EPTWhat mix of new & old maps do you want in the next ladder…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net136 Posts
| ||
Waxangel
United States33623 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26913 Posts
I feel we generally drop a few very good maps in terms of balance every rotation, plus things get a bit samey. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3495 Posts
I wouldn't mind seeing legacy maps as well, if they're good ones. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On March 25 2026 17:27 ejozl wrote: Mothership has to stay, and we should try to get in more 3/4 player maps, without forced spawns. More maps that are like the least played ladder map is definitely a good idea!  | ||
|
derkopf
Germany87 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3495 Posts
On March 25 2026 20:50 MJG wrote: More maps that are like the least played ladder map is definitely a good idea! You think you want wow classic, but you don't. If every map was like mothership, only one of them would be the least played B) anyways, it's a great map. The comment above me is also gold! | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1922 Posts
| ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
I think Mothership is the best 3p we've ever had, and I believe some maps that push boundaries should be iterated upon and improved instead of tossed aside. It would be good to get player feedback (aside from 3p bad) on specific issues of the map that could be addressed. Having a staple map per season isn't a bad thing imo. That being said, if there's a clear improvement of Mothership included in TLMC then my point is moot. | ||
Mizenhauer
United States1926 Posts
On March 30 2026 05:51 Avexyli wrote: None of them would, if you're referring to pre-lotv maps, we've had this discussion like 50000 times and have tried it 4 times already. I think Mothership is the best 3p we've ever had, and I believe some maps that push boundaries should be iterated upon and improved instead of tossed aside. It would be good to get player feedback (aside from 3p bad) on specific issues of the map that could be addressed. Having a staple map per season isn't a bad thing imo. That being said, if there's a clear improvement of Mothership included in TLMC then my point is moot. Merry go round would like many words. | ||
|
rwala
338 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1922 Posts
On March 30 2026 05:51 Avexyli wrote: None of them would, if you're referring to pre-lotv maps, we've had this discussion like 50000 times and have tried it 4 times already. I think Mothership is the best 3p we've ever had, and I believe some maps that push boundaries should be iterated upon and improved instead of tossed aside. It would be good to get player feedback (aside from 3p bad) on specific issues of the map that could be addressed. Having a staple map per season isn't a bad thing imo. That being said, if there's a clear improvement of Mothership included in TLMC then my point is moot. lotv has been out for 10 years so i would also consider older lotv maps being brought back for this, but also, i would like to try pre lotv, just to throw a name out there, Coda LE looks similar to maps we see today. It's a bit smaller, but that could also create interesting dynamics. at least the base layout isnt completely foreign. or- that also gives me another interesting idea. Bringing back old maps but "revamped." Like make changes where needed but you still get that old school nostalgia feel and can recognize the map when you load it. Maybe you make it slightly larger, maybe u add some more bases, maybe you re-shape some base layouts or ramps. Whatever you need. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On March 30 2026 05:51 Avexyli wrote: None of them would, if you're referring to pre-lotv maps, we've had this discussion like 50000 times and have tried it 4 times already. I think Mothership is the best 3p we've ever had, and I believe some maps that push boundaries should be iterated upon and improved instead of tossed aside. It would be good to get player feedback (aside from 3p bad) on specific issues of the map that could be addressed. Having a staple map per season isn't a bad thing imo. That being said, if there's a clear improvement of Mothership included in TLMC then my point is moot. >2P bad. (It's not just 3P that's bad). If the "best 3p we've ever had" is still the least played map, perhaps it's time to stop trying to make >2P maps happen. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
