|
On December 01 2010 11:31 theherder2 wrote:
Well now with words straight from Junkka's mouth we can settle this map choosing funny business.
..and then getting back to bracket rigging. jk.
bracket rigging is called seeding, its in use in many many professional tourneys to knock out the people who probably shouldnt accidentally get to the finals early on, and thus ensure the later matches are of a higher quality
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
People aren't complaining that Steppes and other bad Zerg maps are being used, we can accept someone getting a bad draw. But when every single Zerg except Moon has a poor set of maps then that starts raising eyebrows - especially with a Moon vs Boxer clash immanent should both advance.
|
I feel like the Starcraft community, or at least the zergs are a little hasty in their conspiracy theories.
In all honesty though i like that Junkka is at least aware of the talk and has addressed the issue.
|
Why would they make a box to draw maps out, instead of having someone who knows how to program take 5 minutes to write a script to select maps? It would be more random and take less time.
|
I think their reason for not using custom maps is really good (players not on teams can't practice them). yeah some of the top gamers have it bad, but as a viewer i wouldn't be able to appreciate the games as much if they weren't on maps i played on all the time.
that said, isn't it just freaking awesome when a player crushes on maps in which they are not "supposed" to win? i'm thinking of some of the zerg games on steppes.
|
On December 01 2010 14:53 Plexa wrote:
People aren't complaining that Steppes and other bad Zerg maps are being used, we can accept someone getting a bad draw. But when every single Zerg except Moon has a poor set of maps then that starts raising eyebrows - especially with a Moon vs Boxer clash immanent should both advance.
Well if we do the math out...
Say the maps are like this...
+2 Scrap Station
+1 Shakuras, Xel Naga
+0 Metal, Blistering Sands
-1 LT (I'd say LT is +0 ZvP, but I'll simplify just because I'm lazy).
-2 Jungle Basin, Steppes of War, Delta Quadrant.
If we pick 3 maps at random we have.... 84 combinations of selected maps (ignoring order)
30 of those have 1 (-2) map and rest 0+.
15 have 1 (-1) map and 1 (-2) map.
15 have 2 (-2) maps and rest 0+.
3 have 1 (-1) map and 2 (-2) maps.
1 has three (-2) maps.
So if you agree with my map ranking you have...
64/84 = 76% chance for a map pool with at least one (-2) map in it.
34/84 = 40% chance for a map pool that has at least 2 zerg unfavored maps.
As you can see it's pretty damn likely for the resulting pool to not favor zerg at all. In reality there's a bunch you'd change in my calculations, but it should be ballpark-close-enough to get the point across. Assuming I didn't screw up my probability calculations by a ton.
If you go with any one of the 3 -2 maps being a bad draw then it's not unreasonable at all for 11/12 players to draw poorly when they have a 76% chance of drawing poorly.
|
Junnka says he built a box to draw shuffled paper slips for maps, and I believe him. I have no reason not to. Another post roughly translated in the GSL Boxer thread suggests they may have also used a random number generating Excel program.
But regardless of whether they use Junnka's box, or a computer program, or count how many times a rabbit twitches its nose, if it's not drawn in a way that players and spectators are given witness to it, the result could be tampered with.
This is especially troublesome as players can no longer veto maps this season in any round, stated to broaden the variety of maps played. However this can put many players out of their comfort zones, and as Jinro says, sometimes even better players cannot overcome the map they play on no matter who you are.
The general chances above seem to suggest that a Zerg will get at least one bad map per round, but I do think that so far, many results in the tournament are more skill based, with the more experienced players winning, regardless of maps.
|
Isn't the real problem more like "There are just way more maps that favor TvZ than ZvT", or further and generally, "Maps that "favor" Zerg make for a fair game; maps that "favor" TvZ/PvZ make for an unfair game"? Isn't the real problem, then, that Zerg is underpowered with the current map pool?
|
Guys, really? even more rigging comments?  Really the maps are bad, but blizzard has serious issues, if they introduce "tournament" maps, then no competitive players will play ladder(without tournament maps), and therefore alot of statistics will be f'd up. and if tournament maps are in ladder, then alot of casuals won't play, f'ing up their sales.
I know i might open up Junkka's Box by saying this, but, Protosses need to chill out about their race being UP, at least until we see how protoss strategy evolves, it's been pretty damn stagnant outside of PvP for months and months, it's about time they start failing and have to rethink strategies (as zerg did post roach nerf, and how terran did when tanks got nerfed).
Also the quality of T's in this tournament is really shockingly awful. alot of them only all in, and because of that trend, alot of T's don't play for the late game, and therefore get beat badly then, and therefore all in alot, and really thats kind of showing in the quality of play, alot of the T's dropping early to non T's because of the all ins failing vs better players. Alot of T's got in solely based on this play
|
On December 01 2010 14:53 Plexa wrote:
People aren't complaining that Steppes and other bad Zerg maps are being used, we can accept someone getting a bad draw. But when every single Zerg except Moon has a poor set of maps then that starts raising eyebrows - especially with a Moon vs Boxer clash immanent should both advance.
