fast pace of mineral maps makes it harder for me to keep up with others because I'm new at this game, but that makes the gameplay much more exciting.

[Shadowdragon]

Fast money maps don't have a hell of alota strategy to them, sure...

But it can be a lot of fun if you have a few friends. Specifically, 3 people vs. 5 computers. You may think it’s easy with three people, but when they both suck...well, it's much tougher. I spent so much time trying to save my friends/attack/raid I actually got a better rush then playing a real game.

Now, fast money no rush max units...

Well...

Who ever thought of that idea should be tied to a chair on fire and be forced to watch Oprah dance naked while getting kicked in the nuts every three minutes by Turkish wrestlers. It’s not so much the concept as the people who play them. I mean, whether your team wins or loses, SOMEONE is bound to say "U SUX N00B!!!"

Then again, maybe I'm being to harsh...it does keep them away from people who arn't ten.

[EonMaster]

SOMEONE is bound to say "U SUX N00B!!!"


Really? I play fast maps all the time and never been called a noob, even when I first started. The max cap can be very annoying to the losing team. One of the games I played, my team one because since all three of use were spamming carriers, we filled the population cap, thus our enemies couldn't rebuild after attacks and weren't able to defend thier bases after thier army got defeated.

[Shadowdragon]

Well, I admit I only played that game type twice.

You can probably guess the reason.

Edit:

One win, one loss.

[EonMaster]

my record: 11 win-19 loss. But not all these are on money maps. On money maps, I have about a 3:2 record, I'm just not too good on regular maps yet...

Also, some of those loses are forfeits because my team is retarded and people drop out for no reason, being outnumbered, I quit.

[Shadowdragon]

Ha! Stark contrast...

I like to go down fighting with everything I've got, no matter what the odds. I've even sent in my command center and attacked with SCVs in the enemy base against about eight carriers.

It never works, but a loss is a loss, right?

[EonMaster]

Well, you know your going to lose when after 5 minutes, its a 1 v 3 battle, unless your fighting complete noobs.

[carlsjr11]

i think that fastest maps are good for new players because it lets u learn how to micromanage and get used to that fast pace style of play

and they are fun to break up the rapidity of low money maps.....


and everyone is forgetting about bgh there pretty fun as well

[EonMaster]

I've played BGH maps before on b-net, but what makes them different from regular maps?

[10-Neon]

BGH is different from a regular map in that it is a money map. The only difference it has from other money maps is that it was made by Blizzard. Take the mineral/gas deposits in the bases and divide them by two, and you'll have a better idea of the standard normal map setup.

--

Also, on battle.net net, never having been called a noob is only a reflection of your inexperience. You could have a pro go on battle.net, slaughter in every game, and given time, some idiot will call them a noob, even as they are being killed.

The inexperience also makes it easier for me to understand why money maps still have an appeal to you. On my first account, in my first hundred or so games, I too played on money maps. But I found out, eventually, that each game was the same as the previous, strategies never varied, and I was just not having fun even if I was winning. So I moved on.

[EonMaster]

I like the mineral maps because you don't have to wait 10 minutes to get large armies build up.

I play non mineral maps a few times, they just take longer for anything to happen, and rushes tend to hurt me more because I try to build a stable resourse center before building a large army.

[TerranGod]

i hate mineral maps...
its hella boring and in my opinion, you dont need skill to play and protoss always wins because of the carriers

[Lipton]

i think blizzard should not allow money maps to be made so i can learn to NOT use it :P

i'm very dependent on them




I hope too as well, but I don't think thats going to happen unfortunately, a lot of noobs will be complaining that they can't micro or macro fast enough. Thus need to be able to resort to turtling and massing 12 carriers or BCs.

[EonMaster]

Massing units is fun.

But that is because I am a noob and my micro/macro skills are terrible. I personally con't see why turtleing is bad, I do it on regular maps too. Even on regular maps, I end up massing units in the end because its easier for me to keep track of them and to keep my army moving.

However, I am going back to zerg, and am trying to learn diferent strategies that will improve my micro/macro skills. Currently, I'm trying a lurker/hydralisk/defiler dark swarm combination.

[EonMaster]

I don't watch much of the korean games. I'm not sure who plays what, or who does what; it was just a strategy I saw used before on b-net, and it completly destroyed me, so I'd figure I'd try it out.

