91 replies to this topic

[rumblesom]

Is it 'going nowhere' because I don't agree with you? Despite my repeated request to have this topic stay focused on the new maps I have engaged you on all your questions regarding the old maps.

Some players wanted some changes going back to the beginning and that should surprise no one. Does it mean some maps are bad? I think it means some players thought so.

[BornL33T]

The original maps were left unchanged not because the community liked them. Also, the game didn't flourish because those maps were so great.

 

You can read topics from 6-7 years ago about how unbalanced / bad Pinch Point, Urban Rush AvS, Official A AvS, Defcon, Hammer and Sickle AvS, May Day and several others are. Nothing was done about it then and it seems nothing will be done about it now.

 

Adding new and better maps on top of bad maps doesn't get rid of the bad ones.

 

 

I've made the same topic you've already opened about the maps/SW and i've asked the same question, i think SW needs to be always On at least for some maps with bridges like Lame Circle/H&S/MD..

 

 

Sometimes i lose a game because i needed 200$ and you are telling me that i have to make lab to check if they ON? that's so lame

It's really bad to remove a part of the game.

As for the maps change just don't touch mine and we are fine

[rumblesom]

Ps thanks eman, I'll bite take the kind words as being sincere

[ZiGZaG]

Here's all the map's in qm and what i would have in an attempt to balance things to a certain degree josh, whats your thought's?

 

 

 

Standard Map's

 

A Path Beyond II BL v TR 

Alaskan Oil Spill 

Amazonas Delta 

Another Cold Day 

Arctic Circle 

Bull Run 

Caverns of Siberia 

City Under Siege 

Cold War 

Coldest Peak 

Country Swing 

Deadman's Ridge

DEFCON 6   

Depth Charge 

Divide and Conquer 

Dry Heat T v B 

Eventide 

Glowing Waters 

Golden State Fwy 

Golden State Valley 

Hammer and Sickle 

Head for the Hills 

Heartland 

Heartland BL vs TR 

Heartland T v B 

Heck Freezes Over R v R 

Infinity 

Jungle of Vietnam 

Lake Blitzen 

Lake Blitzen TL v BR 

Lakeside Plateaus 

Landmarks 

Little Big Bay  

Malibu Cliffs 

Malibu Cliffs TL v BR 

May Day 

Montana DMZ 

Morningtide 

North Waves 

Oasis Trouble 

Official Tournament Map A 

Official Tournament Map B 

Official Tournament Map Q 

Paris Revisited 

Paris Revisited BL v TR 

Poltergeist 

River Rampage 

Roundhouse Kick 

Savage Winter 

Snow Valley 

Snow Valley TL v BR 

South Pacific 

South Pacific TL v BR 

Sovereign Land 

Stormy Weather 

The Hills Have Eyes 

The Path More Traveled By 

Thin Ice

Tiger Bay Night 

Tikal 

Tour of Egypt 

Twin Peaks 

Urban Marine revisited 

Valley Of Gems 

Yellowstone 

Yin Yang 

 Urban Rush 

 

Non-Standard Map's

 

A Path Beyond II 

Alaskan Outback 

Anytown, Amerika 

Arden River 

Canyon Fodder 

DC Uprising 

DC Uprising BL vs TR 

Dead Ice 

Deja Vu 

Dry Heat 

El Dorado 

Heck Freezes Over 

Heck Freezes Over B v B 

Heck Freezes Over Corners 

Heck Freezes Over L v L 

Heck Freezes Over T v T 

Isle of War 

Little Big Lake 

Little Piece of Island

Pinch Point 

Shrapnel Mountain 

Siberian Wastes 

The Alamo 

Yuri's Plot

 

Map's Supers always ON

 

Alaskan oil spill

Deadmans ridge

Depth Charge

Hammer and Sickle

River rampage (When mirrored)

Isle of War

Montana DMZ

 

Map's Mirror only

Urban Rush 

Alaskan Oil Spill

Official Tournament Map A

Defcon 6

[FReQuEnZy]

Is it 'going nowhere' because I don't agree with you?

Because you keep repeating yourself.

The baseline for map balance and needs of the players who's voices really matter in this subject are the consensus which you so keenly neglect.

