TLMC9 comes to a close as we round out the top five maps of the season as determined by you, the community. TLMC9 provided the public with a choice of 16 varied maps in 4 distinct categories. After months of map-making and judging, these maps were shown to the world in the form of the Wardi TLMC tournament. And after feedback from pros and the general public, mappers had a bit over a week to iterate on their creations. Then, you, the public voted on the fruits of their labor. There are the results:
Prizing
All sixteen finalists will receive at least $100 by default for placing in the top 16. All finalists will also receive a custom community commander portrait if they do not yet have one. In addition, the authors of the top five maps will receive the following prizes, all provided by Blizzard.
First - $500 Second - $250 Third - $125 Fourth - $75 Fifth - $50
Winners
FIFTH PLACE
EASTWATCH | IeZaeL
"Play the game the way you want, be it macro or rush or standard, with the various rock towers providing exciting ways to shape the gameplay in never-seen-before ways. Now with even more meaningful choices due to the changes made during the iteration phase."
IeZaeL is most known for creating Coda, a TLMC5 finalist and one of the most iconic maps of HotS. IeZael will take fifth place with $50. In addition, he will receive an additional $300 for placing with three maps in TLMC9, including God's Garden and Neo Tropicana.
FOURTH PLACE
BACKWATER | Avex
"Backwater was my last attempt into creating a 'pocket-third' concept, and I think the games we had showed that it works out well. I asked around and it seems that the ease of scouting this base as well as the middle ground of harassing it seems to work out in most of the matchups, even in ZvZ. The map is easy to read, the linear expansion pattern and open field makes for surprisingly interesting engagements outside of the base locations rather than on the base itself. This map is a good bet to vote on if you are fan of three-base games that aren't necessarily turtle-y like Acolyte."
Avex is most known for ladder maps such as Invader, Blood Boil, and Odyssey, in addition to the decoration of Acolyte. Avex earns at least $75 for his fourth place finish in addition to taking home $200 for his finalist placing with two maps.
THIRD PLACE
NEON VIOLET SQUARE | RQM
"Neon Violet was a highly experimental map. It had many extreme features, not just one or two. Of course, it have received a lot of feedback during the tournament phase. Considering the comments, I picked acceptable ones out from those features. Now squares are only on the middle. As inevitable block lines were removed, players can bypass blocks and choose more routes than before. Safer main, more geysers on pocket base and new gold base let players to take different choices. Hence, the map now gives more possibilities. My attempt was to relax its forced gameplays. I hope you enjoy this map which now allows various aspects."
RQM is most known for Judgement, a map that was used in GSL 2016 Season 2. He'll take home $225 in total for his third place finish.
SECOND PLACE
CATALYST | NegativeZero
"This map is a composite of some of my best standard map ideas dating back to HotS. The flexible expansion layout allows you to tailor your expansion pattern to your own play style, and the combination of chokes and high grounds create a variety of interesting attack paths and defensive positions. Changes from the original mainly help fix a couple potentially abusable areas around the 3rd - widening a chokey area along the high ground attack path, and reducing the vulnerability of the path between the nat and 3rd to tanks on the low ground."
NegativeZero is most known for creating TLMC6 winner Terraform, TLMC7 2nd place finisher Apotheosis, and TLMC8 5th place finisher Sequencer. All three have been prominent ladder maps and we look forward to Catalyst possibly being one as well. NegativeZero will take home $250 for this second place finish in addition to $300 for making three finalist maps including Abiogenesis and Anomaly
FIRST PLACE
BLACKPINK | Avex
"Blackpink was a strong inspiration for me as a music group, and happens to be a part of my motivation to continue mapping, and I feel like the map aptly named Blackpink is showing that my progress as a mapper is going strong. During the contest it showed some aggressive games, but showed itself as having ample room for awesome macro games as we saw between ByuN and Serral. This is a safe contender for a solid macro map where you can play the way you want on the ladder."
