|
So, is it just me or i think the new maps are kind of off... ?
I appriciate the changes, but didnt they went a bit too far ?
Crimson, there is simply too many rocks blocking every path. And those are 4x2k HP rocks... I think this is pretty bad for zerg, as basically forces you to play a mid game, game with the only good thing being the rich gas. But having not many zergling runbys abailabilitys and the map overall being gas short. I think its not really good.
Ghost River, its pretty bad for zerg TvZ, as the natural has a extremely small back entrance where tank lines or liberator zones can be used to exploit it.
Post Youth sucks for Protoss i think, as they have to wall outside to be fully secure and the gold mines in starting spot favour Terran or Zerg more. One because of Mules, the other one because its faster.
Amphion seems like the only one well balanced overall, although it favours a bit Terran drops, but overall is a good map.
What do you guys think ?
(For me all seem to favour Terran overall)
|
Hmm, without spoiling gsl results too much, having a hard time believing the maps are that terran favored. But who knows, maybe terrans will win from now on until the new maps get released and you'll be vindicated
|
one of the more interesting map pools in a long time. many of these concepts have never been used on ladder in this way and it's refreshing af
|
I think the new direction in exploring new kinds of maps that may be possible "fun versions" of SC2 is really really what the game needs. Maps are one of the few ways you can keep RTS like this fresh, so it's really a mistake that they've been so standard and samey for so so long. Maps have even left out lots of features that make BW games fun to play and watch (more spread out action, bases not being super close which promotes turtling and deathballing to defend your bases, giving players expansion options that are further away due to defensible features rather than just taking the closest expo spots, etc.), and were actually present in earlier SC2 games. If only maps were more fun and interesting, and the game was balanced around that (as in, for example to not need the first 3-4 bases to be the same layout and close to each other).
In Smash Bros for example, the community has gotten increasingly strict about what maps are legal for competitive play. Regardless of the iteration - from Melee, to Brawl, to Smash 4, to Ultimate, over time all the games have been reducing the amount of maps that you can play on in tournaments. This has been cited to lead to viewer and player burn out because it's not exciting anymore. It feels like every game of a BoX is played on the same map pretty much, so each game feels same-y as well and not memorable. I really think the same effect has been happening to SC2.
|
Too early to tell, but Ghost River looks like it will be a good map for Protoss and Terran against Zerg but we've only seen PvT on it so far so it's too early to tell.
|
I just know from experience, of course i suck, but Ghost River instantly fell bad as Zerg with that open spot on Natural ...
|
On March 29 2024 01:55 CerebrateHector wrote:
I just know from experience, of course i suck, but Ghost River instantly fell bad as Zerg with that open spot on Natural ...
Might wash out fine since Golden Aura doesnt look terrific for Terran and Dynasty for sure looks good for Zerg. As long as the pool on the whole has at least some variety and doesnt overtly favor one race then it's a good pool. Players still get their vetoes after all, Zergs will just have to get used to burning one on Ghost River.
|
I like some of the "stranger" new maps, the same cookie cutter concepts were starting to feel stale. Having fun on stuff like Post-Youth LE. Interesting way to have a 2nd base in a main to give additional build options without turning the game upside down.
I still want true 4 position maps to come back but it seems the consensus is they add too much of a random factor, heard ideas like showing start position or having fixed X patterns or something. I do sympathize with not wanting to change too much too fast as the game has developed to be played in a certain way and keeping balance stable is incredibly important.
|
On March 29 2024 02:21 Cygnus wrote:
I like some of the "stranger" new maps, the same cookie cutter concepts were starting to feel stale. Having fun on stuff like Post-Youth LE. Interesting way to have a 2nd base in a main to give additional build options without turning the game upside down.
I still want true 4 position maps to come back but it seems the consensus is they add too much of a random factor, heard ideas like showing start position or having fixed X patterns or something. I do sympathize with not wanting to change too much too fast as the game has developed to be played in a certain way and keeping balance stable is incredibly important.
4 position maps are never coming back as long as the pros have a say in the map selection process. That randomness we enjoy as viewers is exactly what they hate.
|
The new maps are really bad for balance and enjoyment. They incorporate ideas that we got rid of in SC2 years ago for reasons. In-base expansions, close by air, split maps with maximum 6 bases were all terrible in 2012 and they are still terrible now. I’m all for innovating new ideas but these old ideas recycled ain’t it.
Also why in god's name do we now have maps that have multiple reaper cliffs, wtf?
No options for expansions at all in Ghost River....Forced to take triangle third every single one of the new maps.
I would have definitely quit playing SC2 if it weren't for the fact that they at least included some of the previous standard maps.
On March 29 2024 02:23 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2024 02:21 Cygnus wrote:
I like some of the "stranger" new maps, the same cookie cutter concepts were starting to feel stale. Having fun on stuff like Post-Youth LE. Interesting way to have a 2nd base in a main to give additional build options without turning the game upside down.
