Lately there has been a burst of discussion on the topic of 'balance', and not without cause. The top players of recent tournaments have been predominantly Terran, giving us spectators many unpopular Terran vs Terran matches. While the outcries of “IMBA!” and “OP!” have been blessedly quieter than those of yesteryear, doubts regarding an even playing field have arisen. In a reasonable, logical manner (for the most part) that does our community justice, I would note. However, thousands strong, we continue to fall back on the old “Blizzard, fix it!” mantra when the answer is right in front of us, its application swift and easy. From an entertainment standpoint spectators are the best critics, and in eSports, the voice of our community is heard.
One of the things lost in the transition between StarCraft: Brood War and StarCraft 2 is the utterly crucial role of maps in both balancing the game and making StarCraft an eSport. In Brood War, maps are the topic of debate, speculation, gossip and news. Proleague, the year-long GSTL of Brood War, is constantly switching out old maps and keeping tournaments fresh. Most pertinently, a new set of maps gives rise to new strategies, tactics and exciting challenges for pros. Will the current TvP builds still be viable once X map is replaced? And how will Protoss deal with Mutalisk harass? These are the kinds of questions that fans ask, and even the pros weigh in. The Brood War Protoss player Bisu is infamous for discrediting maps, but also for being outspoken about their critical role in the balance of the game. In a recent, exclusive interview with the E-Sports superstar, the interviewer asked for Bisu's thoughts on the maps currently being tested for the upcoming season. Bisu responded that the maps might prove to be a serious hindrance to his tournament performance and prevent him from taking first place in the OSL, his progaming dream. The nice thing about the Brood War scene, however, is that while awful maps do slip into professional play, they are immediately treated as such and purged.
If a StarCraft player is a painter, the map he plays on is his canvas. As both a Brood War and StarCraft 2 fan, the vocalization of subtle, detailed map concerns is both refreshing in the Brood War community and grimly absent from the StarCraft 2 limelight. It took months of horrible games before we managed to organize, beat off and kill the monster that was Steppes of War. It is embarrassing that it took so long for such a map to be cut from the professional scene. Yet even still we have Blizzard maps, let alone remnants of Beta, at the forefront of our largest tournaments. Why we, who had the long history of Brood War to refer to, decided to use the default Blizzard maps for money tournaments with talented players, is unfathomable. But we have learned, and will not repeat mistakes of the past as tournaments become more adept at creating exciting, balanced maps and start a trend towards map customization.
More than any other StarCraft 2 organization, the GSL has pioneered the use of custom maps in professional play. Blistering Sands and Desert Oasis gave way to maps like Tal'Darim Altar and Crevasse, and the future looked a little brighter. While we currently have a number of fairly exciting, balanced maps, despite their success, the longer we keep them around the staler they and the eSports scene becomes. As the spectators and players in the eSports community it is up to use to have the standards and acumen to both intelligently discern this problem and create a solution. Blizzard has given us an incredibly powerful resource to manifest the ridges, chokes and natural expansions that we wish we could see in tournament play. All we have to do is put it to work.
The obstacles new maps face are daunting. For obvious reasons the pros won't play anything outside of ladder and the most major tournaments. As professionals, nothing less is expected, though more vocal opinions from them on the current map selection would be most welcomed and would play a large role in revolutionizing the role of maps in tournaments and balance management. ESports is a risky business and without being pressured there is little justification for tournament organizers to risk a new map pool that could ruin their reputation and spurn traffic generating players. Yet, when changes are made, the effect can be astounding. The difference between Terminus SE and Terminus RE, for example, is a 59% win-rate versus a 49% win-rate in ZvP.
Blizzard defers to us, the eSports community, to set the standards and manage these types of concerns. If you are tired of watching the same build over and over again, or all-ins working every time in such-and-such positions, rather than simply post about the balance of the game, take into consideration the map pool and think of how a different terrain could manipulate the viability of strategies. Blizzard's map pool has been a phenomenal success on ladder. As they boasted at Blizzcon, there is nearly a 50-50 win-loss ratio between races across the board. But as Dustin Browder said in a recent interview with Reddit, “the pros are so much above the ladder that it's ridiculous.” As any StarCraft 2 eSport fan knows, there is not a 50-50 ratio in the professional echelon, and the maps that might be balanced for the general population can be exploited by professionals and limit rather than facilitate their abilities and the games that we want to see.
Brood War has the luxury of KeSPA forcing new maps to be both tested by the best players and cyclically implemented into the scene. StarCraft 2 does not have a KeSPA. We do not have this luxury. Right now StarCraft 2 eSports is like the Wild West, with tournaments and organizations competing for players, spectators and staff and only now beginning to stabilize. The tweaks that the GSL made for their November tournament, like modifying their own maps, creating new ones and acting on judgements against Blizzard map inventions, like gold minerals, is one of the best things they could be doing right now. Hopefully, others like MLG will follow suite and further push pros to prepare for custom maps. But herein lies another problem.
A different map pool for every major tournament would be detrimental as all but the most dedicated spectators would be lost and the pros would be less than accustomed to the intricacies of each terrain, frustrated with having to practice on a unique set of maps for a single tournament. Rather than having a confusing and disjointed map pool, ideally, major tournaments like MLG and GSL, already working in close collaboration, will create a system for creating and implementing maps that can be adopted by all tournaments. With such a system in place a 'standard' map pool for professional StarCraft 2 could be created and a cycle of replacement accepted.
Tournaments, spectators and players would all benefit from new, custom maps tailored for eSports being cycled into the scene throughout the season. Having experienced the wide range of diversity and interest that new maps bring to Brood War and the spectator value of Tal'Darim Altar over Steppes of War, the credence that new eSports maps would bring to the scene is painfully obvious. Entertainment value aside, if a truly severe balance issue did arise, the map pool could be adjusted to soften the problem while waiting for a patch from Blizzard, thus decreasing our deus ex machina dependence. A trend towards custom maps has already begun and is growing stronger, but for it to continue and receive the attention it deserves you the spectator need to voice an opinion. Start caring about maps, because they can make the difference between a boring mirror-fest of all-ins and the most epic tournament you've ever seen.
All map statistics taken from the StarCraft 2 International Map Index for the larger number of games played and number of players involved.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
The layout made tanks Vs Zerg Pretty ridiculous. It was very hard for zerg to hold expansions vs Terran because Terran can hold the middle of the map and base his attacks from there, the expansions along the outside are simply too hard to defend when Terran controls the middle.
Great article. I still hope that Blizzard thinks about whether it is necessary to bring out a new patch every month or just let the players adapt to it. Instead, follow BW, where the maps did the balance. ^_^
I for one agree that maps really do need to get some kind of uniform system between all the major tournaments, that can be shared, changed and manipulated to keep it balanced and interesting. That way people will know what is coming up for their tournaments for x amount of months or something. I don't know how it will all work out, but I hope we take a step in the right direction to improve map pools.
I really want to see new maps. I hope more tournaments other than the GSL start forcing players to play on them.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
this should be linked to the whine about why metalop is still in the map pool. sure it is slightly favoured but compared to all the other maps and in terms of symmetry etc it is one of the best..
Ah, the good old times of Protoss Rhapsody and Protoss Basin. We have come a LONG way gentlemen, but we still have quite a ways to go and with HOTS on the horizon, a complete map pool change needs to happen.
More 3 player maps please, more taldarim/fighting spirit type maps (without rocks for the love of god), and let Metalopolis die already.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Jungle Basin era is the pinnacle of Zerg complaining.
I don't see how Jungle Basin is worse than steppes of war.At least you were able to win a ZvP here and there on JB.
It's there not because of how you feel about the maps, it's because of the win ratio. ZvP was way more imbalanced on JB than steppes of war, 33.3% vs 46.7%
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Jungle Basin era is the pinnacle of Zerg complaining.
I don't see how Jungle Basin is worse than steppes of war.At least you were able to win a ZvP here and there on JB.
It's there not because of how you feel about the maps, it's because of the win ratio. ZvP was way more imbalanced on JB than steppes of war, 33.3% vs 46.7%
Well, to be honest, the level of play was more elevated at the Jungle Basin era. If we had steppes of war now, I'd expect Terran to win a good 90% of their TvZ.
As a mapmaker I'm already quite aware of the issue with maps and balance since I constantly think about it. So I agree and wish that everyone would care a lot more for maps and map pools!
Like imagine every map in tournament map pools would be as good as Daybreak. Imagine all the games were as good as the games on Daybreak. Wouldn't SC2 be fucking amazing? Hell yeah!!
I totally want a global map pool, that consists of GSL maps and maps from the foreigner scene and MAYBE Blizzard maps but only if they're really balanced and not just for the sake of having Blizzard/ladder maps. It's just disgusting that we are willing to use bad maps in tournaments just cos Blizz puts them on ladder.
I'd imagine something like 10 maps would be nice and then tournaments can choose maps from the map pool, so every tournament map pool is still a bit unique but at the same time players know that they have to train these 10 maps and them only.
Also something like 2-3 changed every 2-3 month sounds alright to keep it fresh at all times.
If the scene could manage to make this happen it'd be truly amazing.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Jungle Basin era is the pinnacle of Zerg complaining.
I don't see how Jungle Basin is worse than steppes of war.At least you were able to win a ZvP here and there on JB.