On March 30 2026 16:28 MJG wrote: >2P bad. (It's not just 3P that's bad). If the "best 3p we've ever had" is still the least played map, perhaps it's time to stop trying to make >2P maps happen. Players are adverse to anything that doesn't allow them to turn their brain off, I personally do not hold their opinion of the direction of the game to incredibly high standards, look no further than the balance council or this fantastic blogpost by game designer Mark Rosewater from MTG c. Wizards of the Coast - when they refuse to engage at all with mapmakers and then complain at any inch of progress. On March 30 2026 12:08 Mizenhauer wrote: Merry go round would like many words. I don't think this map would stand the test of time, it suffers the same rotational issues that all non 2p maps suffer, whilst sporting large amounts of space inefficiency in its corners, it had a bad natural wall-off, and a pretty poor center. It's way too large and flat for it's own good aside from the fact that it sort needs to be because it's not 2 player. I chalk it's success up to the metagames at the time and just overall lower skill level of the playerbase. Player understanding of maximizing economy as well as mapmaker skill started peaking toward the end of HotS, like a year and half or so after MGR was gone. There's a reason people went to Catallena twice over MGR for nostalgiabait pools and that went poorly too. On March 30 2026 15:53 CicadaSC wrote: or- that also gives me another interesting idea. Bringing back old maps but "revamped." Like make changes where needed but you still get that old school nostalgia feel and can recognize the map when you load it. Maybe you make it slightly larger, maybe u add some more bases, maybe you re-shape some base layouts or ramps. Whatever you need. I've "remastered" quite a few wings maps as lotv maps in previous TLMCs, Difusion was a remake of Daybreak in a recent one. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On March 30 2026 19:04 Avexyli wrote: Players are adverse to anything that doesn't allow them to turn their brain off, I personally do not hold their opinion of the direction of the game to incredibly high standards, look no further than the balance council or this fantastic blogpost by game designer Mark Rosewater from MTG c. Wizards of the Coast - when they refuse to engage at all with mapmakers and then complain at any inch of progress. Insulting player intelligence isn't a particularly convincing argument... Different map layouts were a benefit in WoL/HotS because the early-game was more strategically deep; players could develop different strategies for different map layouts because the early-game allowed for variety. Unfortunately, Blizzard thought that a streamlined, faster-paced SC2 resulted in a better viewer experience, even if that came at the cost of strategic depth. As a result, LotV is strategically as shallow as a shower, and actively punishes anything other than a) taking fast expansions with as few units as possible or b) aggressively cheesing someone who is trying to take a fast expansion with as few units as possible. If your map doesn't account for this reality then it's going to get vetoed and that's not because players have their brains turned off; it's because players are smart enough to understand the narrow scope of what LotV does and does not allow and they're vetoing maps that don't fit. EDIT: This doesn't just impact >2P maps. The second-most vetoed map is Celestial Enclave. This map has an interesting base layout and makes use of a unique new feature that I think is a pretty neat idea when considered in isolation. It would've been a great feature for WoL/HotS maps to have had. However, because LotV only allows for either a) or b) as detailed above, Celestial Enclave's unique features are only ever really used for hiding proxies. This isn't a strategically interesting addition for most players, it's just one more place to check for proxies without any reciprocal benefits, and so people veto the map. It's not that the Celestial Enclave author is bad at making clever maps or that players are incapable of developing clever strategies, it's that LotV actively makes it impossible for Celestial Enclave's map features to be strategically interesting. EDIT2: Since people mentioned older maps, let's take the example of Habitation Station. That map had a pretty (in)famous strategy developed especially for it: Gangnam Terran. This is a great example of players having their brains turned on, to use Avex's turn of phrase, and figuring out that an unusual map layout made an interesting strategy possible. But when Habitation Station was played in LotV, the Gangnam Terran strategy was rarely used, and actually looked terrible on the few occasions when it was used. Same map, less strategic depth, all thanks to LotV being as shallow as a shower... | ||
|
sidasf
100 Posts
