EPT______
I’m really happy you posted this because I have been thinking about something similar as of late. I was reviewing my play and noticed that I no longer took advantage of short air distances or cliffs (I play T); any banshee build I did was purely random or based on what I scouted.
About a year ago, I wrote down some of my thoughts in a personal log regarding my feelings towards the current meta-games and strategies. One thing I wrote down was my definition of a great player: “one who wins using the best strategies for a specific map given the circumstances of the game (player, style, history, etc).” This was around the time that Polt was considered a very all-in player, I noted that although he may cheese or all-in he was still considered a top player. I recall him executing the raven 1-1-1 in TvP many times without variance, he was a protoss-killer not a cheeser.
I think the question the OP asks is why have we started to yearn for maps that allow for the best macro games, why do we demand perfect balance? I did not play BW but I have noticed that the mainstay of early talent and big names in the SC2 community stressed the importance of macro games and that being the best determinant of a player’s true skill.
My theory is that BW players have brought their BW mentalities with them in an attempt to skip the development phase of game as a whole because ‘macro’ is what defines us.
Let me clarify. Every cheese either gets solved through meta-tactics or gets nerfed by Blizzard, and what follows from that is the evolution of the meta-game. All strategies or builds slowly conform to one strategy. But the BW attitude has prevented the real development of such a meta-game by demanding to move immediately into macro games and forego playing seasons on maps like Kulas or Jungle B. I think that’s why Day9 will say things like “yes macro is king, but lets not even focus on balance”.
The BW players, and in my mind the most influential on the community were Day9, Artosis and Idra; they all built their name in the community by talking about what made them successful in SC2’s predecessor. The Day9 Daily was undoubtedly the best source of games and knowledge in the beginning, Artosis the analyst of GSL and Idra, well known in the NA tourney scene for his badboy attitude and personal life goal to ensure everyone who doesn’t play a macro game apologizes for doing so. The thing is they never meant to do any harm, just provide insights as to what was successful in SC1 after ten years of game play and it was an economical focused style of play that did not rely on hidden tech. All-ins and cheeses have the negative connotation for this very reason, it was frowned upon and never successful in the long run.
But SC2 is not ready for that yet. The weird maps and strange cheeses need to be allowed to continue for two main reasons: first, to allow the real meta-game to develop through maps, which may carry some imbalance, but inspire creativity and tactical abilities, and second, to ensure that the game does not become so stagnant as to stunt the growth of the game. BW is only what it is because of the deep thinking and understanding that pushed the game to its limits, creating such a long lasting passion for the game. If SC2 is to be as great as BW it should follow the same path. The races and lore may be the same, but new units and AI means it all needs to start from scratch. Leave in the maps and let the cheesers cheese, they are both integral to the development of the real meta-game. Many are convinced the meta-game has already been figured out, but it is a huge fallacy.
In my opinion it is a mistake to believe that the meta-game has almost been solved so early in the life of the game. If it was close to being solved, it was only done so by the constant begging and crying of imbalance and the need for endless nerfs, which were bred by the community leaders in an effort to merely educate. Idra and Artosis created a show purely to discuss what stands in the way of macro games, and the community loved that show! Balance is such an issue in the community because there is a feeling of entitlement that if I am playing 'macro' style then I deserve to win.
I've said far too much so to finally answer the OP: we ask for boring, balanced maps because we want macro games to be real because Day9 told us they were. The truth is they are real, but no ones seen one yet in SC2 and if all the interesting maps die out we will only be left with a meta-game that was artificially created to satisfy our desire for perfection rather than our desire to evolve into such a anomaly.
