Okay so I'm enjoying QM'ing again recently, however I feel far too often that certain position play a deciding role in the outcome of a series. I don't usually moan about positions or any map for that matter, however recently there has been an influx of dodgy games where you feel like you've basically lost before you start. Now in this day and age of Ra2 we have remakes of most of the maps in question. So why on earth aren't these lame spots just put to bed for good? We could so easily replace them with the 'fair' versions of them. Just to name a few.
Heartland replace with BL vs TR
Paris replace with Paris BL v TR
SP replace with TL vs BR
Snow Valley replace with TL vs BR
DC Uprising replace with BL vs TR (although still unfair, it would be a huge improvement to getting that BR spot vs TR..)
Dry Heat replace with TvB (L's miner takes so damn long to get money early game, it's near impossible, really)
Now those are really all I can think of from the top of my head, however I have been burned by them enough times recently to clearly remember the games. This is merely a suggestion at the end of the day, but i'm sure a lot would agree losing your points to a lame spot just sucks, especially if a deciding game. It would be such an easy change to make..please consider
Sincerely
Hey Chris-
I agree that most of the spots you mentioned are imbalanced in comparison to the majority of new QM maps, but most of those problems actually comprised the classic qm for years. What I mean is, years worth of competition were played on those maps and spots and it seemed like the game was well loved.
As far as I can recall (I arrived in 2007, but took interest in the history of the game before my time) the most contentious problems were on Tour A, DC Uprising and Pinch Point. But a quick search will return many topics in which the active pros of the time debated inconclusively what should done, if anything.
I think that's testament to the fact that either of two evenly matched players could win from either spot in most of the scenarios you mention.
So maybe those games aren't perfect per se, but fall within a certain tolerance most accepted at the time.
Now the new maps have raised the standard of "fair balance" considerably, and all the map variants such as BL vs TR Paris were created to enable players to choose the more fair set ups for classic maps, but only in custom games.
The QM is a bit of a different story imo. My impression of the QM has always been its a bit raw- no hand-holding. Kind of like: You get the map you get, the spot you get, and the game is ranked. Deal with it. If you can't hack it then you're not cut out for the 1v1 ladder.
Nowadays tho the QM is underused and most top end games are played via tournament or CM. I think that's more a product of activity than dissatisfaction with map balance, but it's probably both.
Having administered the map pool for years I've always been especially careful to preserve the traditional maps of the QM. I mostly agree that the qm should be refined towards fair balance as much as possible, but I also have a bit of fondness for the "raw" qm style. It is true that a few elite players dominated the top ranks consistently, and they had to deal with the imbalanced scenarios you mention.
Maybe there's a balance to be struck? Or maybe that's just nonsense and the QM should be built to be as fair as possible (which is to an extent a subjective matter).
And the kicker- even tho it seems as if programming the patch so that two players both using it could be matched on a refined set maps (fairest balance) we've had trouble implementing it.. you know what I mean?
And for games between players without the patch, or with only 1 of two ppl using the patch, what should be done then? Allow the 'unfair' set ups? No QM for them? I think it can get a bit complicated.
And finally, where does it end? Should we have a tiny set of maps which are the fairest of the fairest fair maps? haha even if we got a majority to vote in favor of stringent fairness (unlikely I think, diversity is more appreciated) it'd be a billion-to-1 shot that we could also agree on which few maps to include.
but really- the implementation problem is the sort of nonstarter where all this discussion ends.
As a starting point, perhaps people could suggest a good total number of maps for the QM, and name some maps they think are the most fair.