|
Having a UMP with some maps that stay a whole year, and some changing in months seems great.
Don't use categories and select maps that are diverse enough would be perfect.
But both idea's need 'some' that is in charge of the whole thing. That 'some' needs to be trusted by everyone in de SC2 e-sports scene.
I don't think this is possible to achieve this. In korea this someone is the GSL, they can do this because they have a lot of recourses and they have some sort of monopoly as a tournament.
I the foreign scene I think we need a more community driven system. If you let a lot of people choose the new maps they won't always look at the diversity of the complete pool. So you need a regulated system.
I also a big fan of categories because very hard to have a 100% balanced map, and I don't think it's that much fun neither. I think you could have some zerg, terran and protoss favoured maps(only very little). But have a very balanced mappool looking in it's whole.
|
United States5142 Posts
On December 09 2011 16:43 XenoX101 wrote:
Fair points, but balance is a much bigger concern for players than it is for mappers.
I kind of agree, but players are always biased by their race. Also, then it wouldn't have flowed as well as it did :p
|
On December 09 2011 18:11 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 16:43 XenoX101 wrote:
Fair points, but balance is a much bigger concern for players than it is for mappers. I kind of agree, but players are always biased by their race. Also, then it wouldn't have flowed as well as it did :p
disagree and agree. many player's feedback is strongly biased. while some map makers might have more insight in balance than others, many players care for balance - in favour for their own race.
so it might be the best solution to have a group of high level players giving feedback, but have equal groups of all three races and playstyles.
|
Id rather have an association of mapmakers and players be the deciding body on which maps get played than Blizzard. That's not even a criticism of Blizzard
|
Players need to get over their fear of imbalanced maps.
Maps are not going to be tested if they aren't included in something that matters.
If you want to get maps tested, you have to include them in tournaments. Some of them are going to be imbalanced, sure, but that's what the community and players are there for, to let people know the map is bad and should be thrown away.
The way GSL has been doing it is good, just introducing new maps and letting them get tested in the GSL, and nobody's complained about that. It just needs to happen more.
|
they don't get tested in the gsl. gomtv has a number of other shows like gisado star challenge, ready action and whatever where maps get used before they are added to the gsl map pool.
|
|
|
i think you are being a bit harsh with your critique barrin 
i agree that the actual number of maps being worthy of being played competitively is really low, probably less than 10.
but i'd say those are easily on par with what is currently used. you're that currently there is probably only like 1 map every ~3 months or so that i would consider flawless.
also, please don't reduce the idea to an attempt to getting our own maps played. it is about stopping the map tagging/versioning crazyness and also having a practice friendly, but not stale map pool where 1-2 maps are being replaced once every few months. with also gsl adding maps, there is no need for more than this one GREAT map every ~3 months perhaps
|
|
|
|
|
Blizzard wouldn't like a universal map pool because it means that people would drift away from B.net 2.0, but I'll daydream.
The judging process would need to be extensive... probably like upwards of a year of constant tournament play with extremely constant results across all races. I'd prefer for the aesthetics to be amazing, but looks are the last thing that mapmakers should look for, in my opinion.
I'd love a balanced three-player map, like Testbug, but I don't see how that could be possible with how important expanding is in SC2. It'd seem like the side that managed to get the choke to the third wing would win once they got a base up. But... oh well. 
Anyways, I agree with Barrin on the issue of financing the project. But I don't think the issue lies with money costs.
|
I have heard a lot of critique of Crevasse, from Artosis saying that it tends to not produce good games, to people saying it's not balanced. Anyone enlighten me on that?
|
@Barrin.
I absolutely disagree with you in everything from your ranking of maps to the fact that you think the map making community have been unable to provide good maps.
If we first have a look at the 2 maps you listed as the best, Shakuras pleateau and crevasse. Looking at the history of Shakuras it was first deemed extremely protoss favored due to the narrow center where the deathball could freely move around and kill everything. It was later solved though as players became better at managing playing against P in the early to midgame and how to deal with the deathball. More recently it has become a problem with T where they can siege up the center and fully guard *6* bases. I have several other issues with that map so why is it you rank it so highly? I mean I personally think overgrown is in many ways like shakuras where Meltage simply fixed the problems I have with it. Why is that map not on the list and why do you rank Shakuras over Overgrown?
Crevasse got kind of a highgrown syndrome. As we all know and I probally dont need to explain having highground is an advantage and crevasse center is on double highground, with highground around it and leading into the lowground third bases. The result is static games where the player with mapcontrol is in a way way too advantagous position and at the same time timing attacks against the very open lowground third is amazingly powerfull. For a map that was praised for its brilliant use of destructible rocks it was taking out of the GSL map after just 2 seasons so why do you rank it 4th?
Overall I think that the map makers are doing a fine job providing maps and the lack of good maps is simply a lack of exposure. While many of the maps that does get exposure is kinda meh, if you scratch the surface a bit there are so many balanced and well playing maps that just never saw any recognision. I for one dont understood how TPW picked their map pool, taking many of their inferior maps instead of their better ones. I really dont think the map makers have any problems making maps but I do think we have a HUGE problem exposing and picking the right ones. And this is where UMP comes into play. If the UMP is proberly done it will be the key to get the right maps into tournament play and to get rid of the bad ones at the same time.
|
I'm bumping this thread because of: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308622
SotG argues for a miniscule map pool of only 4, and maximum bo5. I personally don't like the idea, and that being a well rounded player that can adapt to maps is better than a player that has builds based on specific maps, and that larger map pools are better for the viewers. Also, I believe that sc2 mapmaking hasn't progressed enough so that we can have just 4 maps; a large dynamic map-pool would be better for the development of sc2 metagame, especially since once HotS comes out maps we have now may become completely useless, and experimentation will be key to advancement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
