EPTHowever again if other tournements uses same model without already having a high majority of terrans it could be disasterous for balance. And as i stated earlier the UMP could only be acknowledged if it is solid and truly balanced.
Universal Map Pool - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
However again if other tournements uses same model without already having a high majority of terrans it could be disasterous for balance. And as i stated earlier the UMP could only be acknowledged if it is solid and truly balanced. | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
On December 05 2011 16:05 Sumadin wrote: You don't really get my point. The GSL made their map with the intention that they wasn't balanced for terran. A way to make sure only the best terrans made it through but overall terran numbers would plummit. However again if other tournements uses same model without already having a high majority of terrans it could be disasterous for balance. And as i stated earlier the UMP could only be acknowledged if it is solid and truly balanced. No I got your point perfectly, and as I mentioned in my post if the other tournaments used the same model, the failings of terrans would be purely a fault of their ability as a player and be rightfully so. What you're claiming is that foreign terrans should be favoured in foreign tournaments by the easier map pool to keep 'balance' which is silly because they are given an unfair advantage over korean terrans. And as I mentioned now that Koreans (from GSL) are coming to other tournaments they will dominate even more in these tournaments because of this already favoured by the map pool. So just to be 100% clear on my main point, if MLG implemented GSL's map pool and as you say it is 'disasterous for balance', that means those Terrans that fail deserved to lose in the first place because their success relied on the previous terran-favoured map pool rather than their skill. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
Let's start coming up with a potential map list, guys. and just cuz i'm a nerd: On May 15 2001 Maynard James Keenan sang: Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind. Withering my intuition leaving all these opportunities behind. Feed my will to feel this moment urging me to cross the line. Reaching out to embrace the random. Reaching out to embrace whatever may come. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
No I got your point perfectly, and as I mentioned in my post if the other tournaments used the same model, the failings of terrans would be purely a fault of their ability as a player and be rightfully so. What you're claiming is that foreign terrans should be favoured in foreign tournaments by the easier map pool to keep 'balance' which is silly because they are given an unfair advantage over korean terrans. And as I mentioned now that Koreans (from GSL) are coming to other tournaments they will dominate even more in these tournaments because of this already favoured by the map pool. So just to be 100% clear on my main point, if MLG implemented GSL's map pool and as you say it is 'disasterous for balance', that means those Terrans that fail deserved to lose in the first place because their success relied on the previous terran-favoured map pool rather than their skill. Last edit: 2011-12-05 16:50:57 Well you still aren't reading it as i want it too then. The GSL map pool is currently an attempt to make them as much dissadvantage for terrans as possible. I would say that if they kept it for more than 2 months ahead terran numbers would end up where the protoss were a while back. The reasson terrans got to this point is not (only) because of the map pool, but also because of the 1-1-1(which has since been patched) and the former GSL format that allowed alot of lesser code S to players to stay (which has since been changed). Now they just need to get as many terrans out as fast as possible because they got way to many. If a tournement that already started with decent ratios of each race would use this map format through we would see terrans in a much worse state than currently. | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
| ||
|
NHY
1013 Posts
On December 05 2011 18:04 Sumadin wrote: Well you still aren't reading it as i want it too then. The GSL map pool is currently an attempt to make them as much dissadvantage for terrans as possible. I would say that if they kept it for more than 2 months ahead terran numbers would end up where the protoss were a while back. The reasson terrans got to this point is not (only) because of the map pool, but also because of the 1-1-1(which has since been patched) and the former GSL format that allowed alot of lesser code S to players to stay (which has since been changed). Now they just need to get as many terrans out as fast as possible because they got way to many. If a tournement that already started with decent ratios of each race would use this map format through we would see terrans in a much worse state than currently. If GSL did a tournement like they the open seasons in 2010 using their current map pool, there would still be more than 1/3 terrans. Their maps are not that good for other races. | ||
|
th3rogue
Germany683 Posts
IEM already uses the 7 most popular maps across all the major competitive leagues Go4SC2 has 11 maps for December - the 9 most popular maps, plus 2 others (Sanshorn and Odyssey) that we added back in September, and hope finally they will gain some ground since their being featured in NASL (open) and IPL (map tourney). We aim to get back down to 9 maps in January, and are waiting to see what IPL and NASL do first, hoping they will both be brave enough to include one of the "other" maps in their pool. If so, then we will hopefully do the same for IEM. Since the beginning of the game I have been very eager to include maps in our pool from more than just GSL/Korea - if I remember correctly Go4SC2 was the first to include Testbug and we have tried several other non-Korean custom maps in the hope that other would do the same | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