One thing I think would help a lot is using ESL's old map number standardization. It was 2 freestyle, and I think something like 3 macro and 1 rush. It worked because it makes sure we have creative maps in the pool-we don't want a boring map pool-but also not too many that people run out of vetoes. One notable grievance I have seen from a lot of streamers and players in discord servers is that there aren't enough vetoes when we have 3 freestyle maps. I'm also open with including one or two old maps from the previous map pool. Having great maps like Ultralove gives a continued solid backbone in the game. SC2 has a big amount of older maps that are great-as mentioned before maybe giving them a touch up to make sure they are balanced is a good idea. I agree with MJG when it comes to listening to the playerbase. 1. "Insulting player intelligence isn't a particularly convincing argument..." Agreed. Avex you are claiming all the thousands and thousands of sc2 players are dumb, don't know how to enjoy the game, and that you are smarter and always know better. Haven't you considered that you might be wrong, and the thousands of ladder players are right? People are allowed to enjoy what they want, and it's clear when looking at map vetoes, by and large 3p maps are disliked. Personally I am not against having one 3p map in the pool-if we have enough vetoes and normal maps, I think it adds for a good bit of variety. I love mothership. But we (not just Avex, but a lot of other mapmakers) cannot keep up this superiority complex where we ignore player desires, claim that we know better than these inferior simpletons and tell them they are wrong, and double down on what we think is best for the game while going against what the players have told us they want. Players are adverse to anything that doesn't allow them to turn their brain off, I personally do not hold their opinion of the direction of the game to incredibly high standards, look no further than the balance council or this fantastic blogpost by game designer Mark Rosewater from MTG c. Wizards of the Coast - when they refuse to engage at all with mapmakers and then complain at any inch of progress. This is an insulting way to talk down to sc2 players. I'll tell you right now, people who play sc2 do not turn their brains off to play this difficult game-quite the opposite. People have engaged with mapmakers a lot in various discord servers, twitch, tl.net and more. A lot of people have also said they don't like 3p maps or healing shrines, and at least for the latter there has been extensive reasoning. In which case they are given a response of 'Well we just need to mix things up in the game' without giving solid reasoning as to what such a feature actually adds to sc2 that makes it better. They are not interested in feedback, they assert they are smarter and know better for the game regardless. Also, what you think to be progress may be the exact opposite to many players. That's kind of a presupposition to claim certain things as 'progress'. I personally do not hold their opinion of the direction of the game to incredibly high standards Of course you don't. You are superior, smarter, and have a better vision for the game than the tens of thousands of players, who enjoy this game. They're all wrong, dumb, and you know better... As evidenced here-some of the mapmakers are not interested in player feedback, they are more interested in talking down to the playerbase and will not change their ways no matter how much feedback they receive. I don't mean to come across as harsh Avex, some of your maps are my absolute all time favorites such as blackpink. I love your work and contributions. I just think this attitude is harmful and if we are more congruent to player feedback and valuing their opinions, it would be best for all. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26913 Posts
On March 31 2026 03:47 sidasf wrote: I honestly think the current map pool is great. We have a large section of standard maps, and a handful of highly irregular maps that people can veto if need be. 9 maps with 3 freestyle gives the ladder a lot of variety. One thing I think would help a lot is using ESL's old map number standardization. It was 2 freestyle, and I think something like 3 macro and 1 rush. It worked because it makes sure we have creative maps in the pool-we don't want a boring map pool-but also not too many that people run out of vetoes. One notable grievance I have seen from a lot of streamers and players in discord servers is that there aren't enough vetoes when we have 3 freestyle maps. I'm also open with including one or two old maps from the previous map pool. Having great maps like Ultralove gives a continued solid backbone in the game. SC2 has a big amount of older maps that are great-as mentioned before maybe giving them a touch up to make sure they are balanced is a good idea. I agree with MJG when it comes to listening to the playerbase. Agreed. Avex you are claiming all the thousands and thousands of sc2 players are dumb, don't know how to enjoy the game, and that you are smarter and always know better. Haven't you considered that you might be wrong, and the thousands of ladder players are right? People are allowed to enjoy what they want, and it's clear when looking at map vetoes, by and large 3p maps are disliked. Personally I am not against having one 3p map in the pool-if we have enough vetoes and normal maps, I think it adds for a good bit of variety. I love mothership. But we (not just Avex, but