I should look into his games then, see what he does strategy wise, and see what I should do to make it better.

[10-Neon]

I like the mineral maps because you don't have to wait 10 minutes to get large armies build up.

Believe it or not, the average money map game is much longer than the average normal map game. On money maps, it actually takes more than 10 minutes for the fighting to start, often longer if players are trying to max out at the top of the tech tree. It frequently takes more than one wave of massed units to finish someone off.


... rushes tend to hurt me more because I try to build a stable resourse center before building a large army

This is exactly what makes rushes so important. They make it so players must balance resources against construction even early in the game. With rushes, you're on your toes at all times. A stable resource center is something you only have if you can successfully defend it against attack.

[EonMaster]

You like bashing me don't you :(

I just don't like rushes because when I do them, they get pwnd by ground defences, and when I build defences, they just get destroyed by some terran player using that cursed M&M rush.

When playing zerg, I build up a few zerglings for defense, along with sunkerns, then I go to lurkers and defilers for my main attack strategy, supported with hydras for AA defence.

[10-Neon]

A true rush is so early that the enemy can't fight it off unless they're anticipating the rush. If you're in early enough, they might only have workers to fight with, maybe their first-tier construction building working on their first units. If it's the case that they do fight you off, you've already won half the battle by forcing them to divert those resources.

M&M isn't really a rush-stage attack. Real Terran rushes are typically just Marines, maybe with Bunkers, with Academy units showing up by the second wave. If you're getting M&M on the first wave, you haven't been rushed, you've just been attacked. If you know they're going M&M (scouting their base, looking for the telltale Academy and multiple Barracks) just tech straight to Lurkers using a few Sunkens and Hydralisks to defend as you get up there. A Zerg player can hit Lurkers before a Terran player can get a truly dangerous M&M out, and once that happens, if the Lukers are use correctly, the Terran will be forced to go for metal or even air. At this point, you'd have the upper hand. You force them to spend money on detection, on different tech, and your Lurkers would stop any infantry they care to throw at you. On top of that, you already have most of the infrastructure to move to any of the main Zerg attack groups. A couple of upgrades will give you fully-armed Hydralisks or Zerglings, a Spire will get you Mutalisks. From there, it is a matter of being a step ahead by scouting.

With your Zerg strategy, all you'd have to do to make it into a more dynamic game is to rush those early Zerglings instead of defending with them. A lone sunken surrounded by the Hatchery, Spawning Pool, and Drones can fight off quite lot. In early game, a Zerg base with a single Sunken, commanded by a good player, is pretty much invincible, free to tech or build up as it pleases... until the real heavy units arrive.

[TerranGod]

zerg strategy...

rush with lings
but thats too noob, you might say

NO IT ISNT
rush so the opponent will get distracted and move away their workers while they gather up a small army to kill your 6 lings

while this is happening you can make more things in your base

and there was another one that was performed by Julyzerg
he rushed with 6 lings and kept sending 6 lings as soon as he made them

[EonMaster]

Ling rush is very effective. If you can keep up the attack by constantly resupplying more lings, your opponent won't be able to expand and use tech. Producing multiple hatcheries is an almost must to keep a larger scale invasion reinforced with fresh lings.

Getting to the supply line is a first priority target for any rush, to halt their production of military units, bringing them to your mercy. The moment that supply line goes down, it is only a matter of time before they surrender.

Or

If you prefer turtleing, build sinkers and a small army of lings. Then go directly to lurkers and have them guard any entrances into your base. Then build defilers and upgrade their max energy. Then send groups of defiler/lurkers upon your opponent.

The defiler's dark swarm will protect your lurkers from all ranged combat as they move it to get within range of the enemy, while the swarm is still up, bury them and have them attack all non ranged units first because they are not affected by the swarm. Then proceed to take out any defence buildings like bunkers, sinkers, and missile turrets. Be sure to use your defilers to keep a dark swarm over your units to protect them.

After your initial attack is over, unbury them under a dark swarm, and if you have enough energy left, create a pathway for the lurkers to hide under. Move them forward to get to the enemy supply line, bury, and have them all attack the workers, resulting in massive destruction, and an almost immediate surrender.

[10-Neon]

The Defiler/Lurker combo will die to any air attack (going after the Defilers before they can get swarm up, unless you honestly hope to swarm from your main to theirs) as well as quite a lot of special abilities. Also, it does not guarantee that your enemy won't go at you with a better-designed ground force. As you sit around, they only have one place to scout: they'll know exactly what you're doing.