 I rly like how you handled the Go4SC2 Cup map pool and always tried to include some non-blizz and non-GSL maps. It's very unfortunate that it took so long for other organizations like IPL and NASL to update their map pools with these kind of maps (yet it's a bit understandable cos the game is new and Blizzard is rly limiting us with their ladder and custom game system). I hope everything goes well for IPL and NASL , and that IEM can safely include some maps they use as well, and from there the whole thing developes some more. Btw it's cool to see that pros don't always auto-veto Odyssey and Sanshorn, and I hope that in 2012 MotM and ESL work well together and have some influence on the international map pools. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
NASL is currently trying to decide their new maps. I think it's imperative that they get on the bandwagon for a Universal Map Pool, or even be the ones to implement it, hoping others will follow suit. anyway, i've got my map pool figured out, mostly based off looking at TPW, ESV, LoS, and Crux's websites, then at current map pools for most tourneys including weeklys, then by looking through the map contest thread. oh and motm too sorta. + Show Spoiler [My Map List] + Crux-Belshir Beach Crux-Daybreak Blizz-Antiga Shipyard Blizz-Tal'Darim LE Blizz-Metalopolis (GSL version, no golds) Crux-Xel'naga Fortress Crux-Dual Site or ESV-Testbug Crux-Crevasse or Crux-Terminus TPW - Odyssey ESV - Sanshorn Mists AE Haven's Lagoon TPW - Burning Altar ESV - Cloud Kingdom TPW - Ohana ESV - Sanctuary LoS - Twilight Peaks Crux - Korhal Main Street ESV Sungsu Crossing LoS-Palm Valley | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
a reasonable map pool would be what is currently used in competitive play, and then we start to rotate/replace 1-2 maps a month. so basically we would have something like: Metalopolis Shakuras Plateau Shattered Temple Antiga Shipyard Crossfire Terminus Tal’Darim Altar Dual Sight Bel’Shir Beach Calm before the Storm Daybreak Xel’Naga Fortress + 1-2 new maps | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
zorrotwee
Belgium69 Posts
As an organiser of a 'small' tournament the mappool is always been a great concern. First tournament we added some non-standard maps and players started to complain a lot (and with reason I later found out). Being an organiser doesn't make me an expert of balance, so picking the right maps is impossible. That's why the next time we just pick the MLG maps, and everything was fine. Having an UMP like this would make it a lot easier for me, and maybe other organisers of smaller tournament to change their mappool and be 'certain' the balance is still ok. It will promote a more divers mappool overal and less frightening for big tournaments to change their mappool. As from how we should do this is easier then most people make it. As reading this post you can see that lot of 'important' people and organisation want something to be done. So I think this is just another thing that is important enough that, if some starts doing something like this, it will be picked up by other more important organisation! I think a tournament wise selection is the best! But we want to include everyone that is effected by a UMP: + Show Spoiler + - Mapmakers that want there maps used in proffesional play - Pro-players that are playing the maps and need to practise and ajust there play - Tournament organisers - Viewers of tournaments - Not not-pro's and about to be pro's that play in smaller tournaments So all these people should be united in the selection of the mappool. This I think is a great way to select the new maps. - A tournament is opened and everyone can send in there map if they want. - Everyone that entered the competition can bring out is vote + Show Spoiler + This should eliminate the bad and not interesting maps without a jury, because: who decides who will be in the jury ° Vote a 1-5 score for every map ° Yes or No an every map -Then some top players (some of every race) that are willing can play the most picked maps + Show Spoiler + Some people say this won't be done without them being payed for it, but I think some of them sure will do this just to support the game. This won't take weeks to do, but just a few hours -Then I think casters could make an important part of the competition. They sure do understand the game a lot better then most of us. And they see the game from a viewers perspective. ° Same like pro's: maybe let them make a selection or vote, or just let them share their opinion on some maps - Then a last let the community vote from the selection, add the best maps to the UMP It's harder to decide what maps should be taken out. This can be done in different ways: - time: after x months a map should be eliminated no matter what - selection of tourneys: if a map doens't get selected in either 'this list of tourneys': the map is kicked - voting by players, mapmakers, ... Maps to start with: I would just take the maps used in the last big tournaments and start from there (add them all, or just make a quick vote) I think it would be great to have the mapmaking teams go and sit together and make this work. They are the source and togheter this should be easy to do. Because they have credibality that can make important people support this. Someone neutral can start this too and convince mappmaer teams to support you. (You can always contact me if you think you technical able to do this thing and need some help) If some people support this: promoted on TL, big casters like Husky, Day[9] talk about it, th3rogue and other tournament organisers support this. Other big money organisation will follow. Just some other thought on a UMP + Show Spoiler + 1. I think the UMP should be bigger then most people suggest. This makes it possible to add a lot of new maps and still keep it steady enough to pro's to agree with this (just to make it clear: having 3 maps changed in a mappool of 7 is huge, while changing 3 when you have 30 isn't a big deal). 2. If you have a large mappool, tournaments can all be different. Thats why we can't make it to big (30 is maybe to big). 3. I think it would be great to have the mappool be split into different catagories. Like: big macro maps, small rush maps and much more (I'm sure mapmakers do that already). So a tournament is diverse and has maybe 2 of each categorie. 4. Having catogories makes it possible to change maps in only 1 catagorie. 4. I think there should be clear that the UMP is meant to be used in tournaments and it doesn't need to be transfered to the ladder, because lopw level players needs different things. 5. There should be an categorie to promote new idea's: this fun edition should not be maps that should be used in pro play, but that have a nice amount of new idea's that just makes it a fun map. This can give mapmakers new 'tools' to make balanced maps different from the ones that are used now. Like funday monday - Just to have fun but shows things that can interesting if used in more standard maps 6. If UMP doens't seem to work, or you don't believe it will get started: maybe a monthly tournament like I described and putting them all in a list and promoting them to organisers, can change the mappool too, and takes away the hard thing like: what maps should be eliminated, balacing the UMP (big/small maps), starting UMP, bad maps in pool will lose credibility. | ||