It's there not because of how you feel about the maps, it's because of the win ratio. ZvP was way more imbalanced on JB than steppes of war, 33.3% vs 46.7%
Those stats are garbage.The difference in which the game was played when steppes of war was out is huge compared to how the game worked when Jungle Basin was in the map pool. If ZvP or ZvT would be played on Steppes of war today the win rate of Zergs would be like 20%,not even that.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
That's a pretty bad idea buddy.You make it sound like tournaments would be able to just throw in random maps that seem nice to them without consulting the player base.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
As a fan of BW, I agree with the OP wholeheartedly, and I appreciate your enthusiasm for map cycling. That being said, I think playing untested maps may be a bit overzealous, at least when LARGE tournaments (i.e. IPL, MLG, GSL) are involved. At the same time, it would be difficult to convince many pros to play mass games on maps that may be totally imbalanced or maps that they may never again see. So, I think your suggestion may be fruitful if applied to small, weekly tournaments, with small prize pools. If there were a standard for compensating "testing tournaments" for putting their reps on the line to test maps, I think a nice system could be contrived wherein small tournaments determine maps' balance, then pass them along to larger tournaments. So, in that regard, I think your suggestion may hold merit.
Edit:
I totally want a global map pool, that consists of GSL maps and maps from the foreigner scene and MAYBE Blizzard maps but only if they're really balanced and not just for the sake of having Blizzard/ladder maps. It's just disgusting that we are willing to use bad maps in tournaments just cos Blizz puts them on ladder.
I'd imagine something like 10 maps would be nice and then tournaments can choose maps from the map pool, so every tournament map pool is still a bit unique but at the same time players know that they have to train these 10 maps and them only.
I also like this idea . As long as all the major tournaments agreed, it would be a very viable solution (imo).
very true. i look forward to the korean weekly because they use non-ladder and gsl maps, including the iccup maps. it makes it more exciting with maps i havent seen before. i hope to see more of this in MLG and NASL. GSL is already doing it to some extent, but i would like to see more turnover there.
congrats to iccup. setting the bar since 2001 (lol, i have no idea when iccup was created~!)
New maps are what keeps BW dynamic even after 12 years. I agree that not enough attention is paid in terms of maps in SC2. Always playing the same map doesn't only concern balance, it's a lot about entertainment as well. I have to say that Metalopolis is getting quite boring.
Nice article! I would totally support the point, that seeing pro gamers utilize "real" pro maps in much more intense ways then the usual ladder player is much more entertaining in the major tournaments.
But I also very much like the fact to see our heroes play on the very same map as I am laddering on. So, of course the map pool on the ladder should be improved continuously as should be the "pro-map pool". But I would oppose to a total separation.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
That's a pretty bad idea buddy.You make it sound like tournaments would be able to just throw in random maps that seem nice to them without consulting the player base.
They should.
If it turns out the map is bad, they'll get flak for that, and they'll learn their lesson for next time.
Obviously consulting the player base couldn't hurt though. Maybe polling the players on a bunch of different maps and only including the most agreed ones or something.
another note, i think a lot of effort has been made to create bw maps for sc2. mostly for the nostalgia factor. this is awesome and all, but the problem is that with the new unit abilities (blink, warpins, etc.) it is harder to create those as balanced maps. what was good for the goose (bw) is not good for the gander (sc2) unfortunately. a lot of effort was spent that could have created awesome maps for future mlg, ipl and nasl tournaments (and other smaller ones).
still fun to play destination on sc2 though. awesome map. =)
On November 15 2011 07:15 Leeoku wrote: this should be linked to the whine about why metalop is still in the map pool. sure it is slightly favoured but compared to all the other maps and in terms of symmetry etc it is one of the best..
But that's the thing: it's bad to only make a decision based on which choice is the lesser of two evils. Being "relatively" one of the best is a tricky statement. It is still not as balanced as it could be, and therefore, eSports should not be satisfied.
We all love this game, and are dedicated to it. As thus, we shouldn't settle for anything less than the best. I don't want the first time a foreigner gets to the GSL finals to be determined by map imbalances (game imbalances aside). I want it to be determed by epic, earned skill.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
That's a pretty bad idea buddy.You make it sound like tournaments would be able to just throw in random maps that seem nice to them without consulting the player base.
They should.
If it turns out the map is bad, they'll get flak for that, and they'll learn their lesson for next time.
Obviously consulting the player base couldn't hurt though. Maybe polling the players on a bunch of different maps and only including the most agreed ones or something.
when your hero loses because of a major map flaw, you will be less than pleased with the map and the tournament organizers. remember when idra got blunked by nazgul. hilarious for a few minutes, but then i said "piece of shit map" because idra lost!
On November 15 2011 07:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: wow BW maps were fucking small weren't they? did units generally move slower or what? Or were the maps really "smaller" in BW in comparison?
But anyways, great write up! MLG+GSL collaboration is what's keeping me faithful. Otherwise chaos would ensue xD
Units moved slower in Brood War then in SC2.
Nice article and great to see GSL and MLG working together to make an amazing map pool for all tournaments to follow but the thing is what about Blizzard's Ladder maps? What if Blizzard doesn't want to comply with these tournament maps for ladder map pool on Battle.net 2.0? This is something they need to focus on is convincing Blizzard to use these maps because if they don't then the Ladder system is useless all together and then how will Pros train? Between themselves? Yeah that's nice for a bit but at some point they need to play other players in case someone developed a new strategy that is extremely powerful and could blind side them at a tournament unexpectedly because they were never playing on the ladder and just mostly between themselves on the team and maybe with another team that wants to practice together. It's also scary that it could cause a divide between the community which is what no one wants at all because everyone wants to improve there game. I just hope they are also talking to Blizzard about these map pools and to see if they can have them used on the ladder pool too so that everyone can practice on them.
Great topic! Having started as a massive BW fan, I always thought more focus should be put on the implementation of new maps. Like you wrote though, in BW Kespa had professional mapmakers whose maps would be tested by progamers before being put into play. SC2 needs to organize something like that
On November 15 2011 07:04 Xxio wrote: A different map pool for every major tournament would be detrimental as all but the most dedicated spectators would be lost and the pros would be less than accustomed to the intricacies of each terrain, frustrated with having to practice on a unique set of maps for a single tournament. Rather than having a confusing and disjointed map pool, ideally, major tournaments like MLG and GSL, already working in close collaboration, will create a system for creating and implementing maps that can be adopted by all tournaments. With such a system in place a 'standard' map pool for professional StarCraft 2 could be created and a cycle of replacement accepted.
I wholeheartedly agree with this entire article except this part.
I agree that new maps makes it confusing for spectators. Like the first few times I watched Crevasse I had no idea where the hell the attack paths were or why units were positioned the way they were.
However, I think different maps for different tournaments has a lot of pluses. For one, different tournaments would start looking differently, they would play differently, certain strategies might be favored on certain map pools (as long as balance isn't effected). Sure this makes it hard for pros to jump from tournament to tournament, but that should be a good thing.
Looking at MLG they have 20 seeded layers and 4 GSL invites. But most viewers could think of ~8 more players they would like to see in the pools anyways. That is, there are more than enough players in SC2 right now that tournaments can have regional make-ups.
If every tournament has the same map pool, you loose this 'home field' advantage and you end up making every tournament ranked one after the other, rather than having a lot of separate tournament scenes that flourish independently. This isn't to say Koreans should be excluded from Western tournaments, but it would make it that much greater when West and East do face off in a tournament. When you have that strict heirarchy that does hurt the perceived lesser league after all (Code A versus Code S viewership for example).
It's possible SC2's viewership/playerbase isn't big enough to support this kind of diversity but I think eventually it would be a good thing. And it's kind of starting anyways, with ESV Weekly having a unique map pool (and players still enter that tournament).
Maps deserve so much more attention, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a mapmaker (most mapmakers are aware of the problem).
From pro gamers to jonny bronze, from tournament organizers to sponsors... casters, analysts, streamers, team leaders, community figures, and not least of all Blizzard: I implore you to (1) accept and promote the use of more dynamic map pools, and (2) also participate in the discussions of the more prominent maps.
So. Much Potential.
I've already read this three or four times before it was posted and no new thoughts. Instead I'll say: Great Job! ^_^)b and I completely agree with Barrin.
Putting maps into the center of attention is a good idea, because they might be able to solve one of the bigger problems of starcraft 2. Blizzard is aiming to balance the game not only for the top professionals, but also for the casual players, which might not be possible. However, a decent chunk of the balancing occurs over the maps, so if we could have both parties play on different maps then we can use the maps to balance on both sides seperately.
I think it would be extremely interesting to force Pros to prepare for tournaments paying particular attention to the map-pools. I think what OP is trying to say (and I could be wrong) is that GSL-June and MLG Columbus (assuming it's in June again) should have the same map pool, and that the map-pool of GSL-August and MLG Raleigh (again assuming Raleigh is in August) would also be identical, but that the map-pool would be different than that of GSL-MLG-June. I think that is a fantastic idea. It would ask professionals to throw themselves into the depths of ignorance and challenge them to use their wits, their courage, and their intellectual magnanimity to hoist and claw themselves from the pits of ignorance into the light of knowledge and gosu-play. Long story short, it would separate the men from the boys.
The ladder is the #1 reason to this. People play on the ladder. Pros train on the ladder. And the ladder maps are the Blizz ones. We need a custom ladder or FINALLY a ladder for custom maps. Can't wait for this.