Zealots going after the Lurks are softened up by a Psi Storm will win the battle easily. Irradiate.... All of this is stuff that can be done if the enemy is not even expanding. If they took advantage of the turtling, they'd probably go to several bases, and have multiples of your income. If nothing else, they can brute force you to death.

[EonMaster]

I've done it a few times on regular maps, and while it doesn't work as well, it is still useful as a very powerful defence and is great for defending new expansions. Attacking is harder because you cannot move forward as easily, but it is still powerful against all ground troops, and dark swarm protects them against air attacks as well.

[10-Neon]

Dark Swarm doesn't protect Defilers before the spell has been cast, you know.

A powerful defense will not necessarily bring you closer to a victory. A defense can't force the enemy to stop producing units, stop them from expanding and out-producing you. A defense exists to maintain your ability to attack. By turtling, you give the enemy these three advantages:
-The area they have to monitor is smaller, just the one base
-They can expand uncontested
-They can spend less on defense, more on offense and economy

In the end, no matter how good your defense is, they'll either overpower you or starve you out.

The point is, on non-money, the presence of mineral scarcity, resource control, creates complex strategies that simply don't exist on money maps. On a money map, turtling can be a viable strategy, because the enemy's maximum income is the same as yours. You can never starve to death, as resources are effectively infinite.

[TerranGod]

The Defiler/Lurker combo will die to any air attack (going after the Defilers before they can get swarm up, unless you honestly hope to swarm from your main to theirs) as well as quite a lot of special abilities. Also, it does not guarantee that your enemy won't go at you with a better-designed ground force. As you sit around, they only have one place to scout: they'll know exactly what you're doing.

Zealots going after the Lurks are softened up by a Psi Storm will win the battle easily. Irradiate.... All of this is stuff that can be done if the enemy is not even expanding. If they took advantage of the turtling, they'd probably go to several bases, and have multiples of your income. If nothing else, they can brute force you to death.




hmm...they wont die out of air attacks because if you are good, you would use dark swarm

but psi storm...annoying butthole ability...

[10-Neon]

The point is, if they're using Dark Swarm to defend, they're not using it to attack. And a quick strike with a group of air units can easily take out defilers before the owner can respond with the ability, unless you expect them to sit with Swarms over their units continuously as they stage and travel.

[EonMaster]

Just bury them in the ground, thats what I do. When I'm on defence, I always have spore colonies right behind them to ward off most air units. When on offencive, I always have a group of hydras for AA support, also usually under a dark swarm.

While I do tend to turtle in most games, I do expand and claim a few nearby bases. The only problem is; my lurker/defiler defence has a harder time guarding all my bases from enemy attacks. To counter the issue, I usually buiuld a few sunkerns and spore colonies at each expansion.

I agree about the psi storm, that is my most hated ability when playing zerg; since there is no counter for it. Dark swarm doesn't stop it, burying won't help, and I can't unbury my units because the only time ppl use it is when they are defennding me from an enemy attack. Its a lose-lose situation >:D.

[Eg-EliteGhost]

Im sure blizzard loves thier original maps but many of them will have to be re-designd for cliff movement and jumping. This will alter the strategy in many maps. I belive they said Campaign editor will be available right at release so, How soon do you think a hacker will make Fastest map? Do you think Blizzard will encorporate a fastest map with a blizzard seal? They cant deny it is a very popular map. Fastest map does not have cliffs. this map would have to be redesignd if people want to play starcraft 2 the way it is meant to be played.

[Chax424]

Personally I think 'fastest' maps compleaty butcher the game. They do not allow the game to be played as it was meant to be played. They drive me crazy cuz there isnt a lot of strategy. Its who can build the most units fastest.
I'm sure, however, that someone out there will create a fastest map and it will be played. I doubt it will take long.

[AcE_01]

..fastest map is noobish...-_-

i just wonder how they gna make BGH....they probably wont have any maps from sc1 one since sc2 units are so different. i also wonder if Lost Temple is gonna be in sc2

[Namor]

The fastest possible map was one of my favorites in SC... Only there you might feel the real power of the Zerg.... I love making like 15 hatcheries and then pump units at your opponent... it is really fun and you have to use completely different strategy's to win such a game.

