|
A couple of days ago the premier map making teams (TPW, ESV and MCL) had a discussion about introducing the UMP - Universal Map Pool. It would serve 2 purposes. One is to stabiles the map pool in tournaments, the second would be to better introduce new maps in tournaments.
The first issue is the volatile map pool of tournaments. Every tournament uses different maps from a pool of around 20 maps made by mostly Blizzard and team Crux who makes maps for the GSL. It creates several problems. One is the dozens of different versions of the same map. Dreamhack for example had at least 1 game on the first version of Shakuras Pleateau played and some versions of Dual Sight with gold bases were played despite the official use of the latest version of the map with more chokey nat/third and gold bases removed. The second problem is that without a unified map pool no tournaments dare to introduce new maps. Imagine IPL, MLG, NASL, Dreamhack, GSL and IEM all decided to introduce 3 brand new maps each. Players would no longer have to learn and prepare the 20 maps slowly introduced through the past year, they would now have to know 30-40 maps, maybe even more. A tournament would at the same time run the risk of introducing what could be a failed map cause they would be the first to use it and no tournament will run the risk of being tryout for a map. Currently the only tournament that successfully(saying successfully because so far attempts to introduce maps in other tournaments have not yet stabilied) introduces new maps is GSL. They are all from team Crux who have access high level korean play testers that can verify that a map is ready for tournament play before it is introduced to the map pool.
In order to proberly introduce new maps there would have to be some kind of agreement so that when a new map is introduced it will be introduced to all tournaments. A unified map pool that allows tested maps to enter tournaments on a wide scale so that tournaments can use them without risk of using a bad map and players can dedicate their time to practise them.
This is where our discussion ended cause we quickly learned that we the map makers and map making teams are in no position to introduce such a map pool. There have to be someone behind this, someone that tournaments and pro gamers can blindly trust is doing the right thing. We need someone that is in a position to say that this is the map pool because it is the best maps, it is perfectly tested and if you use our map pool you are using the maps that players practise for and other tournaments use as all.
So who should support this? Blizzard themselves? Blizzard would likely have the most solid impact and they got the tools to maybe introduce it into battlenet in the same way that the ladder pool is a part of battlenet. They could definetly make it happen. But there is a but. Would anyone trust Blizzard, given their history of maps, to make these decisions? Would you trust Blizzard to make the tournament map pool?
If not Blizzard then who? The mayor tournaments like MLG? Should one tournament or several put their heads together and say this is how it is going to be? This is the map pool we will all use.
The community maybe? Maybe Team Liquid should be the brain behind this and use their pro players to ensure the best maps are used and as the face of the community encourage tournaments to use the map pool?
My own ideal opinion is that it should be worked out by the community and finally promoted by Blizzard. Imagine that Team Liquid with a unified voice of the pro players, the community and the map makers where to sit down once a month or every few months to discuss the map pool, whats new and what needs changes. Imagine we would come to an agreement and show it to Blizzard who would intregrate the maps into battlenet. Imagine a new option when creating a new custom game. On your list of Blizzard maps, popular, recently played etc. there would be a new option called UMP where you would always find the latest UMP map pool, always with the latest version of the maps and available on all servers. With the unified support of the community and Blizzard the tournaments would absolutely adapt to this and we would always have the best and newest maps available for tournaments. We would see new maps and the pro players would always know what to train for.
Is it idealism or realism? Let us open up the debate.
|
and what about those not on a map team?
|
This was on State of the Game or Inside the Game once. I think it was Incontrol who said that Blizzard is the one unifying corporation that has the power to do exactly this. Personally, I believe a universal map pool would be an ingenious idea, but after all the terrible maps Blizzard has produced (albeit it took a long time to discover how terrible some of them were and are, we can't put all the blame on Blizz), do we really want to put our faith in them? I don't know.
|
I think a UMP would be a great idea, i think as long as the map pool is changed regularly then it will improve the level of play and also it takes some of the pressure off both players or organisers since everyone knows what the maps are.
Can you add a poll to the OP, just a simple yes no poll for whether people like the idea of a UMP
|
On November 29 2011 01:01 a176 wrote:
and what about those not on a map team?
I think you misunderstood my point a bit. It is not going to be up to the map making teams to make any decisions. We have already concluded that we are not in a position to do so. I dont know who would be involved in any kind of decision making. Maybe representatives of the map making teams, maybe indivudual map makers or maybe the only part that map makers would take would be submitting maps for the community to decide on.
On November 29 2011 01:02 xlava wrote:
This was on State of the Game or Inside the Game once. I think it was Incontrol who said that Blizzard is the one unifying corporation that has the power to do exactly this. Personally, I believe a universal map pool would be an ingenious idea, but after all the terrible maps Blizzard has produced (albeit it took a long time to discover how terrible some of them were and are, we can't put all the blame on Blizz), do we really want to put our faith in them? I don't know.
Absolutely, I dont think Blizzard would be trusted to solely decide on the map pool. However with the recent Team Liquid map contest Blizzard have shown willingness to work with the community. I think ultimately Blizzard should be the one making it happen but it will be based on decisions from the community and/or mayor tournaments.
On November 29 2011 01:03 FlaminGinjaNinja wrote:
I think a UMP would be a great idea, i think as long as the map pool is changed regularly then it will improve the level of play and also it takes some of the pressure off both players or organisers since everyone knows what the maps are.
Can you add a poll to the OP, just a simple yes no poll for whether people like the idea of a UMP
I dont think it is a matter of people liking the idea or not. I think many would vote yes in one form or another. I am more curious about how it would be done and who would have to be involved.
|
What good has blizzard ever done? I say they should be left out of this compleatly.