EXCELLENT post, at this point maps are going to help balance sc2 more then blizzard will (at least till hots and the metagame resets) and we as a community need to push organizers to use less and less blizzard maps and more custom maps from a somewhat standardized pro map pool. It would be great if blizzard followed suit and basically introduced the maps from a "pro" map pool into ladder play as time goes on and try to not use any of their horrid maps instead.
Even though the maps plays a very important role, we gotta admit that there are some units that need some tweaks. There are so many wrong things with the units first... Yeah yeah i know it's not a thread with balance but I still feel the need to talk about it before we can adjust the maps....
Wow, fantastic post, and great presentation (in terms of graphics and flow of the article).
Now, onto the content of the post. I have to agree that I think having more custom maps in tournaments would help push the level of play that we are seeing. For example, Metalopolis is a great map and all… but it is incredibly old. I mean, goodness, the map (Essentially) has been around for over a year and half now. Yes, it was fun to watch pros play on the maps that I was familiar with… but after a year of seeing the same terrain things seem to be stagnating a little bit. I don't think any type of extreme map rotation is needed, but it would be nice to see maps cycle in and out gradually to keep things interesting and stories going.
I would also like to play on new maps, because exploring new terrain in games is always fun and exciting c:
Awesome post. I've been thinking about this myself recently, I never played broodwar but I'm aware of the fact that in BW races was believed to be basically balanced, but instead maps where imba. In SC2 it's been the opposite, I mean some obvious map imbalances like old ST in TvZ where complained about instead of balance, but not less obvious imbalances in maps that are still present and greatly can affect both tournament and ladder experience..
On November 15 2011 07:15 Leeoku wrote: this should be linked to the whine about why metalop is still in the map pool. sure it is slightly favoured but compared to all the other maps and in terms of symmetry etc it is one of the best..
Your argument doesn't make any sense in context. Blizzard removed the map because it was one of the most imbalanced maps on the ladder. These are the stats for the pros. Not for the average player. You can either make the argument that the map pool should be balanced for both the average player and the pro, but you can't take elements from each and make a single coherent thought.
On November 15 2011 07:04 Xxio wrote: A different map pool for every major tournament would be detrimental as all but the most dedicated spectators would be lost and the pros would be less than accustomed to the intricacies of each terrain, frustrated with having to practice on a unique set of maps for a single tournament. Rather than having a confusing and disjointed map pool, ideally, major tournaments like MLG and GSL, already working in close collaboration, will create a system for creating and implementing maps that can be adopted by all tournaments. With such a system in place a 'standard' map pool for professional StarCraft 2 could be created and a cycle of replacement accepted.
Oh my god yes! I was thinking about this for months now, i absolutely love that you say it in public. This absolutly has to be done!
I don't think steppes was imba. At that time 6pool was autowin. The same goes for a thor +1 timing push. With all the patches the game has received I would love to see steppes implemented again.
You did an amazing job with this write up. I can only hope it does not fall on deaf ears. Although, I'll be optimistic... I don't think it will. I think there will be a change in the coming months (sooner rather than later), and I can see this happening and making the scene that much more dynamic and fun to watch.
Edited: To the person above me. Steppes is a horrible map, and it should not be entertained for any play whatsoever.
An Interesting OP, it seems to me, if SC2 does not implement a KESPA like organisation (interpret broadly), the map pool will stay stale. With map makers, tournaments and players not wanting to take risks on which maps they will play/create. (The risk occurs from not having pro player feedback)
It is in team’s interest to have a balanced and fresh map pool. It may be time to create an entity with its sole purpose to brief tournaments on potential maps. With the established teams having to play 100 games or ## and submit a report giving their players thoughts on the maps.
Alternatively this could be initiated by organisations such as GSL and MLG who would make it a requirement to enter into their tournaments. This may just result in a prisoner’s dilemma, however hopefully for the established organisations, such as the previously mentioned, it will create a cooperative prisoner’s dilemma (outcome: cooperate, cooperate)
It is my opinion, because of the international nature of SC2, if will be very hard to create a separate entity. The big tournaments may hold enough power to pull it off, especially if the community understands why they have implemented the measures.
Using Moon Glaive/Neo Moon Glaive as an example as protoss hell made little sense. It was only in testing versions that saw terran dominate. By the time it made it to Proleague, the map had been revised and PvT was fine. Indeed, the PvT splits actually favor protoss on both versions, albeit in small sample. Protoss just wasn't sent due to the difficultly of ZvP on Moon Glaive. Since total weakness in ZvP effectively limited teams from sending protoss, terrans were used almost exclusively for they dominated TvZ. So zergs stop being sent, leading to a large number of TvT mirrors, a stat that was conveniently omitted.
Moon Glaive: 29 TvT out of 63 official games. Neo Moon Glaive: 58 TvT out of 146 official games.
Obviously, GSL and Blizzard have a unique relationship. However, for most other tournaments, Blizzard requires some process if prize pool is >$5000. Does Blizzard have any say in the map pool for tournaments like this? Obviously, KeSPA had no ties with Blizzard and could impose map rules as they pleased for BW. Could Blizzard themselves be hampering this? Anyone run a >$5k tournament want to chime in?
I guess this is also indicative of how much the western esports scene will hopefully benefit when it grows to the point where a collective organization such as Kespa can develop.
I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed. I hope we see more maps like that crazy new GSL map. There have been so many weird new strategies on it and every game so far has been quite good because every race has an equal chance fast expanding. + Show Spoiler +
Including Genius bossing it up with 12 carriers
I look forward to more maps like that in the future, instead of the two base all-in maps we have now. Hopefully we can figure out maps well enough that we can get our own Fighting Spirit.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Jungle Basin era is the pinnacle of Zerg complaining.
I don't see how Jungle Basin is worse than steppes of war.At least you were able to win a ZvP here and there on JB.
You trolling?
How important maps are in bw is actually one of the reasons I don't play it still. I go back and load up iccup every so often and when I don't feel like playing on python every game I don't know any of the maps :[
One important fact that everyone seems to forget when discussing maps is that just because a map is imbalanced for individual play does not mean it is necessarily imbalanced for team play. Also, a lot of these maps have poor statistics due to the era from which they were in the map pool, this especially true for the beta/launch maps (where you were lucky to even see a two base play).
i agree overall about maps, but all this statistic i think is not correct cause if you about progamers then plz take a progamers statistics for example GSL or at least MLG statistics then it make more sense i belive.
i agree overall about maps, but all this statistic i think is not correct cause if you talk about progamers then plz take a progamers statistics for example GSL or at least MLG statistics then it make more sense i belive.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately but I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think there needs to be some tournament which forces players to play on new maps. If MLG were willing to take a couple maps out of the recent map contest winners, that would be an ideal start. I think that mapmakers need to run monthly contests and tournaments need to try out the winners. Pros don't have time to play on these maps, but players do and we can give feedback about which maps are balanced enough for pros to try them out. If playhem were willing to put some of these random maps in their map pool, it would force at least some pros to try them out.
It would be cool if a nonprofit there was a nonprofit, map-making organization that all major tournament organizers turned towards to create and establish a universal map pool across tournaments. Then the organization could monitor map balance and cycle through new maps over time to keep things fresh, without each organization having different maps and creating confusion for players and spectators.
On November 15 2011 07:15 Leeoku wrote: this should be linked to the whine about why metalop is still in the map pool. sure it is slightly favoured but compared to all the other maps and in terms of symmetry etc it is one of the best..
I don't think balance is really the main reason metal sucks. It's more that we've been playing on it for a very long time and every other blizzard map sucks in comparison. Which is sad, in a way.
I thought we werent allowed to talk about balance or do race whining on TeamLiquid forums. The OP only posted some light trivia about maps and some stats and unconciously encourages us to start trolling each other based on race. While terrans will ask for smaller maps, zerg will ask for larger ones and protoss will say larger ones but with alot of chokes. After that everyone will just troll each other while screaming that collosus is imba in chokes, terran is imba in small maps, zerg is imba in open large maps.
In my opinion this thread is counterproductive. Stats just say it all. The stats talk better than anything else and offer the best arguments for any point anyone wants to make so I don't understand what this thread wants me/us to talk about. The maps that are out now? Why are they imba or not imba? New maps that are not yet known? Race balance? Overall i guess OP just wanted to tell us maps matter in e-sports. The biggest problem related to maps is directly linked to the infrastructure blizzard gives us, so we can't do anything about that.
Im not trying to say anything negative on purpose about anyone/anything but I just don't understand this thread. Maybe I'm just stupid. I apologise.
Really nice writeup. Maps have a really interesting effect on balance were you get the maps balancing the game or the metagame blancing the maps as far as possible. When BW was only played on LT and Hunters it was not thaaaat imbalanced, atleast wery few complained about balance. Well the maps were "fixed" in an infinity number of versions but the still had the same layout. I think that maps might have an even bigger effect on balance in sc2 for reasons such as balls ect. Wide open spaces vs narrow alleys make alot of difference. Most maps today are pretty narrow and a change of that would be interesting, if it works is another questions.
On November 15 2011 08:34 Ucs wrote: I thought we werent allowed to talk about balance or do race whining on TeamLiquid forums. The OP only posted some light trivia about maps and some stats and unconciously encourages us to start trolling each other based on race. While terrans will ask for smaller maps, zerg will ask for larger ones and protoss will say larger ones but with alot of chokes. After that everyone will just troll each other while screaming that collosus is imba in chokes, terran is imba in small maps, zerg is imba in open large maps.