a lot of other mapmakers) cannot keep up this superiority complex where we ignore player desires, claim that we know better than these inferior simpletons and tell them they are wrong, and double down on what we think is best for the game while going against what the players have told us they want. This is an insulting way to talk down to sc2 players. I'll tell you right now, people who play sc2 do not turn their brains off to play this difficult game-quite the opposite. People have engaged with mapmakers a lot in various discord servers, twitch, tl.net and more. A lot of people have also said they don't like 3p maps or healing shrines, and at least for the latter there has been extensive reasoning. In which case they are given a response of 'Well we just need to mix things up in the game' without giving solid reasoning as to what such a feature actually adds to sc2 that makes it better. They are not interested in feedback, they assert they are smarter and know better for the game regardless. Also, what you think to be progress may be the exact opposite to many players. That's kind of a presupposition to claim certain things as 'progress'. Of course you don't. You are superior, smarter, and have a better vision for the game than the tens of thousands of players, who enjoy this game. They're all wrong, dumb, and you know better... As evidenced here-some of the mapmakers are not interested in player feedback, they are more interested in talking down to the playerbase and will not change their ways no matter how much feedback they receive. I don't mean to come across as harsh Avex, some of your maps are my absolute all time favorites such as blackpink. I love your work and contributions. I just think this attitude is harmful and if we are more congruent to player feedback and valuing their opinions, it would be best for all. It’s fine so long as folks don’t complain. One is entitled to want a basically identikit pool if that’s your taste. But you can’t complain when that’s what you get. Which a lot of people tend to do. I think it’s a pity but if that’s what players want then hey | ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
On March 30 2026 21:17 MJG wrote: Insulting player intelligence isn't a particularly convincing argument... Different map layouts were a benefit in WoL/HotS because the early-game was more strategically deep; players could develop different strategies for different map layouts because the early-game allowed for variety. Unfortunately, Blizzard thought that a streamlined, faster-paced SC2 resulted in a better viewer experience, even if that came at the cost of strategic depth. As a result, LotV is strategically as shallow as a shower, and actively punishes anything other than a) taking fast expansions with as few units as possible or b) aggressively cheesing someone who is trying to take a fast expansion with as few units as possible. If your map doesn't account for this reality then it's going to get vetoed and that's not because players have their brains turned off; it's because players are smart enough to understand the narrow scope of what LotV does and does not allow and they're vetoing maps that don't fit. This is simply untrue in plenty of cases; we have almost ten TLMCs of judging sheets available to us where we can see judge comments for hundreds of maps. Dozens of them are macro maps that fully match the criteria LotV asks for, but god forbid they have something daring and new, early implementations of worker only paths, inhibitor zones to prevent close by air harassment on rectangular symmetry maps (which you later refer to in praise on Habitation Station, which we'll get to). Despite that distance being an issue, the fact those zones exist, or the RMTs that we used to have for 1 TLMC only, players did turn their brains off and just autopilot their medivacs or phoenixes straight through them and complain when they couldn't just have a regular map, we have VODs for this, this isn't me just insulting players for the sake of it, we have years and years of evidence of their behavior. They don't talk to us, they just shit on us in their discords and streams and when we reach out to cooperate they tell us they're busy then go ladder for 12 hours, I don't have patience to give them any credit anymore, sorry not sorry. On March 30 2026 21:17 MJG wrote: This doesn't just impact >2P maps. The second-most vetoed map is Celestial Enclave. This map has an interesting base layout and makes use of a unique new feature that I think is a pretty neat idea when considered in isolation. It would've been a great feature for WoL/HotS maps to have had. However, because LotV only allows for either a) or b) as detailed above, Celestial Enclave's unique features are only ever really used for hiding proxies. This isn't a strategically interesting addition for most players, it's just one more place to check for proxies without any reciprocal benefits, and so people veto the map. It's not that the Celestial