|
United States33713 Posts
Blizzard post
Season 1 is approaching its end, which means Season 2 is just around the corner! In Season 2, we are introducing several new maps and map features (Rich Vespene Geysers, Inhibitor Zone Generators, and Reduced Mineral Fields.) Due to the experimental nature of these new map features, we will be introducing three new maps instead of four to the 1v1 map pool in the upcoming season. This should help players more easily get acquainted with all the new items coming in next season.
Once the new season commences on May 21, PDT, Port Aleksander LE, Automaton LE, and Year Zero LE will be removed from the 1v1 ladder. Furthermore, Ulzaan, Black Site 2E, and Last Impact will also be removed from the Team ladder. In their place, we’re adding the following new maps to the 1v1 ladder, as well as a new selection of Team maps.
Acropolis LE
Acropolis is a relatively small map for macro plays. Vertical third base expansions are easier to acquire and protect on this map. The area in the middle encourages direct conflict in the early game, and destroying rocks creates more open passages.
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/page_media/MZVWGA2Y1WSR1556065250674.jpg)
Thunderbird LE
This map features reduced minerals fields at certain locations that yield 5 minerals, allowing workers to clear them with one trip. Reduced minerals fields can be mined to unlock additional expansions or attack paths.
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/page_media/CMX70VG4OIPW1556065250624.jpg)
Turbo Cruise '84 LE
Turbo Cruise ’84 LE features Inhibitor Zone Generators that slow all units in its area of effect. In this small map, rows of these Inhibitor Zone Generators make the initial rush distance longer.
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/page_media/3VQN9W3JIDB91556065251733.jpg)
Final 1v1 Map Pool for Season 2, 2019
- Kairos Junction LE
- New Repugnancy LE
- Cyber Forest LE
- King's Cove LE
- Acropolis LE
- Turbo Cruise ’84 LE
- Thunderbird LE
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
Interesting they keep Cyber Forest. I don't think any map in years comes any close to it in terms of how terribly imbalanced its tournament winrates are.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
Cool stuff! Look forward to playing on em
On May 08 2019 05:49 Elentos wrote:
Interesting they keep Cyber Forest. I don't think any map in years comes any close to it in terms of how terribly imbalanced its tournament winrates are.
IDD, two matchups where one race wins ~1.7x more than the other one. It's a pretty wild imbalance in todays age and surprisingly rarely gets brought up since people tend to assume that maps are just roughly balanced now.
I'd say take Cyber Forest too and put a fourth new map in as usual
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
Also
Acropolis is a relatively small map for macro plays
What counts as relatively small to Blizzard? Or maybe the question should be what counts as a macro play?
|
I would like to express my support of there being a synthwave themed map. That's fantastic!
I too will echo the previous comments about questioning why Cyber Forest is still in the pool. It's poorly balanced and seems to favour all-ins.
|
Canada8991 Posts
Nice having the new maps it's been to long.
|
What's wrong with cyber forest? I am lost an uninformed, and I did a search and found nada.
|
I am kind of disappointed they left the slowing fields on turbo cruise... Just makes the map awkward and gimmicky. Same thing could be argued for thunderbird but having terrain you can alter through removal isn't a new concept (Destructable rocks) these inhibitor field zones are indestructible and placed in very annoying spots. It is the wrong way to stop rushes as you can leave mines in the middle of them and then any unit that walks through is just screwed, I am also surprised they kept Cyber forest over Port Aleksander. The rich gas geysers are exciting though I like that feature.
|
I am kind of disappointed they left the slowing fields on turbo cruise... Just makes the map awkward and gimmicky. Same thing could be argued for thunderbird but having terrain you can alter through removal isn't a new concept (Destructable rocks) these inhibitor field zones are indestructible and placed in very annoying spots. It is the wrong way to stop rushes as you can leave mines in the middle of them and then any unit that walks through is just screwed, I am also surprised they kept Cyber forest over Port Aleksander. The rich gas geysers are exciting though I like that feature.
I disagree with this sentiment completely, map features are the only viable way to keep maps from being absurd. It's not a gimmick if it fulfills its function, rocks (now that they have been utilized properly lately) are not a gimmick. They allow smaller maps initially that eventually branch out instead of everything having to be Tal'darim Altar X.0 because force fields and AoE exist in the late game.
The slowing fields have SO MUCH potential to make smaller maps viable if the code is cracked, they also may eventually help with the lack of defenders advantage in SC2. It's always a risk to pass through one even if you have a supply lead, it's the first real form of zone control available in SC2.
I'm excited to see where they go, just got to figure out how to properly use them.
|
Northern Ireland27477 Posts
Well I’ve been putting off my return to playing for a while but these maps look semi-interesting
|
interesting!
looking forward to new maps. this season's pool was one of the most boring for me in a very long time. i honestly can't remember the difference between most of the maps except port alexander is the "no reaper cliff map" lol
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Pretty awful choices from Blizzard.