I still want true 4 position maps to come back but it seems the consensus is they add too much of a random factor, heard ideas like showing start position or having fixed X patterns or something. I do sympathize with not wanting to change too much too fast as the game has developed to be played in a certain way and keeping balance stable is incredibly important. 4 position maps are never coming back as long as the pros have a say in the map selection process. That randomness we enjoy as viewers is exactly what they hate.
It's not just the pros. Nobody wants random spawning points for a reason. Sending your probe to scout the wrong base and lose 12 pool? Send overlord to the wrong position and lose to a 1 base all in/proxy? That's terrible game design and extremely unfun.
On March 29 2024 00:52 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think the new direction in exploring new kinds of maps that may be possible "fun versions" of SC2 is really really what the game needs. Maps are one of the few ways you can keep RTS like this fresh, so it's really a mistake that they've been so standard and samey for so so long. Maps have even left out lots of features that make BW games fun to play and watch (more spread out action, bases not being super close which promotes turtling and deathballing to defend your bases, giving players expansion options that are further away due to defensible features rather than just taking the closest expo spots, etc.), and were actually present in earlier SC2 games. If only maps were more fun and interesting, and the game was balanced around that (as in, for example to not need the first 3-4 bases to be the same layout and close to each other).
In Smash Bros for example, the community has gotten increasingly strict about what maps are legal for competitive play. Regardless of the iteration - from Melee, to Brawl, to Smash 4, to Ultimate, over time all the games have been reducing the amount of maps that you can play on in tournaments. This has been cited to lead to viewer and player burn out because it's not exciting anymore. It feels like every game of a BoX is played on the same map pretty much, so each game feels same-y as well and not memorable. I really think the same effect has been happening to SC2.
Bro SSBM is 10 years older than SC2 and it's thriving just as hard. They got rid of dumb gimmicky maps and the game is doing better than any 20+ year old game ever could. New maps are not going to help revitalize SC2, they're just going to make it frustrating and unbalanced to play.
|
I played some ZvT customs with a friend and hated playing on all of them. I don't think they're as bad as I feel about them, but it was hard to finally convince myself to click that "Play" button and queue up for ladder games.
|
I dunno i just felt they were too Terran favoured in my humble oppinion ....
|
Ghost river may end up being better for Z than it seems? Obviously late game will be rough and the natural is easily sieged, but being able to expand away from T is amazing mid-game.
At the end of the day it's good that we're getting these maps now and not right before the world championship...
|
i like creativity in map design but maps with multiple weirdly placed gaps that are blocked by rocks or minerals make ladder unpleasant as protoss. i don't want to spend 10 games losing to mass ling runbys while i learn the exact timing and positioning i need to wall all these dumb openings, i'll just veto, unfortunately, which is sad because i don't like vetoing maps in general
|
On March 29 2024 08:17 dysenterymd wrote:
Ghost river may end up being better for Z than it seems? Obviously late game will be rough and the natural is easily sieged, but being able to expand away from T is amazing mid-game.
At the end of the day it's good that we're getting these maps now and not right before the world championship...
I'm also curious how that's going to end up playing out, because that short rush distance opens up a lot of potential strong timings that would otherwise be very difficult to pull off effectively on a different map layout. Also the fact that the close rush distance is also at the top of the map means that it's much harder for Zerg to get good flanking angles on a push to their natural.
That said. You're right about the map maybe being better than it initially looks. The expansion patterns are rather friendly for Zerg (if they can defend their natural) and the total lack of dead airspace makes it much more difficult for Terran to use drops effectively, which we saw on display in last night's matches.
I still think the map looks rough for Zerg, but it's too early to tell for sure. Even if the map was bad for Zerg I don't think the map pool is bad just because we finally have a map that Zerg players want to complain about.
|
On March 29 2024 05:45 sidasf wrote:The new maps are really bad for balance and enjoyment. They incorporate ideas that we got rid of in SC2 years ago for reasons. In-base expansions, close by air, split maps with maximum 6 bases were all terrible in 2012 and they are still terrible now. I’m all for innovating new ideas but these old ideas recycled ain’t it. Also why in god's name do we now have maps that have multiple reaper cliffs, wtf? No options for expansions at all in Ghost River....Forced to take triangle third every single one of the new maps. I would have definitely quit playing SC2 if it weren't for the fact that they at least included some of the previous standard maps. Show nested quote +On March 29 2024 02:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 29 2024 02:21 Cygnus wrote:
I like some of the "stranger" new maps, the same cookie cutter concepts were starting to feel stale. Having fun on stuff like Post-Youth LE. Interesting way to have a 2nd base in a main to give additional build options without turning the game upside down.