Enclave author is bad at making clever maps or that players are incapable of developing clever strategies, it's that LotV actively makes it impossible for Celestial Enclave's map features to be strategically interesting. The inbase natural with the WOP is absolutely not the primary reason Celestial Enclave is vetoed, the map has 6 bases in a dense space within the players initial corner, it's practically Abyssal Reef on steroids. The outside natural has two entrances into it, which is often a fast-veto for anyone playing XvZ, so even if you take the inbase you have to invest quite a few resources to wall off both a 2x ramp far off to the side as well as the choke point for the rocks. While the rocks themselves may be blocked by two 3x3s, for Protoss that's over 950 minerals minimum invested just to wall off the third. Going back to the base density, the lowground base that is right next to those rocks is a rich geyser, and all rich resources favor Zerg due to amount of worker investment & the ability of the race to expand so safely. It takes practically zero effort for Z to spread creep across 6 bases on Celestial Enclave. With three tumors, I have creep spread between my outer natural, third (from rocks), fourth, and the rich base. I could keep going but the inbase is the least of enclave's problems for why it's so heavily vetoed. On March 30 2026 21:17 MJG wrote: Since people mentioned older maps, let's take the example of Habitation Station. That map had a pretty (in)famous strategy developed especially for it: Gangnam Terran. This is a great example of players having their brains turned on, to use Avex's turn of phrase, and figuring out that an unusual map layout made an interesting strategy possible. But when Habitation Station was played in LotV, the Gangnam Terran strategy was rarely used, and actually looked terrible on the few occasions when it was used. Same map, less strategic depth, all thanks to LotV being as shallow as a shower... You're ignoring quite a few significant changes that happened inbetween the last time Habitation Station was in the pool. The mule mines 5 less, the Overlord is significantly faster for scouting, but most importantly, terran just had better options than wasting the first 12 seconds of their game floating their CC over to a fully saturated base. You start with 12 workers and golds fully saturate at 12, you would only gain a roughly 90% income increase from your next two workers added. Why bother with that for a 1 base build when builds like 3 rax reaper were already popular, or utilizing the Cyclone which at that point was still fairly strong with its new-ish tornado launcher. In fact, 2016-2017 had alot of weird strategies like uthermal's ghost rush vs showtime because Blizzard was still making quite a few changes regularly, on Prion Terraces, a map with a gold base. And funny enough, that map was imposed upon the players, they had no choice in the matter. Was the map very good? No, but it let us explore new things and learn from them, but the instant we're at the whim of what the players dictate, we will not see that progress ever occur. On March 31 2026 03:47 sidasf wrote: I don't mean to come across as harsh Avex, some of your maps are my absolute all time favorites such as blackpink. I love your work and contributions. I just think this attitude is harmful and if we are more congruent to player feedback and valuing their opinions, it would be best for all. Not deleting, but I was corrected. Patches admitted that he does get decent feedback from a few people mostly from ATX discords but likely because he runs so many tournaments - investing ~$300-400 a month, which is a very high investment for any mapmaker especially considering $350 is the top prize for TLMC itself this time, $250 for finalist. --------------------- This is steering quickly into offtopic territory and do not want to discuss that any further with you Sid. | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada86 Posts
I genuinely don't understand how anyone could possibly think that keeping old maps is a good idea, PERIOD. Even if you selected 9 of the most milquetoast standardized maps you could think of it would still be preferable to keeping EVEN the underplayed old maps (dear lord keeping the most overplayed and spectated maps of the last pool would be so dumb). Shake the damn game up so that I can win some games based on reactionary decisions rather than losing games based on some asshole who memorized a optimized build order made by someone else for the current meta Some of this is not even related to ladder rotation - the absolute fear tournament organizers have of pissing the players off by using non-ladder maps is absolutely crazy given perfect balance matters much less on unfamiliar maps because there's massively more room for mistakes. If I ever have to watch another tournament game on Ruby Rock or Tourmaline I'm going to jump off a bridge | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3495 Posts