I think that we should use a parliamentary system to decide which maps would be on the pool. AKA everyone is allowed in teamliquid to vote for a canditate and then the guys with a lot of votes will be the judges who decide the maps. We can even have parties. New elections held when needed.
|
On November 29 2011 01:13 Archvil3 wrote:
I dont think it is a matter of people liking the idea or not. I think many would vote yes in one form or another. I am more curious about how it would be done and who would have to be involved.
people need to first address these aspects of indecision that has plagued map making/custom maps since forever, before you even begin to formulize a concept like this. its a good idea yes, but so has been a lot of things people have tried with custom maps, but to this day has seen little fruition.
personally though, i would like to see as many maps as possible rather than a single map pool because then tournaments would be able to differentiate themselves (that is unless you are suggesting a large pool to draw maps from). otherwise you just get what you have now - every tournament using the same map, and then you pray to god that they don't fall into the scheme of using those maps for another year and a half.
your issue of maps having a multitude of different versions isn't a problem. its not your problem, my problem, or the players problem. i don't understand why its so difficult to have a referee host, or tell the players the map ''GSL xxx' by author yyy.
lastly, the comment of having blizzard institute changes rather than the community is just another example of the community's profound ... laziness. atleast for the koreans, they have no issue throwing blizzard's golds, rocks, and whole maps out the window. but the western communities? you get comments on how they will play metalopolis until starcraft 6 is released. they have no interest at all in advancing the scene, but would rather follow whatever the koreans are doing.
|
What would be wrong with taking the brains of talented map makers, and just making a rough draft of a universal map pool? Tournaments or Blizzard might not take it, at least not right away. However, if the community puts together a rough draft, it would be a way to get new maps out there and played tested. Whether they be through simple Zeek tournaments or something more grand like the TLMC maps for the TLopen, getting them tested and overwhelmingly approved by the community should grab the attention of tournament organizers. Even if the pool itself doesn't serve as a standard for all tournaments as described, if it just got new maps tested and popularized, I think we would see many of them break their way into tournament play.
|
This belongs more to SC2 General than to Custom Maps.
From my point of view you have to get those map pools to tournaments like MLG, GSL, DH or any other big prize pool + best pros tourneys to use the map pool. Noone else can introduce these maps to every other casual out there.
|
This is why we need an organization like KeSPA.
|
On November 29 2011 03:24 aznboi918 wrote:
This is why we need an organization like KeSPA.
So they can have complete control over everything?
|
On November 29 2011 03:36 Zombo Joe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 03:24 aznboi918 wrote:
This is why we need an organization like KeSPA. So they can have complete control over everything?
So they can control over the good usage of player contracts, map pools and other important stuff.
|
On November 29 2011 03:41 Superouman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 03:36 Zombo Joe wrote:On November 29 2011 03:24 aznboi918 wrote:
This is why we need an organization like KeSPA. So they can have complete control over everything? So they can control over the good usage of player contracts, map pools and other important stuff.
I dont think we are ever going to see a controlling unit like KeSPA in SC2. There are too many tournaments in too many countries to make it possible for such an organization to have any power. If players, teams and tournaments dont like it they just stop being a part of it.
When it comes to maps I see more of a possibly of an "encouraging"unit - follow us because that is what the players and viewers want - then tournaments will be cooperative.
|
Why not? Many sports have a central organization (FIFA) which checks that everything is done correctly towards players and teams.
|
Mostly because Blizzard dont encourage it and I dont see it happening without their approval.
|
Hear! Hear!
I agree that we need a universal map pool and everything you say is correct.
Allow me to be pessimistic tho: Blizz will not help us with this! At all! We shouldn't even think about it.
Better ask the big organizations - MLG, IPL, Teamliquid, ESL, Dreamhack - to approve something like this and find a solution how to make it happen (who should vote on maps, how to test, how does the map pool work etc).
Alternatively just ask Teamliquid, but in the past they didn't show any sign of willingness towards changing stuff this big on their own (albeit the fact that they made quite some propaganda in favor of new maps lately).
Ok here is another idea, write a mail suggesting this idea to MLG, IPL, ESL and Dreamhack, signed by the three mapmaking teams and try to get Teamliquid to sign it as well. This way TL would only have to show their approval...
Well it's quite complicated, as you said we aren't at all in the position to make anything happen on our own. We don't have any money or power. We rely solely on good diplomacy here, since unfortunately everyone in the scene except the BW veterans doesn't seem to care much about maps at all, even tho they totally should!
edit: This thread in general forum with a poll would probably show how much of the community silently want something like this to happen!
edit2: Ask the big organizations to make this happen and then ask the community to spam them @ twitter about it might work as well : )
|
Creating a Map pool of the maps from the start would be rather easy. Most tournaments use fewer than 10 maps, and most of the major ones that I've seen (MLG, IPL, GSL) draw from only 13 maps.
I would suggest providing something along the lines of 15 maps for the tournaments to select their 7-9 that they wish. Comprise it of 14 core maps with one spot reserved for the potential inclusion of oddball maps that aren't presently standard to allow for potential growth of the format.
Looking at the map pools presently I see what I would consider 4 core categories of maps presently employed. These are the 2-Player maps, GSL style Mega Macro maps, 4-Player map with easy 3rd, and 4-Player map with an open 3rd. GSL also presently uses a 3 player map, Xel Naga Fortress, which I would personally love to see more of (but would consider this under the oddball category).
Maps would be rotated out quarterly, or with some specific time frame in mind at least. The revisions of maps should also be presented at minimum a few weeks before the change in quarters to allow for ample time to learn new maps and make adjustments, preferably giving even as much as a full quarter for people to study them.
