|
On November 26 2015 11:00 SolaR- wrote:
If FS were taken from ICCUP, i would go to FISH 100%. I think many others would too. Perhaps the dumbest decision anyone could ever make. Koreans are still playing FS to no end, i don't see why we should stop either..
If FS will be removed in near future I'll truly suspect that DotA admins paid BW admins so server can host 1 game which gives needful amount of money due to popularity, donations (kids aren't BW elitists, they love to purchase every shit) and don't bother about BW so due to inactivity they can close it.
Even decision about new ladder system was really awkward and poor. Now every B+ player gets to Olympic easily. What's done was they lowered competition level for sake of luring more crowd but it didn't add popularity.
|
Yall need to shut the fuck up and appreciate the work iCCup does. This is non-profit, they don't owe you shit. If you are gonna ask something of them you better do it politely. (This is in response to the more obnoxious posters that troll every thread in which iCCup promotes practically ANY new idea they have.)
|
My overall impression is that even if a less popular map is to be selected to be replaced, such as chain reaction, no one would play one of these maps.
I believe the problem is that there is a lack of incentive to play on new foreign maps when we can play the same three maps every single game.
|
On November 26 2015 13:01 CrystalDrag wrote:
My overall impression is that even if a less popular map is to be selected to be replaced, such as chain reaction, no one would play one of these maps.
I believe the problem is that there is a lack of incentive to play on new foreign maps when we can play the same three maps every single game.
Personally, I like some of the new foreign-made maps a lot. I think it would be great if one week out of the month, only foreign-made maps were MotW, and have at least 1/2 as MotW every week. That would increase play.
That being said, I don't think they are a necessary aspect of the ladder experience, whereas FS and Python are, whether you or I like it or not.
|
On November 26 2015 13:18 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 13:01 CrystalDrag wrote:
My overall impression is that even if a less popular map is to be selected to be replaced, such as chain reaction, no one would play one of these maps.
I believe the problem is that there is a lack of incentive to play on new foreign maps when we can play the same three maps every single game. Personally, I like some of the new foreign-made maps a lot. I think it would be great if one week out of the month, only foreign-made maps were MotW, and have at least 1/2 as MotW every week. That would increase play. That being said, I don't think they are a necessary aspect of the ladder experience, whereas FS and Python are, whether you or I like it or not.
Btw, we don't intend to cut down on FS or Python anytime soon. Face meant, "any map gets cut eventually" not " we are going to cut FS and Python"
|
On November 22 2015 09:53 outscar wrote:
No,
NO,
NOO,
NOOOUU!!!
None of these maps deserve spot of LT! You can't kill our childhood. Who needs Longinus, Luna or Hunters (as ladder map)?
And why the hell you're deleting old maps from Non-Ladder folder, are you fucking out of your mind? That folder is for remembrance, why you even want to touch that folder, does deleting needful things gives you a benefit? 5 MB is too much for you or to your host in 2015? Can't believe what are you doing guys. You're admin so please remain as admin and don't touch things that you didn't create. You're killing past for empty future.
I absolutely don't get your problem. Haven't you been one of the most vocal about using new maps in the past? Obviously, old ones have to go for that. And culling ancient, imbalanced ones first is the most reasonable decision.
What makes Hunters or Luna any better candidates to be removed than LT? Certainly not balance. In case of Hunters, seniority is not an argument either (arguably, it isn't one in the first place).
On November 22 2015 14:28 mca64Launcher_ wrote:
Why remove legendary Lost Temple? Sc:bw = LT for many gamers. Its a disgrace.
On November 22 2015 15:58 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
removing lost temple is removing the history of starcraft ^^
Have any of you guys even been around when LT was literally the only map to ever play, being kind of the least terrible in a pile of almost unplayably imbalanced maps (any one remember Showdown?!)?
On November 23 2015 01:14 PhilipJayFry wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Why does this drama has to arise all the time when a map will be removed from the ladder-maps? I was involved in making the iCCup mappack few years ago, and we had official numbers of played ladder games per season per map. Even when we wanted to remove maps that had ZERO to max. 3 games PER SEASON people freaked out when we just came up with the idea of removing it. This is really silly, because we need a "balanced" mappack, which means alot of maps that get played equally often. Or we will end up playing FS and Python all the time, no matter what is in MOTW.
This is not about iCCup being disrespectful to the history of BW, it is about keeping the game interesting in our present gaming experience. Also, iCCup won't remove LT from the world wide web, so you are still free to play any version of it, just not as official ladder game, since (almost) nobody does that anyways. Lets give space to the present and future of BW and not hold on the past.
That being said, I also would like to know why it is necessary to remove maps from the Non-Ladder folder. It doesn't hurt to have them all in one place, so we don't have to search the web for the up-to-date versions. It just leads to bloated up download folders, because several different versions will go around on the abyss. If you want to keep the package size low, how about splitting the downloadable mappack file in an "Official Ladder Mappack" and "Non-Ladder Mappack"? This would fix it in my opinion.
This sounds lke a reasonable suggestion.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49707 Posts
Don't agree with removing LT.
I like heartbeat though.
|
On November 26 2015 09:52 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 26 2015 08:55 Cele wrote:To clarify this discussion point:Yes, we as ICCup personel, do want you positive criticism and your constructive feedback. Im not in charge of the map section, but me personally, im happy that people post here and have an opinion, because it shows you care and from that discussion we can have a dialogue about the subject. But keep in mind, we do this for free, we have normal jobs and a regular life and we still try our best. So keep your criticism constructive and fair, that's all im asking. Gecko: the post you replied too is rude, i agree with that, but you should take some stuff a little less personal sometimes  TL:DR This thread is being made to get some feedback on the upcoming change in the mappool. And if your argument is presented in a reasoanable way, it will be heard. Note: I am going to include arguments against the removal of Python and Fighting Spirit in some of these points as it has been brought up by Face. 1. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are just as, if not more, imbalanced as Lost Temple in the map pool. Examples: Destination, Heart Break Ridge, Aztec.
The maps you listed may have some specific racial imbalances. If LT has better statistics of one sort ot anoher, that is only because it has positional imbalances so severe that they in many cases just beat out any racial imbalances...
2. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are much less popular than Lost Temple. Examples: Everything except Python, Fighting Spirit, and of course Lost Temple.
Taking the statistics provide by Birdie
+ Show Spoiler +
into account, this is just not true. You are comparing maps which together make up more than three quarters of games played and equal them to a map with less than 3% use, not to speak of the vast differences in balance and general map quality you are also just entirely ignoring.