I still want true 4 position maps to come back but it seems the consensus is they add too much of a random factor, heard ideas like showing start position or having fixed X patterns or something. I do sympathize with not wanting to change too much too fast as the game has developed to be played in a certain way and keeping balance stable is incredibly important. 4 position maps are never coming back as long as the pros have a say in the map selection process. That randomness we enjoy as viewers is exactly what they hate. It's not just the pros. Nobody wants random spawning points for a reason. Sending your probe to scout the wrong base and lose 12 pool? Send overlord to the wrong position and lose to a 1 base all in/proxy? That's terrible game design and extremely unfun. Show nested quote +On March 29 2024 00:52 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think the new direction in exploring new kinds of maps that may be possible "fun versions" of SC2 is really really what the game needs. Maps are one of the few ways you can keep RTS like this fresh, so it's really a mistake that they've been so standard and samey for so so long. Maps have even left out lots of features that make BW games fun to play and watch (more spread out action, bases not being super close which promotes turtling and deathballing to defend your bases, giving players expansion options that are further away due to defensible features rather than just taking the closest expo spots, etc.), and were actually present in earlier SC2 games. If only maps were more fun and interesting, and the game was balanced around that (as in, for example to not need the first 3-4 bases to be the same layout and close to each other).
In Smash Bros for example, the community has gotten increasingly strict about what maps are legal for competitive play. Regardless of the iteration - from Melee, to Brawl, to Smash 4, to Ultimate, over time all the games have been reducing the amount of maps that you can play on in tournaments. This has been cited to lead to viewer and player burn out because it's not exciting anymore. It feels like every game of a BoX is played on the same map pretty much, so each game feels same-y as well and not memorable. I really think the same effect has been happening to SC2.
Bro SSBM is 10 years older than SC2 and it's thriving just as hard. They got rid of dumb gimmicky maps and the game is doing better than any 20+ year old game ever could. New maps are not going to help revitalize SC2, they're just going to make it frustrating and unbalanced to play.
All the Smash communities have been shrinking heavily actually. Player attendance has been cut in roughly half the last several years for Melee, and Ultimate has fallen as well. Some tournaments are re-introducing Mute City for Melee, and it's led to some awesome results and awesome gameplay. (There's a tournament where both Amsa and his Fox opponent preferred to play on Mute City in the grand finals, and had really neat combos/tech for that stage). Many players, viewers, and casters are tired of playing on FD + variations of BF, both for Melee and for Ultimate. I know me and some of my friends who compete quit partially because of the stages becoming more and more monotone.
I acknowledge that 4 player maps too can lead to unfun BO losses, but there are definitely people who also have a lot of fun with that amount of randomness! The thrill of starting a game and going for a balls to the wall RPS all-in is fun, or going with a greedy expo first build hoping that they don't scout you early on. These were all a big part of Starcraft back then.
Also regarding PvZ and scouting 12 pool in time, i don't understand why you can't just send 2 probes. Even back in WoL/HotS that was a thing if they wanted to be super safe, and that was when they had less starting workers meaning 2 workers scouting had a bigger economy impact when they only had 12-13 probes than it does sending 2 workers with ~15-16 probes.
|
we could have 5x std + 4x freestyle/rush/4 player maps in the map pool
and by adding one more veto players would be able to veto the all the non-std ones if they wanted to do so
|
Love the maps, maps needed to get way more interesting and diverse for a while.
Don't care that much about balance tbh, keeping the game fresh and interesting is more important than one race having a 0.1% winning percentage over another. Pro players will always figure out ways to win on different maps, Zergs ended up even doing quite well on Acolyte by utilizing Roach builds properly
|
On March 29 2024 21:41 Charoisaur wrote:
Love the maps, maps needed to get way more interesting and diverse for a while.
Don't care that much about balance tbh, keeping the game fresh and interesting is more important than one race having a 0.1% winning percentage over another. Pro players will always figure out ways to win on different maps, Zergs ended up even doing quite well on Acolyte by utilizing Roach builds properly
Agreed. Plus if there's balance issues, we can balance around the new and more diverse kinds maps !
And this also can help players like sOs come up with neat strategies.
There's already vetos too anyways as a natural balancing mechanic.
I think it makes more sense to have some maps with small imbalances that you can pick as counterpicks (and veto if you want), than to have 9 standard maps with tiny differences. It's more exciting and I think it's made games like Smash a lot of fun. Those more extreme/weird maps will mainly show up in Bo5 and Bo7, Bo3 should still be stable.
I really like the action and frequent battles we see in recent LotV (lots of macro games), but part of me really does feel like I'm often just watching the same games over and over. I think different maps are really needed to keep the game fun and exciting.
|
Seriously, this map pool feels like an intentional purge of low level zergs. So many new options to abuse against them while they got almost nothing in return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