Likewise the map review team, likely volunteers, would be a core group of fixed seats along with the possibility of a rotating "hot-seat" or two to be filled by a guest judge each time. Recurring guests possible. The general idea is to develop a strong team for the map selection, and then throw in some fresh meat to keep the flavor from getting stale. Room for evolution should be strongly encouraged.
The purpose of the judges would be more as a filtering system, rather than a final decision, and ultimately the final selection should be left up to the community to vote with. An open tournament/invitational could be built up around the map selection of the judges to offer exposure to the community to provide a better vote. After/between match series players could be interviewed on their thoughts about the maps and ideally all comments on the map design by casters and players would be logged or noted under the map on a dedicated website. I would obviously expect donations/sponsorship would have to be found to support the effort.
After that it would just be a matter of getting major event organizers to back the movement, and get some link support from Blizzard on battle.net or something whenever voting comes up.
It sounds like a lot of work, but I also believe this kind of thing could be monetized to keep the quality of the product pushing forward. These are just some ideas I threw together off the top of my head though, so observe with that in mind.
|
i agree, without the cooperation of some big name organizations, this will be completely useless.
if we can get mlg, nasl, ipl, dreamhack etc on board, it a different story.
We would probably start with the 10-15 maps that are currently frequently used.
There should be a max amout of time for a map, let's say 6 months, after that i has to be removed for at least some time (can still be added again at a later point). When a maps gets removed, we can replace it with a new map.
Ideally, we would want some sort of map council that does a pre-selection of worthy maps and then lets the tournaments/players/viewers do the final decision. the pre-selection process should involve proper testing/feedback with the help from tournaments/progaming teams if possible. we would need to keep the number of maps to test reasonable, tho.
we should also try to put an end to the crazy map versioning that has been going on in the last year. we don't need 10 versions of of the same map with different map features or tags. ideally we would have an account on every server which we can use to upload our 10-15 maps on and people know it is the correct one to use.
the outcome would be a number of maps that players can practice on and tournaments can pick from. (of course they can still add any other maps if they wish)
and the map pool would keep getting updated on a monthly bases to keep the viewers happy.
|
Let's not forget the players - after all, if you've "perfected" your play on one map, why would you want to change to new ones?
Doing something others call a hobby for a living means having a different approach to the whole subject.
|
|
|
On November 29 2011 05:57 Barrin wrote:
A judging system is not enough. Unfortunately I think a judging process is integral to the ideal system, as competition itself is extremely important to fresh new ideas continuing to surface.
You could have all the top minds in mapmaking (btw these guys might want to make maps to submit instead of judge unless you pay them to judge) and all the top players of each race, and assuming you can get over the language barrier and actually get everyone to agree on certain maps (lol), you still wouldn't be guaranteed balanced maps.
I would keep Koreans out of this for now. They don't seem to be willing to cooperate with maps, and you can just use their maps in the map pool cos they have their own testing and picking system in place.
In BW balanced maps weren't guaranteed either, the maps were thoroughly tested but not necessarily balanced in the end.
I think keeping good mapmakers that submit maps from judging is stupid. Obviously you'd want someone like Superouman to make maps AND share his opinion about other maps, and I totally expect that the best mapmakers are capable of being unbiased (I myself can be unbiased at least).
Also I think we have tons of maps that are better than Blizz maps, and enough maps that can be tested and considered for professional play. I wouldn't worry about that, at first we only need some new maps anyway and after that - as you said - mapmaking will become (even) more serious.
I agree without money this won't work, thus ask the big organizations.
|
I really want to see a UMP in sc2, I'm sick and tired of maps from the beta being used when they aren't even that good. A consistent influx of new balanced maps will help sc2 more than an aging map pool. New maps help add new dynamics and freshness to the game that myself and many others would like to see.
|
If you haven´t read featured TL article Maps in the Balance, then you should check it out. It also concluded that there ought to be a universal map pool, but the question as to how we might implement it succesfully remains unanswered.
The only way, as I see it is to have all map makers organized in a "Map Makers Union" that could endorse an "official map pool" of sorts. The real challenge would be getting team Crux backing, cuz they already have a sweet deal going in the GSL.
I would just love for GSL to pick up a "foreign" map.
|
On November 29 2011 07:44 Johanaz wrote:If you haven´t read featured TL article Maps in the Balance, then you should check it out. It also concluded that there ought to be a universal map pool, but the question as to how we might implement it succesfully remains unanswered. The only way, as I see it is to have all map makers organized in a "Map Makers Union" that could endorse an "official map pool" of sorts. The real challenge would be getting team Crux backing, cuz they already have a sweet deal going in the GSL. I would just love for GSL to pick up a "foreign" map.
Actually afaik Crux is fine with this idea, and like foreign maps, it's all on Gisado at this point for them in the GSL.
Either way you need un biased people making the calls. My favorite example is Monitor who is a REALLY great judge of maps but every map he makes he comes to me and says "this is the best map ever, put it in the Korean Weekly now!" Obviously I don't just off that, and have saved some less then stellar maps from being in.
That's why neutral parties are needed that are NOT mapmakers.
|
|
|
I admit to really wanting to see my own maps in competitive play, and it probably would be bias. Maybe there's someway of designing a system where your map can only be elected by somebody else... but then you'd really have to have 1 member from each team or it would begin to be bias very quickly. Or we could try to contact some notable figures that are willing to put energy into picking top maps; mapmakers could submit a list to them or something.
|
should be up to tournaments to decide what maps they use. Maybe some tournaments don't want to use the standard maps, because they want players dedicated to their tournament etc.