 

What is QM?
It's a quick player matching service to allow 'equally' skilled players to 1v1 in a contest for the best player based on the player's experience, ingenuity and speed..

What is the main effect of random super weapons?
It adds a factor of luck into the matches, which should not exist in the above described format.

Why is map balance important?
Same as above, it adds a factor of luck if there is a lack of it.

Why the above two luck factors should be completely removed?
To allow for a clear cut playing field for the players, so that their game results are entirely reflected on their self gained abilities.

Is there a need for a democratic vote or a consensus?
No, as a lot of the players don't take part in the voting process. There's far too many biased opinions of players who don't really care or mind it.
They might often say the contrary of a good balance option, just because they prefer the challenge.

What's the best course of action?
The maps should be analysed according to clear logic in a unbiased manner, circumstances based on the "what if" argument should be removed from consideration
when determining the balance of the maps, also the player's taste in maps should be cut out.

There are clear advantages for certain factions on some maps and these maps should be set to mirrored by default upon determining those specific balance issues.
There are also maps that feature slight advantages for certain factions due to map size/unit specific functionality. Most of those circumstances will be ruled out
if super weapons are always enabled.

To accumulate a reasonable base of a consensus a topic should be made listing all the available QM maps and having each interested player mark them by their opinion of balance. Does a map feature an advantage to [A] Allied, [s] Soviet or is it [E] even with the consideration of super weapons always being on.

If you cross reference the accumulated data from such a thread with older balance changes requested from the community you can build a reasonable image of what experienced players consider as balanced or not.

Take action according to facts, not endless debates of "what I like and find to be correct" in most cases the many opinions about maps in this topic are motivated by player's own level of experience, skill and the need to feel challenged. There's no option of finding the correct answer through trial and error in this entire mess which needs to be cultivated with the addition of well thought out threads and analysis.




A lot of us are experienced QM players and we know clearly what's bad/good in terms of balance, so how about we make it clear for once. Consider the balance of the maps as if you were vs yourself AvS,SvA,AvA,SvS.

Edited by FReQuEnZy, 05 November 2013 - 12:01 AM.

[SoVsOrDiE]

While i understand your point i dfisagree with this, i think it would be cool however if each player was given a choice of say 5 map's they didnt have to play.

 

That would be totally fine by me. I would like to see how many people agreed on certain maps. Mine would be as follows:

 

Alaskan Oil Spill

Depth Charge

Pinch Point

Arctic Circle

City Under Siege (personal hatred more than anything)

[Seke]

I vehemently oppose having superweapons on in all games!

[FReQuEnZy]

But a player could miss-click while using a super weapon and give you a chance to win none the less.

[rumblesom]

any vote by any non-permanently banned player will be treated equally. 

[ExpaNd]

Here is my opinion on this Subject, first off
"Tactics evolve" is a very poor argument here and ill explain.
Tactics were at a peak back in the day, because there were so many players, and GOOD players, that there were a lot more tactics being used then today and even in recent years, in fact I could argue tactics have actually been lost, and searching in strategy and tactics forum and reading posts from 03-05 by good players will support my argument.

The reason maps all the old maps were still put into Qm (now bear with me I am a yr player) is because of the lack of variety, with the exception of raiders map "where angels dare" there were no other official tournament maps, let alone a way to implement them into everyone's game since there can't be an update.

Luck will always be apart of this game, whether it be dog luck, not being able to keep up with everything, or even just random glitches that happen for no reason, its a part of the game an while it should be minimized, it will never go away completely.
Things like in sovereign land where if u want to build your warfac by the derrick, L will be 1-2 seconds behind no matter what, however this give u a slight eco boost at the start from not building anything. While they might no neccasarily equal out, you have to take the good with the bad because you want to win.

Grandfathered maps should be maps like sovereign land, which have little imbalances but overall aren't bad, like heartland,DMZ, country swing, etc.... But leaving in, say, dc uprising, is just plain ignorant.

