|
I'm going to try to make this as short and concise as possible.
I want to discuss this:
Having map rotations might be the key to a healthier starcraft environment. This is an exact inverse of lol's rotation of heroes. + Show Spoiler +Inverse being: in lol, you get different units on same map. In sc, you have same units on different map
Setup:
+ Show Spoiler +imagine that sc2 was f2p (so you did not spend $50) for a moment in teamliquidtopia, has a points earning system, with possibly a 'buy' points system with real money. There are a fair number of maps (~11?) in liquidtopia's sc2 rotation. fyi there are 8 maps in current wol pool
1. A fresh account would access to x number + Show Spoiler + maps.
2. You're able to earn points for access to more maps as you ladder.
3. Maps rotate
Details: (not that important)
1. Fresh account has 4 maps available(maps = current map rotation), which gives a fresh account 3 'fors' (fors = opposite of vetos)
2. If you 'buy' a map, you have access to 1 always available map + the 4 of rotation (but only 3 'fors')
3. Also able to purchase more 'fors'.
4. Maps rotate every week(?) with maps constantly being fed and pulled so stagnation is avoided. (every season or whatever)
This does a few things:
1. Gives players something to work toward
2. Keeps players interested by giving them new content to use
3. Most importantly: stops map stagnation/boredom
Notes:
1. The main feeling I'm trying to express and give to starcraft is: I don't watch a lot of lol, but imagine I'm watching tournament x with superstar player y, who is really sick with or reinvented new hero z. Now, as a newbie I'm drawn to how sick that hero is, and want to play him. Or I see how hero q is used in every game, so he must be a good hero to play. Translate that for starcraft, where a new strategy/style/whatever is created on a new map, or a map is in the current tournament rotation. New players could be attracted to that map because it's popular/has a interesting style/strategy.
New heroes/maps aren't immediately put into rotation, so if I want to play the new thing, I have to purchase (to purchase I have to have points, for points I have to play, etc). I think that feeling from lol is common, and the resulting action is common from players.
2. I'm pissed/bitter that we're still playing on shakura, antiga, etc when there are SO MANY MORE maps that are FUCKING SICK being created by esv, gsl, community, etc.
3. This is an ok solution for newer players, because newer players are too focused on the units instead of focusing on the actual maps. It is probably simpler for very new players to play on a very limited set of maps (while earning toward more maps, etc)
4. This is an ok solution for players who play a lot because they would be able to earn the maps they want (provided rotation maps aren't shit).
5. This requires blizzard to be placing maps in and out, doing actual work for sc2 and not making hats for wow pets
6. Not important to note, but all maps should be playable as custom game.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm sure this idea isn't orginal, but I to bring it up again. I really want new maps
I just wanted to bring up a simple version (main details being ommited) with the main focus being map rotation
This was not short, but maybe concise
ty to iccup for having a motw system
i love starcraft
tybg
|
|
|
How would this work in following situations?
A) two players A and B meet on ladder. A has following fors : basic map 1, basic map 2, basic map 3. B has following fors : premium map 1, premium map 2, premium map 3. Intersection of the two sets is empty.
a1) If one of the maps from A set is selected - what is the incentive for B to buy premium maps, when he will be forced to play on bacis maps anyway?
a2) If one of the maps from B set is selected - what is the incentive for A to buy premium maps, when he will be able to play on premium maps anyway?
a3) If one of the maps not in A nad not in B is selected - what is the incentive for A and B to buy premium maps, when they will be forced to play on unknown maps anyway?
B) 128 men meet in tournament setting. Intersection of their respective playable maps is basic maps. How will the admin set the mappool?
b1) If only basic maps are in the mappool - you are seriously limiting freedom of tournaments.
b2) If a single premium map is in the mappol - playing field is not even for all competitors, some will be not able to prepare on the tournament maps. Argument, that he would be able to buy them is not valid, since you would prevent "rising stars" to occur (which is desirable to prevent having a stale community). It is irracional to invest in maps, when there is no guarantee of payback.
|
On October 23 2012 23:01 Keiras wrote:
How would this work in following situations?
A) two players A and B meet on ladder. A has following fors : basic map 1, basic map 2, basic map 3. B has following fors : premium map 1, premium map 2, premium map 3. Intersection of the two sets is empty.
a1) If one of the maps from A set is selected - what is the incentive for B to buy premium maps, when he will be forced to play on bacis maps anyway?
a2) If one of the maps from B set is selected - what is the incentive for A to buy premium maps, when he will be able to play on premium maps anyway?
a3) If one of the maps not in A nad not in B is selected - what is the incentive for A and B to buy premium maps, when they will be forced to play on unknown maps anyway?
B) 128 men meet in tournament setting. Intersection of their respective playable maps is basic maps. How will the admin set the mappool?
b1) If only basic maps are in the mappool - you are seriously limiting freedom of tournaments.
b2) If a single premium map is in the mappol - playing field is not even for all competitors, some will be not able to prepare on the tournament maps. Argument, that he would be able to buy them is not valid, since you would prevent "rising stars" to occur (which is desirable to prevent having a stale community). It is irracional to invest in maps, when there is no guarantee of payback.