I actually like the testing around with different things, because most maps are imba or boring standard. And casters should be able to explain what their maps are about, at the start.
On the other hand the 100 versions of one map with only slight changes, really hurts the players and shouldn't be done. Maybe gathering weakspots to release a v2 is okay. Other then that if a map doesn't work, just scrap it and use another one, worked fine in every other game.
Only problem i see is with people only wanting maps they know and are considered balanced (which often isn't even true), making maps like taldarim or meta stay in tournaments for such a long time.
It won't happen anyway that there will be a standard map pool (because there are enough people that just love seeing new maps hehe). But it should be possible to stop a few things, for example the issue of 100 different versions of a map, since tournaments do listen to the community. But it would need a good communication between tournaments, so they use the up to date version ^^, could be established over map makers, but they would have to all agree on that version being the best.
|
|
|
On November 29 2011 08:35 FeyFey wrote:
should be up to tournaments to decide what maps they use. Maybe some tournaments don't want to use the standard maps, because they want players dedicated to their tournament etc.
I actually like the testing around with different things, because most maps are imba or boring standard. And casters should be able to explain what their maps are about, at the start.
On the other hand the 100 versions of one map with only slight changes, really hurts the players and shouldn't be done. Maybe gathering weakspots to release a v2 is okay. Other then that if a map doesn't work, just scrap it and use another one, worked fine in every other game.
Only problem i see is with people only wanting maps they know and are considered balanced (which often isn't even true), making maps like taldarim or meta stay in tournaments for such a long time.
It won't happen anyway that there will be a standard map pool (because there are enough people that just love seeing new maps hehe). But it should be possible to stop a few things, for example the issue of 100 different versions of a map, since tournaments do listen to the community. But it would need a good communication between tournaments, so they use the up to date version ^^, could be established over map makers, but they would have to all agree on that version being the best.
You kinda miss the point. The map pool would have like 10+ maps that every tournament could pick it's 5-7 maps from to have their own unique map pool.
Also this map pool would be changed A LOT more than the stale Blizz+GSL map pool we have now, so we would see a lot of new maps.
That's why we would have to contact all the big foreign organizations and come to an agreement.
|
On November 29 2011 08:46 Ragoo wrote:That's why we would have to contact all the big foreign organizations and come to an agreement.
I don't think you realize the absolute scale of something like that statement would be.
|
On November 29 2011 09:12 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 08:46 Ragoo wrote:That's why we would have to contact all the big foreign organizations and come to an agreement. I don't think you realize the absolute scale of something like that statement would be.
I do and I don't see anything like this happening anyway, but it doesn't hurt to talk about what we would need. Just trying to hide my pessimisn in public 
|
On November 29 2011 01:22 Sea_Food wrote:
What good has blizzard ever done? I say they should be left out of this compleatly.
Bingo! Blizzard has already proven themselves to be incompetent in regard to map pools. Besides, they aren't needed. What is needed? Well, it's obvious, isn't it?
I hope Blizzard forgets about making maps completely and concentrates on fixing the game properly.
On November 29 2011 01:28 a176 wrote:
your issue of maps having a multitude of different versions isn't a problem. its not your problem, my problem, or the players problem. i don't understand why its so difficult to have a referee host, or tell the players the map ''GSL xxx' by author yyy.
lastly, the comment of having blizzard institute changes rather than the community is just another example of the community's profound ... laziness. atleast for the koreans, they have no issue throwing blizzard's golds, rocks, and whole maps out the window. but the western communities? you get comments on how they will play metalopolis until starcraft 6 is released. they have no interest at all in advancing the scene, but would rather follow whatever the koreans are doing.
I don't think the different versions are a big problem either. How many different versions get used anyway? There are definitely few enough versions to be able to keep them straight. Take three extra seconds when picking a map and you're OK.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with efficiency. Talking of which, I think that's why they are better about making decisions; they're better organized and efficient. Go Korea!
On November 29 2011 03:16 Apoo wrote:
From my point of view you have to get those map pools to tournaments like MLG, GSL, DH or any other big prize pool + best pros tourneys to use the map pool. Noone else can introduce these maps to every other casual out there.
This guy has a point.
In the end, I think a universal map pool is a neat idea. Get all the teams in on it and it will work out.
|
On November 29 2011 09:27 lovablemikey wrote:
I don't think the different versions are a big problem either. How many different versions get used anyway? There are definitely few enough versions to be able to keep them straight. Take three extra seconds when picking a map and you're OK.
Just for the record (and one random example I happen to have stats for on hand) on 4 of the major servers (NA, EU, KOR, CN) there is 19 different versions of Testbug currently. Would be 20 if my CN acct had not expired. Imagine a more popular map.
It's a legit problem.
|
On November 29 2011 09:30 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 09:27 lovablemikey wrote:
I don't think the different versions are a big problem either. How many different versions get used anyway? There are definitely few enough versions to be able to keep them straight. Take three extra seconds when picking a map and you're OK. Just for the record (and one random example I happen to have stats for on hand) on 4 of the major servers (NA, EU, KOR, CN) there is 19 different versions of Testbug currently. Would be 20 if my CN acct had not expired. Imagine a more popular map. It's a legit problem.
Oh. Touche. We need a universal map pool.
|
Definitely 100% support this, I think the map pool in itself needs regulation and shouldn't be taken so lightly as "hm what maps should we use for this tournament", this will also give so much potential for new maps to be tested say 1 or 2 at a time.
The strongest point about having a universal map pool is frequency of playtesting, we could introduce 1 or 2 new maps temporarily to the pool and within just a few weeks we will have hundreds of games played on the maps, and if there are any scathing issues they can either be fixed promptly or have the map removed promptly from the pool. It is a strong trial by fire type system that will not only weed out bad maps but substantially reward good ones with frequent high level play.