About how soon a map Will be haxxed... i will bet about one or two weeks after release, since Blizzard made the editor for such a purpose.

[Hunter]

I hope fastest map won't be made for SC2. Hell, it's just loads of factorys or gateways to build.. No chance to find some strategy out..

[10-Neon]

With the "gold minerals" with high output, all you have to do is surround the start with minerals like they did before the stacking glitch was found. Income will end up being very similar to that of a standard money map.
I do hope, however, that Blizzard does not endorse this kind of gameplay by including a map like that with the game.

[Eg-EliteGhost]

Honestly Starcraft is made for epic WAR and the EPICness of WAR is MASS UNITS killing each other and fastest map really makes that possible I hope the max is 300 or more on SC2 that would kickass!

[Shadowdragon]

But it's also about precise tactics using a limited number of troops. Otherwise there would be no need for casters, and no limit to unit count.

[Tavisman]

That's true. I have never played a money map, but I think I might try sometime. Just for the sheer destruction and mass units ;).

[Shadowdragon]

It can be alot of fun. Go for it.

[EonMaster]

It is a lot of fun, whats better than massing 20 carriers to send into the battle for the ultimate air support for your ally's groung forces?

OR

Building tons of cracklings and hydras that cover the ground as your army storms across the battle ground, rushing your enemy's forces?

[wraith_q]

Unit stacking is a longtime feature of the Civilization franchise, and I for one love it. :good:

[Psionicz]

I love money maps, I'd rather turn a normal map into a money map; I find they are more fun that way you will have to adapt to the maps attributes and you wont run out of minerals, or be at a stand still cuz no body wants to use up their army and waste minerals first which happens on normal maps.

Money maps on Sc2 will be great cuz there is so many new abilities and it looks like there more micro on Sc2 than #1 so the way money maps operate will probably change slightly.

But on money maps the play is determined by the players, you can use all the strategy and more in money maps than normal as theres more time and no worry of killing the opponent quickly so you don't lose resources before the opponent.

[-LT-]

I like money maps. I like money.... :P
I think they should stay in Starcraft 2.

[EonMaster]

I too like money maps.

I don't see why so many people hate them, I find them much harder to play than regular maps because you need to be able to keep up you production of units from many buildings at once. The very moment I begin to slow down, I get overrun by 100+ emeny units.

Also, since you only have one choke to defend, it's a great map to learn how to arange your buildings to wall off your base from ground attacks while using ranged defenders.

[Psionicz]

I don't like them kinda money maps where everything is symetrical and theres one entrance into/out of your base. I prefere using normal maps and changing the mineral properties. That way its just like a bigger normal game.

[11-Sodium]

I don't like money maps because of the fact that they detract from the strategy aspect of the game. Note: StarCraft is an RTS: Real Time Strategy. Many people are calling it a war game, but covert tactics and resource control are, when combined, more than half of the game.

My real problem with money maps is that very few people on battle.net play anything else. This makes 80% of the non-UMS games on battle.net complete duplicates, and uninteresting.

Considering the popularity of money maps in the original game, though, I can't see any reason that money maps will not take over battle.net again, even if mineral stacking is totally disabled.

[EonMaster]

However, the fast pace of the mineral map makes up for the repetitiveness IMO. I tend to become impatient, so I feel like the game is going too slow in the beginning, so the money map's speed limits how long I feel impatient.

I like the feeling of being rushed when playing money maps. That is when I play my best and am better at multitasking all my units and unit building.

[Ych9]

Money map requires a totally different approach when it comes to strategy and tactics.

A lot of beginners started off by playing money maps. I think that is a horrible approach. It is better to learn how to play normal maps first before you jump onto Money maps.

I personally play money maps from time to time because I personally think it's kind of fun. :)

[Rambling]

IMO, Money maps need to go the way of the dinosaur, they suck the life out of SC.

[furrer]

Honestly Starcraft is made for epic WAR and the EPICness of WAR is MASS UNITS killing each other and fastest map really makes that possible I hope the max is 300 or more on SC2 that would kickass!

I know this post is old, but I just needed to comment, because its a response to fastest maps in general.
Starcraft isnt made for BIG EPIC ****TY BATTLES, its about strategies, tactics, micro and macro. Fastest map destroys lets see: Micro, strategies and tactics and some of the macro. So this is what you call SC? I call it Noob Craft!