For his first and fourth place finish, Avex has earned himself a total of $775 in TLMC9. This is the second TLMC that Avex has won in a row as he took TLMC8 with Windwaker, later renamed to Odyssey. We'll have to wait till TLMC10, however, to see if we can start calling him the Mapping B-word.
See you next season!
With that, TLMC9 comes to a close. Thank you to everyone who submitted a map, voted in the poll, watched the Wardi TLMC tournament, or otherwise showed an interest in the contest.
Now that the contest has concluded, it's in Blizzard's hands to pick the maps for the next season of ladder. We look forward to hear which of the sixteen finalists will make it!
Could we get distributions for the various maps? It would be interesting to know which maps got mostly firsts, and which accumulated a lot of 2nd and 3rds.
Congrats to AVEX again, in my eyes the bonjwa of map making, executes everything as close to perfect as can be. Thanks for everyone voting for Defender’s Resort it was kind of a nod back to my old map hoping it gets on ladder so the casters have to say the full name now instead of just defenders’s. Also congrats to the other placers!
Those are the more standard maps, though. I don't think the choices are that unreasonable.
Catalyst and Blackpink are the most standard/macro friendly of the finalists. Backwater was a bit surprising as it wasn't talk as much. Neon Violet is easily the best execution we've had of a "new" map concept. Eastwatch is kinda like interloper in that it has lanes and chokes, with rock towers, just a bit larger.
On October 07 2017 04:25 Charoisaur wrote: No God's Garden Disappointed.
Also not a huge fan of Blackpink.
Edit: wait what? God's Garden placed last??? What's wrong with you guys?
No offense, but I disliked God's Garden simply because of the color scheme. Yellow, white, green, pink - I dont care about the layout, I dont want to play on this. Sorry if that was too harsh.
catalyst bad choice if u ask me. With the rest im pretty fine. I hope we definitly will see Neon violet square. Blackpink pretty good choice aswell was hoping for neon on first but really nice map overall both together a Dream szenario of mine.
Lets see what blizzard has to offer,
Im pleasent to see that arch of janus had no chance. Thanks to Winter in this case. But catalyst i think goes back on only your vote. And its truely a bit weeird its that close to ur vote.
I prefer Backwater more then Catalyst btw i think Catalyst has a pretty uggly boring looking design.
Eastwatch also a map i really love to see with my dream szenario blackpink and nion volet square.
I would also love to see sky garden. Pretty insane macro map i love this very very much. The close positions i think can work interesstingly cause i did like 3-4 games on this map and no spawn position was close position seems the close position pops are more poorly so interessting szenario when this happens with much towers u should be fine and u can expand very safely.
And i realize right now we have no more 4 player map in the ladder pool thats something i really dislike so bring sky garden GG
At least if its possible to bring back catallena then bring back blood boil, thx. BEST MAP EVER TO ME.
I really don't like Catalyst and Blackpink but the other finalists are pretty interesting. Also really funny how 4 out of the 5 maps winter told people to vote for are in the top 5.
All the maps i voted for made it to the finals, and maybe 3/5 in the top. Ill be amazed if Catalyst doesnt make ladder. Backwater is awesome im glad it placed so well.
Given that Sky Garden is much better than the other 4 player map, Neo Tropicana (and also got a higher result), it should be added to the map pool to replace Catellena.
On October 07 2017 17:29 paralleluniverse wrote: Given that Sky Garden is much better than the other 4 player map, Neo Tropicana (and also got a higher result), it should be added to the map pool to replace Catellena.
Catallena should never have been in a competitive lotv map pool in the first place, it has coinflip spawn issues and no circular airspace control. Pros were voicing concerns loudly in 2017 S1 when honorgrounds and cactus valley were causing all sorts of swarmhost and turbovac/doomdrop issues, or even players getting a gold as their 4th when another one got a blue as a 4th (honorgrounds)... Blizz listened and it helped. In 2017 S2 we were able to rid ourselves of 4p/3p maps ... but then they crept back in the next season somehow with frost->catallena... ?