It's true that players are treated like snowflakes, the fact that they would often play on barcodes and the casters would have to put on overlay, showcases this. The cabal players can also boycut, and basically force more zerg favourable changes in, when they should be happy that there are even held tournaments. As for shutting the brain off, there is a lot of this in lotv. Overlord movespeed increases, overseer speed, spores not requiring evolution chamber, supply drop healing the depot, observer build time reduction, raven speed increase, we even lost 4 player maps wholesale. I think we should just put them back in, if most maps were 4-player, 3-player maps it might be the 2-player maps that are gonna be the most-vetoed. There is a big barrier to entry in sc2, you have to account for 3 races that you can meet, and even random players, there are 9 possible maps. It's pretty obvious why players elect to remove the most complicated, or different maps, that absolutely does not mean the maps are bad though. I still think Golden Wall is one of the best maps ever, and I think it had only 1 season in the pool, which is a crime. I enjoyed Ulrena, Dasan Station, so I will definitely say, the players are just wrong here, but it's understandable why. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
You seem to be talking about professional players and tournament vetoes when I'm talking about casual players and ladder vetoes, so I don't think we're talking about the same types of considerations. Professional players may care about the type of analysis you've made of Celestial Enclave (and I actually agree with your analysis when looking at the map from that point of view), but every conversation I've had with casual (macro) players who've vetoed Celestial Enclave doesn't go that deep. They've played the map, they've gotten proxied in the backdoor base because of the worker-only path, and then they've vetoed the map. This isn't them turning their brains off. This is them being smart enough to realise that they're not getting anything out of the backdoor base themselves (macro play in LotV is too streamlined for the backdoor base to be a worthwhile consideration) and so they don't bother with it, and I don't blame them. EDIT: In the same way, casual (macro) players who've vetoed >2P maps don't do so because of some deep analysis of the map layout. They've played the map, they've gotten cheesed once in a way that was impossible to scout due to RNG (or they've played a Random player and been unable to select a build fast enough due to RNG), and then they've vetoed the map. Once again, this isn't them turning their brains off. This is them being smart enough to realise that they're not getting anything out of >2P maps themselves and so they don't bother with them, and I again don't blame them. Then again, maybe I'm being too relentlessly pessimistic due to my feelings on how LotV has been streamlined. I have a very hard time seeing how maps can make the game more strategically interesting when I don't think the game itself is capable of being anywhere near as strategically interesting as WoL/HotS due to the 12 worker start. EDIT2: It really comes down to risk/reward. WoL/HotS gave the player more options in the early game because there was a greater selection of viable builds. This meant that >2P maps and non-standard maps gave players a chance for experimentation, and so casual (macro) players felt like they had something to gain from playing on >2P maps and non-standard maps. LotV doesn't give the player options in the early game. To take an example, if you're playing a macro PvZ then you're opening 1 Gate FE whether you like it or not, so why would you want to worry about failing to scout a 12 Pool in time due to RNG when that RNG isn't giving you any extra options? It doesn't make sense to bother, and so people don't. It's really not about players turning their brains off. It's about LotV being so aggressively streamlined that it doesn't give interesting maps room to breathe. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9301 Posts
| ||
|
OmniSkepticSC
21 Posts
On March 31 2026 18:30 ejozl wrote: I still think Golden Wall is one of the best maps ever, and I think it had only 1 season in the pool, which is a crime. My favourite part of the Golden Wall saga is how people glaze it now because they remember the weird games it produced when they were spectating games on it (which is a very fair thing as SC2 is a spectator sport) but they conveniently forget they hated it when it was on the ladder. I think what makes good tournament maps and what makes good ladder maps are almost entirely non-overlapping sets. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26913 Posts