I personally feel like all the maps currently in Qm should stay (except thin ice with the ugly TL spot that's so annoying ) and players should be able to check 3-7 maps they don't want to play (if players checked 7 different maps, that's 14 maps they cant play each other on and that's a lot) but I'm sure you'll notice a trend in the maps checked, and can decide to keep maps in Qm on there popularity with top/ all players. And then have a vote on the top three most checked maps which one to take out for a new map etc... Or however you want to do it. But drastically changing Qm in one big movement is a dumb idea in my opinion unless you can get it right 100%. And I highly doubt it, Qm isn't too bad at the moment, it could be better sure, but don't make it worse!

[Seke]

i think allowing players to disable ~10% of their maps is decent idea

 

for people without auto ss this would be 3 maps

 

for people with auto ss this would be like 9 maps; 3 from original 26 and 6 from the other 60-70 or so if Josh is correct and there is 100

Edited by Seke, 05 November 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[FReQuEnZy]

i think allowing players to disable ~10% of their maps is decent idea

 

for people without auto ss this would be 3 maps

 

for people with auto ss this would be like 9 maps; 3 from original 26 and 6 from the other 60-70 or so if Josh is correct and there is 100

 

I said that during the last QM renovation and the thing is that the staff doesn't support it.

 

Even though it's a tried and tested method that's been used in a lot of blizzard made RTS, WC 3, SC2, SC2 HOS..

[rumblesom]

I proposed it formally? We both suggested it and there was lots of support. What are you talking about?

@tony well idk about that- tim and marko discussed a new school build for pinch they both agreed is the best way to play L side.

Marko innovated a nice build for hammer tl which I never saw once during my heavy qming days. After his vid everyone was using it. Tactics do/did evolve and maps are judged accordingly.

Edited by rumblesom, 05 November 2013 - 06:13 PM.

[Seke]

josh, i think allowing people to disable a certain % of each map pool would be best as it is simple and benefits each player

[rumblesom]

I don't think it will happen mason- but setting all new maps to non standard is possible. That does allow everyone the chance to control many of their map choices.

[ExpaNd]

I proposed it formally? We both suggested it and there was lots of support. What are you talking about?

@tony well idk about that- tim and marko discussed a new school build for pinch they both agreed is the best way to play L side.

Marko innovated a nice build for hammer tl which I never saw once during my heavy qming days. After his vid everyone was using it. Tactics do/did evolve and maps are judged accordingly.

How do you know this was newschool? And also, when were your heavy Qm days? Lol.
The problem is with this game tactics aren't that diverse, and they can only evolve so much... Its been 12+ years since the game has been out, I won't ever be able to change your mind, but in 06 tactics were kind of stagnent (on certain maps)because powerful b.o.s and strategies were made popular but if you talked to any good old-school player, they can tell you a lot more about the game/tactics then you think.

I haven't seen any topic of a (good) older player saying a map is overpowered for one side, that hasnt held true to this day.

Edit: 2v2 tactics are a lot more diverse and are pretty much the only evolution I've seen/been a part of.

Tactics rarely become "outdated" on this game.
Apoc+deso push is one of the oldest tactics in the book!

Edited by ExpaNd, 05 November 2013 - 06:59 PM.

[ZiGZaG]

I don't think it will happen mason- but setting all new maps to non standard is possible. That does allow everyone the chance to control many of their map choices.

 

I think that's a bad idea personally.

[ExpaNd]

I think that's a bad idea personally.

+1

[dsector]

Easiest "fix" would be to set all maps to standard and be able to uncheck 10 maps from the control panel (5 new and 5 old). The only problem would be if someone doesn't have the new maps. They would only get matched on 16 to 26 original maps. This can easily be fixed by making the map selections work only with the AutoSS patch.

[rumblesom]

How do you know this was newschool? And also, when were your heavy Qm days? Lol.
The problem is with this game tactics aren't that diverse, and they can only evolve so much... Its been 12+ years since the game has been out, I won't ever be able to change your mind, but in 06 tactics were kind of stagnent (on certain maps)because powerful b.o.s and strategies were made popular but if you talked to any good old-school player, they can tell you a lot more about the game/tactics then you think.

I haven't seen any topic of a (good) older player saying a map is overpowered for one side, that hasnt held true to this day.

Edit: 2v2 tactics are a lot more diverse and are pretty much the only evolution I've seen/been a part of.

