EPTImagine Idra sitting there chanting "Not steppes, not jungle--> Shakuras plzzzzzzz" ahaha
[GSL] John: The truth behind the maps - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
Imagine Idra sitting there chanting "Not steppes, not jungle--> Shakuras plzzzzzzz" ahaha | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
Custom maps well, due to the nature of SC2-battle.net dynamics and bnet being pretty much the only platform to play regularly on, it's really not the best idea to get in some weird maps nobody can see or play on regularly. I'm pretty sure that it will only be ladder maps (whichever maps those may be in the future) we'll see in major tournaments. But I will not agree on the no-veto thing. That decision was just weird and unnecessary. Some people may have mentioned that a few maps were played all the time, but I honestly can't remember any outspoken complaints about that at least on TL. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Who can we trust if not John the translator guy... | ||
|
scDeluX
Canada1341 Posts
| ||
|
SoftSoap
United States170 Posts
| ||
|
Cyanocyst
2222 Posts
However i think the most ideal system that balances the benefits of the both, would be to allow 1 veto per player. I mean theirs 9 possible maps, and 2 will be vetoed, so their is still a randomized draw of 7 maps. Sure players could still get a bad draw, However at least every player won't have to play on their least favorite map vs a particular race. | ||
|
tyrless
United States485 Posts
The maps are fine, some maps are better than others for a "free" early expo but that is a privilege not a right. The matches WERE getting stale with the same few maps being played every time, the variety has been great and I hope they stick with the new system since we've had some great games on the allegedly imba maps...obviously the imba complaint over maps like Steppes is unjustified when Fruitdealer, Idra, etc are winning standard games with early hatches. Clearly the whiners want to have 5 sets of mineral patches in the main, no ramps/chokes, all same-level and wide open terrain, and anything less is "hard". Good to see they aren't really considering custom maps, keeps the tournament legit if they stick to the official pool. Anybody saying the map drawings should be "public" need to go laugh at themselves in a mirror because they are clowning...get a grip. | ||
|
applejuice
307 Posts
/sarcasm But, if you actually watch the tournament, the actual players have made Artosis eat his words over and over. It would be very very interested if someone could compile some statistics on the W/L of the different matchups on the different maps in the GSL. Easily done, albeit a little tedious. And I would also put my vote forth for warning / banning those who talk about any process in the GSL being rigged. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On December 02 2010 03:16 PredY wrote: it's funny that blizzard encourages tournament admins to use custom maps but tournament admins don't want to do that because "players can't practise on those" because they are not in the ladder mappack. someone needs to make the first step really.. Blizzard is more concerned for their casual audience who wants "variety" i.e. this map sucks, this maps ok, and this map is balanced. It would be cool if GOM went ahead with their own custom map pool if Blizzard put their maps on the ladder. They are partners in all of this afterall, right? I rather like the idea of seperate ladder pools that we can choose. This might have the effect of splitting the community, but so as long as they keep it to maybe just standard Blizzard ladder pool and GOM ladder pool then I don't think it'd be an issue. It's apparent they are too lazy to design new maps for us. I suppose they gave us a map editor for a reason. So we're SOL until someone does take that first step. | ||
|
Sumwar
Canada199 Posts
| ||
|
Proto_Protoss
United States495 Posts
| ||
|
Raisauce
Canada864 Posts
On December 02 2010 04:16 SoftSoap wrote: They can do what they want, its their prize pool. Is it really our job to enter for free and get a fortune of money, and also tell them how we would like it? It's there set up, we have to adapt, not modify their rules. You don't like GOMtv rules, then don't go... Amazing prize pools and competetive tournaments like this, means players should be amazingly good, and maps shouldn't effect their play that much. Without us, the viewers, they would not be able to attain sponsors. Without sponsors, they would not be able to have that prize pool. So at the end of the day GOMtv relies on THE VIEWERS to support its tournament. If enough viewers aren't satisfied with the way its running then they'll simply stop watching which would lead to GOMtv losing its sponsors. I doubt that would ever happen though. Still, my point is that we have every right to give criticism and suggestions on how they should run their tournament. | ||
|
NotTheMonker