But the most important thing to think about first is that we need to pick the safest maps possible from the start, they need to be the safest because if there are any problems from the start, tournaments will use these maps, the problems will be found and tournaments will become critical of the map pool and all of a sudden its credibility is ruined and further tournaments will refuse to use the new map pool. The first maps we pick have to be the safest ones.
As for who picks, well I think it should somewhat consider the community's view of 'fun' or 'entertaining maps', but the bulk of the community should not be involved in deciding maps. This might sound harsh but think about it this way, 60% of SC2 players are gold league or below, 80% of players are platinum league and below, only 2% are Masters and about 0.1% or so are GM. Are platinum league players really capable of identifying balance issues at the highest level of play when they themselves don't yet have a full understanding of the game? It's harsh and I don't mean to offend people but the truth is most of the community (including myself!) aren't fit for judging the balance of these maps. But they can definitely help in figuring out bugs that take rigirous testing to find.
So the best people in my opinion to choose for this would be GM players with a particular eye for maps, MorroW is a perfect example of someone who is extremely attentive to maps and can tell you what is a good map and what is a bad map. But it's also important to note that he is also Zerg and will have a Zerg perspective, we need GM players from all 3 races all with a keen eye for maps if this is to be done properly. Maybe we should start an application process with a few partly known problematic maps (maybe pre-MLG/GSL modified blizzard maps?) that we can use to test GM players, then if they spot the imbalances they can be considered, either case it isn't something we should take lightly by any means.
I really think this is the way to move forward and once the map pool has been standardized people will be better equipped to criticize or compliment various maps, knowing that they are all talking about the one specific map and no argument about whether its the cross-spawn version or no-gold-mineral version will ever occur. They should also be republished with a specific prefix like MLG and GSL that will identify with the team that balances and organizes the maps and ensures that it's the correct map that is being used, something short like "SM" for Standardized Map.
I hope we can make this happen  .
|
idealism or realism?
it's the future.
|
I think the mapmaking teams should judge each others maps, as well as use input from proplayers like the GSL does. So pros+mapmakers = sc2 map panel
i know you mapmakers are wary of having all this responsibility upon yourselves, but you're the best people for the job.
tourneys don't have people knowledgeable enough for it, though they should all at minimum approve of a map before you implement it. Same with blizzard, which can implement the [UMS] thing you said, but shouldn't have any say in maps (unless they want their own maps submitted for review, lol). Community vote would be awful imo. Proleague maps aren't revealed until they're already being used.
This needs to be an effort between every mapmaking team and a large pool of playtesting GMs/pros/day9. Also, make sure you allow some way for a team-less mapmaker to submit his map.
as for funding... NASL/IPL/MLG or maybe proteams could help? holds you accountable, gives you a "customer" of sorts that you have to appease for your business? I would say sponsors (a Nike blimp on metal, a Razer umbrella on belshir beach), but each league has its own sponsers now, so you can't do that. So the teams/leagues would have to be your sponsers.
|
i agree we should have representatives of the map making community do a pre-selection of candidate maps. i don't think it is too much of an issue if we pick some reasonable persons and make sure all parties are equally represented.
then we gather feedback and test results from the community/players for the final decisionmaking process. ideally we would contact the pro-teams and present them 3-4 maps and ask for their feedback/testing.
|
I don't think using mapmakers is a good idea unless they are also masters+ players, you really need a particular mindset to know how to abuse the geography of the map and find the potential problem areas.
|
i was only suggesting having mapmakers doing a pre-selection of maps, not the final decision.
it makes sense because you can't expect pro players to research all the maps out there and filter through them, which requires alot of work. some of us mapmakers have probably looked at every map ever posted on tl (and also playxp to some degree)
i also have to disagree about having to be a master+ player. an experienced mapmaker has an excellent eye for terrain, proportions, distances & balance.
the most important thing is constantly following the scene and events to be up to date on the latest metagame changes and balance issues. a few weeks/months of inactivity and you may lose your ability to judge a map properly.
|
I'm all for a more unified map pool but not too optimistic about its implementation. TSL3 has set a good example for moving in this direction but that was it. Other tournament organizers just don't seem to care much about their map pool.
At this point, I think it would be actually better to use the exact same map pool as GSL than to having tournament organizers guessing for the right answer, unless they put as much time and effort in choosing the maps as Gom. Something like this would be a sign that the unified map pool has a chance of implementation.
Until then, we'll see more of Xel'Naga Caverns and Metalopolis.
|
I love the idea of a UMP, but it does have some strict requirements to be effective.
It would need a very dedicated and knowledgeable team to maintain the pool, swiftly adding in new maps, removing old maps.
I would not support the idea if blizzard would be supposed to maintain the pool, they are just too slow, even when it's about a non-professional map pool.
|
I think it's all down to Blizzard, really. What I think needs to happen is either:
1) Battle.net implements built-in tournaments (like in WC3) which use a different map pool than ladder
2) Master/grandmaster map pool is different from the other leagues
Then, this map pool changes each season, maybe decided through some kind of survey among grandmaster players (like, pick 3 maps from the current pool that you'd like to see removed, and pick 3 from this list of new ones you'd like to see included).