A) You're right, the initial system is broken. Here's a change that forces intersection of 1 map: 5 maps are motw, you can only downvote 2 max motw maps. But the premium maps you can veto or for as many as you want.. (because you purchased those. And the conflict of a premium map you own and the same map being a motw would have to be fixed somehow) This would always make for a single map to be shared.
a1, 2) This could be a problem, but I'm not sure how realistic it is. If reading correctly, in a1, you're saying that if player B has premium maps, but player A does not, so why should player B waste his points on maps he'll won't play on vs player A? This is a good point, but the reason I want to say it's unrealistic is that hopefully players are spending points on maps, so there are more than just basic maps to be able to play on. I'm hoping that when queuing, players who are placed on a motw map are not bothered by the fact that it is a non-premium map. (as the motw maps are the premium maps that are in rotation)
a3) With the op system, you're right something weird would happen if the two sets of maps for two players didn't have an intersection. But if a system was created that forced an intersection (5 motw maps, with 2 veto) those two players would be forced to play on that map when meeting on ladder. (but remember maps rotate, so that map changes if they happen to veto in a specific way)
B)
b1) All maps should be playable in custom games for free (but you cannot earn points in custom games). I'm also trying to imagine a world where blizzard would be constant injecting new tournament maps into the ladder, and removing old ones. So if a player did not want to buy map x that was in tournament y, they still have the option to practice map x in customs.
b2) The tournament system is wol is somewhat already like this. Higher level players need to practice in customs for tournament specific maps, which stops normals from becoming really good at those maps without partners.
|
On October 24 2012 02:38 andeh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 23:01 Keiras wrote:
How would this work in following situations?
A) two players A and B meet on ladder. A has following fors : basic map 1, basic map 2, basic map 3. B has following fors : premium map 1, premium map 2, premium map 3. Intersection of the two sets is empty.
a1) If one of the maps from A set is selected - what is the incentive for B to buy premium maps, when he will be forced to play on bacis maps anyway?
a2) If one of the maps from B set is selected - what is the incentive for A to buy premium maps, when he will be able to play on premium maps anyway?
a3) If one of the maps not in A nad not in B is selected - what is the incentive for A and B to buy premium maps, when they will be forced to play on unknown maps anyway?
B) 128 men meet in tournament setting. Intersection of their respective playable maps is basic maps. How will the admin set the mappool?
b1) If only basic maps are in the mappool - you are seriously limiting freedom of tournaments.
b2) If a single premium map is in the mappol - playing field is not even for all competitors, some will be not able to prepare on the tournament maps. Argument, that he would be able to buy them is not valid, since you would prevent "rising stars" to occur (which is desirable to prevent having a stale community). It is irracional to invest in maps, when there is no guarantee of payback.
A) You're right, the initial system is broken. Here's a change that forces intersection of 1 map: 5 maps are motw, you can only downvote 2 max motw maps. But the premium maps you can veto or for as many as you want.. (because you purchased those. And the conflict of a premium map you own and the same map being a motw would have to be fixed somehow) This would always make for a single map to be shared. a1, 2) This could be a problem, but I'm not sure how realistic it is. If reading correctly, in a1, you're saying that if player B has premium maps, but player A does not, so why should player B waste his points on maps he'll won't play on vs player A? This is a good point, but the reason I want to say it's unrealistic is that hopefully players are spending points on maps, so there are more than just basic maps to be able to play on. I'm hoping that when queuing, players who are placed on a motw map are not bothered by the fact that it is a non-premium map. (as the motw maps are the premium maps that are in rotation) a3) With the op system, you're right something weird would happen if the two sets of maps for two players didn't have an intersection. But if a system was created that forced an intersection (5 motw maps, with 2 veto) those two players would be forced to play on that map when meeting on ladder. (but remember maps rotate, so that map changes if they happen to veto in a specific way) B) b1) All maps should be playable in custom games for free (but you cannot earn points in custom games). I'm also trying to imagine a world where blizzard would be constant injecting new tournament maps into the ladder, and removing old ones. So if a player did not want to buy map x that was in tournament y, they still have the option to practice map x in customs. b2) The tournament system is wol is somewhat already like this. Higher level players need to practice in customs for tournament specific maps, which stops normals from becoming really good at those maps without partners.
If additional maps were premium and used in tournaments, pro players would have access to them. It's not asking very much to invest a small amount of money into maps to be seriously competitive. All games are like this anyway -- you have to buy the game in the first place. MtG works just fine like this as well; in fact, it's central to their business model.
Ladder wouldn't match people who didn't share a map to play on. Simple as that. This skews towards noobs playing noobs, which is good. Invested players play each other. It also provides an incentive to buy maps: faster search for ladder matches.
Unfortunately there is also incentive to avoid maps on which your race isn't as strong. This is effectively a system that would give a huge amount of vetos to players which you would have to assume would be abused to some extent and fragment the ladder system. Avoiding mirror matches would then be a secondary dynamic incentivizing playing with a wider group of maps.
But you can't expect players to want to play on 30 or more potential maps. A given map pool should probably max out around 12 at the very most. The rotation scheme would have to be pretty tight, but couldn't move so fast as to devalue practice on and "solving" a map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
