#1

I just want to ask you WHYYYY!? Like seriously, why would anyone want to vote overgrowth after being introduced to monuments? Every situation that was an issue with Overgrowth has been answered and there’s so many different ways you and your team can approach the sentry in a strategic form, while also having your opponents do the same thing.

Like seriously, after playing momuments, overgrowth just seems so linear. People complain it has back doors but if every character can do it is it really considered a back door? It’s more like an open window than a back door, and I like open windows, lets a cool refreshing breeze into the meta.

There’s just nothing enjoyable about bumping heads for 30 minutes on a linear approach to your opponents sentry fighting over the shock turret in Overgrowth. After playing Monuments anyways. And don’t get me started about teams who camp the sentry. Like majority of players aren’t defending the sentry, the sentry is defending them, and will camp at their sentry until they feel they can get a power play before they try and move forward. And this is an occuring thing. At least in monuments you can approach at different angles if your opponents try to camp the sentry.

I just finished an overgrowth match where a marquis literally camped the sniper perch the WHOLE game, and running towards his sentry the moment he is targeted. It was so lame and so boring to play after the first 15 minutes.

Monuments brings a 3D perspective to the Incursion land, where Echelon tried with the Bridge and outside passes, Monument got it down perfected it feels, and it most definitely brings a new dimension to the incursion meta.

I honestly just feel people want to play overgrowth cause they are familiar with it and don’t wanna try the new maps, but how you gonna get familiar with something if you don’t try it?

Seriously, what’s the benefit of Overgrowth now as I’m not seeing a point of fighting over a hole in the jungle for 30 minutes only to have players get protected from the thing you are suppose to protect.

9 Likes
#2

agreed, monuments offers a push back for the defense because the offense actually has to extend to push and coordinate their attack. Overgrowth is a boring jumbled campfest. I’d like overgrowth more if shock turrets were in bunker and a stinger at mid. The stringing effect of the shocker would actually give you an aid to defend your bunker against multiple attackers, while removing the aim difficulties of the current stinger; the bunker on overgrowth as of now is seen as a place to attack the sentry from, but it’d be better shaped as a place to defend the sentry from. A stinger at mid lane would be better at single damage output, and less focused on wave clear.

#3

Maybe because they like overgrowth? Why are people overcomplicating things lol

1 Like
#4

It’s actually really simple.
1.Overgrowth was introduced in open beta, a lot of poeple got familair with it and later were just unwilling to go into unfamiliar maps. As time passed, this became more and more of a problem because such people when occasionally were dropped in Echelon were wrecked by the few people who were willing to learn two maps for a mode (I know that’s some hardcore dedication there). And because of that were even more conditioned to avoid other maps.
2. Overgrowth is a really simple map. You pile up two teams behind one corner and let them headbump for up to 30 mins until one or two players on one team makes a mistake, get taken out and this gives another team a window to push until another corner and let the situation repeat. Minions are unimportant because they are just too few for 5 players in one place. (Devs could actually increase their numbers like 3 times to make them as important as in meltdown).

1 Like
#5

The only thing Momuments does really well is the fact it gives the defending teams ways out.

  1. Flanking is really good and almost free done right.
  2. People just can’t back off and immediately re hit the sentry from jump ups.
  3. If they push but you take doubles. The push is dead.

However, there are other things like peeking a corner and taking 27 tower shots in a row that make it even harder for the pushing team. Seriously the sentry is a chaingun.

In some ways its better others not.

#6

Even though Monuments has more in common design wise with 2-fort, Overgrowth is the 2-fort of Battleborn.

They should copy 2-fort. Call it “Not Too Fort”

#7

Since im a n00b outside of this and FGCs, what’s 2 fort from?

#8

One of the big points you’re bringing up is that Overgrowth could benefit from a second look.