I don't see this happening, though. Until then I think tournament organizers just need to grow some balls and replace more ladder maps with GSL and community maps.
|
Wow this sounds almost exactly like the long term goal that MotM has been persuing for quite some time now^^
But yeah, as anyone has probably figured out by now, it's a pretty hard project to actually execute. It needs the support of many different organisations, especially tournament organisators. Anyway, as long as big tournaments don't realize how much they're hurting e-sports by just doing it their own way, nothing's gonna change. I really hope we'll see a carination(?) like this eventually.
|
Anything that resolves the issue of having gsl/mlg/ipl/wcg/tsl/esl/playhem/[insert other tournament name here] versions of each of the maps gets my vote really. I get that they want to promote their tournament brand but it makes much more sense to have a unified map pool and handle the advertising via stream overlays and the like.
|
On November 29 2011 03:36 Zombo Joe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 03:24 aznboi918 wrote:
This is why we need an organization like KeSPA. So they can have complete control over everything?
no lol i said "like". At least KeSPA makes the universal map pool and tests it properly... you can't deny that a lot of things they do is useful right? lol
|
On November 29 2011 01:22 Sea_Food wrote:
What good has blizzard ever done? I say they should be left out of this compleatly.
They made the game...
|
|
|
exactly, it's not like they have to commit to only using these maps.
but it'd would be nice for viewers to see a new map being introduced on a regular basis and players knowing they're not wasting their time practicing on these maps
|
On December 04 2011 01:07 Barrin wrote:
Basically got this from Plexa, thought it is worth noting:
Whatever the UMP is, it's not like the tournaments have to use ONLY maps from the UMP. They could use like 50-70% UMP and the rest whatever they want and that would probably be great.
Would defeat the purpose because then tournaments can continue using their own version for certain maps and completely ignore new maps that were added to the pool, it would no longer be a Universal Map Pool but simply a "Universal Set of Maps that you can add to your pool if you want".
|
On December 04 2011 20:03 XenoX101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 01:07 Barrin wrote:
Basically got this from Plexa, thought it is worth noting:
Whatever the UMP is, it's not like the tournaments have to use ONLY maps from the UMP. They could use like 50-70% UMP and the rest whatever they want and that would probably be great. Would defeat the purpose because then tournaments can continue using their own version for certain maps and completely ignore new maps that were added to the pool, it would no longer be a Universal Map Pool but simply a "Universal Set of Maps that you can add to your pool if you want".
Indeed. If tournaments would want certain maps to be played they should approach the judges of the UMP and suggest these maps.
The whole point of the UMP would be to have a certain, limited amount of maps that pros have to train and a way to introduce new maps. So if tournaments just used 70% UMP maps that would be counterproductive.
To ensure that every tournament has different map pools the UMP would have 10 or more maps.
All of this is in a perfect world of course...
|
i think if you are enforcing it, then you risk having even more stale map pools than we already have.
and tournaments wouldn't even want to commit to it in the first place. especially not the gsl, etc.
it should not be mandatory. we just need to get to the point where everyone understands that those will are frequently played and save to pick.
|
I know i've quit mapmaking for a while now, but it seems the state of mapmaking hasn't changed too much since then, I've also stopped playing SC2 but I'm still watching tournaments so I'll voice my opinion as a viewer as well as a (former) mapmaker and player.
As a player I don't like to have too many new maps, a few changes from time to time is good but more than 3 maps at once in the ladder is already a lot of time needed to learn the map, analyze it and train. That's why Map of the Month, as good as it was for mapmakers, is not a good tournament format for players. I don't like new gimmicky maps with unusual features, since it's easier to accomodate with standard maps.
As a mapmaker I love to see tons of new maps, first because competition between mapmakers leads us to make better maps, second because it's a good source of inspiration ("stealing" some maps features can be a good thing, map features are tools and having a large variety of tools can't be bad if used properly), and finally because having more maps in the scene gave more chances to my own maps to get a spot. I love to see beautifull maps and I'm more interested in aesthetics than in gameplay or balance.
As a viewer I like to see a shift on the mappool on a regular basis, I'm getting bored seeing the same gameplan on a map that's been around forever (ZvT on Xel'naga caverns, at some point every game looked the same no matter who the players were). I like to see maps that allow a variety of different strategies and can focus on different player's strenghts (some micro feats, macro capability, and some clever tricks like boxer's drops on Tal'darim altar OL spots or inovative simcities).
My point is it's hard to have a representative sample of people who'd choose maps that would please each one of those different points of view. Also it's not good to have a universal mappool set in stone (viewers would get bored) and difficult to have too many new good maps at once and also bad for players level of skill (too many new maps = less time to train = lower skill).