In my opinion this thread is counterproductive. Stats just say it all. The stats talk better than anything else and offer the best arguments for any point anyone wants to make so I don't understand what this thread wants me/us to talk about. The maps that are out now? Why are they imba or not imba? New maps that are not yet known? Race balance? Overall i guess OP just wanted to tell us maps matter in e-sports. The biggest problem related to maps is directly linked to the infrastructure blizzard gives us, so we can't do anything about that.
Im not trying to say anything negative on purpose about anyone/anything but I just don't understand this thread. Maybe I'm just stupid. I apologise.
It's not race whining though. This sort of map analysis has a fairly long tradition in BW as it is often thought that better maps was the last piece that balanced BW. The difference is how well certain races did was often dependent on whether the maps themselves were balanced. Some really terrible ones got put in and were pulled after one season to be never seen again. Of course, what was even more epic was when a top player would dominate on a map not favouring their race.
i on the side that says new maps should be introduced at random at tourneys. they way you get to see truly who is the best and making on the fly decisions and not on who has the best predetermined plan for a specific map. boxer would kick ass this way!!
On November 15 2011 08:34 Ucs wrote: I thought we werent allowed to talk about balance or do race whining on TeamLiquid forums. The OP only posted some light trivia about maps and some stats and unconciously encourages us to start trolling each other based on race. While terrans will ask for smaller maps, zerg will ask for larger ones and protoss will say larger ones but with alot of chokes. After that everyone will just troll each other while screaming that collosus is imba in chokes, terran is imba in small maps, zerg is imba in open large maps.
In my opinion this thread is counterproductive. Stats just say it all. The stats talk better than anything else and offer the best arguments for any point anyone wants to make so I don't understand what this thread wants me/us to talk about. The maps that are out now? Why are they imba or not imba? New maps that are not yet known? Race balance? Overall i guess OP just wanted to tell us maps matter in e-sports. The biggest problem related to maps is directly linked to the infrastructure blizzard gives us, so we can't do anything about that.
Im not trying to say anything negative on purpose about anyone/anything but I just don't understand this thread. Maybe I'm just stupid. I apologise.
You must do the difference between whine and balance talk
I like the idea that maps could balence the game but I don't quite know how a map could improve both ZvT and PvT win rates. If the map is too open then toss gets destroyed and if it is too narrow zerg can't deal with tanks and ZvP also gets imbalenced in tosses favor. Any ideas?
Great article, expresses my sentiments exactly on why there must be a cycling of maps in order for Starcraft 2 to be successful.
I'm tired of seeing Metalopolis/XNC after ~2000 games on them because the players will use the optimal strategy on said maps as the map is figured out. The problem is that tournament organizers, especially small ones, wants to become the next big thing, and have to cater to the professional players that play in them. Thus, the organizers use the same map pool from the big tournaments to appease the players to generate content. This leads to the problem of too many small tournaments that uses the same maps over and over to generate content.
On November 15 2011 08:48 TuElite wrote: Something I don't understand is why the f do leagues such as GSL and MLG still use watch towers ???!
My opinion on watchtowers is that they are necessary because pushes happen much quicker in Starcraft 2, and watchtowers gives the defending player an option to see if the attack is coming or not. Also, it allows the attacking player to assert more map dominance, rather than just their standing army. Also, I think it's mostly for the Zerg to use because they can place a Zergling to see, and Zerg is more susceptible to big, multiple and well-timed attacks. I agree with your sentiment though, I dislike the Watchtower mechanic as maps get bigger and mapmakers figure out whether this mechanic is necessary.
Great read! It's nice to know there's actually some people out there who don't simply complain about OP this or OP that. Starcraft 2 is such a complex game that it is impossible to narrow down any sort of imbalance to any one thing. We need to look at the whole picture instead of raging at the "imba Terrans" all the time. Your idea of having one general map pool for all major tournaments is an awesome idea. If there was some sort of committee, or at least cooperation between all major tournament organizers, I think that is not only a realistic goal, but one that is definitely worth pursuing,
On November 15 2011 08:55 Hinanawi wrote: It's pretty damn silly that Blizz has such a strangehold on maps right now.
You think Brood War would have taken off like it did if everyone was forced to play on Blood Bath?
Admittedly, Blood Bath was not intended to be a ladder map, but there are plenty of examples of terrible maps from Blizzard in BW that were intended for ladder play.
I've never really understood why this notion has been so absent from discussions of Sc2 balance - BW was essentially balanced by professional map designers, not Blizzard.
If you remember, sAviOr took maps that were completely OP for Terran and and ridiculous win rates with Zerg on them in Brood War. Its the player not the map.
Why we, who had the long history of Brood War to refer to, decided to use the default Blizzard maps for money tournaments with talented players, is unfathomable.
It's not unfathomable at all. The game was (and still is) young, and there were (are) no other maps with the kind of wide-spread familiarity of the ladder maps. More important than the intricate balance of a map is the massive imbalance of using a map that one player knows better than another, or the lack of high level play on a map that neither player knows.
Even when a map is eventually ruled as "bad," it often takes time to get there. XNC was, for a long time, the preferred map of a lot of players (including pro), and was considered the most balanced. Now look at it.
There's a reason that it took a while to decide which BW maps were the best for tournaments, and it isn't because BW was the first time out. It's because it's an inherently hard goal which takes time to accomplish, and in the meantime, you're better sticking with the devil you know.
Some people here haven't noticed that NASL and IPL already testing custom maps and make small tournaments with them. ESV Korean Weekly use custom maps. So go and watch those tournaments and give feedback!!!
Haha, I've been saying this for months. Good luck implementing it. Tournaments won't do it without pressure, and only the players are in position to do that, but they won't because they are too busy to care about non-tournament maps
On November 15 2011 09:16 Skawuscha wrote: Some people here haven't noticed that NASL and IPL already testing custom maps and make small tournaments with them. ESV Korean Weekly use custom maps. So go and watch those tournaments and give feedback!!!
Yeah, ESV deserves a lot of credit bringing in new western maps into the scene. Hopefully foreign tournaments can start to include these as well as the GSL maps one by one. As they did with Terminus and are about to do with Daybreak to name one map.
It would be interesting to see if MLG replaced a map each tournament, they had Testbug way back and it was a nice addition. Because the people that actually had played on Testbug had quite an advantage because they took time and practiced the whole map pool.
This is reminding me, there used to be a "backdoor" in the BW TLPD that linked to a sort of "balance rating" of maps based iirc on map results vs. overall results or something. But I can't find it anymore - any ideas?
On November 15 2011 08:48 TuElite wrote: Something I don't understand is why the f do leagues such as GSL and MLG still use watch towers ???!
My opinion on watchtowers is that they are necessary because pushes happen much quicker in Starcraft 2, and watchtowers gives the defending player an option to see if the attack is coming or not. Also, it allows the attacking player to assert more map dominance, rather than just their standing army. Also, I think it's mostly for the Zerg to use because they can place a Zergling to see, and Zerg is more susceptible to big, multiple and well-timed attacks. I agree with your sentiment though, I dislike the Watchtower mechanic as maps get bigger and mapmakers figure out whether this mechanic is necessary.
I agree with many of your points, but my argument is why would that it be bad? That would cause players to have to think much more and play smarter, moving their army around strategically, creating more creative plays in terms of spacing and positioning. Scouting should be a huge part of the game, and I feel having watch towers just causes players to be lazy. And taking them out would lead to more really really close scouts/mis-scouts, which imo is much more exciting than having watchtowers.
If a player is attacking, they SHOULD already have map awareness and dominance before attacking, or else if they get in a bad position and get flanked, the attack fails. This again, falls back to the main principle of active scouting. (Which is freaking hard to do)
On November 15 2011 09:32 VGhost wrote: Nice read.
This is reminding me, there used to be a "backdoor" in the BW TLPD that linked to a sort of "balance rating" of maps based iirc on map results vs. overall results or something. But I can't find it anymore - any ideas?
On November 15 2011 09:32 VGhost wrote: Nice read.
This is reminding me, there used to be a "backdoor" in the BW TLPD that linked to a sort of "balance rating" of maps based iirc on map results vs. overall results or something. But I can't find it anymore - any ideas?
He's talking about the "Map Balance Table" which used to be at http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/balance_table.php. It was an undocumented page of TLPD that had colored slider bars per match-up indicating a certain metric of balance for maps that was calculated using only televised games and players' Elo ratings. You could sort by the "Balance" tab to see a descending order of the most "balanced" maps according to its rating.
The page was interesting but hidden and undocumented, and has since disappeared.
i can only agree ! i think we need changes in the laddermappool and active testing of new maps. I don't think there is any possible way that if anyone made a map, that it would ever be a part of the mappool. Maybe a very very few. This also removes the whole idea of making a map, because: why should i/you/we ? the only people that are gonna play it is myself and a couple of friends, and then it will hit the bottom of the popularity list in the black hole named battlenet custommaps.
To me a big part of the reason SC2's map scene isn't as interesting is because of SC2's high ground mechanics. Ramps and cliffs for the most part are decoration after the early game.
On November 15 2011 10:07 Vasoline73 wrote: To me a big part of the reason SC2's map scene isn't as interesting is because of SC2's high ground mechanics. Ramps and cliffs for the most part are decoration after the early game.
