EPTTLMC to Coordinate Map Rotations
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CommanderChp
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
sidasf
73 Posts
If I can be frank, two maps with healing shrines plus a 3-player is irresponsible and does a disservice to the SC2 community, who deserve not only fun games, but balanced games. These are game mechanics that are completely untested in SC2's recent history and has have potential balance effects and problems that have yet to be seen. Especially considering we only have three vetoes, I would like to see the amount of maps with healing shrines reduced, perhaps replace one with a "Normal" freestyle map. I think three freestyle maps is perfect; the sweetspot-but three maps that have untested volatile mechanics is a bit much. I think it would be better to see 1 healing shrine map+1 3p+1 "normal" freestyle. The Top 3 most-played maps from the previous pool is a great idea. Would love to see Ultra Love in the next map pool again. Magannatha and Tokamak are fantastic maps too. Cheers. edit: edited for accuracy | ||
|
LaughNgamezYT
15 Posts
| ||
|
Glorfindelio
192 Posts
| ||
|
Magnath10
Egypt31 Posts
| ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary373 Posts
Have you considered adding a 4th veto or have Blizz increase a number somewhere in the config? Seems to be a popular request. Players' map preferences are not independent of the race, there are some imbalances affecting some races/matchups more. This can lead to users with same race having similar vetoes. At the extreme, with 9 map pool and 4 vetoes, race A can have maps #1-4 vetoed, race B can have maps #5-8 vetoed, so only map #9 remains available for a certain A vs B matchup. Similarly with the old 7 map pool with 3 vetoes. I can see the reason to keep vetoes at 3 max. Other reason could be 'normal' code with some way hardcoded constants (even if it's configurable, some logic/consideration requires this value to be 3). | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom815 Posts
It's good to know that map rotations are going to continue though! | ||
|
sunflower36002
7 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24264 Posts
| ||
|
Kashim
Poland1146 Posts
| ||
|
Topin
Peru10041 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1413 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1413 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19201 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10305 Posts
We have to keep in mind survivor's bias is a strong factor - players who liked 3 and 4 players maps are more likely to have left the scene and so their voices are less heard. When you only listen to the current voices, the game becomes more and more narrow and appealing to a smaller and smaller audience | ||
|
8xbetapp1com
1 Post
| ||
|
OmniSkepticSC
19 Posts
On April 15 2025 11:55 sidasf wrote: Sometimes I wonder if you're a bot given the sheer consistency of showing up to every single mapmaking thread to shit talk healing shrines. I'd really rather you'd not be frank. Go actually play on a map with shrines before commenting.If I can be frank, two maps with healing shrines plus a 3-player is irresponsible and does a disservice to the SC2 community, who deserve not only fun games Contrary to picking future maps based on how often they were played in the last pool, there should actually be a rule saying the opposite: The top 3 most played maps from the last pool should never be allowed to persist into the next successive pool. Otherwise, you've just picked the most stale maps to make stale a second time. | ||
|
MrIronGolem27
United States201 Posts
Considering that fact, I've redecorated Magannatha a bit. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24264 Posts
On April 21 2025 06:42 MrIronGolem27 wrote: Hi all. Thanks to TLMC for their continued efforts and for considering my finalist for inclusion in the ladder pool. Considering that fact, I've redecorated Magannatha a bit. Nice one, and happy cake day! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24264 Posts
On April 21 2025 00:58 OmniSkepticSC wrote: Sometimes I wonder if you're a bot given the sheer consistency of showing up to every single mapmaking thread to shit talk healing shrines. I'd really rather you'd not be frank. Go actually play on a map with shrines before commenting. Contrary to picking future maps based on how often they were played in the last pool, there should actually be a rule saying the opposite: The top 3 most played maps from the last pool should never be allowed to persist into the next successive pool. Otherwise, you've just picked the most stale maps to make stale a second time. There should be more maps in the pools, period. It’s really hard to accommodate players who like the whacky as well as those who like the safest, most familiar and balanced maps. Or players who’ve laddered/watched a lot of tournaments and maps become stale to them, alongside players who are much less active and find it beneficial to have at least a few familiar faces. Not something I’m criticising TLMC about at all, just I’ve long felt the ladder pools should be larger to accommodate divergent desires and leave more room for experimentation. | ||
| ||
