Pool, Hatch, Hatch. You might call it standard ZvP these days. The timings are clear and crisp, the plan is both safe and greedy. It leaves us many options and few vulnerabilities. Why did it take us so long to find it? Well, Let's go back in time a little bit. Perhaps a year ago or so, the various web communities were utterly saturated with pictures like this:
Dustin's Trollface
y u mad tho? I think our map pool ROCKS
As far as Blizzard was concerned, we didn't need macro maps. If the maps were too big, people would just hide expansions everywhere and the poor low level players would never have fair games. Furthermore, without rocks, It would be too easy to expand and expand without ever making an army. Close spawns had to exist so that players could enjoy a "variety of playstyles". Blizzard felt that without their guiding hand, we would play their game wrong. To quote Dustin Browder from an interview with coL.CatZ,
"We make our map pools for the ladder, for ladder players. There are players who like to rush, there are players who like to macro, We do have a system where you can veto maps you don't want to play on.. But I think we're starting to see a lot of the tournament players making these VERY complicated maps, with a LOT of expansions. This is not going to work for a lot our ladder players. A lot of our ladder players are going to fail to scout a lot of those extra expansions - and then its all about hidden expansions. Which is not appropriate - it's not a fun game. So we do want to have a mix of maps. We don't feel like what happens in tournament is appropriate for ladder, and what happens on ladder is not appropriate for tournaments, and we're very comfortable with two separate types of pools happening there. And we're gonna continue with that until we're convinced otherwise."
Oh, how far we've come. It's hard to imagine such blasphemous words being uttered today, isn't it? Yet a year ago, that's where we were. And we hated Blizzard for it. The community reached out every chance it got to tell them - Fix the maps! We asked in live interviews, we asked through online Q&As, even Nestea had some choice words about the map pool at Blizzcon. Eventually they were convinced and we all breathed a sigh of relief, and today we have "tournament-style" maps in our ladder pool. And for that, Zerg players are especially thankful. Modern zerg styles would be nearly impossible on a map like Slag Pits (In fact, my solution for that map was 1base baneling all-ins in all matchups).
The Past
there were so many bad maps, i couldn't even veto this one
The few maps today that block the 3rd with rocks, I veto, and I'm sure many zerg players do. And I'll be honest, ZvP is my favorite matchup right now.... I just ROACH my way through pretty much whatever the protoss player does and it feels good. Perhaps, a little TOO good. What if it was never supposed to be this easy? With all the changes in balance and maps, Zerg finally has enough breathing room to macro up - to be fair, the other races do too, but Zerg always has the ability to "one up" the other races in terms of economic growth. We scout you, figure out how many drones we can get away with, and then try to overrun you. Was it Blizzard's intent to stifle that economic growth, for the sake of balance? Is the game still balanced with that growth running unchecked? As we move into Season 7 with even larger macro maps like Daybreak, How will the metagame be affected?
For answers to these questions we simply have to wait and see - The majority of us aren't qualified to make definitive statements on the matter. My gut feeling is that we the gamers collectively can solve almost any problem without Blizzard's help, even if it takes us thousands of hours played to eventually have an epiphany. When that epiphany arrives to one man and he shows the world, the rest of us will integrate it into our play overnight. Although, Stephano's recent comments have rustled the jimmies of many players out there, protoss and zerg alike:
Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think.
He's at least partially right, and speaks with authority, since he very well could take credit for our "Standard ZvP", Pool hatch hatch. So long as you scout a protoss fast expand build of some sort, it's the go-to build, and simply adjust the quantities of lings, roaches and queens to fit what your opponent is doing. Then again, racial win rates are still pretty close, although slightly Zerg favored in ZvP. Right now it doesn't happen in ZvT, although a variant of it may come into play on Daybreak if terrans start doing no-gas expands more than hellion openings. And on these larger maps, ZvZ might finally become a macro-oriented matchup instead of the "chaotic knife fights" we're used to seeing. If Daybreak goes over well, we might end up with a ladder map pool FULL of giant GSL macro maps. That would be great.... Or would it?
How will things unfold now that the community has a say in the maps on which we play, and will the game need more balance adjustments to compensate?
The future
Poll: How will larger macro maps affect the game?
Good for the game overall (584)
56%
Too good for Zerg, zerg imba (365)
35%
Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports (40)
4%
Good for Z and T, sucks for P (22)
2%
Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere (13)
1%
Too good for T/P (11)
1%
Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc) (10)
1%
1045 total votes
Too good for Zerg, zerg imba (365)
Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports (40)
Good for Z and T, sucks for P (22)
Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere (13)
Too good for T/P (11)
Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc) (10)
1045 total votes
Your vote: How will larger macro maps affect the game?
(Vote): Good for the game overall
(Vote): Too good for Zerg, zerg imba
(Vote): Too good for T/P
(Vote): Good for Z and T, sucks for P
(Vote): Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports
(Vote): Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere
(Vote): Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc)
PS: Before you respond, realize no statements are made in this OP. I'm asking, not telling.
If you'd like to vote for something other than what's on the poll, it can't be changed, sorry
just click "other" and explain why in the thread!
Further study
For a more in depth, number oriented read about maps as balance, and how economy can affect the matchups, head on over to The Breadth of Gameplay in SC2