On April 01 2026 02:59 OmniSkepticSC wrote: My favourite part of the Golden Wall saga is how people glaze it now because they remember the weird games it produced when they were spectating games on it (which is a very fair thing as SC2 is a spectator sport) but they conveniently forget they hated it when it was on the ladder. I think what makes good tournament maps and what makes good ladder maps are almost entirely non-overlapping sets. Aye, to the degree I wish people giving feedback on maps or balance etc would declare which perspective they’re coming from, or indeed both. Golden Wall is one of my favourites as a spectator. Don’t play atm and haven’t in ages but I’m pretty certain I’d find it very frustrating to actually play. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
On April 01 2026 02:59 OmniSkepticSC wrote: My favourite part of the Golden Wall saga is how people glaze it now because they remember the weird games it produced when they were spectating games on it (which is a very fair thing as SC2 is a spectator sport) but they conveniently forget they hated it when it was on the ladder. I think what makes good tournament maps and what makes good ladder maps are almost entirely non-overlapping sets. This happens with practically every map, Abyssal Reef included. Abyssal Reef produced some of the longest, stalest turtlefest games for a long period of time and yet everyone remembers it as the pretty underwater map despite the uncountable flaws it had. It returning (as well as Kings Cove) was a great reminder of how sour it really was, players got better, the maps stayed the same. People really liked Ascension to Aiur or Mech Depot when they were was out because they were the most "reasonable" of the maps in their pool, but I guarantee people would not be as big of a fan of them now. | ||
|
Mizenhauer
United States1926 Posts
On April 01 2026 05:48 Avexyli wrote: This happens with practically every map, Abyssal Reef included. Abyssal Reef produced some of the longest, stalest turtlefest games for a long period of time and yet everyone remembers it as the pretty underwater map despite the uncountable flaws it had. It returning (as well as Kings Cove) was a great reminder of how sour it really was, players got better, the maps stayed the same. People really liked Ascension to Aiur or Mech Depot when they were was out because they were the most "reasonable" of the maps in their pool, but I guarantee people would not be as big of a fan of them now. Abyssal Reef was a turtle fest. If someone fails to recall that fact, that's on them. Mech Depot was bad from day one and Ascension was actually a good map. The only issue is it/reef created a trend of massive maps such as eastwatch, backwater and neon violet square that were undeniably terrible. The easiest way to make a good map is copy Coda and call it a day. | ||
|
Elentos
55578 Posts
On the topic of bringing back pre-LotV maps, I would expect that most of them will just be terrible now. Granted, we brought some back in 2016/2017 and quite a few worked at least decently (Whirlwind, Daybreak, Newkirk come to mind). But we're not in those metas anymore either, the game and players have evolved quite a bit since then. Those maps weren't designed with LotV in mind to begin with. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1922 Posts
On April 03 2026 20:24 Mizenhauer wrote: Abyssal Reef was a turtle fest. If someone fails to recall that fact, that's on them. Mech Depot was bad from day one and Ascension was actually a good map. The only issue is it/reef created a trend of massive maps such as eastwatch, backwater and neon violet square that were undeniably terrible. The easiest way to make a good map is copy Coda and call it a day. the problem with abyssal reef imo was that it had wayyy too many elongated cliffs everywhere. the map could have benefited greatly from different terrain. | ||
|
Mizenhauer
United States1926 Posts
On April 03 2026 21:57 CicadaSC wrote: the problem with abyssal reef imo was that it had wayyy too many elongated cliffs everywhere. the map could have benefited greatly from different terrain. To be fair, reef wasn't terrible by any means. It's just that, over time, players realized the first five bases were "free"ish, which led to more super long games. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3495 Posts
| ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
On April 03 2026 20:24 Mizenhauer wrote: Abyssal Reef was a turtle fest. If someone fails to recall that fact, that's on them. Mech Depot was bad from day one and Ascension was actually a good map. The only issue is it/reef created a trend of massive maps such as eastwatch, backwater and neon violet square that were undeniably terrible. The easiest way to make a good map is copy Coda and call it a day. To be fair, it's what everyone said they liked and what it felt like they wanted, (minus the turtly aspect) people seemed to like longer games, games felt "naturally" scrappier because of the bases mining out and it was the natural extension of us being forced to put more bases on the map, just make the map bigger. Obviously our perspective has changed and refined since, but at the time it felt correct. | ||
| ||