Coinflips and spawn position imbalances on maps like frost don't belong in competition (zvt favors cross>horizontal>vertical), i've had to compete in tournaments on quite a lot of bullshit maps throughout my years in starcraft2 like Waystation where cross was ridicilous z favored and close was t favored, or at the very least nowhere near as z favored as cross. Sky Garden is no different, there's a 2/3 chance of good spawns for z and 1/3 of close by air which doesn't favor z at all in comparison.
There should be two separate 1v1 ladders with competitive pool (7maps) and wild pool (way more than 7 maps?) in 2018 imo, like in hearthstone. Then there can finally be different 'fun maps' with coinflips and balance issues (catallena, inferno pools, dasan station, sky garden, prion terraces, frost, etc) in a pool where they can be enjoyed properly. It would also make it possible for people to actually play maps outside of the current 7 with help from the matchmaking system. The matchmaking system is one of the best features of starcraft 2. I don't see many reasons outside of development costs to not implement a solution like this.
the game has somehow been stuck in this "only one map pool of 7 maps" mindset for seven years and it's not necessary at all
I don't think anyone would play on this experimental mappool. Similar to how nobody plays the balance tester despite it having its own matchmaking as well.
On October 07 2017 17:29 paralleluniverse wrote: Given that Sky Garden is much better than the other 4 player map, Neo Tropicana (and also got a higher result), it should be added to the map pool to replace Catellena.
Catallena should never have been in a competitive lotv map pool in the first place, it has coinflip spawn issues and no circular airspace control. Pros were voicing concerns loudly in 2017 S1 when honorgrounds and cactus valley were causing all sorts of swarmhost and turbovac/doomdrop issues, or even players getting a gold as their 4th when another one got a blue as a 4th (honorgrounds)... Blizz listened and it helped. In 2017 S2 we were able to rid ourselves of 4p/3p maps ... but then they crept back in the next season somehow with frost->catallena... ?
Coinflips and spawn position imbalances on maps like frost don't belong in competition (zvt favors cross>horizontal>vertical), i've had to compete in tournaments on quite a lot of bullshit maps throughout my years in starcraft2 like Waystation where cross was ridicilous z favored and close was t favored, or at the very least nowhere near as z favored as cross. Sky Garden is no different, there's a 2/3 chance of good spawns for z and 1/3 of close by air which doesn't favor z at all in comparison.
There should be two separate 1v1 ladders with competitive pool (7maps) and wild pool (way more than 7 maps?) in 2018 imo, like in hearthstone. Then there can finally be different 'fun maps' with coinflips and balance issues (catallena, inferno pools, dasan station, sky garden, prion terraces, frost, etc) in a pool where they can be enjoyed properly. It would also make it possible for people to actually play maps outside of the current 7 with help from the matchmaking system. The matchmaking system is one of the best features of starcraft 2. I don't see many reasons outside of development costs to not implement a solution like this.
the game has somehow been stuck in this "only one map pool of 7 maps" mindset for seven years and it's not necessary at all
As long as no spawn is extremely imbalanced, I do not see how random spawns are a problem in principle.
Suppose a 4-player map has 2 different spawn types (e.g. horizontal and vertical) with win rates in TvZ of 50% and 60% respectively. How is this any more unfair in a substantive way than having 2 different 2-player maps with TvZ win rate of 50% and 60%?
In fact, the expected TvZ win rate on this 4-player map would be 55%, which is more balanced than the 2-player map with a TvZ win rate of 60% (60% is not unusual as most maps have some match-up imbalances).
As for Sky Garden, spawn issues aside, it is a really unique map, there hasn't been a map in the ladder pool as large as it for years, it has interesting ambush points, and it looks very pretty. And if the close air to air spawn turns out to be a balance problem that spawn can be disabled.
Is your problem that the probability of winning has too much variance as the spawn is randomized for these particular 4-player maps. Or is it with all 4-player maps in general?