Tactics rarely become "outdated" on this game.
Apoc+deso push is one of the oldest tactics in the book!

fair enough Tony, I can't be certain those tactics weren't oldschool. Nonetheless there are definitely periods where certain tactics become prevalent and in those times map judgement relates to their success. 

Easiest "fix" would be to set all maps to standard and be able to uncheck 10 maps from the control panel (5 new and 5 old). The only problem would be if someone doesn't have the new maps. They would only get matched on 16 to 26 original maps. This can easily be fixed by making the map selections work only with the AutoSS patch.

The veto thing isn't likely to happen. 

[dsector]

Why? It's easy to implement.

[rumblesom]

I think that's a bad idea personally.

but jason u voted for that ..

 

 

 

And I personally favored the % of the map pool veto option since the patch was released, but with all the support it got last time nothing happend. Besides, as soon as that becomes a poll option you'll see many disagree. We did this exactly in the last so called "renovation" 

[FReQuEnZy]

Indeed, I proposed the option and no one wanted it, it was fine according to most players as it was.

[PiNeRs]

IMO.....if ur looking for actual balance, then, realistically, the map selection should be drastically reduced. There are probably 25 maps that should be played seriously, half of which should be mirrored only. We dont need 96million maps for ggs. How about quality over quantity?

 

Here is an example. Take a look at montana DMZ. This is a classic map that is played seriously by all levels of players (including myself) and is well liked. Many ggs on DMZ.    However, in no way is this map balanecd at all-- right side has a freakin airpot and left does not. The location of the bridges in relation to where the players' buildiings will be placed greatly favors the right side as well, making it easier to defend right side and easier to set up an attack on the left side of the map. Ofc, having a FREE para for no reason amplifies all of this......hello ??? This is obviously not fair at all. I understrand that any faction can win on any map at any time, but if ur looking for balanced matches over fun matches, then most maps  should be removed because most maps are like DMZ in one way or another.  

Here are some more obviously imbalanced or simply just bad/"non-pro" maps:

 

1. Malibu cliffs-- Bottom right and bottom middle right has huge economic and postional advantage vs other spots.

2. May day--bottom is so much better. Not only is it easier to defend from paras (paras come from top) but u can fix bridge to hit miners as well as kill4 oil derricks for one.

3. Isle of war--im a camper and all, but you can camp on this map with ur eyes closed. Its just bad.

4. Pinch point--can it get any more boring, less technical and less pro than this?

5. Urban rush--Like pinch point, limits players to actually doing things. its so small and simple.

The list goes on and on and on. I dont care if a restaurant has 12,000 meals to choose from, if there are only 800 meals that are actually high quality, you're most likely gonna select a bad meal.

 

If i was in charge of making qm as balanced as possible , Ive narrowed it down to 25 maps (11 of which are mirror only)

 

-Amazons delta (mirror only)

-Artic circle (mirror only)

-Bull Run

-Caverns of Siberia

-City under siege (mirror only w/ superweapons always on)

-Coldest peak

-Divide and Conquer

-Dry heat TvB (mirror only)

-Eventide (mirror only)

-Glowing waters

-Golden state valley

-Heartland BL vs TR 

-Jungle of Vietnam

-Morningtide

-Tourny B

-Tourny A (mirror only)

-Poltergiest

-Roundhouse kick (mirror only)

-Heck RvR

-Heck BvB (mirror only)

-Snow valley TL vs BR

-South pacific TL vs BR

-Tour of egypt (mirror only)

-yin yang (mirror only)-

Lakeside plat (mirror only)

 

after some rigourous play, maybe even some of these should be removed as well.  Why waste ur time playing defcon 6 when u can be playing snow valley? If ur answer is "i like alot of maps" or something, then thats fine, but u dont care about balance.

 

*Edit: and each player should be allowed 1-3 vetos so they dont have to play their least fav map/s. I like this.

Edited by PiNeRs, 06 November 2013 - 04:43 PM.

[ZiGZaG]

but jason u voted for that ..

 

 

 

And I personally favored the % of the map pool veto option since the patch was released, but with all the support it got last time nothing happend. Besides, as soon as that becomes a poll option you'll see many disagree. We did this exactly in the last so called "renovation" 

 

I ment to remove my vote as tbh id vote for none of the option's, my bad, you didnt give your thought's on my list?