3. The removal of Lost Temple is the removal of a still-important part of StarCraft's history and development as a game. Without Lost Temple you would not have Luna, without Luna you would not have Fighting Spirit. Clearly, some people still prefer Lost Temple, as it is being played quite frequently.
History is called history because it is historic. Are you going to make an argument to bring Showdown or Snowbound back into the map pool as well?
4. The removal of Lost Temple, Fighting Spirit, and/or Python would be damaging to the community because there are people who only play on those maps as evidenced by the statistics presented. Instead of switching to different maps, they would simply quit playing ladder. If Korean pros are still playing Fighting Spirit on Fish, why does ICCup think that it is time to move on? Fish has a higher level of activity and a higher average level of skill; perhaps Fighting Spirit, Python, and LT are not the problem. Amateur players would watch their favorite gosus playing Fighting Spriit on Afreeca, but they can't play Fighting Spirit competitively themselves. That would irritate just about anyone who is still active in this game.
Again, you are equating LT to SF, which is just wrong on so many levels that it completely hollows out your argument.
5. "Meta" will not develop because of the removal of some maps. Maps affect strategies. Creating new, diverse maps opens the doors for new map-specific strategies. This does not change any over-arching "meta" between the races or in any match-up, unless suddenly your whole map pack shares common elements that would do so (which would be a bad idea). It just presents different battle grounds with different options. Just want to make it clear that this will not somehow magically affect the overarching viability of Mech in TvP or any other such MU-specific equivalent. If it did, then it would probably be looked down upon, because look: pros are still playing Mech on Fighting Spirit on Afreeca. Edit: No one on ICCup, not the players, nor the administrators. are going to have an actual effect on high-level in-game "meta" anyway. We will forever ride on the coattails of the best players, emulating their strategies. That one build you do to abuse some foreigner map in some MU at C+ on ICCup is not developing any sort of in-game meta, it's just a one-trick pony that you can use to get some points.
But abusing LT from the golden age of map-abusing "mirco plays" is if course much better "meta"! At least you are dropping your guard here and admitting that your real issue is the same old prejudice against "foreigner maps", which only proves that you actually know very little about maps in the first place. There are very different issues at work here. That "foreigners" have no idea how to make and balance a map is not one of them.
6. It is evident from the thread that there will be a lot of complaining and disapproval over this decision. Is that really what a server wants from its player base? I would suggest posting a poll on ICCup.com, on TeamLiquid, and perhaps having a poll on the Abyss itself. For example, you could set up a bot that sends a message every hour saying "Please vote on whether or not to keep Lost Temple in the map pool! /r 1 for 'remove' /r 2 for 'keep' ." After a person messages the bot, the bot can /squelch <user> to ensure there are no multiple submissions. Make an aggregate of the results and go with majority favour. Don't force your concepts of progress onto your players, for it will alienate them.
I will just call your appeal to popularity the logical fallacy that it is. Instead consider this: If Kespa had not forced half a dozen new maps on their players each season while consequently discarding old ones, now matter their popularity, do you think we would have ever seen the rapid evolution of maps and meta we can now look back on? Don't fool yourself here.
7. Every competitive video game needs a popular training stage, a vanilla map, a balanced battle ground. Q3 has the Bouncy Map. Smash Bros Melee has Final Destination and Battlefield. CounterStrike has Dust. Starcraft Brood War has Fighting Spirit.
Yes. And LT is not it. But I guess you are just addressing the rather badly thought out (I agree on that) idea to remove FS from the map pool in the forseeable future despite its being the map at the moment.
|
On November 24 2015 05:55 Jealous wrote:This season's 1v1 ladder map stats provided by Birdie@TeamLiquid: ![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/lwdJG/387e727931.jpg) Yea guys, no one ladders on LT anymore. It's only the third-most popular map of the whole lot.
btw the data here is a bit misleading. Those are the most played maps on ICCup this season, but they are not limited to ladder games. While i don't have a statistic of just ladder games on my hand atm, i imagine that LT would score a lot worse in such a statistic. I expect LT to be played significantly less in ladder games then in UMS games, just becasue it's a fun map, but quite imbalanced.
|
none. all those maps are trash and just cheaply gimmicky af
do you seriously have some sort of a picture in the middle? wow i cant believe you would compramise a maps strategic balance just to have a piece of art in the middle bad maps 1/10
|
On November 26 2015 21:53 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 09:52 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 26 2015 08:55 Cele wrote:To clarify this discussion point:Yes, we as ICCup personel, do want you positive criticism and your constructive feedback. Im not in charge of the map section, but me personally, im happy that people post here and have an opinion, because it shows you care and from that discussion we can have a dialogue about the subject. But keep in mind, we do this for free, we have normal jobs and a regular life and we still try our best. So keep your criticism constructive and fair, that's all im asking. Gecko: the post you replied too is rude, i agree with that, but you should take some stuff a little less personal sometimes TL:DR This thread is being made to get some feedback on the upcoming change in the mappool. And if your argument is presented in a reasoanable way, it will be heard. Note: I am going to include arguments against the removal of Python and Fighting Spirit in some of these points as it has been brought up by Face. 1. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are just as, if not more, imbalanced as Lost Temple in the map pool. Examples: Destination, Heart Break Ridge, Aztec. The maps you listed may have some specific racial imbalances. If LT has better statistics of one sort ot anoher, that is only because it has positional imbalances so severe that they in many cases just beat out any racial imbalances... Show nested quote +2. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are much less popular than Lost Temple. Examples: Everything except Python, Fighting Spirit, and of course Lost Temple. Taking the statistics provide by Birdie + Show Spoiler +into account, this is just not true. You are comparing maps which together make up more than three quarters of games played and equal them to a map with less than 3% use, not to speak of the vast differences in balance and general map quality you are also just entirely ignoring. Show nested quote +3. The removal of Lost Temple is the removal of a still-important part of StarCraft's history and development as a game. Without Lost Temple you would not have Luna, without Luna you would not have Fighting Spirit. Clearly, some people still prefer Lost Temple, as it is being played quite frequently. History is called history because it is historic. Are you going to make an argument to bring Showdown or Snowbound back into the map pool as well? Show nested quote +4. The removal of Lost Temple, Fighting Spirit, and/or Python would be damaging to the community because there are people who only play on those maps as evidenced by the statistics presented. Instead of switching to different maps, they would simply quit playing ladder. If Korean pros are still playing Fighting Spirit on Fish, why does ICCup think that it is time to move on? Fish has a higher level of activity and a higher average level of skill; perhaps Fighting Spirit, Python, and LT are not the problem. Amateur players would watch their favorite gosus playing Fighting Spriit on Afreeca, but they can't play Fighting Spirit competitively themselves. That would irritate just about anyone who is still active in this game. Again, you are equating LT to SF, which is just wrong on so many levels that it completely hollows out your argument. Show nested quote +5. "Meta" will not develop because of the removal of some maps. Maps affect strategies. Creating new, diverse maps opens the doors for new map-specific strategies. This does not change any over-arching "meta" between the races or in any match-up, unless suddenly your whole map pack shares common elements that would do so (which would be a bad idea). It just presents different battle grounds with different options. Just want to make it clear that this will not somehow magically affect the overarching viability of Mech in TvP or any other such MU-specific equivalent. If it did, then it would probably be looked down upon, because look: pros are still playing Mech on Fighting Spirit on Afreeca. Edit: No one on ICCup, not the players, nor the administrators. are going to have an actual effect on high-level in-game "meta" anyway. We will forever ride on the coattails of the best players, emulating their strategies. That one build you do to abuse some foreigner map in some MU at C+ on ICCup is not developing any sort of in-game meta, it's just a one-trick pony that you can use to get some points. But abusing LT from the golden age of map-abusing "mirco plays" is if course much better "meta"! At least you are dropping your guard here and admitting that your real issue is the same old prejudice against "foreigner maps", which only proves that you actually know very little about maps in the first place. There are very different issues at work here. That "foreigners" have no idea how to make and balance a map is not one of them. Show nested quote +6. It is evident from the thread that there will be a lot of complaining and disapproval over this decision. Is that really what a server wants from its player base? I would suggest posting a poll on ICCup.com, on TeamLiquid, and perhaps having a poll on the Abyss itself. For example, you could set up a bot that sends a message every hour saying "Please vote on whether or not to keep Lost Temple in the map pool! /r 1 for 'remove' /r 2 for 'keep' ." After a person messages the bot, the bot can /squelch <user> to ensure there are no multiple submissions. Make an aggregate of the results and go with majority favour. Don't force your concepts of progress onto your players, for it will alienate them. I will just call your appeal to popularity the logical fallacy that it is. Instead consider this: If Kespa had not forced half a dozen new maps on their players each season while consequently discarding old ones, now matter their popularity, do you think we would have ever seen the rapid evolution of maps and meta we can now look back on? Don't fool yourself here. Show nested quote +7. Every competitive video game needs a popular training stage, a vanilla map, a balanced battle ground. Q3 has the Bouncy Map. Smash Bros Melee has Final Destination and Battlefield. CounterStrike has Dust. Starcraft Brood War has Fighting Spirit. Yes. And LT is not it. But I guess you are just addressing the rather badly thought out (I agree on that) idea to remove FS from the map pool in the forseeable future despite its being the map at the moment.
You're a foreign map maker, aren't you? Clearly you're not biased.
What was said about balance, regardless of the reasons, is still true. What was said about the popularity, regardless of how you decide to parse the data, is still true.
I love how you have so many little jabs in your post that aim to discredit me without actually providing reasons. "Equating LT to SF [sic]... hollows out your argument." Never did I equate LT to FS. Nor did you create any valid counter-argument even if I did. I said that many people only play on those three maps, then went on to argue about how Fish still allows people to play on all three maps, then went on to say that pros play on FS on Afreeca. Reading comprehension will get your farther than snide jabs.
Here is where the aforementioned bias comes out: when you state that I hate foreign maps! That is simply not true. If you look at my previous posts to CrystalDrag, I say that I like some foreign maps. I like Toadstool, I helped CardinalAllin test it when he was hosting it on ICCup. I like Heartbeat, it's in the Amateur Team League in which I play and I've had an opportunity to learn it. Now of course, I could be lying (which would serve no purpose), or perhaps liking foreign maps does not mean you see a point in keeping them over Lost Temple. Are some of them more balanced, more in tune with the modern strategies? Undoubtedly. Do many people still want to play on Lost Temple more? Undoubtedly. Forcing maps down peoples' throats is not the right way to handle this community. Fortunately/unfortunately, none of us are progamers and therefore we have a choice where and what to play. If you start using totalitarian tactics, people will just go to where they have freedom and can play the maps they want. I made some suggestions on how to better promote foreign-made maps, maybe you can take a look above before hastily jumping to the defense of your precious maps from falsely perceived attacks!
How is an appeal to popularity a logical fallacy? Are you saying that people don't know what they want. and therefore cannot be trusted to make such choices? I don't understand. It seems pretty logical to me: when making decisions about the experience people will have on your server, ask the people. Voting, democracy, stuff like that. Not totalitarianism, pushing their own agenda, etc. And as I said before, we're not progamers, we don't want things pushed on us. We also won't develop the meta, lol. Progamers created strategies and "meta" because they were forced to play 10 hours a day in order to beat other progamers who would play 10 hours a day, the games would be seen by a huge audience, the strategies would be emulated and counters would be thought up in the team house, then the next match would see a potential counter either work or fail, and thus the strategy of the game develops. ICCup doesn't have progamers, progaming houses, live broadcast matches that tens of thousands of people see. The meta is handed down to us from popular streamers on fish, which don't play foreign maps, just as it was handed down to us from Proleague, MSL, and OSL in years past. New maps simply make one strategy stronger than another, one choice more prevalent, one cheese or all-in more likely to succeed; they have no effect on the overarching meta of the game, as I said before.
On November 26 2015 23:17 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 05:55 Jealous wrote:This season's 1v1 ladder map stats provided by Birdie@TeamLiquid: Yea guys, no one ladders on LT anymore. It's only the third-most popular map of the whole lot. btw the data here is a bit misleading. Those are the most played maps on ICCup this season, but they are not limited to ladder games. While i don't have a statistic of just ladder games on my hand atm, i imagine that LT would score a lot worse in such a statistic. I expect LT to be played significantly less in ladder games then in UMS games, just becasue it's a fun map, but quite imbalanced.
