Influences on Map Favorites

General Discussion
Prev 1 7 8 9 Next
haha not habitation station. klontas mire! that map hated fun.
What has the biggest influence on determining how much you like a map?
Poll ended on Aug 18, 2014
08/14/2014 12:25 PMPosted by SliTaz
I wish there was less focus on 4p maps. Blind buildorder wins are pretty boring.

As a Zerg, I prefer 2p maps with at least 1 watchtower and not TOO TOO MANY chokes and ramps. As a general standard macro player, I also prefer maps that don't feature gimmicks like pocket naturals (Alterzim/Nimbus), gold bases close to mains, rocks in silly places,

That being said, I don't think every map pool should be made up entirely of maps like that. I think each map pool should have a good balance of 2p and 3/4p maps of varying sizes. I think this map pool is one of the worst ever, as there are only two 2p maps (neither of which are new), and the 3/4p maps all have at least one feature that makes scouting difficult or makes playing a standard game impossible.

For example:

Catallena - too big, lack of watchtowers, very hard to get scouting overlords into position in time

Foxtrot - lack of watchtowers, pretty much no open space (all ramps, ledges, and chokes), gimmicky rocks blocking 3rd bases. << I consider Foxtrot to be the worst map I've seen yet since I started SC2 two years ago

Nimbus - gimmicky pocket natural expansions, gimmicky rocks on ramp to main

Deadwing - too large, way too easy for every race to take and hold 3-4 bases, 3rd bases way too close when spawning horizontally (fixed), very hard to get scouting overlords into position in time

Fortunately, the one thing that saves this map pool for me is Overgrowth, which is my favorite map of all time. It seems to be popular with all races, has enough open space to prevent immortal/sentry all ins from being OP, has gold bases (but far enough away from the mains to preven gold base cheese), and looks downright amazing. I hope Overgrowth stays in the map pool for at least another season or two

Merry go Round and King Sejong are both okay. Not great, but I can't complain.

In general, though, I feel like this map pool is way too focused on 3-4 player maps that are too large, have too few watchtowers, and have easy-to-hold 3rd and 4th bases.
I like unique features and gameplay, though I also wish we had more forest like maps that we had in Wings of Liberty like Taldarim alter or Agria Valley.

I'd like more desert themed maps too and maybe rocky ones too. In my opinion the maps are still nice now but they seem a bit dull or not all that special, you don't have much foliage or not a lot of high grounds or something to get in.

I liked a lot of the old StarCraft maps like in Enslavers where you had some places on low ground that had structures surrounding the base, then an island with bridges being the only access point on land then a high ground on the mountain region that was really awesome to see.

I'd maps to be more diverse and I just feel that they're not like that very much outside the bases where it's mostly flat land and some high ground areas that only ships can go but you can't put tanks or anything on them.
Art style.

I don't care too much about balance if I'm depressed playing on an ugly map.
i think that a ladder need more than 7 maps... 10 will be good,
about maps, i think that nice looking map better than a #winrate, but when u play about 30 matches and win only 5 on this map, i dont think u or anyone want to play again on this map
My favorite map of all time is Cloud Kingdom.

It had a unique feature of the low ground high ground low ground "S shape" on the map and the Xel Naga run around at the 3rd which gave you counter attack potential but capable of being walled. But the features were not forced but rather placed because you can.

The map has been meta suitable forever it has an easy dependable natural not a back yard though but the 3rd was not a birthday present you would have to work for it.

In the loading screen you would see that S shape that is super recognizable much like Python in brood war everyone knows about the python in the middle of the map and its amazing like Catallena Octopus in the middle but needs to bigger for loading screen giving a good vibe for the map. Neo Planet S with the butterfly too.

A map is not so much about win percentage for me but more likability of the map if it is so huge ehmmm Alterzim it almost feels miserable when you tap your army hotkey and they are only 25% percent way to your opponents base and then there is no harass possibilities because you have to attack up a tiny ramp.

Enjoyable games to watch is a map that starts with a variety of openers not set strategies for a map. For example you can't early pool on this map because even if you 9 pool this maps rush distance is so far that a 15 hatch spawning pool is almost finished (Alterzim). Maps that make 3rd a difficulty to get much like Frost.

Overall I like normal sized maps so that you can early nex/hatch/cc but still be able to agrees in the early game if you don't want to opt for a early town hall. If there is a huge map make sure there is harass possibility. A natural that could be killed non-air aka not a back yard. Awesome art scheme either a tile set or an image in the middle of the map. Work for the 3rd. Zerg needs to be able to fight to be 1 base ahead of Protoss and if Protoss can be on 3 bases safely it makes the game blown out of proportion and making the have to go swarmhosts. If there is work to make the third a little more difficult to take make sure the middle of the map is not flat so that zergs cannot get an amazing surround. And no Newkirk watchtowers were they seriously see everything that is coming. If dead space could be worked in it would be nice for tempest and broodlord play and even making drops for terran less noticeable.
08/15/2014 02:02 PMPosted by Psione
So we've seen the results swing quite a bit, with Unique features/gameplay now taking the lead.

A little surprised that Personal win rate is so low. It usually seems that people are more harsh on maps they struggle with.