#9

Why is there 2 posts out about this? People like overgrowth better for many reasons. If you get pushed back early you aren’t screwed there. You can’t take the shield out from a safe distance there. If you try to go tunnel or shard spot on overgrowth any good team will have 1-2 collapse on you and make you regret your decision. You don’t have a ledge above the sentry that a Benedict or a mellka or an isic can just sit up on and reign fire down on minions, or BB that go in the lane, or slowly take the sentry shield down on overgrowth. Taking double thrall is actually a gamble on overgrowth as they can sneak from shard spot and steal from you, monuments you just hold the lane and 1 person can take their sweet time with them. I like the change of pace but any “good game” on overgrowth will trump any “good game” on monuments to me.

1 Like
#10

if by, “new meta”, you mean new ways to backdoor, then sure, this is the new meta. ive killed the sentry as a level 3 oscar mike far too many times on that map already to call monuments a competitive map. ive also seen teams get pushed back right away and try to literally over you and the middle of the map and immediately try to backdoor the sentry or at least distract your push. that is just desperation and a sign of weakness and defeat. cant hold middle lane, cant push minions, cant kill players, im gonna backdoor…

you cant have areas on a map that are power positions that are so easily accessible to some characters, and literally impossible for others. that is the opposite of competitive. i get it if people are having fun with the new map, and i have nothing against that. it is something different. but change and fun dont necessarily equal competitive. in this case, monuments is a very casual place for people to have fun, while overgrowth is a competitive battleground where people test their skill, unless you backdoor

1 Like
#11

2fort is from Team Fortess 1&2.

It is both the worst and best map ever.

#12

I thought that was de_dust? Oh wait, no, dust is just the worst map ever…

#13

there’s only one spot accessible to certain heroes. Mellka, isic, deande, attikus, and benedict can all reach it easily. But if your team is weak in mobility and vulnerable to an attack from up there, the flank routes allow you a lane to push and causes the defense to adjust. That’s the issue with overgrowth, there’s no adjustment. There’s no counter. It’s just one team camps around sentry and the other team camps just outside bottleneck, where if the defending team steps out of their base they get burst down because there’s too much congestion in too little space. Your argument is bonk because monuments actually encourages using the whole map and provides areas that can’t be ignored while bunkers are by design forgotten in overgrowth. In all the games I’ve played on overgrowth only once have I witnessed a team use strategy on overgrowth and it was through the bunker. It’s less about one map being good or bad and more about drag of players wanting to do the same thing the same way every time

#14

I still dry heave thinking about that map.

#15

It needs several looks at it.

#16

The map need some fix (like turret placement, Healing station at spawn is useless, too long straight line before the sentry can’t really go melee etc… ) but yes she offer more possibilities than Overgrowth

And the fact is usually players don’t like a map because they are not familiar with it, and they are not familiar with it because they don’t like to play on it, and they don’t like it because… etc… … … Vicious Circle
There are many games where it’s like this CS, LOL, Shootmania etc…

I think that for competition, a player who can adapt and learn more than one map is better than someone who only play on one map for years (pre-shoot isn’t skilled it’s just habit/reflex)… but feel like it’s not how they think

#17

I like monuments. Its much more versatile than the other stages. But Overgrowth is familiar and most people including myself find comfort in that. I love the stages both equally.

I really don’t care what stage gets chosen as long as its not Echelon. I’ve been playing this game for nearly a month and I still cant bring myself to like that stage.

#18

i have won countless games where we do not win the middle of the map on overgrowth immediately, or are even pushed around into our bottlekneck. and i dont mean against scrubs, i mean in actual tournament play. do you play tournaments and private matches at all? the strategy at high levels is team composition and coordination on 3 main areas of the map: perch, main lane, tunnel. on monuments it is one back door after another. cant win the main lane? its cool, just jump over the team that earned their position and dive the sentry, damage it from backdoor area, or just come up behind them and force them away from the position they earned.

every team comes into the game with the same strategy initially: to take control of the middle of the map. if that fails, competent players regroup and coordinate to take it back, while less competent players just think of how they can do something different other than just outplay