According to Birdie, they are the One-on-One mode games for each map, only. No 2v2, no UMS.
|
On November 27 2015 03:16 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 21:53 Freakling wrote:On November 26 2015 09:52 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 26 2015 08:55 Cele wrote:To clarify this discussion point:Yes, we as ICCup personel, do want you positive criticism and your constructive feedback. Im not in charge of the map section, but me personally, im happy that people post here and have an opinion, because it shows you care and from that discussion we can have a dialogue about the subject. But keep in mind, we do this for free, we have normal jobs and a regular life and we still try our best. So keep your criticism constructive and fair, that's all im asking. Gecko: the post you replied too is rude, i agree with that, but you should take some stuff a little less personal sometimes TL:DR This thread is being made to get some feedback on the upcoming change in the mappool. And if your argument is presented in a reasoanable way, it will be heard. Note: I am going to include arguments against the removal of Python and Fighting Spirit in some of these points as it has been brought up by Face. 1. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are just as, if not more, imbalanced as Lost Temple in the map pool. Examples: Destination, Heart Break Ridge, Aztec. The maps you listed may have some specific racial imbalances. If LT has better statistics of one sort ot anoher, that is only because it has positional imbalances so severe that they in many cases just beat out any racial imbalances... 2. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are much less popular than Lost Temple. Examples: Everything except Python, Fighting Spirit, and of course Lost Temple. Taking the statistics provide by Birdie + Show Spoiler +into account, this is just not true. You are comparing maps which together make up more than three quarters of games played and equal them to a map with less than 3% use, not to speak of the vast differences in balance and general map quality you are also just entirely ignoring. 3. The removal of Lost Temple is the removal of a still-important part of StarCraft's history and development as a game. Without Lost Temple you would not have Luna, without Luna you would not have Fighting Spirit. Clearly, some people still prefer Lost Temple, as it is being played quite frequently. History is called history because it is historic. Are you going to make an argument to bring Showdown or Snowbound back into the map pool as well? 4. The removal of Lost Temple, Fighting Spirit, and/or Python would be damaging to the community because there are people who only play on those maps as evidenced by the statistics presented. Instead of switching to different maps, they would simply quit playing ladder. If Korean pros are still playing Fighting Spirit on Fish, why does ICCup think that it is time to move on? Fish has a higher level of activity and a higher average level of skill; perhaps Fighting Spirit, Python, and LT are not the problem. Amateur players would watch their favorite gosus playing Fighting Spriit on Afreeca, but they can't play Fighting Spirit competitively themselves. That would irritate just about anyone who is still active in this game. Again, you are equating LT to SF, which is just wrong on so many levels that it completely hollows out your argument. 5. "Meta" will not develop because of the removal of some maps. Maps affect strategies. Creating new, diverse maps opens the doors for new map-specific strategies. This does not change any over-arching "meta" between the races or in any match-up, unless suddenly your whole map pack shares common elements that would do so (which would be a bad idea). It just presents different battle grounds with different options. Just want to make it clear that this will not somehow magically affect the overarching viability of Mech in TvP or any other such MU-specific equivalent. If it did, then it would probably be looked down upon, because look: pros are still playing Mech on Fighting Spirit on Afreeca. Edit: No one on ICCup, not the players, nor the administrators. are going to have an actual effect on high-level in-game "meta" anyway. We will forever ride on the coattails of the best players, emulating their strategies. That one build you do to abuse some foreigner map in some MU at C+ on ICCup is not developing any sort of in-game meta, it's just a one-trick pony that you can use to get some points. But abusing LT from the golden age of map-abusing "mirco plays" is if course much better "meta"! At least you are dropping your guard here and admitting that your real issue is the same old prejudice against "foreigner maps", which only proves that you actually know very little about maps in the first place. There are very different issues at work here. That "foreigners" have no idea how to make and balance a map is not one of them. 6. It is evident from the thread that there will be a lot of complaining and disapproval over this decision. Is that really what a server wants from its player base? I would suggest posting a poll on ICCup.com, on TeamLiquid, and perhaps having a poll on the Abyss itself. For example, you could set up a bot that sends a message every hour saying "Please vote on whether or not to keep Lost Temple in the map pool! /r 1 for 'remove' /r 2 for 'keep' ." After a person messages the bot, the bot can /squelch <user> to ensure there are no multiple submissions. Make an aggregate of the results and go with majority favour. Don't force your concepts of progress onto your players, for it will alienate them. I will just call your appeal to popularity the logical fallacy that it is. Instead consider this: If Kespa had not forced half a dozen new maps on their players each season while consequently discarding old ones, now matter their popularity, do you think we would have ever seen the rapid evolution of maps and meta we can now look back on? Don't fool yourself here. 7. Every competitive video game needs a popular training stage, a vanilla map, a balanced battle ground. Q3 has the Bouncy Map. Smash Bros Melee has Final Destination and Battlefield. CounterStrike has Dust. Starcraft Brood War has Fighting Spirit. Yes. And LT is not it. But I guess you are just addressing the rather badly thought out (I agree on that) idea to remove FS from the map pool in the forseeable future despite its being the map at the moment. You're a foreign map maker, aren't you? Clearly you're not biased. What was said about balance, regardless of the reasons, is still true. What was said about the popularity, regardless of how you decide to parse the data, is still true. I love how you have so many little jabs in your post that aim to discredit me without actually providing reasons. "Equating LT to SF [sic]... hollows out your argument." Never did I equate LT to FS. Nor did you create any valid counter-argument even if I did. I said that many people only play on those three maps, then went on to argue about how Fish still allows people to play on all three maps, then went on to say that pros play on FS on Afreeca. Reading comprehension will get your farther than snide jabs. Here is where the aforementioned bias comes out: when you state that I hate foreign maps! That is simply not true. If you look at my previous posts to CrystalDrag, I say that I like some foreign maps. I like Toadstool, I helped CardinalAllin test it when he was hosting it on ICCup. I like Heartbeat, it's in the Amateur Team League in which I play and I've had an opportunity to learn it. Now of course, I could be lying (which would serve no purpose), or perhaps liking foreign maps does not mean you see a point in keeping them over Lost Temple. Are some of them more balanced, more in tune with the modern strategies? Undoubtedly. Do many people still want to play on Lost Temple more? Undoubtedly. Forcing maps down peoples' throats is not the right way to handle this community. Fortunately/unfortunately, none of us are progamers and therefore we have a choice where and what to play. If you start using totalitarian tactics, people will just go to where they have freedom and can play the maps they want. I made some suggestions on how to better promote foreign-made maps, maybe you can take a look above before hastily jumping to the defense of your precious maps from falsely perceived attacks! How is an appeal to popularity a logical fallacy? Are you saying that people don't know what they want. and therefore cannot be trusted to make such choices? I don't understand. It seems pretty logical to me: when making decisions about the experience people will have on your server, ask the people. Voting, democracy, stuff like that. Not totalitarianism, pushing their own agenda, etc. And as I said before, we're not progamers, we don't want things pushed on us. We also won't develop the meta, lol. Progamers created strategies and "meta" because they were forced to play 10 hours a day in order to beat other progamers who would play 10 hours a day, the games would be seen by a huge audience, the strategies would be emulated and counters would be thought up in the team house, then the next match would see a potential counter either work or fail, and thus the strategy of the game develops. ICCup doesn't have progamers, progaming houses, live broadcast matches that tens of thousands of people see. The meta is handed down to us from popular streamers on fish, which don't play foreign maps, just as it was handed down to us from Proleague, MSL, and OSL in years past. New maps simply make one strategy stronger than another, one choice more prevalent, one cheese or all-in more likely to succeed; they have no effect on the overarching meta of the game, as I said before. Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 23:17 Cele wrote:On November 24 2015 05:55 Jealous wrote:This season's 1v1 ladder map stats provided by Birdie@TeamLiquid: Yea guys, no one ladders on LT anymore. It's only the third-most popular map of the whole lot. btw the data here is a bit misleading. Those are the most played maps on ICCup this season, but they are not limited to ladder games. While i don't have a statistic of just ladder games on my hand atm, i imagine that LT would score a lot worse in such a statistic. I expect LT to be played significantly less in ladder games then in UMS games, just becasue it's a fun map, but quite imbalanced. According to Birdie, they are the One-on-One mode games for each map, only. No 2v2, no UMS.