A wild pool for unranked probably makes sense, but not for ranked. That should be competitive with one fixed map pool that is the same as what WCS uses. The competitive experience should be standardized.
Pros were voicing concerns loudly in 2017 S1 when honorgrounds and cactus valley were causing all sorts of swarmhost and turbovac/doomdrop issues, or even players getting a gold as their 4th when another one got a blue as a 4th (honorgrounds)...
Also, I've been staring at Honorgrounds and don't see the issue you're referring to. Every spawn location has an equidistant gold base next to the base down the ramp.
On October 07 2017 17:29 paralleluniverse wrote: Given that Sky Garden is much better than the other 4 player map, Neo Tropicana (and also got a higher result), it should be added to the map pool to replace Catellena.
Catallena should never have been in a competitive lotv map pool in the first place, it has coinflip spawn issues and no circular airspace control. Pros were voicing concerns loudly in 2017 S1 when honorgrounds and cactus valley were causing all sorts of swarmhost and turbovac/doomdrop issues, or even players getting a gold as their 4th when another one got a blue as a 4th (honorgrounds)... Blizz listened and it helped. In 2017 S2 we were able to rid ourselves of 4p/3p maps ... but then they crept back in the next season somehow with frost->catallena... ?
Coinflips and spawn position imbalances on maps like frost don't belong in competition (zvt favors cross>horizontal>vertical), i've had to compete in tournaments on quite a lot of bullshit maps throughout my years in starcraft2 like Waystation where cross was ridicilous z favored and close was t favored, or at the very least nowhere near as z favored as cross. Sky Garden is no different, there's a 2/3 chance of good spawns for z and 1/3 of close by air which doesn't favor z at all in comparison.
There should be two separate 1v1 ladders with competitive pool (7maps) and wild pool (way more than 7 maps?) in 2018 imo, like in hearthstone. Then there can finally be different 'fun maps' with coinflips and balance issues (catallena, inferno pools, dasan station, sky garden, prion terraces, frost, etc) in a pool where they can be enjoyed properly. It would also make it possible for people to actually play maps outside of the current 7 with help from the matchmaking system. The matchmaking system is one of the best features of starcraft 2. I don't see many reasons outside of development costs to not implement a solution like this.
the game has somehow been stuck in this "only one map pool of 7 maps" mindset for seven years and it's not necessary at all
As long as no spawn is extremely imbalanced, I do not see how random spawns are a problem in principle.
Suppose a 4-player map has 2 different spawn types (e.g. horizontal and vertical) with win rates in TvZ of 50% and 60% respectively. How is this any more unfair in a substantive way than having 2 different 2-player maps with TvZ win rate of 50% and 60%?
In fact, the expected TvZ win rate on this 4-player map would be 55%, which is more balanced than the 2-player map with a TvZ win rate of 60% (60% is not unusual as most maps have some match-up imbalances).
As for Sky Garden, spawn issues aside, it is a really unique map, there hasn't been a map in the ladder pool as large as it for years, it has interesting ambush points, and it looks very pretty. And if the close air to air spawn turns out to be a balance problem that spawn can be disabled.
Is your problem that the probability of winning has too much variance as the spawn is randomized for these particular 4-player maps. Or is it with all 4-player maps in general?
A wild pool for unranked probably makes sense, but not for ranked. That should be competitive with one fixed map pool that is the same as what WCS uses. The competitive experience should be standardized.
Pros were voicing concerns loudly in 2017 S1 when honorgrounds and cactus valley were causing all sorts of swarmhost and turbovac/doomdrop issues, or even players getting a gold as their 4th when another one got a blue as a 4th (honorgrounds)...
Also, I've been staring at Honorgrounds and don't see the issue you're referring to. Every spawn location has an equidistant gold base next to the base down the ramp.
You can't say that a map with a 50%/60% win rate is the same as 2 maps with one of them each. First of all the number of maps is different and it should be the goal to only have balanced maps.