Would it be horribly inappropriate to do something like use the editor to put broodwar high ground mechanics back in for a map? Or have specially marked areas that give any other bonus or disadvantage you can think of when firing into or out of it?
I think this is the most interesting approach to SC2 balance I've ever read, to be honest. It's becoming more and more apparent that we can't entrust Blizzard to fully balance the game at every level of play -- which is okay and understandable. The way the community can balance the game is through maps. Makes total sense to me, and I'm excited to see community maps becoming more influential.
Written by Mani, this should be a good read for this thread.
Now, there was another thread iirc which discussed the maps in more details and by era. Props to the person who links that thread because I couldn't find it.
Great writeup! I agree wholeheartedly with the message of this thread, and can say that I run into this a lot myself. Most of the time if I lose a lot I tend to look at where I lost as opposed to who I lost to. Any maps that I notice a particularly abysmal win rate on I will just practice more and study to try and find my weak points in that map, and usually by doing that I can maintain some form of balanced win rate(or at least not completely horrible). When you try, try and try and still can't think of anything, generally the veto button comes into play
I think a constantly rotating map pool that is closely monitored and tested would be the greatest thing in SC2 atm, but I am ok if it takes some time. I mean as established and organized as Brood War is now we all know it wasn't like that from the very beginning, so as long as we are pusing towards something like this and people are contributing all they can then it will be a reality very shortly.
Could TL official organization some sort of petition to make a customized map "Ladder"? I don't know how hard this would be but it would be cool if Bliz gave say a board of the community to create a custom "ladder" with community (Tl staff, reddit admins, proteams) selected maps. Maybe use your current ladder MMR as a reference to find people. That way it's as convenient as the ladder, you get the same variety and it will be popular enough to get decent practice out of.
It's certainly not ideal and the MMR issue will cause some buggish problems, but it seems like a simple first step towards a better e-sports/bliz union.
On November 15 2011 07:58 mbr2321 wrote: I think it would be extremely interesting to force Pros to prepare for tournaments paying particular attention to the map-pools. I think what OP is trying to say (and I could be wrong) is that GSL-June and MLG Columbus (assuming it's in June again) should have the same map pool, and that the map-pool of GSL-August and MLG Raleigh (again assuming Raleigh is in August) would also be identical, but that the map-pool would be different than that of GSL-MLG-June. I think that is a fantastic idea. It would ask professionals to throw themselves into the depths of ignorance and challenge them to use their wits, their courage, and their intellectual magnanimity to hoist and claw themselves from the pits of ignorance into the light of knowledge and gosu-play. Long story short, it would separate the men from the boys.
There would also be less cheese if players were in the dark about the map.
I am but an SC2 viewer, I have no idea, really, how the game should be played, but for how the casters tell me how it should be played. I don't know what the difference between Metalopolis and Metalopolis 1.1 is. They look EXACTLY the same to me!!!!
There is a huge difference between the viewership between SC:BW and SC2--and that is people like me, the casual viewership. Those who view SC:BW scene NOW are much more oriented to the skill level of play in that pro scene than those who watch SC2.
You can make that claim, and be heard by all the die-hard Master-league++ players, but that doesn't mean shit to me, because I don't know enough about the game to understand what the differences are, really. I just want to watch a well-played, close-ass game that has me guessing at every turn which player will win. Balanced maps don't always mean I'm going to see an exciting game. It's the quality of the players, playing at their best, that have given me the most entertaining matches to watch--despite what maps they were playing on.
So, I agree with you, yes and no. i want maps that encourage games that go past the 7 minute mark. I don't want games that are macro to macro to macro to... fuck, well that was it, "GG." I think, for the most part, that is the players playing consistently, and we haven't really seen that in SC2 quite yet.
On November 15 2011 10:39 FunnelC4kes wrote: I am but an SC2 viewer, I have no idea, really, how the game should be played, but for how the casters tell me how it should be played. I don't know what the difference between Metalopolis and Metalopolis 1.1 is. They look EXACTLY the same to me!!!!
There is a huge difference between the viewership between SC:BW and SC2--and that is people like me, the casual viewership. Those who view SC:BW scene NOW are much more oriented to the skill level of play in that pro scene than those who watch SC2.
You can make that claim, and be heard by all the die-hard Master-league++ players, but that doesn't mean shit to me, because I don't know enough about the game to understand what the differences are, really. I just want to watch a well-played, close-ass game that has me guessing at every turn which player will win. Balanced maps don't always mean I'm going to see an exciting game. It's the quality of the players, playing at their best, that have given me the most entertaining matches to watch--despite what maps they were playing on.
So, I agree with you, yes and no. i want maps that encourage games that go past the 7 minute mark. I don't want games that are macro to macro to macro to... fuck, well that was it, "GG." I think, for the most part, that is the players playing consistently, and we haven't really seen that in SC2 quite yet.
Bravo for an outstanding article. This is definitely an issue that too few people bring up. I have seen people mentioning maps in balance threads before and how balance is sought and achieved in BW, but it really is only a handful of people. Thank you for bringing this to the forefront of discussion!
On November 15 2011 10:51 Conquerer67 wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that Blizzard should remake Fighting Spirit for SC2? With some minro balaance changes, of course.
Should it be remade for SC2? I think that it'd be a great idea.
Should Blizzard be the one in charge of doing that? Hell no!
One thing that the BW did better than SC2 was maps - I definitely agree and I feel that it is important that a central authority (e.g. blizzard) take proactive steps in promoting new maps.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Jungle Basin era is the pinnacle of Zerg complaining.
I don't see how Jungle Basin is worse than steppes of war.At least you were able to win a ZvP here and there on JB.
It's there not because of how you feel about the maps, it's because of the win ratio. ZvP was way more imbalanced on JB than steppes of war, 33.3% vs 46.7%
Those stats are garbage.The difference in which the game was played when steppes of war was out is huge compared to how the game worked when Jungle Basin was in the map pool. If ZvP or ZvT would be played on Steppes of war today the win rate of Zergs would be like 20%,not even that.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
That's a pretty bad idea buddy.You make it sound like tournaments would be able to just throw in random maps that seem nice to them without consulting the player base.
That blog by Artosis is quite funny. At the time the only games that were in TLPD were the televised games. A large portion of data was missing because preliminaries, and other sources of large numbers of pro-games were not in the database. So at the time, the data was a bit skewed and probably unreliable. So to that extent, he is right, you have to determine the quality of the data you have, and whether it can be used to represent balance at the highest level of play.
But as time went on and the sample size grew as more non-televised games were included the numbers would seem to disagree with Artosis' point. If you look at Nostalgia's stats now, TvZ sits at 57% in favor of Terran. It wasn't just the top-tier legends propping up Nostalgia's TvZ stats, even lower-level pros who played Terran found success on that map. So Artosis was complaining that it was in fact not balanced because Terran wasn't winning enough, when they actually were winning at what is a pretty high rate on that map. One that would actually agree with his definition of balance ironically enough.
Honestly I'd be less inclined to prescribe to Artosis' more than likely biased account in that blog and listen to what the numbers say. Statistics are very useful. If you don't understand the requirements necessary to make assertions, people can use them to be very misleading. They aren't everything, but they sure as hell aren't worthless when you have quality data.
I feel the disconnect between ladder maps, which casuals and pros play day in day out, and tournament maps, which we casuals only play in customs for the lols and to feel gosu, is hindering the community discovering and adopting new, more balanced maps.
As for the high group mechanics problems, IMHO it really comes down to having Colossi and Medivacs. Without those around ramps and cliffs would be far more difficult to attack. Obs can be sniped, Scans don't (contrary to popular Protoss belief) last forever, and Overlords/Seers are often put in a corner to have a nice tea party for the duration of the game.
Epic thread, a long time in the making. I agree that professional maps should be rotated and changed frequently, akin to BW, but I think they should also all be implemented to ladder. If Map X is "balanced" in bronze-diamond, but is super imbalanced at GM, it should be removed completely and treated as an imbalanced map. Seems logical to me.
On November 15 2011 11:20 DtorR wrote: Hmm how does one design a map for starcraft? Where would you begin?
With the map editor
LOL I know the tool used to make maps however I was wondering like do you first draw it on paper to get an idea on what the map will look like? What are the steps needed to produce a map that is of tournament standard?
DtorR, when I first started mapmaking I started with a bunch of sketches on paper. It is a good way to start. And to get familiar with the map editor do NOT start with a melee map, make little scenes to get used to the terrain editor, placing doodads, and the many many options of both.
greatest BW map of all time is Tau Cross (which happens to be an anomaly because its the only flat map that works). 3 players map concept is the best in bw, only down side is the PvP
Really interesting read. Love the fact that you're not really comparing SC2 and BW, but rather just discussing the two alongside eachother. I've always been a fan of playing on different maps, trying out the ones I find. Great writeup.
and FS is bs for midgame pvz, it was not until bisu showed how do play fast speed lots 2006 style on it. the concept of good PvZ map is the progression towards a late game 4th base. 3rd on FS is easy to get for toss, after that it gets nasty. Once zerg secures his 3rd its really hard for toss to win but thats not relevant for the post in any way, amazing write up.
And yes, Bisu's understanding for the maps and the game in general its in a class of its own. I cant wait for the Revolutionist to step up into the sc2 scene
On November 15 2011 11:49 disciple wrote: and FS is bs for midgame pvz, it was not until bisu showed how do play fast speed lots 2006 style on it. the concept of good PvZ map is the progression towards a late game 4th base. 3rd on FS is easy to get for toss, after that it gets nasty. Once zerg secures his 3rd its really hard for toss to win but thats not relevant for the post in any way, amazing write up.