United States131 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:14 ohnoGG wrote: 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. Yeah, here is the quote from a Korean commentator's response(translated) to the map rigging allegations. It states that random numbers corresponding to maps are generated with Excel. Also there are rumors regarding map selection. We finish up the schedule, then have excel generate a random number between 1 and 9, and had a corresponding map for each number, such as Steppes for 1, Blistering for 2, Jungle Basin for 3, etc. Some people don't seem to like that players from the same guild ended up meeting each other, but if we did the redrawing to avoid that, wouldn't that really be rigging? Perhaps this is a mistranslation, but if it is not, then claiming to randomize the numbers in two different ways hurts the credibility of GOM's claim of true randomness. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1061446/GSL3Maps.png) This is a chart of all the maps used so far in the GSL, including those already picked for RO16 games. Two are missing (Gumiho and July game 3 maps) because they weren't listed in Liquipedia and I couldn't be bothered to look for them. But that's 2 Game 3 maps. You will notice in the bottom right chart, which collates all the maps used in all the rounds up to now, that some maps are over-represented, while others appear less often, e.g. 14.3% Xel'Naga vs 7.8% Blistering Sands. Most of the others are fairly close to where you would expect given perfect random distribution (which would be 11.1111%). The charts show which map was used for which game. You will notice in the bottom right chart again that most maps are evenly distributed, those which appear least are Xel'Naga and Scrap Station. Steppes and Xel'Naga appear heavily in Game 2 selections, while Steppes hardly features in Game 3, but overall it is at 11.04%, which is almost perfect. The weighting is just heavily to early games rather than the final game. Is that rigging, or chance? Blistering Sands shows an even more skewed distribution towards being a Game 1 map, while Xel'Naga Caverns is most often Game 2 or Game 3. Lost Temple and Jungle Basin feature as G1 or G3, while Delta Quadrant and Metalopolis have almost perfect distribution between G1, G2 and G3. Hopefully this chart might inform discussion, and show how often maps feature in different rounds of matchups, as well as how often they feature overall. It does seem pretty random to me. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t9Pd3t62vqAn8JnbEaeIeDg&hl=en&authkey=CIa2pIUD#gid=0 Here's the spreadsheet if anyone wants to copy or play around with it. Yellow = what I think are the maps for the final RO16, but I guess translated from Korean by matching names with what's confirmed from other matchups. They are hopefully right though, but may be off by 1. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On December 02 2010 04:16 SoftSoap wrote: They can do what they want, its their prize pool. Is it really our job to enter for free and get a fortune of money, and also tell them how we would like it? It's there set up, we have to adapt, not modify their rules. You don't like GOMtv rules, then don't go... Amazing prize pools and competetive tournaments like this, means players should be amazingly good, and maps shouldn't effect their play that much. I think this sums up just how little most people know about this game. Maps are the SINGLE, BIGGEST factor to match up balance. Bad maps are bad regardless of the players playing on them. Try playing English Premier League soccer inside a high-school gym. That would be the same as forcing top-level pros to play on Blizzard's maps especially for so much money. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
| ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
On December 02 2010 05:35 Leviwtf wrote: Given the small sample size that seems perfectly within how a random distribution would look like. The first 2 matches (for say steppes) accounting for 88 of the total games played on it? Not really. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On December 02 2010 04:55 Sumwar wrote: These pro players play in team houses and using custom maps made by GOMTV would help deal with the crappy maps. Not all of them do. Besides, decisions in favor of Korean pro teams and shutting off the semi-pro or aspiring pro players (especially foreigners) who still practice mostly on ladder aren't something I'm willing to support. I definitely don't want SC2 scene to go the same path BW scene did. Besides, I'm not really sure that custom maps of the sort people want to see (such as a remake of BW maps or bigger maps in general) really work with the dynamics of SC2. The entire game was and is intentionally being balanced around smaller map size and shorter games. I'm not sure you can ever magically turn it into a BW-style macro mode without further unbalancing the game. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
Coincidence is funny, people will allways speculate just because theyre bored, even if no riggedness, it will allways just pass time and seem suspicious | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On December 02 2010 05:46 Talin wrote: Not all of them do. Besides, decisions in favor of Korean pro teams and shutting off the semi-pro or aspiring pro players (especially foreigners) who still practice mostly on ladder aren't something I'm willing to support. I definitely don't want SC2 scene to go the same path BW scene did. Besides, I'm not really sure that custom maps of the sort people want to see (such as a remake of BW maps or bigger maps in general) really work with the dynamics of SC2. The entire game was and is intentionally being balanced around smaller map size and shorter games. I'm not sure you can ever magically turn it into a BW-style macro mode without further unbalancing the game. That problem partly goes away when you get to next years GSL setup, where many games will be played by a pre-selected pool of players, rather than having an open tournament. They could introduce at least some custom maps. | ||
| ||