On the second point you could remove the 60% spawns (though that would probably cause problems with the other non-mirror match-ups)
Oh and with honorgrounds, you don't have the same gold 4th because in certain spawn situations, one person would have to expand towards the opponent to get the gold 4th while the other would not have to.
On October 07 2017 18:58 Charoisaur wrote: I don't think anyone would play on this experimental mappool. Similar to how nobody plays the balance tester despite it having its own matchmaking as well.
i disagree. i think it's different. for an amateur player who has reached a skill plateau and isn't trying to rank up anymore a lot of excitement can come from changing up maps and strategies. even easier, you could just make unranked map pool standard pool + experimental pool and allow infinite vetoes in unranked
On October 07 2017 18:58 Charoisaur wrote: I don't think anyone would play on this experimental mappool. Similar to how nobody plays the balance tester despite it having its own matchmaking as well.
i disagree. i think it's different. for an amateur player who has reached a skill plateau and isn't trying to rank up anymore a lot of excitement can come from changing up maps and strategies. even easier, you could just make unranked map pool standard pool + experimental pool and allow infinite vetoes in unranked
You can't have 50% or more map vetoes no matter what since at that point it impacts matchmaking times.
Also completely disagree with having an experimental map pool that's separate, because of playerbase fragmentation concerns. Also it isn't clear how many people would go out of their way to play on maps like Prion Terraces- - probably not enough I'd guess to warrant a first class feature.
What Blizzard could do is increase pool size to 11 or 13 (with 5 and 6 vetoes respectively) and have tournament select their pool of seven from the ladder pool so if a map has been shown by ladder play (which is the only way to really test maps) to be too wild for the pro scene they can not include it. Pros would still be able to focus practice on the tournament maps through vetoes and tournaments would also have more flexibility map pool wise. This way you avoid any fragmentation problems and search time increases that splitting the pool would incur.
Also incidentally Sky Garden didn't look like a great map in any of the spawns.
Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
This is pretty much how I feel about the results too. Neon Violet Square is the only map I remember being interesting from that Wardi tournament. Other cool maps I liked were Neo Tropicana and God's Garden but they didn't make it.
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
wat
Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
It's true, there are also some bad but inspired and unforgettable non-standard maps in his resume as well.
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
wat
Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
It's not my idea but you have to add critters with the names "Jenny, Lisa, Rosé and Jisoo" btw. Just saying
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
wat
Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
It's not my idea but you have to add critters with the names "Jenny, Lisa, Rosé and Jisoo" btw. Just saying
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
wat
Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
It's not my idea but you have to add critters with the names "Jenny, Lisa, Rosé and Jisoo" btw. Just saying
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
wat
Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
It's true, there are also some bad but inspired and unforgettable non-standard maps in his resume as well.
I don't think Eremita was inspired by much except the desire to get a fourth map done for the TLMC.
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
I've been trying to figure out how to say this without sounding overly negative. There were some really exciting maps, just disappointed that excitement is not what people like.
I think Catalyst will have some interesting matches, but the rest seem designed around the late game.
I'm most disappointed with Neon Violet Square. People seem to be ga-ga over the cool center, but the layout is extremely turtle-heavy. This is even worse than Acolyte.
The other three would be okay except there are choke points everywhere which will also discourage main army engagements. The maps will probably be reasonably balanced, but lead to boring games.
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote: Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
wat
Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
Blood Boil - by your own admission it was initially a standard map that you tried sneak into experimental resource category by tweaking it.
Eremita - never liked it. Didn't play on it. I guess it was designed specifically for Rush category in TLMC8.
Invader - I generally suppress memories of early LoTV maps but that was an experimental map.