That seems rather unlikely to me. Birdie has no access to the ICCup database and i thik he used these data for his calculation. Those display how much a certain map was played this season in total, but are not limited to 1v1 ladder games.
But otherwise, i would be glad if Birdie could elaborate how the data was collected, coz maybe im missing something here.
€: im currently working on a small sample size to calculate how much each map was played in 1v1 and 2v2 ladder in said samplesize. im gonna release that later when im done.
€: okay interesting. I talked to Birdie about this. Nice collection of data
|
On November 27 2015 00:02 thekill wrote:
none. all those maps are trash and just cheaply gimmicky af
do you seriously have some sort of a picture in the middle? wow i cant believe you would compramise a maps strategic balance just to have a piece of art in the middle bad maps 1/10
So in your opinion, Python should be removed from all map packs, after all?
Watch your strawman burn.
+ Show Spoiler +On November 27 2015 03:16 Jealous wrote:On November 26 2015 21:53 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 09:52 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 26 2015 08:55 Cele wrote:To clarify this discussion point:Yes, we as ICCup personel, do want you positive criticism and your constructive feedback. Im not in charge of the map section, but me personally, im happy that people post here and have an opinion, because it shows you care and from that discussion we can have a dialogue about the subject. But keep in mind, we do this for free, we have normal jobs and a regular life and we still try our best. So keep your criticism constructive and fair, that's all im asking. Gecko: the post you replied too is rude, i agree with that, but you should take some stuff a little less personal sometimes TL:DR This thread is being made to get some feedback on the upcoming change in the mappool. And if your argument is presented in a reasoanable way, it will be heard. Note: I am going to include arguments against the removal of Python and Fighting Spirit in some of these points as it has been brought up by Face. 1. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are just as, if not more, imbalanced as Lost Temple in the map pool. Examples: Destination, Heart Break Ridge, Aztec. The maps you listed may have some specific racial imbalances. If LT has better statistics of one sort ot anoher, that is only because it has positional imbalances so severe that they in many cases just beat out any racial imbalances... Show nested quote +2. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are much less popular than Lost Temple. Examples: Everything except Python, Fighting Spirit, and of course Lost Temple. Taking the statistics provide by Birdie + Show Spoiler +into account, this is just not true. You are comparing maps which together make up more than three quarters of games played and equal them to a map with less than 3% use, not to speak of the vast differences in balance and general map quality you are also just entirely ignoring. Show nested quote +3. The removal of Lost Temple is the removal of a still-important part of StarCraft's history and development as a game. Without Lost Temple you would not have Luna, without Luna you would not have Fighting Spirit. Clearly, some people still prefer Lost Temple, as it is being played quite frequently. History is called history because it is historic. Are you going to make an argument to bring Showdown or Snowbound back into the map pool as well? Show nested quote +4. The removal of Lost Temple, Fighting Spirit, and/or Python would be damaging to the community because there are people who only play on those maps as evidenced by the statistics presented. Instead of switching to different maps, they would simply quit playing ladder. If Korean pros are still playing Fighting Spirit on Fish, why does ICCup think that it is time to move on? Fish has a higher level of activity and a higher average level of skill; perhaps Fighting Spirit, Python, and LT are not the problem. Amateur players would watch their favorite gosus playing Fighting Spriit on Afreeca, but they can't play Fighting Spirit competitively themselves. That would irritate just about anyone who is still active in this game. Again, you are equating LT to SF, which is just wrong on so many levels that it completely hollows out your argument. Show nested quote +5. "Meta" will not develop because of the removal of some maps. Maps affect strategies. Creating new, diverse maps opens the doors for new map-specific strategies. This does not change any over-arching "meta" between the races or in any match-up, unless suddenly your whole map pack shares common elements that would do so (which would be a bad idea). It just presents different battle grounds with different options. Just want to make it clear that this will not somehow magically affect the overarching viability of Mech in TvP or any other such MU-specific equivalent. If it did, then it would probably be looked down upon, because look: pros are still playing Mech on Fighting Spirit on Afreeca. Edit: No one on ICCup, not the players, nor the administrators. are going to have an actual effect on high-level in-game "meta" anyway. We will forever ride on the coattails of the best players, emulating their strategies. That one build you do to abuse some foreigner map in some MU at C+ on ICCup is not developing any sort of in-game meta, it's just a one-trick pony that you can use to get some points. But abusing LT from the golden age of map-abusing "mirco plays" is if course much better "meta"! At least you are dropping your guard here and admitting that your real issue is the same old prejudice against "foreigner maps", which only proves that you actually know very little about maps in the first place. There are very different issues at work here. That "foreigners" have no idea how to make and balance a map is not one of them. Show nested quote +6. It is evident from the thread that there will be a lot of complaining and disapproval over this decision. Is that really what a server wants from its player base? I would suggest posting a poll on ICCup.com, on TeamLiquid, and perhaps having a poll on the Abyss itself. For example, you could set up a bot that sends a message every hour saying "Please vote on whether or not to keep Lost Temple in the map pool! /r 1 for 'remove' /r 2 for 'keep' ." After a person messages the bot, the bot can /squelch <user> to ensure there are no multiple submissions. Make an aggregate of the results and go with majority favour. Don't force your concepts of progress onto your players, for it will alienate them. I will just call your appeal to popularity the logical fallacy that it is. Instead consider this: If Kespa had not forced half a dozen new maps on their players each season while consequently discarding old ones, now matter their popularity, do you think we would have ever seen the rapid evolution of maps and meta we can now look back on? Don't fool yourself here. Show nested quote +7. Every competitive video game needs a popular training stage, a vanilla map, a balanced battle ground. Q3 has the Bouncy Map. Smash Bros Melee has Final Destination and Battlefield. CounterStrike has Dust. Starcraft Brood War has Fighting Spirit. Yes. And LT is not it. But I guess you are just addressing the rather badly thought out (I agree on that) idea to remove FS from the map pool in the forseeable future despite its being the map at the moment. You're a foreign map maker, aren't you? Clearly you're not biased. What was said about balance, regardless of the reasons, is still