[Fo®Saken]

You could also call it command & conquer if you put it like that. ;)
Money maps in general are just lame. They take away all of the fun and planning. It always feels like you are just using cheats when playing money maps, which is just lame. I'm not really good at playing Starcraft, especially not against human players, but I know that playing money maps isn't going to improve my skills at all, so I just stay away from them as much as possible.

[Juggernaught131]

there is no reason to stop the possibilities of money maps. that takes away some of the fun of the game. there shud be several kinds of map types including money maps allowed, and if you dont like them... then dont play them and host a different game type. IMO i think they shud have several types of maps, including maybe a map where all players start off with a fully loaded terran command center and have to find an area for minerals

[DontHate]

While i'm not a fan of money maps at all, i'm not sure why so many people really really dislike them and insist on calling people who play them "noobs". Some people just like them, and you should let them play what they want. Not allowing them to play it would just hinder starcraft. A lot of the fanbase is based on user created maps, such as fastest maps.

[PKZeppelin]

I hope fast money maps will be excluded from upcoming SC2 ladder. Gameplay of those maps is totally different than the normal maps. And yes, indeed, only noobs/newbies play on those :)

[Hunter]

I dunno, never played them before, but it sounds fun to play, when you just want to see large battles and do nothing. Maybe they are good to relax.

[Redlazer]

I doubt they'll be playable in real ladder matches; if there ARE playable than it's an extremely poor decision on Blizzard's part. The editor is most probably going to be able to do such a thing though. Either way, Money Maps don't have a place in Starcraft 2; they're already the worst thing to ever happen in normal Starcraft.

[EonMaster]

I love money maps in sc1. It was a great way to relax from the stress and worry of regular mapes and still be able to play sc.

I dont play regular maps that much because I just dont find them fun. You're limited in effective strategies, and having to constantly micro everything doesnt allow you to just sit back and watch the battle playout.

[Wlck742]

Actually, I found money maps to be annoying and fun at the same time. It's annoying because you can't do a lot of the things you can do on normal maps, but it's fun because you can concentrate more on the units and the actual battles rather than resource management.

[Frosty]

i was just wondering what do think is better fastest or low money maps and why you think so...
i personaly like low money maps they allow for more stratagey and not just massing units.

if this is a repeat thread you have the right to smack me and shun me lol..

[furrer]

Low money. Fastetst consist of only one part of the game: Macro.
Low money is: 3 things:
APM (Macro/Micro)
Strategy
Tactics

Tactics is actions happening in a short time, like being able to fell when to drop etc. or use a mistake of an enemy to atch him ungaurd.
Strategy is long-time-plan.
APM (micro/macro) is how fast you fingers are.

SOme look at the low money aspects a bit different (like saying macro also is strategy), but I like this way. Epsecially because strategy/tactics is known from chess, and somebody compared starcraft to chess so...

Low Money Maps are much better.

[Ursawarrior]

why don't we just call them normal maps

normal maps consists of strategy and a lot of micro

while money maps rely on macro and turtle

so if i want an exciting game and a game where my mind and hands constantly work, id say normal maps

[Gasmaskguy]

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41&highlight=fastest

Doesn't include a poll but I'd still call this a duplicate thread.

[CannonFodder]

low money/normal maps
require actual skill instead of how fast u can build units
I hate money maps and people who think there good when they play on them.

[taviow]

Low money maps are much more fun.

[Wlck742]

Money maps are the 'fun' maps, where you can basically screw around with what you'd like, like doing nuke rushes, archon rushes, stuff you can't do in a normal game. But normal games are the ones that really take skill, so I go with normal maps.

[Darktemplar_L]

I prefer money maps because since you have so much money you have so many different options to work with, and if someone comes at you with like 40 BC's, that's something you've never faced before and will be a challenge.

[gtx75]

lol, im one of those lazy weak-@ss punks lol so its the fast lane

[Ursawarrior]

the terms are disturbing

why not just normal maps and money maps?

[CyberPitz]

Fastest is just..."boring" to me. I mean, it's not about anything but "Who can Macro the most in the first 5 minutes". Meh.

[sLayed]

Money maps are the 'fun' maps, where you can basically screw around with what you'd like, like doing nuke rushes, archon rushes, stuff you can't do in a normal game. But normal games are the ones that really take skill, so I go with normal maps.

haha i agree, but i think they both require their own skills set, voted for fastest cuz ive played it more than low money, but truly just depends on my mood

[NSter]

Low money is just able to go so much more in-depth compared to fastest.