However, you did submit 2 standard and 2 macro maps this time and all your TLMC winners are macro and/or standard maps. Getting 1st and 4th place is a huge success - I congratulate you. In context of TLMC-s you're a superstar macro mapmaker and Invader or Blood Boil making ladder doesn't really affect it. In my opinion your maps become less interesting with each iteration despite probably getting better from abstract mapmaking viewpoint - I'm not good enough to judge it. You yet again designed 2 winners meaning your choices are right and my taste is wrong.
he did play it ultra-safe this time around but the 2 that made it are pretty solid. I agree they could be more interesting, but at the same time not every high placing TLMC map or eventual ladder map can be really crazy. You definitely need some standard maps even if they aren't the most interesting.
p.s. yes eremita was a clownfiesta but we all have had bad maps, me probably more than most. Sometimes your judgment is better than other times
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only think of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
Fair enough. Coda and Overgrowth are both very standard maps (though personally I'm not a huge fan of Overgrowth).
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
You're being disingenuous. Being standard does not equate to being the same as existing maps--even small differences do cause things to play out differently.
What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
Abyssal would make it if I had to make a dream pool, although that would be due in equal parts to its merit and the fact that I think most maps are barely tolerable.
And I must have slept through most of those games while doing the recaps because I remember none of them.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity.
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote: Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity.
Overgrowth's a garbage map now and I don't think I've seen a single good LotV game on it.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity.
Overgrowth's a garbage map now and I don't think I've seen a single good LotV game on it.
It is a bad map in LotV, but the point remains that it enables a wide variety of play despite having existed so long. It never grew stale, it just got railroaded by a bad expansion it wasn't intended to be played on.
Daybreak, Whirlwind, and Newkirk have also been around for eons. I'm rather fond of all three.
Also, on the subject of amazing games, it would be great if TL did a "Best Games of 2017" article the way they used to for 2013, 2014, and 2015. I don't think one was ever produced for 2016.
On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote: [quote]
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity.
Overgrowth's a garbage map now and I don't think I've seen a single good LotV game on it.
It is a bad map in LotV, but the point remains that it enables a wide variety of play despite having existed so long. It never grew stale, it just got railroaded by a bad expansion it wasn't intended to be played on.
Significant balance changes are the only reason that there's any variety left on Overgrowth. And between switching things up with balance changes, or switching up maps I know which one I prefer.
A specific and quantifiable example of variety decreasing on a map as it ages would be the placement of the third in TvZ on Abyssal Reef. Before people mostly took the regular third, but as people learned the map they also experimented with the 12/6 o'clock bases, as well as the low ground base very occasionally. But after a while people got used to the map and have determined the regular third is optimal, and now the alternate thirds are essentially never taken.
First of all, congrats to all the winners! And congrats to AVEX on another first place finish :-)
On October 07 2017 18:18 Liquid`Snute wrote: There should be two separate 1v1 ladders with competitive pool (7maps) and wild pool (way more than 7 maps?) in 2018 imo, like in hearthstone. Then there can finally be different 'fun maps' with coinflips and balance issues (catallena, inferno pools, dasan station, sky garden, prion terraces, frost, etc) in a pool where they can be enjoyed properly. It would also make it possible for people to actually play maps outside of the current 7 with help from the matchmaking system. The matchmaking system is one of the best features of starcraft 2. I don't see many reasons outside of development costs to not implement a solution like this.
the game has somehow been stuck in this "only one map pool of 7 maps" mindset for seven years and it's not necessary at all
Just wanted to respond to this. I can only speak for a small segment of the ladder - 4700 - 4900MMR on NA and 4500 - 4700MMR on KR. In these ranges, it is pretty common to see opponents 300-500 MMR away. Per Reddit, a 315 MMR difference translates to a 75% win rate for the higher-rated player.
From my perspective it is unusual to see such large disparities in rating at a relatively low point on the ladder (the above MMRs are Master's 3 and Diamond 1, respectively). I don't think it's a good experience, either. I can understand it at higher levels where there's a smaller playerbase and a much higher skill disparity, but Diamond 1?
I'm guessing that this is not a matchmaker issue but rather a player population and games played per day issue. I think splitting the playerbase by adding a second queue for playing the "wild pool" would exacerbate this problem and not be good for the ladder. I suspect this is why Blizzard has never done it, and also why they combined the Unranked / Ranked queues. It's probably feasible in Hearthstone due to the large number of players; I haven't researched the game, but a cursory Google search indicates at least 10x daily active users compared to SC2.