This is exactly like I see it.
|
well the 2nd reason i kind of get. but it hopefully change in future...
the 3rd explanation i do not get at all. better: i do not get why people are complainig bout the maps beeing always the same...
|
On December 01 2010 17:08 leo23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 14:53 Plexa wrote:
People aren't complaining that Steppes and other bad Zerg maps are being used, we can accept someone getting a bad draw. But when every single Zerg except Moon has a poor set of maps then that starts raising eyebrows - especially with a Moon vs Boxer clash immanent should both advance. This is exactly like I see it.
The problem is that you act like it is an impossible event.
According to the math being done around here, it is actually PROBABLE that this situation would happen:
On December 01 2010 05:22 Zocat wrote:About the "map rigging". Let's look at ZvT. Total amount of maps? 9. Total amount of "unfair" maps? 4 (Steppes, Delta, LT, Jungle). Mathstuff: + Show Spoiler +
(x y) means (x over y):
There is a total number of mapcombinations: (9 3) = 84
#possibilities of getting 3 "bad" maps - (4 3) * (5 0) = 4 * 1
#possibilities of getting 2 "bad" maps - (4 2) *(5 1) = 6 * 5
#possibilities of getting 1 "bad" map - (4 1) * (5 2) = 4 * 10
#possibilities of getting 0 "bad" maps - (4 0) * (5 3) = 1 * 10
Chances:
3 bad maps: 4/84
2 bad maps: 30/84
1 bad map: 40/84
0 bad maps: 10/84
Now for the GSL3
It's Zergname - Terranname - number of bad maps for zerg
RO64:
Nestea - Syj - 1
jookToJung - LittleBoy - 0
Sleep - Maka - 2
DreamizEr - Rain 1
NewDawn - Rainbow - 1
Haypro - BitByBit - 0
Kyrix - JSL - 2
NEXLine - Foxer - 2
Leenock - Clide - 2
ST_Max - Hyperdub - 1
Zenio - alive - 2
NsP.Joon - Polt - 1
Drug - Jinro - 2
Moon - ButterflyEffect - 1
Check - NEXDestinatino - 2
RO32:
NewDawn - BitByBit - 1
Fruitdealer - sCfOu - 2
Ret - TheBestfOu - 2
Monster - Foxer - 3
July - aLivefOu - 2
That's a total of 20 matches.
3 bad maps: 1
2 bad maps: 10
1 bad map: 7
0 bad maps: 2
Now let's compare the "perfect" distribution vs "real" distribution: 3 bad maps: 4.8% vs 5% 2 bad maps: 35.7% vs 50% 1 bad map: 47.6% vs 35% 0 bad maps: 11.9% vs 10% Sorry - this doesnt looks rigged towards certain players for me. Sure they could rig every map selection so it evens out at the end - but _really_? It looks so bad for Z in ZvT, because people consider ~50% (44%) of the available maps bad. Not because of the mapselection. About Boxer (ignoring the fact that they seed the Top4 in different brackets): Chances of TvT in RO64 GSL2: 23/63 = 36% Chances of TvT in RO64 GSL3: 27/63 = 43% Getting TvT in both RO64: 15% It's not really that unlikely. But an interesting fact (edit): They said they put the Top4 in different brackets. That changed from GSL2 to GSL3. Top4 in GSL1 was Rainbow, Cool, Ensare, NEXLiveForever But in GSL2 Ensnare & Cool where in the same bracket - they could meet in RO8.
|
Canada11377 Posts
2) Why not use custom maps? Because GSL is open tournament and people without team can only practice on ladder. Of course it is possible to distribute custom maps through homepage but sadly not all SC2 players watch GSL. I do not think Blizzard will approve it anyway.
First, really unfortunate that people are accusing GOMTV of map rigging. But for this second part- the obvious limitation is that maps have to be hosted on profile rather than the old downloads.
However, I do think that if the GSL starts using certain maps, the popularity of tournament will filter through the starcraft community. Anyone that watches the GSL will start playing those maps which should bump up the maps on the popularity system. (Which is rather terrible.) It seems to work that way on iCCup- when I first tried out iCCup a few years back Python and Andromeda were the maps to play. Now, Python remains a mainstay, but the other half of the maps seem to be Fighting Spirit.
If the community sees it played at a high level, I think ought to be played more often in custom, discussed in the strategy section and generally diffuse throughout the community.
But not having a map pack is a real nuisance.
|
From the interview with David Kim found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417
+ Show Spoiler +Q. Some people are disappointed at how short the matches are.