true. What was said about the popularity, regardless of how you decide to parse the data, is still true. I love how you have so many little jabs in your post that aim to discredit me without actually providing reasons. "Equating LT to SF [sic]... hollows out your argument." Never did I equate LT to FS. Nor did you create any valid counter-argument even if I did. I said that many people only play on those three maps, then went on to argue about how Fish still allows people to play on all three maps, then went on to say that pros play on FS on Afreeca. Reading comprehension will get your farther than snide jabs. Here is where the aforementioned bias comes out: when you state that I hate foreign maps! That is simply not true. If you look at my previous posts to CrystalDrag, I say that I like some foreign maps. I like Toadstool, I helped CardinalAllin test it when he was hosting it on ICCup. I like Heartbeat, it's in the Amateur Team League in which I play and I've had an opportunity to learn it. Now of course, I could be lying (which would serve no purpose), or perhaps liking foreign maps does not mean you see a point in keeping them over Lost Temple. Are some of them more balanced, more in tune with the modern strategies? Undoubtedly. Do many people still want to play on Lost Temple more? Undoubtedly. Forcing maps down peoples' throats is not the right way to handle this community. Fortunately/unfortunately, none of us are progamers and therefore we have a choice where and what to play. If you start using totalitarian tactics, people will just go to where they have freedom and can play the maps they want. I made some suggestions on how to better promote foreign-made maps, maybe you can take a look above before hastily jumping to the defense of your precious maps from falsely perceived attacks! How is an appeal to popularity a logical fallacy? Are you saying that people don't know what they want. and therefore cannot be trusted to make such choices? I don't understand. It seems pretty logical to me: when making decisions about the experience people will have on your server, ask the people. Voting, democracy, stuff like that. Not totalitarianism, pushing their own agenda, etc. And as I said before, we're not progamers, we don't want things pushed on us. We also won't develop the meta, lol. Progamers created strategies and "meta" because they were forced to play 10 hours a day in order to beat other progamers who would play 10 hours a day, the games would be seen by a huge audience, the strategies would be emulated and counters would be thought up in the team house, then the next match would see a potential counter either work or fail, and thus the strategy of the game develops. ICCup doesn't have progamers, progaming houses, live broadcast matches that tens of thousands of people see. The meta is handed down to us from popular streamers on fish, which don't play foreign maps, just as it was handed down to us from Proleague, MSL, and OSL in years past. New maps simply make one strategy stronger than another, one choice more prevalent, one cheese or all-in more likely to succeed; they have no effect on the overarching meta of the game, as I said before. On November 26 2015 23:17 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 05:55 Jealous wrote:This season's 1v1 ladder map stats provided by Birdie@TeamLiquid: Yea guys, no one ladders on LT anymore. It's only the third-most popular map of the whole lot. btw the data here is a bit misleading. Those are the most played maps on ICCup this season, but they are not limited to ladder games. While i don't have a statistic of just ladder games on my hand atm, i imagine that LT would score a lot worse in such a statistic. I expect LT to be played significantly less in ladder games then in UMS games, just becasue it's a fun map, but quite imbalanced. According to Birdie, they are the One-on-One mode games for each map, only. No 2v2, no UMS.
I actually commented your post specifically because it was more articulate and better thought out than a lot of others and brought up what to me seem to be all the most frequent reason why people do not want LT to be dropped from the ladder.
So let's please stick to the actual arguments and not make this some kind of personal issue.
And yes, objectively speaking I am probably the most biassed person of all, given that I was quite deepily involved in creating four of the maps proposed in the OP. (I also think that at least half of the maps suggested still have major concerns that need to be addressed before they become viable ladder material and that my map DeserTec should probably be removed from the map pool because that's one truly gimmicky and questionably balanced map). That does not invalidate any of my arguments, though. If you are looking for a truly unbiased judge, I suggest pick some one who has never even heard of StarCraft ; probably not a good basis for any decision...
Now, that being said, popularity can of course be a substantial factor, especially when it comes to weighing multiple more or less equally good alternatives, but neither is LT that popular any more, nor are any of the alternatives (i.e. current ladder maps and suggestions for potential future ones) even remotely equally bad in any other regard.
The appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy because "the public" will generally not make well-informed decisions. There may be no reasoning at all behind it. A decision can be right without being popular at all. (And "knowing what you want" and actually making a well-informed decision that takes all aspects of a problem into consideration are in deed two very different things, for most people in most matters it is just picking what they expect to bring them the best short-term benefit for the least amount of bother).
For the same reasons, setting up a poll like this thread to decide over a new map is also far from an ideal course of action.
And yes, maybe you are not realising this, but you are inappropriately equating LT and SF/Python, or at least you are not distinguishing between two separate debates enough.
Removing SF from the map pack would be catastrophic and would probably have almost the complete Icc server population vanish into thin air...
Removing Python, likewise, would probably push a lot of people away.
The worst thing I would expect actually happening from having LT removed from ladder play would actually be even more people playing FS instead, which in this case I would consider a good thing.
FS is a modern and arguably very well-balanced map and has more than half of all games played on it (again, using the statistics posted here earlier).
Python, likewise, is, at least from a map-making point of view, modern map with pretty good balance (albeit probably not considered as good as it was at its introduction in 2007), that has a quarter of total games played on it (and likely even more if you also took 2v2 games into consideration).
LT, on the other hand, by any standard is just the oldest map in existence with various severe imbalances and a one-digit fraction of games played on it, and those are not even confirmed to be ladder games. And that statistic may actually look better than it actually is when you realize that the MotW system together with the indifferent conservatism of many players (i.e. they don't really care about what map they play on, as long as they know the map) alone would probably account for those stats,
So these are two totally different debates to have, and I don't think any one is actually seriously trying to question the status of FS or Python, so we should keep these discussions apart.
