Blizzard about the map pool - Page 3

On November 02 2012 19:28 Plexa wrote:

Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.

On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
[...]
- Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.

[...]

- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.

On November 02 2012 20:49 chuky500 wrote:
I hope this time the organizers put effort into picking decent judges too, this means what people suggested at the time of the 1st TLMC : judges representing shoutcasters, tournament organisers, pro players and mappers. Please don't pick random forum moderators this was a bad idea. I hope this time we don't end up with broken maps like Haven's Lagoon or Korhal Compound.

On November 03 2012 03:27 crbox wrote:
I wish they fucking add neutral supply depots

On November 03 2012 03:14 Ragoo wrote:


This is the truth.



This is bullshit. First of all I can safely say that the good mapmakers DO know better, even without "statistical proof".

And I don't get that part about Antiga, never heard that. It's just a bad designed map.

Secondly Blizzard maps are just bullshit, if anyone in the mapmaking community would make such maps he would be criticized for it

Also don't get the Cherno comparison. Cherno has vastly different limitations cos it's a 4p mirrored with all spwans enabled to begin with...

On November 03 2012 03:27 crbox wrote:
I wish they fucking add neutral supply depots

On November 03 2012 03:40 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Okay, that's your claim, you can't safely say that, you can say that and then it's your word. Nothing more.

Please, a lot of people claimed that it was TvZ imbalanced or TvP imbalanced. It has a minor TvP imbalance of like 3%, nothing substantial, it is by no stretch TvZ imbalanced.

Apart from that, it's your opinion that it's a badly designed map. This is the entire underlying point, that some people act like their opinions are facts. There's a reason GOMTV removed Ohana and kept Antiga and my hunch is that this is viewer numbers. Antiga has a certain inclination to generate 'memorable games' that people look vods up because the design lends itself to tense situations where both are highly mined out and have troubles securing a third, Ohana tends to create boring games that aren't memorable.

I will play a game in any matchup and watch it in any matchup any day of the week on Antiga before on Ohana, that's my opinion, this is subjective, these aren't facts that can be right or wrong, what are facts are balanced numbers and viewer numbers.

I disagree, it's a yes-no game at this point, neither side can prove their point.

It has the same airplay problems in some spawns.

On November 03 2012 05:20 OxyGenesis wrote:


Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it is a 4p map yet has to be made in to a 2p map to 'fix' it. Regardless of the hard 4th, regardless of the near-impossible 5th, the fact that certain spawns had to be disabled retrospectively because of imbalances is poor design, and is something that I seasoned map maker would have spotted straight away.

You seem to be quite hung up on this idea of statistics 'proving' how good a map is. The problem with statistics is that they don't tell you the whole story, in fact they don't tell you all that much at all without them being more focussed than just winrates. Winrates don't take in to account how good the players are, what strategies were used, how easy expanding was,
game conditions (live/online/latency/hardware etc.) I could go on. A map might be perfectly balanced statistically until a player works out a certain tactic that is incredibly strong on it. On the whole, Blizzard maps are pretty garbage, experienced map makers and high level players all agree on this, and could list many reasons why it's true. The reason they don't is probably because they don't want to waste their time trying to convince people on an internet forum.

On November 03 2012 05:20 OxyGenesis wrote:


Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it is a 4p map yet has to be made in to a 2p map to 'fix' it.

Regardless of the hard 4th, regardless of the near-impossible 5th, the fact that certain spawns had to be disabled retrospectively because of imbalances is poor design, and is something that I seasoned map maker would have spotted straight away.

You seem to be quite hung up on this idea of statistics 'proving' how good a map is.

The problem with statistics is that they don't tell you the whole story, in fact they don't tell you all that much at all without them being more focussed than just winrates. Winrates don't take in to account how good the players are, what strategies were used, how easy expanding was,

On the whole, Blizzard maps are pretty garbage, experienced map makers and high level players all agree on this

and could list many reasons why it's true. The reason they don't is probably because they don't want to waste their time trying to convince people on an internet forum.

On November 03 2012 05:37 tree139 wrote:
There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.

And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.

The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.

So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.

On November 03 2012 05:42 WniO wrote:

exactly man thats why ive tried pushing blizzard to put this in the ladder smallmap its pretty balanced so far (30+games)

On November 03 2012 06:01 JDub wrote:

I think that map may be a little too small... unless we want to go back to close spawns Slag Pits.

On November 03 2012 06:01 JDub wrote:

I think that map may be a little too small... unless we want to go back to close spawns Slag Pits.

On November 03 2012 06:14 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Truth be told, I loved close spawns slag pits in PvT and TvP, I agree close spawns are a bit broken with any matchup involving Z though but in PvP, TvP and TvT close spawns can be pretty funny.

If it's balanced it's balanced though, the rest is subjective. You either like rush maps or you don't.

On November 03 2012 06:36 WniO wrote:

thats insightful - back on topic, i think we do need smaller style maps maybe not to the extreme i want, but even pro bw map pools had a variation of sizing, so it wasnt just fast expand then attack the first to make a third, with (YOU CANT ATTACK ME I HAVE A SIZE 2 RAMP.)

On November 03 2012 05:25 WniO wrote:
ive been arguing and will continue to say blizzard maps are NOT just shit.

On November 03 2012 07:21 Fatam wrote:
Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map.