Cyber Forest and New Repugnancy don't deserve another season in the pool. Acropolis is okay I guess; it was decent but not great in the TLMC tournament, and it did win the contest. Ephemeron was a significantly better map though. Thunderbird was rather bad even allowing for the fact that pros clearly didn't know how to play the map--it was the best mineral wall map admittedly. Neo Tokyo Turbo Cruise was really bad--no idea why they'd choose it over Winter's Gate.
|
I'm a bit disappointed in this upcoming map pool even though the maps overall aren't that bad. I would really like to see experimentation with 4 player maps again or at least larger 2 player maps since we have gotten to a point where we see maps completely mined out and the late game limited by the size of maps.
|
Year Zero gave us several "game of the years" games and is out... wtf??!
|
On May 08 2019 08:22 zell901 wrote:Show nested quote +I am kind of disappointed they left the slowing fields on turbo cruise... Just makes the map awkward and gimmicky. Same thing could be argued for thunderbird but having terrain you can alter through removal isn't a new concept (Destructable rocks) these inhibitor field zones are indestructible and placed in very annoying spots. It is the wrong way to stop rushes as you can leave mines in the middle of them and then any unit that walks through is just screwed, I am also surprised they kept Cyber forest over Port Aleksander. The rich gas geysers are exciting though I like that feature. I disagree with this sentiment completely, map features are the only viable way to keep maps from being absurd. It's not a gimmick if it fulfills its function, rocks (now that they have been utilized properly lately) are not a gimmick. They allow smaller maps initially that eventually branch out instead of everything having to be Tal'darim Altar X.0 because force fields and AoE exist in the late game. The slowing fields have SO MUCH potential to make smaller maps viable if the code is cracked, they also may eventually help with the lack of defenders advantage in SC2. It's always a risk to pass through one even if you have a supply lead, it's the first real form of zone control available in SC2. I'm excited to see where they go, just got to figure out how to properly use them.
I'm not saying rocks are a gimmick they are a good part of the game just like the mineral walls are. I think the idea of 5 mineral patch walls is good I just think the inhibitor zones are gimmicky. They slow not only ground units but air units also and for the map they are on the ones on the side are a bit unnecessary and almost in the way. The map also punishes stuff like reaper / probe / scv scouting by slowing it down (through either going around or pushing through it) I just don't think that is good design. (Even going around it there is a field avoidable but still there) That being said you are right about giving it time to see where it goes. It could possibly be a great feature. I just currently see it as an instant veto.
|
Hmmm,I'm more interested in rich vespene.
|
The pro's will always veto anything that isn't standard if they can, regardless of how well designed. They don't care about how interesting the game is, any changes shake up their formula for winning.
Unfortunately for them, boring map pools and stagnant gameplay leads to less viewers and directly impacts the prize pools and viewership. New maps and interesting map pools are a huge benefit to Starcraft, especially if team leagues continue to pick up steam like they have been.
I'm all for forcing enough weird maps so they cannot all be vetoed. The only caveat being they can't literally be busted, perhaps avoiding that risk is reason enough to stray closer to standard maps...but I think it will be good for Starcraft int he long run.
Getting new blood and keeping viewers interested is how the scene will continue to be grown. A lot of my fond memories of watching brood war was crazy maps and interesting strategies.The last couple map pools has been meaningless, every map could be substituted for every other map, except maybe one per season but even then it has a 100% veto rate.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
On May 08 2019 10:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Pretty awful choices from Blizzard.
Cyber Forest and New Repugnancy don't deserve another season in the pool.
Agree on Cyber Forest
There's a 2.0 of New Repugnancy which is much improved, presumably they're using that.
Having looked into it a bit now, it seems that Blizzad's ladder edition of New Repugnancy 1.0 is actually substantially worse than the original. They made some key changes like moving the gas on the natural to the other end of the mineral line which makes it harder to scout.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On May 08 2019 12:48 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 10:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Pretty awful choices from Blizzard.
Cyber Forest and New Repugnancy don't deserve another season in the pool. Agree on Cyber Forest There's a 2.0 of New Repugnancy which is much improved, presumably they're using that. Having looked into it a bit now, it seems that Blizzad's ladder edition of New Repugnancy 1.0 is actually substantially worse than the original. They made some key changes like moving the gas on the natural to the other end of the mineral line which makes it harder to scout.
The original mapmaker did made a new version of New Repugnancy called New Rotterdam, but I'd be extremely surprised if Blizzard was going to use it. It would be unprecedented afaik. Invader was an awful map, the mapmaker made a less awful 2.0 version of Invader, but Blizzard never used it.
|
My first impression of these maps is that they will be extremely good for mech and Protoss the thirds look so safe, slow zones look like a really strong area to attack through with a siegetank push or deathball.
I know a lot of the community hates them but I kind of like unusual maps they keep the meta game fresh and interesting. But I think it’s important that they don’t stay in the pool to long either since often times players find very broken stratagies on them over time. Cough gold base in natural map, cough.
I have a feeling that like many safe third base maps of yore these maps will encourage heavy turtle play and late game deathballs. I’m hopeing that the unique map features will give players some options to extend onto the map with a greedy fourth base to punish this kind of play though so we will have to see how it shakes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