I also never accused you of "hating" foreign maps (that would be putting it way to strongly), but there is (and has been for a long time) definitely a tendency (not necessarily with you personally, but with some people) to just dismiss any map without an "official Kespa-approved label" (while at the same time, whenever "the new Battle Royal" came out, there was never a lack of people naively believing in its balance to the last [because surely they tested it....]...) These kinds of non-argument that actually just avoid all actual issues I have no interest in engaging in.
Your points about "tyranny of admins vs. democratic decisions" and "forcing maps down players' throats" also seem vastly exaggerated here. In fact, if you had a "democratic vote" (not really, because a forum poll falls short of that in too many ways) whether LT should be kept as a ladder map, it would probably be voted out by most, which would still do nothing to convince the die-hard LT-nostalgists. In fact I, depending on how I set up that poll, I could probably provoke to get exactly the result I wanted...
No one actually has the power to "force maps down players' throat" these days, because no one actually has the financial backing to create enough incentive. Even Korean tourney hosts seem to have given up on that front pretty much (most likely due to the mostly giant screw-up that all the post-Kespa attempts to introduce new maps have been so far). However, this is an actual issues that needs to be addressed, I think.
I could address your other points, but this post is already getting far too long and I don't really see the issue of meta and who defines it (or whether D players on iCCup cheese racing each other constitute a meta of their own) being vitally connected to this discussion.
|
On November 27 2015 03:41 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 03:16 Jealous wrote:On November 26 2015 21:53 Freakling wrote:On November 26 2015 09:52 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 26 2015 08:55 Cele wrote:To clarify this discussion point:Yes, we as ICCup personel, do want you positive criticism and your constructive feedback. Im not in charge of the map section, but me personally, im happy that people post here and have an opinion, because it shows you care and from that discussion we can have a dialogue about the subject. But keep in mind, we do this for free, we have normal jobs and a regular life and we still try our best. So keep your criticism constructive and fair, that's all im asking. Gecko: the post you replied too is rude, i agree with that, but you should take some stuff a little less personal sometimes TL:DR This thread is being made to get some feedback on the upcoming change in the mappool. And if your argument is presented in a reasoanable way, it will be heard. Note: I am going to include arguments against the removal of Python and Fighting Spirit in some of these points as it has been brought up by Face. 1. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are just as, if not more, imbalanced as Lost Temple in the map pool. Examples: Destination, Heart Break Ridge, Aztec. The maps you listed may have some specific racial imbalances. If LT has better statistics of one sort ot anoher, that is only because it has positional imbalances so severe that they in many cases just beat out any racial imbalances... 2. The removal of Lost Temple is illogical because there are maps that are much less popular than Lost Temple. Examples: Everything except Python, Fighting Spirit, and of course Lost Temple. Taking the statistics provide by Birdie + Show Spoiler +into account, this is just not true. You are comparing maps which together make up more than three quarters of games played and equal them to a map with less than 3% use, not to speak of the vast differences in balance and general map quality you are also just entirely ignoring. 3. The removal of Lost Temple is the removal of a still-important part of StarCraft's history and development as a game. Without Lost Temple you would not have Luna, without Luna you would not have Fighting Spirit. Clearly, some people still prefer Lost Temple, as it is being played quite frequently. History is called history because it is historic. Are you going to make an argument to bring Showdown or Snowbound back into the map pool as well? 4. The removal of Lost Temple, Fighting Spirit, and/or Python would be damaging to the community because there are people who only play on those maps as evidenced by the statistics presented. Instead of switching to different maps, they would simply quit playing ladder. If Korean pros are still playing Fighting Spirit on Fish, why does ICCup think that it is time to move on? Fish has a higher level of activity and a higher average level of skill; perhaps Fighting Spirit, Python, and LT are not the problem. Amateur players would watch their favorite gosus playing Fighting Spriit on Afreeca, but they can't play Fighting Spirit competitively themselves. That would irritate just about anyone who is still active in this game. Again, you are equating LT to SF, which is just wrong on so many levels that it completely hollows out your argument. 5. "Meta" will not develop because of the removal of some maps. Maps affect strategies. Creating new, diverse maps opens the doors for new map-specific strategies. This does not change any over-arching "meta" between the races or in any match-up, unless suddenly your whole map pack shares common elements that would do so (which would be a bad idea). It just presents different battle grounds with different options. Just want to make it clear that this will not somehow magically affect the overarching viability of Mech in TvP or any other such MU-specific equivalent. If it did, then it would probably be looked down upon, because look: pros are still playing Mech on Fighting Spirit on Afreeca. Edit: No one on ICCup, not the players, nor the administrators. are going to have an actual effect on high-level in-game "meta" anyway. We will forever ride on the coattails of the best players, emulating their strategies. That one build you do to abuse some foreigner map in some MU at C+ on ICCup is not developing any sort of in-game meta, it's just a one-trick pony that you can use to get some points. But abusing LT from the golden age of map-abusing "mirco plays" is if course much better "meta"! At least you are dropping your guard here and admitting that your real issue is the same old prejudice against "foreigner maps", which only proves that you actually know very little about maps in the first place. There are very different issues at work here. That "foreigners" have no idea how to make and balance a map is not one of them. 6. It is evident from the thread that there will be a lot of complaining and disapproval over this decision. Is that really what a server wants from its player base? I would suggest posting a poll on ICCup.com, on TeamLiquid, and perhaps having a poll on the Abyss itself. For example, you could set up a bot that sends a message every hour saying "Please vote on whether or not to keep Lost Temple in the map pool! /r 1 for 'remove' /r 2 for 'keep' ." After a person messages the bot, the bot can /squelch <user> to ensure there are no multiple submissions. Make an aggregate of the results and go with majority favour. Don't force your concepts of progress onto your players, for it will alienate them. I will just call your appeal to popularity the logical fallacy that it is. Instead consider this: If Kespa had not forced half a dozen new maps on their players each season while consequently discarding old ones, now matter their popularity, do you think we would have ever seen the rapid evolution of maps and meta we can now look back on? Don't fool yourself here. 7. Every competitive video game needs a popular training stage, a vanilla map, a balanced battle ground. Q3 has the Bouncy Map. Smash Bros Melee has Final Destination and Battlefield. CounterStrike has Dust. Starcraft Brood War has Fighting Spirit. Yes. And LT is not it. But I guess you are just addressing the rather badly thought out (I agree on that) idea to remove FS from the map pool in the forseeable future despite its being the map at the moment. You're a foreign map maker, aren't you? Clearly you're not biased. What was said about