I agree with your prior point about what kinds of maps should and should not belong in the competitive pool.
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
These games? Do you just choose to ignore high level tournaments? Do you just wish to accept only what you think is good? Huh?
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
These games? Do you just choose to ignore high level tournaments? Do you just wish to accept only what you think is good? Huh?
I watched every single one of those games and was not impressed by any of them to the point that I recall what happened. The fact that you're trying to turn that into some kind of inflammatory comment or disparaging criticism of your map is disappointing.
On October 08 2017 13:54 SidianTheBard wrote: So wait...as a TL writer, you just "didn't see"
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
These games? Do you just choose to ignore high level tournaments? Do you just wish to accept only what you think is good? Huh?
I watched every single one of those games and was not impressed by any of them to the point that I recall what happened. The fact that you're trying to turn that into some kind of inflammatory comment or disparaging criticism of your map is disappointing.
So what are the games that impressed you? speaking of all years/expansions?
On October 08 2017 13:54 SidianTheBard wrote: So wait...as a TL writer, you just "didn't see"
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
These games? Do you just choose to ignore high level tournaments? Do you just wish to accept only what you think is good? Huh?
I watched every single one of those games and was not impressed by any of them to the point that I recall what happened. The fact that you're trying to turn that into some kind of inflammatory comment or disparaging criticism of your map is disappointing.
So what are the games that impressed you? speaking of all years/expansions?
On October 08 2017 13:54 SidianTheBard wrote: So wait...as a TL writer, you just "didn't see"
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
These games? Do you just choose to ignore high level tournaments? Do you just wish to accept only what you think is good? Huh?
I watched every single one of those games and was not impressed by any of them to the point that I recall what happened. The fact that you're trying to turn that into some kind of inflammatory comment or disparaging criticism of your map is disappointing.
So what are the games that impressed you? speaking of all years/expansions?
I'll get around to responding to this when I'm not on mobile. But, if you want a head start, pick almost any game off the 2015 best games list.
disappointed arch of janus didnt make it. such a weird map that probable would have been vetoed every single time like secret springs but when played on weird weird games and strats would happen and would be a very short lived map but ooooooooooooooooooh well at least neo violet made it as the weird map
On October 08 2017 13:54 SidianTheBard wrote: So wait...as a TL writer, you just "didn't see"
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote: What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had: Inno vs Dark at Katowice Inno vs aLive at Katowice TY vs Stats at Katowice Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
These games? Do you just choose to ignore high level tournaments? Do you just wish to accept only what you think is good? Huh?
I watched every single one of those games and was not impressed by any of them to the point that I recall what happened. The fact that you're trying to turn that into some kind of inflammatory comment or disparaging criticism of your map is disappointing.
So what are the games that impressed you? speaking of all years/expansions?
I'll get around to responding to this when I'm not on mobile. But, if you want a head start, pick almost any game off the 2015 best games list.
I figured instead of doing "best games" which would take far long to group, I'd come up with a small list of games I do remember and group them to explain why. "S" games are remembered because they were excellent. "A" games are fun for one reason or another, but usually one sided. "B" games are just awful and memorable for that reason.
Maru vs Dear WCS Season Finals - S TaeJa vs INnoVation Newkirk - S Maru vs Zest Dusk Towers - S Maru vs Stats Foxtrot - A Mvp vs INnoVation Akilon Wastes - A Maru vs ByuL Vaani - A Maru vs Stats Vaani - A Rogue vs herO Deadwing - A Rogue vs herO Echo - A Maru vs BraVo Cactus Valley - A soO vs Maru Alterzim Stronghold - A soO vs Maru Foxtrot Labs - A soO vs Stats Nimbus - A soO vs Zest Yeonsu - B sOs vs Bunny Cactus Valley - B sOs vs ByuN KSS - B
Games can be memorable for all different reasons. They don't have to be objectively the best, but they need to have some sort of defining features. Maru five rax reapering ByuL is far more iconic than when he went seven rax against soO in GSL for obvious reasons. sOs dying to widow mines is awful but endearing whereas sOs and ByuN in game one of the GSL finals was just atrocious and has no business existing.