A. We think this is a problem with the maps. StarCraft 1 (probably typo, means SC2) was developed with to balance the game through the maps. We had match duration for broadcasting in mind, but we made the maps diverse for Ladder play so that a player would, in, say, 10 games, get to play a vareity of games, such as getting rushed early, playing 10 minute games and 40 minute games and so on. I think it would be a good idea for the hosts of the tournaments to make maps of their own. When you're on the ladder, however, you should inevitably get a variety of matches.
It seems blizzard agrees the map are crap for tournaments  . I really think GomTV should talk to blizzard on how to adress this issue. The creation of good maps constantly is so important for SC2 to stay interesting in the long run. Blizzard said they might make seperate ladders for certain custom maps. Maybe they can make one for tournament maps?
|
They should just add Chatchannels and the Ladders importance will dimish --> Customgames and witht hem Maps will become more "standard" --> Game will be better.
For the 3 GSL's now, which are basically qualifiers, it would in deed be stupid to not use the Laddermaps... But to totally randomize them was just a stupid move.
|
On December 01 2010 17:13 nehl wrote:
well the 2nd reason i kind of get. but it hopefully change in future...
the 3rd explanation i do not get at all. better: i do not get why people are complainig bout the maps beeing always the same...
About the 3rd. People don't like repetitiveness because it's boring. When u see 50 games on 1 map and not on the others everyone will start questioning whether a game on that other map that no one plays is exciting even though the progamers already know those maps are disadvantageous because of map structure for their respective races.
So I get why they remove the veto but it's also not a good time to do this at the moment. Currently there are more maps that favor Terrans than Zerg and with the veto out the Terran players already have a little advantage just by map structure.
It would've been best if they did it with a balanced map pool that favours all 3 races. Eventually u will have to play all the maps anyways so GOM's decision on starting early with no veto is good but not thought through. I don't blame them because they are very helpfull to the foreign scene and they listen to the feedback some people give to them.
People will always find ways to complain about GOM but GOM as mannerfull as they are always respond to these complaints. It hurts me to see that the negative complaints actually get to them. I can see some guy complaining and asking others and make accounts himself to spam complaints about GOM so they change stuff.
GOM should just ignore these complaints and maybe some kind of organisation (that new KeSPA 2.0?) should talk about complaints to GOM. We can't have 1 guy everytime he thinks something is suspicious (this is the 3rd or 4th time already?) or finds something wrong at GOM to make a thread and then a billion people agreeing/disagreeing about this and then GOM explaining everything everytime. This new organisation should have that responsibility to express the opinion of the public and the players.
But this should not just go for complaints but also for things that could improve their leagues by some kind of guide so this new player organisation could work together with GOM about running a better tournament that is player and spectator friendly.
|
3) Why did we get rid of veto system? I remember viewers including many of you here complaining it was boring to see matches played on same maps over and over again. Also in the final it is best out of 7 and best of 5 in ro8&4 so players will eventually have to get confident on maps they do not like.
THIS is the reason you got rid of the veto system? Yay map variety but imbalanced matches?
On December 01 2010 17:30 Gnarg wrote:From the interview with David Kim found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417+ Show Spoiler +Q. Some people are disappointed at how short the matches are.
A. We think this is a problem with the maps. StarCraft 1 (probably typo, means SC2) was developed with to balance the game through the maps. We had match duration for broadcasting in mind, but we made the maps diverse for Ladder play so that a player would, in, say, 10 games, get to play a vareity of games, such as getting rushed early, playing 10 minute games and 40 minute games and so on. I think it would be a good idea for the hosts of the tournaments to make maps of their own. When you're on the ladder, however, you should inevitably get a variety of matches. It seems blizzard agrees the map are crap for tournaments . I really think GomTV should talk to blizzard on how to adress this issue. The creation of good maps constantly is so important for SC2 to stay interesting in the long run. Blizzard said they might make seperate ladders for certain custom maps. Maybe they can make one for tournament maps?
I'd take map balance over "variety" any day.
|
I would like to see this stupid box , not that i think they are riging it just for fun..
|
On December 01 2010 14:53 Plexa wrote:
People aren't complaining that Steppes and other bad Zerg maps are being used, we can accept someone getting a bad draw. But when every single Zerg except Moon has a poor set of maps then that starts raising eyebrows - especially with a Moon vs Boxer clash immanent should both advance.
I have to say, without reading this thread or any other(this was the first i actually heard of it on here anyway) i actually thought the same after seeing the matchups/brackets and maps.
While I'm not saying its intentional, the current map process stinks, i would love to see the 2 veto map system brought back.
|
The box is killing me....
Random generators are the way.
EDIT.
Since GOM wants and IS the main force of SC2 in korea they should make their own balanced maps for the GSL (the same way KESPA did for SC:BW). And hopefully at lest 60% of this maps would be macro maps so we will get longer games. I still like quick games since most of the time they have insane micro involved but some better games are macro games. Good example Dreamhack finals game 3 and 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
