EPTASL 22 Proposed Map Pool - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
NoS-Craig
Australia3171 Posts
| ||
|
iopq
United States1184 Posts
| ||
|
fLyiNgDroNe
Belgium4131 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
| ||
|
Kraekkling
756 Posts
imo the maps are not as crazy as they might seem, it's just Odyssey that's really whacky but I'm 100% sure it'll get removed because players won't like it. the fastest minerals in the main base completely change the way the game is played, and as always, people don't like it when they're forced to learn new stuff. still, I'm looking forward to the games we'll see here in the next weeks. I think it's great that they started to experiment with different types of expansions (i.e. weird minerals layouts, stacked minerals, etc) but it'd be way safer if used on e.g. the 3rd, or 4th expansions, instead of either main or nat - simply to keep the early to mid phase of the game stable and along known lines. Knock Out: 9/10 great map, I was in love with this map the moment it first came out; it might become another one of those all-time classics Attitude: 7/10 it's kinda like comfort food from your mom, might be a bit bland and boring, but it does its job and you'll never be like "nah I won't eat this". Octagon: 8/10 it's a well designed rotational symmetry 4p map. if evaluated within that category, there are interesting terrain features and the expansions are integrated well. Odyssey: 4/10 if we ignored the fastest minerals for a sec, as far as I remember, this map was somewhat annoying, mainly because it's so tight and army movement feels quite restricted and one-dimensional. when army sizes are bigger than 2 control groups, using the small bridges becomes unattainable, but if you can't use the bridges, moving an army from one side of the map to the other takes wayyy too long. but anyways the map will likely be voted out due to the fastest minerals. Backrooms: 8/10 another well designed 4p rotational symmetry map. we haven't seen this type of 3rd/4th expansion layout yet. I'm looking forward to see whether the ridges will create a zone control play style, where players take control of quadrants in the center to secure expansions Aiolos: 7/10 back then I regularly felt that its tiresome to move around on Katarina; it seems like here it could be better? I think overall it's good that there's some variance with rather basic things like the main layout (e.g. metropolis and this map) Colorless Fate: 7.5/10 I'm looking forward to see how this plays out, I like the setup of the 3rd and 4th expansions. but overall the map looks really tight and turtly - for example, in ZvP the zerg player needs to defend only 1 ramp and one very defendable spot on the map to secure 5 expansions - so let's see whether this map gets any updates during the test phase | ||
|
Ideas
United States8180 Posts
- how would adding in extra mineral patches to main base affect balance? IE 12 starting patches (still 1500 each) instead of 8 (only map I've seen do something like this is baekmagoji). - how would making mineral patches have more in them affect balance? Like if each patch on the starting location had 2500 instead of 1500 allowing players to mine from it a lot longer - same question as above but with gas lol I cant think of a time when the current standard mineral amounts were different. Feels like it could be a neat way to change meta without having to make crazy maps. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8199 Posts
Reavers and storm drops go brrrr | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10569 Posts
On June 25 2026 20:51 Ideas wrote: Some questions about map balance: - how would adding in extra mineral patches to main base affect balance? IE 12 starting patches (still 1500 each) instead of 8 (only map I've seen do something like this is baekmagoji). - how would making mineral patches have more in them affect balance? Like if each patch on the starting location had 2500 instead of 1500 allowing players to mine from it a lot longer - same question as above but with gas lol I cant think of a time when the current standard mineral amounts were different. Feels like it could be a neat way to change meta without having to make crazy maps. More mineral to gas ratio benefits Terran and Protoss over Zerg. On June 25 2026 19:13 Kraekkling wrote: Backrooms: 8/10 another well designed 4p rotational symmetry map. we haven't seen this type of 3rd/4th expansion layout yet. I'm looking forward to see whether the ridges will create a zone control play style, where players take control of quadrants in the center to secure expansions It's the same expansion layout as Octagon but with the 3/6/9/12 bases facing towards the center instead of the next natural (which I think is a good change honestly, similar to Metropolis). | ||
|
Kraekkling
756 Posts
On June 26 2026 00:12 FlaShFTW wrote: It's the same expansion layout as Octagon but with the 3/6/9/12 bases facing towards the center instead of the next natural (which I think is a good change honestly, similar to Metropolis). oh you're right, it's actually the same I now like Backrooms a bit less lol | ||
|
Miragee
8713 Posts
 | ||
|
Ideas
United States8180 Posts
On June 26 2026 00:12 FlaShFTW wrote: More mineral to gas ratio benefits Terran and Protoss over Zerg. Seems to me that just increasing the amount of minerals per patch in main / nat could be an interesting way to boost Protoss vs Zerg, giving them a longer timer before they mine out and need a 3rd. | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1534 Posts
On June 26 2026 00:12 FlaShFTW wrote:It's the same expansion layout as Octagon but with the 3/6/9/12 bases facing towards the center instead of the next natural (which I think is a good change honestly, similar to Metropolis). I'd argue that Octagon has a simple open triangle min-only, whereas Backrooms's acts more like a more defensible semi-open side expo on a common loop path with the third. You can only vary the basic expansion layout that much on a 4p map, so these are actually quite noticeable differences. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10569 Posts
On June 27 2026 01:30 Freakling wrote: I'd argue that Octagon has a simple open triangle min-only, whereas Backrooms's acts more like a more defensible semi-open side expo on a common loop path with the third. You can only vary the basic expansion layout that much on a 4p map, so these are actually quite noticeable differences. Sure, but the 3/6/9/12 base concepts are the same as Octagon and Metropolis, which is why I alluded to those maps compared to maps like Poly/Attitude with the open double ramp bases pointing back to the center. The rear entrance to the base is "protected" after you take the mineral only, hence the similarity to Octagon. Knockout has different 4 base setups, same with Radeon. Pole Star has the same base layout as the sort of Vermeer/Pantheon style of single ramp open to the middle style 4ths. Maybe we'll see another alteration to this style soon. But it is worth noting that I feel like the rotational symmetry bias was neutered a bit on Octagon because let's say Protoss spawned clockwise to Terran, they can simply take the close gas base instead of expanding to mineral only. On Backrooms, spawning clockwise makes the gas base much harder to defend as you have to go outside your choke to defend (think Knockout's 3/9 bases). | ||
|
Kraekkling
756 Posts
| ||
|
prosatan
Romania9391 Posts
On June 27 2026 04:52 Kraekkling wrote: any games yet? please wait Kraekkling  | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8199 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On June 26 2026 02:03 Miragee wrote: Haven't looked at them too closely but a snow map is always exciting and sad at the same time because it will never make it to the actual pool. Maybe they keep it for variety sake, otherwise it's only jungle and space tilesets. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12059 Posts
EDIT: nvm I found it, have to go to a different page for some reason to find a zip file. | ||
|
iopq
United States1184 Posts
On June 26 2026 21:21 Ideas wrote: Seems to me that just increasing the amount of minerals per patch in main / nat could be an interesting way to boost Protoss vs Zerg, giving them a longer timer before they mine out and need a 3rd. Knockout is already balanced in PvZ, why buff T against Zerg when the ditch in front of the nat already fixes 973? At the same time, knockout doesn't have places to park overlord left to right (in the middle area) so if you fix that then scouting the long way becomes good (right now 8 rax kills the first overlord because there's no place to hide) | ||
|
quaristice
174 Posts
im sure it's cursed but we have decades of standard play and we'll have decades more | ||
| ||