[BloodHawk]

....if someone comes at you with like 40 BC's, that's something you've never faced before and will be a challenge.

Actually, that happens in most games played on BGH.
I played money maps when I was a noob and it was pretty much all BGH or UMS on Bnet.
Now a days I much prefer real maps for all the same reasons as above (or below depending on your settings).

[Protosschick99]

I started on low money and then got addicted to fastest and then I realized fastest is lame because of all the mins--So now I play both. Normal maps have been waaay more funner than other maps :]

[Can_2]

Definitely Low $, Because it was get you the skills you need for sc, as said before fastest is pretty much macro, low $ gives you the ability to macro/micro and requires some actual thinking :)

[TiNK[E]]

low money, cause im broke in real life so hell ill remain broke ingame....

[Tralfagar]

I don't believe Blizz should encourage money maps by creating an "official" one, but I do believe that mappers should be able to build their money maps if they really want to.

[Redlazer]

Mappers will deffinately be able to make them, sure... but I imagine the ladder system will be more like Warcraft III, where custom maps are seperated. Either way, if they never find a home in Starcraft II I wouldn't shed a tear, they basically ruin the entire game for "OMG NO RUSH 30 MIN GUYS!!! MASSIVE ARMY NO MICRO GOGOGO ATTACK COMMAND!!!"

that's just.. retarded... Learn to play, learn to manage your resources, etc. Don't fall back on stupid crap like that... It's funny when you join those games and just rush, so much crying.

[darkone]

Yes it is.

I have never seen a game that was no rush for 30 minutes. They are always 10 or 15.

The only money map I play anymore, is BigGameHunters.

It isn't a super money map, you don't get thousands of resources every minute. High thousands anyway. There are only two geysers at your main, so if you want more, you have to expand.

Other money maps have 6 geysers for every main, With the minerals touching the start building. (How they do that, idk). That is way too much cash, good players pump and spend. I have absolutely no idea what to do, with all the mins and gas rolling in, in a fastest map. Impatient much?

I like medium money maps, with 8 to 12 minerals in your main. And a lot of places to expand to. Lost Temple, Python, and Hunters are my favorite maps.

[Boneblade]

"Money-maps" are for lazy players who don't have the tactical wherewithal to expand and capitalize on new resources. They want to be able to huddle up in their little isolated corner of the map, but still be filthy rich so they can afford to drop 15,000 minerals on photon cannons to wall their base and feel that numb tingle that comes with a false sense of security.

I've never seriously played any Starcraft map such as "microprison" or "fastest possible map". The only map I take seriously is Big Game Hunters, because you CAN stay in your base if you want, but it's still more profitable to expand.

[darkone]

There is no real reason to on that map, unless you want lots of gas. You main can supply your minerals fine.

One other good reason to expand in that map, is for more room. It's hard to make a dozen and a half gateways in your tiny main.

When I said hunters at the end of my other post, I meant the normal hunters, not the money one.

[Redlazer]

the Hunters is great, I like Killing Fields a bit too, I believe that was the name.. havn't played in a few years. Fastest maps are just retarded, those are what i've always considered 'money' maps, but I forgot about BGH, where you're not exactly forced to move, but you can. Those are ok with me, but I still prefer limited money maps.

[sotang]

i do agree that maps are better when played the way they are supposed to be played. But i also agree that stopping at normal maps is just as sour as not having another starcraft game. If there was only one way to play....nobody would be intirested in playing the game as much. I think that starcraft should serve a variety of different gameplay types. So i guess what im trying to say is that having two play modes would be a good idea.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[UziSuicide]

Mappers will deffinately be able to make them, sure... but I imagine the ladder system will be more like Warcraft III, where custom maps are seperated. Either way, if they never find a home in Starcraft II I wouldn't shed a tear, they basically ruin the entire game for "OMG NO RUSH 30 MIN GUYS!!! MASSIVE ARMY NO MICRO GOGOGO ATTACK COMMAND!!!"

that's just.. retarded... Learn to play, learn to manage your resources, etc. Don't fall back on stupid crap like that... It's funny when you join those games and just rush, so much crying.



exactly... sorry little kiddies, step your game up!!!