balance, regardless of the reasons, is still true. What was said about the popularity, regardless of how you decide to parse the data, is still true. I love how you have so many little jabs in your post that aim to discredit me without actually providing reasons. "Equating LT to SF [sic]... hollows out your argument." Never did I equate LT to FS. Nor did you create any valid counter-argument even if I did. I said that many people only play on those three maps, then went on to argue about how Fish still allows people to play on all three maps, then went on to say that pros play on FS on Afreeca. Reading comprehension will get your farther than snide jabs. Here is where the aforementioned bias comes out: when you state that I hate foreign maps! That is simply not true. If you look at my previous posts to CrystalDrag, I say that I like some foreign maps. I like Toadstool, I helped CardinalAllin test it when he was hosting it on ICCup. I like Heartbeat, it's in the Amateur Team League in which I play and I've had an opportunity to learn it. Now of course, I could be lying (which would serve no purpose), or perhaps liking foreign maps does not mean you see a point in keeping them over Lost Temple. Are some of them more balanced, more in tune with the modern strategies? Undoubtedly. Do many people still want to play on Lost Temple more? Undoubtedly. Forcing maps down peoples' throats is not the right way to handle this community. Fortunately/unfortunately, none of us are progamers and therefore we have a choice where and what to play. If you start using totalitarian tactics, people will just go to where they have freedom and can play the maps they want. I made some suggestions on how to better promote foreign-made maps, maybe you can take a look above before hastily jumping to the defense of your precious maps from falsely perceived attacks! How is an appeal to popularity a logical fallacy? Are you saying that people don't know what they want. and therefore cannot be trusted to make such choices? I don't understand. It seems pretty logical to me: when making decisions about the experience people will have on your server, ask the people. Voting, democracy, stuff like that. Not totalitarianism, pushing their own agenda, etc. And as I said before, we're not progamers, we don't want things pushed on us. We also won't develop the meta, lol. Progamers created strategies and "meta" because they were forced to play 10 hours a day in order to beat other progamers who would play 10 hours a day, the games would be seen by a huge audience, the strategies would be emulated and counters would be thought up in the team house, then the next match would see a potential counter either work or fail, and thus the strategy of the game develops. ICCup doesn't have progamers, progaming houses, live broadcast matches that tens of thousands of people see. The meta is handed down to us from popular streamers on fish, which don't play foreign maps, just as it was handed down to us from Proleague, MSL, and OSL in years past. New maps simply make one strategy stronger than another, one choice more prevalent, one cheese or all-in more likely to succeed; they have no effect on the overarching meta of the game, as I said before. On November 26 2015 23:17 Cele wrote:On November 24 2015 05:55 Jealous wrote:This season's 1v1 ladder map stats provided by Birdie@TeamLiquid: Yea guys, no one ladders on LT anymore. It's only the third-most popular map of the whole lot. btw the data here is a bit misleading. Those are the most played maps on ICCup this season, but they are not limited to ladder games. While i don't have a statistic of just ladder games on my hand atm, i imagine that LT would score a lot worse in such a statistic. I expect LT to be played significantly less in ladder games then in UMS games, just becasue it's a fun map, but quite imbalanced. According to Birdie, they are the One-on-One mode games for each map, only. No 2v2, no UMS. That seems rather unlikely to me. Birdie has no access to the ICCup database and i thik he used these data for his calculation. Those display how much a certain map was played this season in total, but are not limited to 1v1 ladder games. But otherwise, i would be glad if Birdie could elaborate how the data was collected, coz maybe im missing something here. €: im currently working on a small sample size to calculate how much each map was played in 1v1 and 2v2 ladder in said samplesize. im gonna release that later when im done.
Already talked to you on Skype but I will clarify for everyone else. I manually scraped the data from iCCup's website, going from match 1 to match xxxxxxx (where xxxxxxx = the last played match so far, refreshing it hourly). I only grabbed the matches with two players, where there were + or - ladder points. This means it is only 1v1 ladder games (roughly half of all games are 1v1 ladder on iCCup).
|
On November 26 2015 20:50 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 09:53 outscar wrote:
No,
NO,
NOO,
NOOOUU!!!
None of these maps deserve spot of LT! You can't kill our childhood. Who needs Longinus, Luna or Hunters (as ladder map)?
And why the hell you're deleting old maps from Non-Ladder folder, are you fucking out of your mind? That folder is for remembrance, why you even want to touch that folder, does deleting needful things gives you a benefit? 5 MB is too much for you or to your host in 2015? Can't believe what are you doing guys. You're admin so please remain as admin and don't touch things that you didn't create. You're killing past for empty future. I absolutely don't get your problem. Haven't you been one of the most vocal about using new maps in the past? Obviously, old ones have to go for that. And culling ancient, imbalanced ones first is the most reasonable decision. What makes Hunters or Luna any better candidates to be removed than LT? Certainly not balance. In case of Hunters, seniority is not an argument either (arguably, it isn't one in the first place).
Freakling, c'mon, spit the words out from your tongue and admit that you've been delirious in your dreams to force this map down users' throats:
+ Show Spoiler +
But seriously I will never ever agree with removal of LT. I was lousy and screaming about seeing professional games on foreigner maps since what we suggested for TLC were all part of iCCup map pack but not about replacing all Korean well known maps with Foreigner maps where training and laddering area occurs because we already have enough for now. If we slowly change every map then we will be way back from Koreans because we will have huge player database who only play (forced to play (if they will play)) foreigner maps where Koreans will play known maps.
EDIT:
I wanted to ask (esp. Freakling too) if anyone got these recent maps from amateur era, I can't find a link for them:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Imo LT, Python and FS are maps that should be permanently on the map pool considering their fame and how much they've been played.
Edit: and still are played
|
Birdie can you post all the maps? Is there a public web address we can visit to see the stats for ourselves at any time? So far we have seen the most played and the least played but not the maps in the middle.
How about scraping the 2v2 stats aswell? That would be useful to see.
|
On November 30 2015 07:56 Miwyfe wrote:
Birdie can you post all the maps? Is there a public web address we can visit to see the stats for ourselves at any time? So far we have seen the most played and the least played but not the maps in the middle.
How about scraping the 2v2 stats aswell? That would be useful to see.
I haven't done 2v2 yet but it's on the list of stuff to do (and UMS stats too). I'm trying to think of a good domain name to use (I want to put other stuff not SC-related on there too) and then I'll put up the site publicly.
|
So, new season is up and functional; ICCup.Face is messaging on auto that new map pack is out. I'm not going to download it, so can we get an update on what the final decision was? Since the thread was made for the purpose of discussing this and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/pics/4298.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/2/21/Pamir_Plateau.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/5/5a/GoldenCross_v09.jpg)