|
ZJAT
United States83 Posts
On December 08 2011 19:07 zorrotwee wrote: Just some other thought on a UMP + Show Spoiler + 1. I think the UMP should be bigger then most people suggest. This makes it possible to add a lot of new maps and still keep it steady enough to pro's to agree with this (just to make it clear: having 3 maps changed in a mappool of 7 is huge, while changing 3 when you have 30 isn't a big deal). 2. If you have a large mappool, tournaments can all be different. Thats why we can't make it to big (30 is maybe to big). 3. I think it would be great to have the mappool be split into different catagories. Like: big macro maps, small rush maps and much more (I'm sure mapmakers do that already). So a tournament is diverse and has maybe 2 of each categorie. 4. Having catogories makes it possible to change maps in only 1 catagorie. 4. I think there should be clear that the UMP is meant to be used in tournaments and it doesn't need to be transfered to the ladder, because low level players needs different things. 5. There should be an categorie to promote new idea's: this fun edition should not be maps that should be used in pro play, but that have a nice amount of new idea's that just makes it a fun map. This can give mapmakers new 'tools' to make balanced maps different from the ones that are used now. Like funday monday - Just to have fun but shows things that can interesting if used in more standard maps 6. If UMP doens't seem to work, or you don't believe it will get started: maybe a monthly tournament like I described and putting them all in a list and promoting them to organisers, can change the mappool too, and takes away the hard thing like: what maps should be eliminated, balacing the UMP (big/small maps), starting UMP, bad maps in pool will lose credibility. I was about to pop back into this thread and say a couple of these and was like dang I got ninja'd, kinda. If the UMP is too rigid you would never see new maps, and if it is too lax too much would change too fast. Although 30 might be too large, 15 or 20 may not be. Even if a map was replaced once a month in a pool of 18 you would have each map getting about a year and a half of lifetime! I'm not saying 18 is some magic or perfect number, but just putting it out there to show how it could work. We don't want maps to change too fast on the pros (or the rest of us if blizzard follows suit) but we don't want them to stagnate because there are many good maps out there and map makers willing to make even more! I'm not sure if I support UMP or not. But it will be good or bad based on how it is used. (Kinda like knowledge or just about everything ><) | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
I'm not sure whether or not including Blizzard/well known maps is a good idea or a bad idea. I think the UMP will have some to start or else it would never really get going or pick up momentum in the community. I strongly believe that there should be one or two maps in the pool at a time for each category of map. I don't really mean 2P or 4P, here are some examples of possible categories I can think of: -Linear (Crossfire) -Macro/Large (Tal'darim Altar) -In-Base Natural (Crevasse) -Easy Third (Terminus) -4PR (standard 4 spawn rotational map) -Air (not 100%, but influences air play somewhat) -Fortress (4P converse/shifted macro maps; Shakuras, Overgrown, CruX Metalopolis) -3P (definitely deserves its own category because there are not a lot of 3P maps and gameplay is unique from 2P and 4P) -Metalopolis??? (anyone have a good category name? Titanis by Lefix is another example of this type of map; open natural, close spawns disabled; possibly Zerg favored lol) -2P Oddball (the catch all category; 2P maps that can't possibly go anywhere else go here) -4P Oddball (same thing but for 4P maps) What do you guys think about having categories so that the map pool will be diverse? Also, what do you guys think about having half (or a third) of the maps be year round and the rest rotate monthly, or every two months? I think we should get a group or committee together and draft rules and such for a UMP over skype or something. It is a really cool idea. EDIT: I think it is more important to form a group or set up some sort of structure before spitballing maps. | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
| ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
Anyways this is one of the last things to think about, after this would be established. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
Step 1: Find the ~20 most balanced maps that exist. Step 2: Make them more balanced. Step 3: Cut ~9 of them, down to 11, based on similarity. Step 4: Have UMP. Step 4.5: Assign Labels/catagories. Step 5: Make them more balanced (again). What will happen: Step 1: Find ~5 very balanced maps. Step 1.5: Find ~30 kinda balanced, maps, add all of them. Step 2: Assign Labels/catagories. Step 3: Cut ~20 of them, down to 20, based on similarity. Step 4: Have UMP. Step 5: Make them more balanced. If the UMP is too large, players won't accept it. If the UMP is too small, tournaments won't accept it. If the UMP is too similar, spectators won't accept it. If the UMP is unbalanced, mappers won't accept it. This isn't meant to be a disheartening post. I fully believe that TL and the map teams can work something out. | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
| ||
| ||