And yes, Bisu's understanding for the maps and the game in general its in a class of its own. I cant wait for the Revolutionist to step up into the sc2 scene
On November 15 2011 11:49 disciple wrote: and FS is bs for midgame pvz, it was not until bisu showed how do play fast speed lots 2006 style on it. the concept of good PvZ map is the progression towards a late game 4th base. 3rd on FS is easy to get for toss, after that it gets nasty. Once zerg secures his 3rd its really hard for toss to win but thats not relevant for the post in any way, amazing write up.
And yes, Bisu's understanding for the maps and the game in general its in a class of its own. I cant wait for the Revolutionist to step up into the sc2 scene
On November 15 2011 11:49 disciple wrote: and FS is bs for midgame pvz, it was not until bisu showed how do play fast speed lots 2006 style on it. the concept of good PvZ map is the progression towards a late game 4th base. 3rd on FS is easy to get for toss, after that it gets nasty. Once zerg secures his 3rd its really hard for toss to win but thats not relevant for the post in any way, amazing write up.
And yes, Bisu's understanding for the maps and the game in general its in a class of its own. I cant wait for the Revolutionist to step up into the sc2 scene
Wait, what? Once Z gets his third... he gets his third like 3 minutes into the game, man. Did you mean P?
To be honest though I kinda disliked how often Kespa changed maps in Brood Wars, it was hard to keep track of and you missed some consistently good maps like Fighting Spirit and Andromeda. But I defintely think a new influx of maps would help out SC2 some.
i <3 you Xxio, i'm very new to sc2 and bw as a whole (febuary 2011) but even in that short amount of time during my slow progression to diamond i've known that maps dictate a large portion of balance and the amount of maps that have been tested and used in sc2 is pitifully small compared to bw. so how could we even complain about unit/tech balance when we're far from truly testing it? (some things were very obvious i.e reapers in beta, 1 food roaches etc)
On November 15 2011 11:49 disciple wrote: and FS is bs for midgame pvz, it was not until bisu showed how do play fast speed lots 2006 style on it. the concept of good PvZ map is the progression towards a late game 4th base. 3rd on FS is easy to get for toss, after that it gets nasty. Once zerg secures his 3rd its really hard for toss to win but thats not relevant for the post in any way, amazing write up.
And yes, Bisu's understanding for the maps and the game in general its in a class of its own. I cant wait for the Revolutionist to step up into the sc2 scene
Wait, what? Once Z gets his third... he gets his third like 3 minutes into the game, man. Did you mean P?
no, if players get spawned on the same side of the map, zerg 3rd is diagonal for toss so the attack distance is huge. Bisu's strat is to attack the 3rd before its saturated and defended. but from toss prespective 3rd base is relatively easly to defend (being 12, 3, 6 or 9) shit gets serious after that when the area to defend is quite huge and the rally point from the gateways is really really really far away. unless toss carries a significant midgame advantage, map is quite biased towards z in lategame pvz
I also personally believe that its with race balance issues as well. They have hots almost coming up and theyre still making adjustments to the game (ex. Protoss upgrade costs) and theyre throwing in new units... Theyre getting the balance almost there but at the same time, theyre not completely balancing the game out before launching a new expansion. Who knows what kind of clusterf*** is going to happen with balance issues now... Its not like theres a hots open beta
Good read. I've never understood why Blizzard (and a lot of SC2 fans) insist on balancing the game solely by tweaking unit numbers here and there. They've been doing it for a year and a half now on a regular basis and still no one is satisfied with the balance, so obviously it's not a very efficient method of balancing the game. They should at least try focusing on maps for awhile to see if it makes a more even balance. The fact that some maps are still being used competitively that have been around since (or just after) beta is a joke, to be honest.
great post! We the community should step up and choose which maps WE want to play. I would love for blizzard to stop being so controlling over sc2 and allow fan made content into the map pool
Personally I don't care if the map is 50/50 win rate across the board, if it's not balanced at the pro level I don't really care at all about the win rates. I'd rather have a map that I know is balanced and the reason that I'm not winning is because of myself and not the map being made easier for my race or my opponent's race.
I want to win because I did the right things not because the map was easier to play on!!
I feel a lot of the maps weren't given enough time for the players to develop strategies and maybe after all these race balances blizzard has made, things will work out differently..
On November 15 2011 11:49 disciple wrote: and FS is bs for midgame pvz, it was not until bisu showed how do play fast speed lots 2006 style on it. the concept of good PvZ map is the progression towards a late game 4th base. 3rd on FS is easy to get for toss, after that it gets nasty. Once zerg secures his 3rd its really hard for toss to win but thats not relevant for the post in any way, amazing write up.
And yes, Bisu's understanding for the maps and the game in general its in a class of its own. I cant wait for the Revolutionist to step up into the sc2 scene
YOHOHO~ You went there!
I just want to see him on TV more often
Me too, no more MSL for him to try to get a 4th one in.
Definitely agree. New maps will breathe new life into the spectator sport of Starcraft II but we must have a regular map pool as stated above. At the moment, the GSL maps are actually quite awesome (I think) and Taldarim Altar is nice for all the races.
great article. i really like the direction that TL is going with their focus on maps and the map contest they hosted. hope the community focuses on some of the points brought up in this article and keeps the balance qq to a minimum
Look at something like map of the month tourney. They get good players to play on maps and those games are often sooooo damn exciting. Would like to see alot more tournaments like that
The fact of the matter. SC2 will never see the mapping bonanza that graced BW. The majority of 'western' players dont give a shit about custom maps, and thusly, the tournaments never will either. The viscous cycle. GSL only ever seems to pick Prime maps (if any of you ever visit playxp, you will see there are plenty of other talented mappers there). I don't know if they have some deal with GSL or whatever, but if your id doesn't end in Prime, there's no point really.
The thought about forcing players is kind of funny; because they are so fervent against playing on new maps, yet considering that when GSL does release a new map, they all basically start playing it no questions asked.
Although utilizing new maps will improve the replay value of Starcraft II as a spectator sport. I definitely think that tournaments must adopt a standard map pool like the article states. And wow please remove steppes of war... its way too small to have a proper macro game.
Steppes would be almost perfectly balanced if they simply added some high ground shrubbery outside of the naturals to prevent low-ground siege. Complain all you want about the small size but the numbers don't lie.
As for Metalopolis, it's ridiculous how many people claim it is so much better now when in reality the win distribution has simply swung in the other direction. It is slightly better but it's sure not perfect; people just like it better because Terran isn't winning on it anymore. If you take general average win-rates as a target rather than 50/50, Metalopolis was actually more balanced before than it is now.
But seriously, good job, although I agree SC2 is not at the point where the inherent advantages of each race's traits can be balanced by maps. Discussion of the 11-12 PL maps for those interested (minus images at the moment lol).
I'm voting for a reimplementation of Incineration Zone, that map was the apitomy of perfect imbalance. Oh glorious beta days...
Edit: If they really want the custom map platform to get going they might want to get a Bo3 system that allows you to gain a different kind of points other than ladder. Bo1's are great for ladder and stuff but if I really want to gauge the skill of a player I want to play atleast a Bo3, and many of the ladder players out there really only play for points and rank.
I would really liked to see a unified set of maps for tournaments around the world like GSL, MLG, TSL etc. I think maps play a very big role in "game balance". It's not the units that are OP but the way we use them, if you take that away with great maps we will see really great matches in the upcoming tourneys.
Great Read. I really enjoy watching games on new maps. Such as the ones recently implemented into the GSL. The game play is usually fresh with the opportunity for ever so slight but incredibly game changing mistakes such as the Muta blunder made by Losira against SC.
did read it earlier today but couldnt comment yet i kind of miss incinerateion zone (im totally shure ive written it wrong ) which was kind of a horrible map too ^^
The second one kinda reminds me of the very first blizzard maps put on the Stacraft/BW maps as to play multiplayer with, which had no ramps, no tight chokes, like 5 bases total and only long straight corridors.
so far there isnt any map that inherits the creative features of BW maps. For example Outsider, collosseum, Pathfinder or even Alternative.. Even 3-players map is a rarity
The article comes across as zerg biased, and players and fans have always been vocal about map pools as far as I can remember. Then there's the matter of when the wins/losses were made, is close position meta still so terran favored after the nerfs? Are the numbers adjusted for the overall w/l ratios etc.
I generally really do enjoy TL articles but this one just rubs me the wrong way. :/
On November 15 2011 18:29 Arceus wrote: so far there isnt any map that inherits the creative features of BW maps. For example Outsider, collosseum, Pathfinder or even Alternative.. Even 3-players map is a rarity
This has a lot to do with how often the maps change in SC2 so far:
There are pretty clear bounds of what people find acceptable and they didn't translate from BW to SC2 cos SC2 has a whole new community. So we as mapmakers have to make maps within these bounds. And every time someone (and by someone I mean GSL mapmakes thus far) gets a map played in tournament that does things slightly different these bounds are pushed and this new feature or concept becomes acceptable or standard.