I think we'd need a mapmaker's league, I'm thinking about something like this :
+ Show Spoiler +** Mapmaker's league ** (<- imagine shining title intro and cool music) 16 maps in the map pool Every month (or 2 months, or 2 weeks, whatever) a 32 players tournament is held (invitationnal or at least grandmasters only with at least 10 players for each race), the tournament is BO5 and finals BO7 (because it's new maps with possible imbalances it's more accurate to play more games for a match). For the first round every map is played once in the first match and players seeded randomly, then it's looser's pick. Each player downvote one map that can't be picked by the looser. For the next rounds maps used in the lower bracket will be used in the upper bracket and the other way around until the finals where the 2 leftover maps will be used in the first 2 games (wich means in the finals game 2 is not looser's pick and overall it garantee every map to be played at least twice). Each time a map get chosen it gets a +1, each time it get downvoted it gets a -2, at the end of the tournament the map with the lowest score gets out of the map pool, map with the highest score could get a prize if possible. After the tournaments viewers will also vote for another map to get out of the pool and for their favorite map to get a prize. Another possibility would be to take out the most imbalanced map but the results would probably not be relevant after so few games. So the brackets would look like something like this : ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Shzqn.jpg) Color squares represent set maps, as you can see each map is played twice + the looser's choices. Races are seeded randomly only for the example, there are 10 zergs 11 terrans 11 protoss. To replace the 2 outgoing maps a mapmaking contest is held, one map is chosen by the mapmakers (they vote for 1 map but cannot vote for themself) and the other one is chosen by viewers on the league's website. So what's the point of such a system ? First everyone involved in the community will influence the mapppool : players, mapmakers and viewers all decide at some point wich map enter and wich one gets out. Second point it's a way to establish a map ranking that is based on high level players experience and not on mapmakers judgement and standards. Where a few mapmakers would judge a map based on standard balance players judgement would allow balance trough opposite imbalances and more original features in maps as long as there're other features balancing it for the other races. Players will either downvote maps they don't like or learn to use them, so in the end the most downvoted maps will hopefully be the less balanced (if a map favors one race too obviously it will quickly be sent out by the 2 other races). Finally it's a system, not some random people choices. Imbalances are bound to occur, no current map is perfectly balanced, the game itself is not perfectly balanced and are often decided by the metagame, imbalance is a part of the game and I don't think anyone (player, mapmaker or viewer) can decide what is balanced enough or not, so it's a system that allows to share that decision between all parts of the community. Possible issues : - 16 maps in the pool is a lot, it will stabilize after a while and regular players will get used to them, but it will be harsh for the early editions of the tournament. - It's possible that an imbalanced map stays in the mappool because the race it favors will stay longer in the tournament (so this map will be chosen more often and less downvoted) - You'll need a referee to obs every match and keep track of map choices and downvotes (also make sure that players play the right map). In the end it's quite a random idea and probably needs some refinements but i'd love to see something like that work.
|
...or you can just make it simple and make the UMP the *most recommended* by map-makers. So for instance we all compose a UMP of... 15 maps. These 15 maps are all ones we agreed on and that we think will play the best. Those are the community's best maps. I think tournaments can then draw from that and nitpick particular maps they might find interesting out of the "recommended" community map pool. To compose a UMP and suggest that tournaments use the ENTIRE map pool is just not going to work.
|
Well i would say that it should be Blizzard that montitzed this through. Some people say they don't really trust blizzard, and to some extrent i agree. But i don't really trust anyone else here. Even the GSL is guilty in bringing in some pretty slompy maps and then apply some quick fixes to try to bring the balance somewhat right(Xelnaga fortress's Timed watchtower anyone?). If the UMP is to be acknowledged it can never ressort to bandaid fixes like that. Blizzard has had a policy about that for a while and they don't really implement external stuff like supply depot blockers or altered watch towers. However they are aware that pros can handle more complex map mechanics than ladder players so they might bend them a little for common tournement stuff like reduced expantions.
If anything it must be in corperation with Blizzard. The map pool could archieve balance but it would only last a second. Lets take an example: Zerg is having a downtime because maps in general are too closed. The UMP makes up for by introducing maps that are more open. Blizzard ladder maps don't follow suit through and hence there is still imbalance there, They then make a patch that buff zerg(like increasing the damage of the zergling). Balance is then archieved on ladder and all is happy. Except that the balance on the UMP is now blown to dust and we are back to square one. This wouldn't happen(as often) if the UMP and Blizzard talked together. Or rather the Balance patch would come at the same time with a new UMP that took account for that.
Just my 2 cents.
|
I think conversation is going to be one of our most powerful tools. If we have a map that's been tested, looks awesome, and most people want to see in a tournament, see if we can't get Sundance on the phone, or someone under him, and talk about why this map is so good for their tournament. That excitement, that positiveness, that looking-forward, Sundance breathes that. You'll be speaking his language. No need to be push and insist they must, we don't want to be obnoxious, but touting its strengths and being excited for the map is exactly what they need to hear.
It's only one map, and it's only one league, but it's foot-in-the-door psychology. If they adopt this excellent map (which would need to be somewhat safe innovation wise, but FUN), then it lends weight to all our future endeavors. If it goes over swimmingly, if we hear iNcontroL and Tyler praising it's inclusion on SotG, then we've put our foot in the door, and proven we can deliver. If the UMP is the end-goal, this, I think, is the starting point.
What do you guys think?
If so, what map is this map? 1) It needs to be safe, not require players to rethink their play too much, 2) it needs to be beautiful, but not distractingly so for the players, 3) it needs some bit of innovation that makes it more fun to play or more fun to watch.
Personally, I think Haven's Lagoon is a good example of the right kind of gimmick: the ascending high-ground is something that players can just get when they look at it. It's distinct, and if the reports are true, fun. Haven's Lagoon has a ways to go in other elements, but a polished map using this terrain dynamic could be exactly what we need. I don't know anything about Cloud Kingdom, but it looks like it could be what we need as well. I haven't kept up with all the most recent team maps, so forgive me if I didn't mention a map that would be a great candidate. So what other maps might work?
|
Perhaps a good way to begin something like this would be to start with the online tournaments?
z33k run enough tournaments that if you could get them involved, you would have a massive test subject. there are also a few very good players who compete in the dailys, admittedly not many and not the very top ones, but still, its enough to get the idea out there. if you just talked to everyone who runs a small prize pool tournament, you might be able to get them interested, and i think the hardest bit of this plan would be getting the first steps done. once it was established that this could work, i think that bigger tournaments would start adopting it.
but i might be wrong and you might need the legitimacy that big names provide
|
Yes after the first round of UM is finalized we should start with sending the UMP to smaller tournaments. If we ever want bigger tournaments to use it (and even smaller tournaments to a degree) we need to really prove to tournaments that these maps are the best to use, especially the community-made ones. This means getting pro players to play on it more than a few times and approve of + enjoy playing on the map, it also means getting enough high level games played to draw some matchup (e.g.: ZvP) stats & conclusions about the map to check that its balanced. Small tournaments would be the key to getting the map statistics we need to prove that it is a balanced map if it is, or an imbalanced map if it isn't.