I think people don't like saying personal win rate is a big influence because it makes us sound selfish and 1-dimensional. Also the question was the BIGGEST influence. For me (And for many others I think) personal win rate would be an easy second, but not the primary factor.

Also when people complain about a map it's usually right after they lost a game on said map, so gut reaction after a tough loss is a big factor.
I prefer 2 player maps and I don't like in-base naturals.
The most important features are:
  • Enjoyable games to watch and play
  • Unique
  • Since there is no reason to have a 4p map aside from having random spawns and random spawns making for a less enjoyable game experience, I side with the people saying more 2p maps, please! And also big ones please, there is no reason why a 2p map cannot be the size of a 4p map.

    Examples of Great ladder maps currently:
    - King Sejong Station, because it is very unique and allows for many playstyles.
    - Nimbus, because its expansion layout is very unique and it allows for many playstyles. (would be even cooler if it was cross only and the first 3bases of the nonused spawns were designed, instead of just rotated version of your own main area).

    Also, despite people not liking it, Alterzim used to make for very unique games. (would have also been better if it had been a 2p map)
    I think its not so much about personal winrate, unique or standart playstyle but it has to feel balanaced.
    If a map offers a favore for Terrans. If map is too wield open or the third is to hard or to easy to defend its also bad.
    Other: Produces enjoyable games to PLAY

    That is my choice. When I play, i want it to be FUN. Fun comes with originality, unique features, as well as standar play...

    The best example of a map that I hate is "Old Country" in 4v4. This map is just about who kills one side first. So it's all about rushing rushing rushing in the early to mid game. Once a side is dead, it's pretty much over, or it goes into weird base expansion locations. If this map was set Top vs Bottom, that would play much differently and be probably more FUN as a no rush map where you can actually expand early without having to worry about early 6 lings. Splitting allies in half is just like doing a double 2v2, not fun, no interaction at all possible early on.
    A balanced map pool is necessary. Balancing each individual map is near impossible and stifles creativity in players and map makers.

    Similarly, having the majority of tournament maps be free of 'features' is ok, but I also think it's ok to have one or two maps in a season with very different stuff. I like it when Bliz supports maps with a few zany things - obviously collapsible rocks and Xel Naga towers, but also no fly zones, no build zones, timed map features like lava and bridges. Again, this has no place on the majority of a tournament map pool to me, but a little of it here and there is fun.

    About 3 and 4 player maps: what about a 1v1 Map Preferences setting that allows the players to reveal where they aren't spawned, but only if both agree?
    Of what I've noticed, a lot of people go for the maps that are always preferable for a specific race. Zergs go for wide open maps with lots of bases, Terrans go for maps with lots of split areas and high ground, and Protoss go for maps with easy to defend thirds and lots of chokes. It would make sense that a map with lots of small open areas with chokes and high ground areas closer to bases would be enjoyed by everyone, but that's just a theory.
    The voting has ended. Thanks to everyone who voted and shared their thoughts. Here are the final results of the poll.

    30.05% - Offers unique features or gameplay
    24.51% - Produces enjoyable games to watch
    19.75% - Offers standard gameplay
    11.21% - Map art style
    10.69% - Personal winning percentage
    03.78% - Other

    What do you find most surprising from these results? Do they match what you expected at the start?
    I feel it's pretty straight foward. In order to have a game that keeps evolving, there must be new unique features and gameplay while staying fun to watch and play as well as not overwriting the current gameplay. The visual is also very important because a game with eh... bad graphics as an RTS would probably not last very long. I know there are RTS games that are still played yet really bad graphicly, but not as important as sc2. The winning percentage is not that important for the majority of the players I'm pretty sure. It matters for few of us who really wants to play the game in a competitive way, but it's not my case.

    Blizzard should make more polls like this as it could bring up interesting data. Also, Psione, do you have the number of person who answered the poll? Percentage are interesting if there is the number of answers next to it.
    playstyle, then win %

    gimmicky/allowing unique builds fall in line for a close 3rd with my choice.
    08/18/2014 03:51 PMPosted by Fenix
    The winning percentage is not that important for the majority of the players I'm pretty sure. It matters for few of us who really wants to play the game in a competitive way, but it's not my case.

    I voted winning percentages. I do not like to play on maps where my race is in disadvantage. But the thing i like most in the game are macro games with cool fights. I play the game for fun, and not in a "really competitive way". But playing on a map where my race don't have a chance don't end up in this longer good-fight-games. it will be 10 minute-games. I do not mean i want an advantage, i do not want a disadvantage.
    I tend to like balanced maps, and I tend to like them more when I know them well.

    I don't mind playing the same maps for a very long time, quite the contrary.

    I think Blizzard should fix problems and improve existing maps instead of constantly trying new maps, they are quite often not better than previous one...
    I'm surprised that the Standard Gameplay option was so low.

    I'm not interested in playing maps that have gimmicks where you have to struggle just to defend X spot or what have you, unless it's possible to do so going pretty standard.

    I guess a lot of that is because I play macro Protoss and I want to be able to take a third (eventually) so that I can eventually match my opponent's army and push out.

    If it gets to the point where I feel I have to all-in to survive a certain map, I just veto it.

    I also don't enjoy watching "forced" all-ins being played repeatedly by pro players.


    Join the Conversation

    Return to Forum