So far new GSL maps gave us the "right" to make half bases (6 minerals and 1 gas), use rich gas, make 3 player maps, self-destroying xel'naga towers (lol) and soon also 3 gas bases plus concepts like huge maps with easy 3 base (Crevasse, Tal'darim, Terminus, Calm) and other stuff, and still be considered quite standard. Things that would have a hard time to be accepted by tournaments for being non standard are stuff like mineral blocks, mineral lines that block pathes, eggs, neutral units or spells (like arbiter in BW or forcefields in sc2), island or semi-island maps etc etc (just look at some more recent BW maps and you'll find a lot of features and concepts that aren't standard in SC2 at all).
So as you can see if the maps are changed more, more stuff becomes acceptable and in some years you might see maps that by today's standard would be considered absolutely crazy.
If you want to support this process you should support GSL and especially ESV cause they are constantly doing non-standard things and push boundaries. (also go to the NASL semi open thread and say nice things about Damage Inc cos if that map was played in NASL that could make mineral blocks standard : P )
You can't view maps solely on win percentages, viability of builds is another factor and currently Tal'darim is still 4gate vs 4gate or death every single game
This is a very well written article but I have a few points I would like to note.
1. The community has been vocal about maps from the beginning on! 1.1 SC2 is just over a year old and relating the situation now to the situation back in the days of Steppes of War and Jungle Basin does not work. Of course there will be mistakes, especially at the kick off of SC2.
2. This article has yet again this notion that Blizzard maps are generally not good. I would like to disagree. This is just some kind of trend that everyone seems to need to follow. Blizzard Maps have made for some of the most amazing and diverse matches in SC2 history. (Besides the fact that lowered supply depots kinda destroy the certain feeling a map can convey)
3. All hail the custom maps? No! Custom maps are definitely required if we want to see interesting and balanced eSports in the future but I feel that you are missing out on one important aspect of custom maps. Especially the GSL maps are made for one objective: long games. Custom maps are often not focused on the most diverse play possible but on forcing or strongly supplementing a certain way of playing.
3.1 Custom maps have amazing win/loss percentages. So? I have to agree with a number of posts earlier who complained about Tal'darim. Tal'darim is horrible for PvP (Always 4Gate v 4Gate). Blizzard made a lot of adjustments to the 4 Gate and it is not nearly as widely used as it was before. I am a Protoss player as well and I pretty much never 4Gate anymore, except for when I have to play on Tal'Darim. This is an example where the win/loss percentage is not necessarily the best indicator for a map.
4. Other than that, great article! I would love to see more community maps in Pro Tournaments or even in Amateur Tournaments.
Steppes of war produced some of the best games... it was a small map, but they were very interesting. The rushes on 1 base was technical . Very often we saw 3 base games on this very small map. Not sure why everyone hates it.
On November 15 2011 21:19 Nymbul wrote: Tal'darim Altar = Good?
PvP called, it wants to know why you think that
You can't view maps solely on win percentages, viability of builds is another factor and currently Tal'darim is still 4gate vs 4gate or death every single game
this thread (as the title says) is about the balance of a map and (obviously) a map cant be imbalanced in a mirror match so what are you trying to say?
nice thread its quite interesting that JB was even worse for z than sow lol
this thread (as the title says) is about the balance of a map and (obviously) a map cant be imbalanced in a mirror match so what are you trying to say?
nice thread its quite interesting that JB was even worse for z than sow lol
A map can force a certain strategy and that is exactly the same for mirror match ups as for other match ups. An imbalanced map usually supplements one kind of play against a certain race. The example of Tal'Darim Altar just shows that win percentages are not necessarily the best indicator for a good map even though it might (obviously) not fall under balance.
Also, the last sentence of the article:
Start caring about maps, because they can make the difference between a boring mirror-fest of all-ins and the most epic tournament you've ever seen.
Ideal, every map should be between 48-52 odds. So that if it is loser pick, or random, the maps in a BoX don't have a huge impact, but have some. If every map would be 50-50, I would find it somewhat boring. That is probably just me.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Epic first post. My answer: I got 2 bans in my TL post career, 1 was for QQing on Jungle Basin in a Thread that had a mod warning, don't QQ about Jungle Basin. I don't feel bad about it, it is a justified ban, and I was banned by iNcontroL, not many can say that .
I'm just finishing an intermediate statistics course so I jumped on the opportunity to "scientifically" test the balance of some maps, to see if the OP's argument is justified by the map he presents or not. I did an [url blocked] and all! I uploaded it to Megaupload because I dont any other, less spamy sites, in case anyone wants to tinker with the data. There are some hidden cells to hide the calculations, dont forget to turn them visible.,
Anyway, here are the results, for a Student's t test of two tails and alpha=5%:
So, one thing is clear. Metalopolis 1.1 and fighting spirit are really balanced maps. But still, even the "terrible" ones like Steppes fare pretty well in every matchup except TvZ. In fact, TvZ appears to be a problem in most maps, while TvP and PvZ arent that much affected. In fact, in none of the maps seems to be a real advantage por either T or P in that matchup.
This leads me to a simple question: why do we have to have balanced maps for EVERY matchup? Wouldn't it be a much more balanced game if we used matchup-specific maps? Actually, if you look at the p-values (the highest the p-value, the more balanced the map is, as to say) of the balance test for each matchup in every map, some really cool things happen:
(The green cells indicate the best map for each matchup in both SC:BW and SC2, from the sample)
I'll give you that Tal'Darim and both versions of Metalopolis have larger sample sizes, but that's taken into account (at least up to some degree) with the t-distribution. Also, there are much better ways to test how the balance of a single matchup differs from map to map.
BUT, if we take the p-value as an (although not perfect) valid measure of the balance of each map, Steppes comes out victorious in the ZvP and PvT categories by far, while Tal Darim would be the best map to play ZvT.
Also, Met 1.1 might have solved the TvZ issue, but it's become worse for PvT and ZvP, further proving that it's REALLY hard to balance a map for every matchup.
Well, that's about it. I'm not trying to make any definite points here, I'm just writing what came to mind while doing this little analysis. Feel free to bash my statistics and/or analysis all you want, that's the idea.
In a way you do have match-up specific maps because of the veto system. A zerg player will never accept to play on Jungle Basin if he has a veto available.
At the time of Jungle Basin I still played Terran.. I liked that map..
The basic idea of the article is correct, however, the game needs to stabilize for it to be possible. BW had ~10 years for that to happen.. With the expansions coming to SC2 all maps will have to be re-thought and a lot of the mapping experience from these first years will have to be re-evaluated.
Balancing in SC2 through maps will always be really difficult because of the huge differences between the races. Maps that are preferred by one race will be discarded by the others. The same goes for the match-ups.
People are commenting on the how the changes to metalopolisis made tvz more balanced but made the other match ups less balanced...but couldn't it just be the result of a meta-game shift? The pvt changes are due to the rise of macros terrans on metal 1.1 while proper macro terrans didn't really exist before. The pvz changes are more obvious...but I really think the map pool doesn't need to be play tested as much as a map needs to not have any glaring imbalances. The meta-game will change to fit the map itself and over time games on the map will become stale. I think this just shows the necessity of releasing new maps... plus imbalanced maps aren't too bad...they create interesting stories.
It's harder in SC2 because Blizzard changed the biggest tool of mapmakers, the high ground advantage. Like somebody said in page 7 or so, cliffs and such are mostly just decoration in SC2 when it reaches the mid-game. In BW, mapmakers can create creative and innovative push paths that fundamentally change the timing and viability of builds.
And from reading the last page, many people in the SC2 community are still unable to see the forest beyond their partisan allegiances to the race they play. The community may still be too new and immature in general for this type of mapmaking to prosper. It's not just the balance. It's also to keep the gameplay fresh and to make strategies change often.
This is a really great article. I also really enjoyed the link to the Artosis blog on this issue by one of the responders. We need some new and balanced maps.
Ones with slightly wider chokes so walling off is harder but not to the point that Zerg is instantly favored. Players should have to worry a little bit more about Zerg early aggression than they have been post beta. At least that is my two cents. As it stands right now, Terran and Protoss can easily do early aggression versus Zerg, but it is much harder for Zerg to do the same because of P and T ability to wall off easily. Making ramps one building wider makes walling off a bigger investment and potentially easier to mess up, without making it ridiculously easy for a zergling rush into a base.
I am not a big fan of Xel Naga watchtowers, but they seem to be a necessary evil because of wall offs. Destructible rocks were a pretty terrible idea. I do tend to agree about how high ground is not what it used to be. An interesting idea would be to have a few small but open maps. I'm not entirely sure how that would play out balance wise because Steppes and Xel naga are the closest maps to this idea, but they both have features that take away from the openness via the small ramp size.
On November 15 2011 21:19 Nymbul wrote: Tal'darim Altar = Good?
PvP called, it wants to know why you think that
You can't view maps solely on win percentages, viability of builds is another factor and currently Tal'darim is still 4gate vs 4gate or death every single game
this thread (as the title says) is about the balance of a map and (obviously) a map cant be imbalanced in a mirror match so what are you trying to say?
nice thread its quite interesting that JB was even worse for z than sow lol
The map may be balanced statistics wise but calling the map "good" just didn't sit right with me at all. A map isn't good where only one strategy is viable in any match-up.
I'm just putting things into perspective instead of "The figures are fine so the map is fine" mentality
I agree with an earlier statement. All maps in the pool should have 52-48 win percentages in favour of a certain race in order to allow strategic decision making.