I have literally watched every game of GSL/SSL/VSL this year. I've watched almost all the WCS and all the weekenders with Koreans. These LotV games just blend together for me. I can hardly remember any of them save for a couple of soO games.
Congrats to the winners. Out of my picks, Neon Violet Square, Backwater and Eastwatch (my #1) made it, so I'm happy. Though I'd like to see Sky Garden higher up... would be nice to have the 4 Player map placing well.
Standard maps have dominated the scene for about 6 years now. You can assume that with very few exceptions, only people who like standard maps are left with the SC2 community as of now.
Its the fate of every online community. Over time, opinions become less and less diverse, and the long timers will become more and more extreme about their opinions. In other words, a circle jerk.
Any forced change would only make the remaining community leave.
Im glad to hear a discussion right now about the lag of diversive points of views which effects the maps.
I see the same problem here. And im glad to read Charoisaurs post.
Hes right when he says every map delivers options for a toxic gameplay for abuse of builds etc. thats absoolutly normal and totally acceptable for a strategical game where every game (on other maps here) have different expectations which lead into different exectutions to play with. Thats the fun about strategical games dont u get this? At least we need more of experimental maps and everyone who is winning about some abuse on some map just drives into stupidness that we accept only standart maps. It reminds me on tennis where both have their clear spot to play from etc. It reminds me also of a commentate that he expects in esports to be a map like a referee where less influences should happen to the metagame itself. Thats an absolutly NOGO to me for a strategical game. I expect exactly the opposite, that every map needs another understanding how to play with this to also switch arround race advantagens/disadvantages a bit and let the balanace get out of controlle here and there. This game offers still enough options that u are able to find ways arround some stuff. The only problem maybe are overpowered units which could end the game pretty soon. See the oracle problem with hydras right now. But thats overall a balance problem and not maps should be blamed here. If balance requires only standart maps than something is clearly wrong and stucked in development of the game. So if u want to see more standart builds and standart maps go ahead and try to keep the rest of the community whic is adepted to this or just risk something and try to get with fancy stuff players back who get interessted again or even risk to lose the rest of ur standart maps fans here. But we should be aware not to split here the commuinty in standart map friendly ones and the haters. Thats clearly to stupid simple that it can be even true. ONE THING IS CLEAR. PLAYERS EXPECT MORE VARIETY OF MAPS. SO I THINK OVERALL THIS LITTLE COMMUNITY HERE IS MAKING THE TRAIN AND NOT THE OVERALL COMMUNITY WHICH VOTED MAYBE CLEARLY DIFFERENT. Thats also why i think blizzard itself should make this job with MAPCONTESTS to reach a way bigger playerbase and to get a way more clear sign what the big player base wants, required that they are interessted in what the commuinty wants. Im sure it clearly shined out for everyone that we expect more maps freakier maps bigger maps 4 player maps etc all stuff to think about. I know pro players hate 4 players maps and i talked to avex to this and asked for his oppinion and he made clear he really dislikes them cause of several reasons. I see the point here that we have no more 4 player map left which dont gives anymore an option for interessting spawn positions. If u see this as problem to say at least only 2 player maps are cool and we make them bigger to solve the problem is just another part of deleting an interessting part of the gamestart WHICH ARE SPAWN POSITIONS which influence or can influence heavy the way of the game from the start on. I admit that pros dislike it and propably they all would eliminate them by veto if they can but i dont see this as problem. Thats a pro player problem at least which can blizzard easily fix by just adding 2 other maps to the mappool or other ways by no include them into tournament pools which i wouldv clearly dislike aswell. At least to say 4 player maps are bad etc is a way of making the game again smaller and less interessting to me.
EPT
And the others are good too ofc
?
Waystation