As for the existing maps that have been modified such as MLG/GSL/IPL Dual Sight, since these are already balanced the only way I can think of to standardize these is to have a committee with representatives for each tournament, so that they can collectively agree on one particular version of these maps. Then if changes need to be made to any of the maps they have to bring it up with the rest of the committee instead of just making them themselves willy nilly like it is now.
|
As for the existing maps that have been modified such as MLG/GSL/IPL Dual Sight, since these are already balanced the only way I can think of to standardize these is to have a committee with representatives for each tournament, so that they can collectively agree on one particular version of these maps.
This part highlights already a problem. The problem is that people assumes that tournement maps are balanced and that tournements always strive to get perfect balance. This is not always the case really. Take the current GSL mappool. The goal with the current mappool wasn't to create balance for all 3 races(because "perfect" balance would mean the ratio between the races would stay unchanged at the end).
The goal was to flush out as many terran as possible(it didn't prevent a terran winner but from what i have seen the ratios should have greatly improved next season). Every single posible removeable advantage that terrans had got removed.That is fine in the case of GSL because they did have a problem with too many terrans. But if say MLG were to pick up same model with it's already much better ratio terrans would suddenly find themself getting crushed. Different tournements have different interests with regards to maps.
|
On December 05 2011 08:46 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +As for the existing maps that have been modified such as MLG/GSL/IPL Dual Sight, since these are already balanced the only way I can think of to standardize these is to have a committee with representatives for each tournament, so that they can collectively agree on one particular version of these maps. This part highlights already a problem. The problem is that people assumes that tournement maps are balanced and that tournements always strive to get perfect balance. This is not always the case really. Take the current GSL mappool. The goal with the current mappool wasn't to create balance for all 3 races(because "perfect" balance would mean the ratio between the races would stay unchanged at the end). The goal was to flush out as many terran as possible(it didn't prevent a terran winner but from what i have seen the ratios should have greatly improved next season). Every single posible removeable advantage that terrans had got removed.That is fine in the case of GSL because they did have a problem with too many terrans. But if say MLG were to pick up same model with it's already much better ratio terrans would suddenly find themself getting crushed. Different tournements have different interests with regards to maps.
That's true but the rule of balance is that it should always be done with the highest level of play. If MLG picked up GSL's map pool and the terrans would "suddenly find themselves crushed" then it is purely a fault of their ability as a player and shouldn't be a factor in balancing the map pool. Altering the map pool for weaker players ruins the integrity of the tournament and cheapens the win considering it was done on a map thats imbalanced at the top. Many maps are balanced at all levels though such as Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak, so it shouldn't affect foreign players too much to have a standardized map pool. Oh and considering Koreans are now playing much more in foreign tournaments, it's going to be next to impossible to cater the map pool to a specific level of play, so it makes even more sense to use the same map pool from GSL to MLG to IPL since you can't predict who will be playing in your tournament.
|
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.
|
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.
|
We need to write the book before we can read it, edit it, or sell it.
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.
|
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.
|
The purpose is not to get a 'decent ratio of each race' though, the map pool is not some kind of tool you use to even out the race distribution. The goal of any map pool is instead to have perfectly balanced maps with 50% in every XvX matchup from strictly the highest level of play. With this in mind it really doesn't make a lick of difference what the representation of players at MLG is because they aren't at the highest level of play, and as mentioned the goal is not to even out distributions but to keep the maps balanced. So the GSL have been changing maps but it was not because they wanted some ideal even ratio of race representation, it was to negate the >50% terran win percentages on certain maps, which they could gather from their highest level of play stats of Code A and Code S.
|
On December 05 2011 18:04 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On behalf of the ESL, as the person who basically decides the ESL EU SC2 map pool (Go4SC2 EU primarily), we are looking to work together with the other big leagues to standardise our map pools more
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
|
Nice to see you post in here th3rogue
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.
|
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=292352
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
|
i think you are already moving too fast with those.
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
|
true. i guess i was listing more of an eventual map pool than a right now one. in that case my plus 2s would be Odyssey and Sanshorn Mists AE, giving us 14 maps. sounds like a good number.
|
|
|
I really like the idea of a UMP and think that we should move quickly to support one. After the map tournament on TL we should consider having a vote about which maps we think should be in the UMP (from a list of all the current popular maps, ladder maps, the TLMC maps, etc) and/or people higher up in TL should decide on a group of people to consider what maps should be in the UMP (slash I think a vote from the community at some level is important to ensure support).
|
Hey all,
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.
|
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 ><)
|
This is a great idea and I fully support it. The UMP should be a mix of old maps that are more well known and new maps that are not as experimented with. Eventually, some of the old maps can be cycled out for new ones. Maybe you could have half the maps be year-round maps and the other half be monthly maps that come and go.
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.
|
Crevasse and Crossfire are both terribly balanced maps though, I think categories only work if you know all the maps are completely balanced, and they should be purpose-oriented around melee, for instance there's no real purpose for the 'oddball' or 'fortress' category in terms of the needs of a pool. As long as the maps are different enough in some way it should be sufficient.
|
Categories are fine to a lesser extend. Let's just say there should be a good balance of macro<->agression, 2p/3p/4p, ladder maps/custom maps etc in the map pool and every map should be unique.
Anyways this is one of the last things to think about, after this would be established.
|
What should happen:
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.
|
Fair points, but balance is a much bigger concern for players than it is for mappers.
|
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.
|
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