On November 16 2011 02:42 NEOtheONE wrote: This is a really great article. I also really enjoyed the link to the Artosis blog on this issue by one of the responders. We need some new and balanced maps.
My thoughts on some map ideas
[spoiler]Ones with slightly wider chokes so walling off is harder
I don't like the idea of wider chokes, it smells too much of 6pool all-ins
On November 16 2011 01:59 Holytornados wrote: Anyone else remember Blistering Sands?
amazing article, very insightfull! I still remember when i started, I had no concept of why maps could play a role at all :D but I learned very quickly how oh so very important maps are. I think they should be focussed on much more than they are.
Definitely some food for thought. I think most spectators would love to see some new maps make their way into tournaments. Perhaps large players like MLG and IGN could agree on 1-2 maps to inject into their tournaments, and then gradually add a few more maps each season.
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Jungle Basin era is the pinnacle of Zerg complaining.
I don't see how Jungle Basin is worse than steppes of war.At least you were able to win a ZvP here and there on JB.
It's there not because of how you feel about the maps, it's because of the win ratio. ZvP was way more imbalanced on JB than steppes of war, 33.3% vs 46.7%
Those stats are garbage.The difference in which the game was played when steppes of war was out is huge compared to how the game worked when Jungle Basin was in the map pool. If ZvP or ZvT would be played on Steppes of war today the win rate of Zergs would be like 20%,not even that.
A map doesn't have to be tested to be played in a tournament. Playing it in a tournament IS testing it, and that's the only way it's going to gain any reputation, good or bad.
That's a pretty bad idea buddy.You make it sound like tournaments would be able to just throw in random maps that seem nice to them without consulting the player base.
That blog by Artosis is quite funny. At the time the only games that were in TLPD were the televised games. A large portion of data was missing because preliminaries, and other sources of large numbers of pro-games were not in the database. So at the time, the data was a bit skewed and probably unreliable. So to that extent, he is right, you have to determine the quality of the data you have, and whether it can be used to represent balance at the highest level of play.
But as time went on and the sample size grew as more non-televised games were included the numbers would seem to disagree with Artosis' point. If you look at Nostalgia's stats now, TvZ sits at 57% in favor of Terran. It wasn't just the top-tier legends propping up Nostalgia's TvZ stats, even lower-level pros who played Terran found success on that map. So Artosis was complaining that it was in fact not balanced because Terran wasn't winning enough, when they actually were winning at what is a pretty high rate on that map. One that would actually agree with his definition of balance ironically enough.
Honestly I'd be less inclined to prescribe to Artosis' more than likely biased account in that blog and listen to what the numbers say. Statistics are very useful. If you don't understand the requirements necessary to make assertions, people can use them to be very misleading. They aren't everything, but they sure as hell aren't worthless when you have quality data.
Not to mention Artosis point goes in the complete opposite direction of what TheKefka is saying.
No one can seriously argue that TvZ wasn't terran favoured in the early days of SC2 when SoW was still played. The many nerfs to terran and buffs to zerg that has come since further shows that. So if zerg managed to 46.7% of the time when zergs were generally struggling against terran that should make the map at least balanced and possibly zerg favoured right? At least according to that blog by Artosis it should. And TheKefka is claiming the exact opposite, yet citing the blog as backup for his claim. :s
I find it quite amazing to see the win/ratio of jungle basin.I allways thought it was toss favored but never knew it was that much toss favored. Also great post
On November 16 2011 09:19 Pertinacious wrote: Definitely some food for thought. I think most spectators would love to see some new maps make their way into tournaments. Perhaps large players like MLG and IGN could agree on 1-2 maps to inject into their tournaments, and then gradually add a few more maps each season.
Very good comparison to the Brood War scene and how SC2 should possess a similar system to control which maps are implemented or not. I agree that maps play a large role in how balanced a matchup is, for it is rather obvious when looking at things like the distance to the natural, width of the choke, placement of gold minerals etc. Hopefully standing organizations will take this advice and improve upon their respective tournaments, or even that new organizations will emerge and take lead with this action. If they do this, one day the only thing which fans can whine about regarding balance of a certain race can be attributed to a specific map, and not racial imbalance or what not.
On November 16 2011 09:19 Pertinacious wrote: Definitely some food for thought. I think most spectators would love to see some new maps make their way into tournaments. Perhaps large players like MLG and IGN could agree on 1-2 maps to inject into their tournaments, and then gradually add a few more maps each season.
Wow, I had no idea that iNcontroL used to be so... enraged.
I'm trying to imagine him being that mad and I find it hard.
If you guys would just turn to the next few pages of the thread you would see that iNcontroL confesses that he was joking. Real or not, but that's what he said. We should take his word I guess Because if that was for real, I'd be really worried as to how he sleeps at night.
Man Fighting Spirit is so boss, Destination should be up there as well. It seems like, even more so than the players, experienced people from Brood War who can 'sense' maps should go to work and produce. I wonder why has there not been more maps without space behind the main like on FS. Those really macro intensive maps like Arcadia and Andromeda have also not appeared in SC2 yet. On a side note, why the hell is there still not a widespread and/or ladder 3 player map?
On November 15 2011 07:04 acgFork wrote: Why is Jungle Basin ugly?!?!?!
Almost 70% TvZ o.O
It wasn't 90%?
Man Fighting Spirit is so boss, Destination should be up there as well. It seems like, even more so than the players, experienced people from Brood War who can 'sense' maps should go to work and produce. I wonder why has there not been more maps without space behind the main like on FS. Those really macro intensive maps like Arcadia and Andromeda have also not appeared in SC2 yet. On a side note, why the hell is there still not a widespread and/or ladder 3 player map?
Destination is awesome, and I think that macro-intensive maps will need some more time to get here. To answer why there are no 3 player maps in the ladder pool, blizzard generally makes 3 player maps like this: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Elysium
I think that the invention of gold minerals has played a huge role in the Terran dominance that has occurred so far, as holding a gold base gives Terran a much larger advantage than any other race. I would go so far as to say that all of the tournament results up to now have been skewed by the very existence of gold minerals. Removing gold minerals from the GSL maps was one of the most significant changes that has been made to a tournament so far, and is a prime example of how a tournament can affect balance between the races in SC2.
I still think its easier to use the numbers from sc:bw as reliable numbers, due to the game dident change to much at that point and the meta game being more reliable.
There have been huge ballance changes and meta game changes in sc2 there fore i don't really think you can use the stats on the maps for anything really, like would the %win/loss be the same On Stepts of war / Jungel basin as they where at that point when these 2 maps where active, i doubt it.
How ever the generel point in maps not being tested by the pros before hand just more or less getting thrown in is kind of a bah solution, i don't mind blizzard adding new maps, i do however mind blizzard adding 4 random maps that are relatively untested and just hrowing them onto the ladder, i would rather have blizzard taking 1 new map they have really pollished and thought alot about and thorw it into the ladder pool, and than take a none blizzard map and change it just a bit if anything is not as they would like it to be (ie diffrent textured xel'naga towers etc.) so taht would be a max of 2 new maps each season and than cycle through some of the great maps and remove some of the older.
Than blizzard can make a more or less complete overhaul at HOTS if they want to introduce alot of new maps / features on the maps etc.
I remember that the creator of tal'adrim had a fuss with blizzard because blizzard wanted to have exactly 9 patches rather than 7 as well as having rocks at 3rd.
some of the gsl maps aren't balanced, bel shir beach was strong for zerg, but its interesting to see how the maps affect so much. it might require a lot of data mining, but i would be interested to see how the balance changed after some of the more significant patch changes, like infestor range cut or the most recent change when toss got a much needed upgrade buff, kinda hard in the late game when u gotta choose between expand or shield upgrade...
When GSL players lose in non-GSL tournaments to what extent do you think it's fair to use maps as an excuse? Conversely do you think the GSL map pool is one of the reasons non-Korean players under-perform in Code A? With the November season changes the GSL map pool is basically completely different from the pools used by other tournaments. I wonder how much GSL players actually practice on maps like Shattered Temple or non-gold Antiga Shipyard.
On November 15 2011 10:07 Vasoline73 wrote: To me a big part of the reason SC2's map scene isn't as interesting is because of SC2's high ground mechanics. Ramps and cliffs for the most part are decoration after the early game.
Would it be horribly inappropriate to do something like use the editor to put broodwar high ground mechanics back in for a map? Or have specially marked areas that give any other bonus or disadvantage you can think of when firing into or out of it?
I'd love if this were done for tournament maps, it would make games so much more interesting. Personally I wouldn't like the exact high ground mechanics that BW used (50% chance of ranged attacks missing from low to high), because that brings chance into play. A simple damage reduction (75% damage from low to high maybe, nothing too excessive) would be better.
Map makers are discussing the implementation of a Universal Map Pool. Please join the discussion, keep up the hype, and maybe just maybe, some of the major tournaments will pick up on the idea.
The idea of an international (non-Blizzard) governing body in professional SC2 has been suggested multiple times for multiple reasons. Managing a Universal Map Pool could be one of those reasons.
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/topImage.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/1_fightingspirit.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/2_Polaris.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/3_MoonGlaive.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/4_TalDarim.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/5_steppes.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/6_JungleBasin.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/7_Metalopolis.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/xxiomaps/8_Metalopolis.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080827024751/starcraft/images/thumb/0/01/Blood_Bath_SC1_Art1.jpg/672px-Blood_Bath_SC1_Art1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KEjOk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3N5X4.jpg)
