|
From john on the gomtv.net forums
http://www.gomtv.net/2010gslopens3/forum/6367
On December 01 2010 Junnka wrote:
I am getting tired of being accused that we rig the maps. Here are some facts.
1) I know nobody will believe me but maps are picked randomly. I spent 20 minutes building this stupid box in which we put papers with map names and draw them out. We take turns to draw the papers and also make sure it is properly mixed after drawing. It is very dull process but we do not complain. Please do not mention math because chance of winning lottery is about same chance as getting struck by lightening few times yet in reality people still win lotteries.
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.
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.
I'm kinda sad that people are accusing gomtv of fixing maps. I think this is very clear and is a great explination of what is going on.
|
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.
|
I honestly thought that both brackets and maps were selected to encourage entertaining games and help certain players advance.
Hearing this from John though I am confident that the maps are indeed random.
Also lol @ I spent 20 minutes building this stupid box in which we put papers with map names and draw them out.
|
I don't believe people are upset that gom rigged the maps for a certain race; more like blizzard rigged the maps for certain races and the fact that you can't veto really sucks.
The no veto system is the complaint really, and this doesn't actually address it convincingly at all.
|
Agreed. I can't stand it when any slightly unlikely thing happens (either in SC or anywhere else in the world) and immediately people are creating conspiracy theory scenarios.
Everyone wants to feel smarter than the rest of the world, and act like they know about all this hidden secretive stuff going on behind the scenes... except none of it actually exists. It gets old.
|
They should stream (with a webcam, not the big stuff) the map drawing things :D
|
if the really want to put it to rest all they have to do is say we are doing it 7:00 tomorrow players are welcome to show up and watch. Im sure Idra would show up
|
humans are stupid. this is like someone praying to god for rain and then it happens to rain, so obviously god is real instead of sometimes it rains
|
In the end the only thing i disagree with is the map selection for the qualifiers. I feel that if scrap station was not in the map pool there would be a lot more protoss in the tournament. What they could do for the qualifiers is choose 5 maps in a specific order and then before the game starts each players chooses 1 map from the pool to remove.
|
At least map imbalances will be more commonly seen and Blizzard will have to do something.
Your maps suck and are small and boring Blizzard. Sad but true.
|
I don't like #2. GSL is the centerpiece of competitive sc2, if they don't use custom maps then who will? Only other answer is blizzard (and we dont like them  ).
|
If you draw maps, why not film it? It's 2010, everything can be on camera.
|
Well since the majority of blizzard maps arent good, if chosen randomly, chances are likely that the map pool will be imbalanced, thus gom doesn't rig the maps, its just a high probability that the map pool will be garbage when chosen randomly.
|
I don't think anyone with any common sense actually thought GOM was rigging which maps were selected, but removing the ability to veto is making all the various map imbalances plain to see and most people don't like it.
|
LOL it's pretty funny how he builds a box to draw the names, you'd think they'd have a random map generator program or something but no it's a box ... ahha, so awesome
|
lol I want to see a picture of the box.
In my mind it is either like 1 of 2 things. This perfectly constructed magnificent box with great SC fan art all around it, or a complete POS shoebox with construction paper taped to it.
What I can't figure out is if 20 minutes is a really short amount of time to make a great box, or actually a really long amount of time.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
There are two issues here. The first is that people got bored of seeing the same maps again and again. The second is that plenty of the maps are unfair to one of the players. There's a simple solution to both problems.
Build better maps. This will come with time, but seeing as how map balance might've been the single most integral component to BW balance, it's amazing that they haven't gotten together some people to start developing an actual map pool that is fun to watch, and not ridiculously favored to one player or another. I really hope they get on that now and start making up for lost time. Every time we see a zerg die on DQ to a tank on the ridge, it's honestly a blow to the credibility of the tournament.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 01 2010 05:22 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 00:47 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On December 01 2010 00:41 Krallin wrote:
Any tournament organizer does this purposefully, you do not want to have name players kicking each other out in the RO64.
The fact is that they don't have meaningful rankings at the moment, so they're forced to really on information like Boxer saying his best MU is TvT.
Once they do have rankings, brackets will probably be determined using them (because this way, they will provide the most interesting/entertaining/uncertain games).
You don't see Nadal playing Federer in the first round of any tennis tournament, do you?
Tennis seeding is based on past performance while GSL seeding is based on what will get the most viewers. And now we take a look at the WC 2010 South Africa seeding. South Africa - the host nation - gets a better seed disregarding their past performance. Is the FIFA rigging the brackets? 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.
If you read this post, you wouldn't think GomTV would rig the maps anyway...the problem is that:
It looks so bad for Z in ZvT, because people consider ~50% (44%) of the available maps bad. Not because of the mapselection.
|
Maps are fine. Boxes OP.
Conspiracy theorists are going: "Ah Ha! They're obviously creasing the Steppes of War sheet. Creasing imba! Use colored balls."
|
On December 01 2010 11:28 darmousseh wrote:
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.
Silly GomTV, listening to feedback from StarCraft fans. If I've learned anything from the Beta, it's that we will always, always find a way to complain.
|
Thanks John for taking time and addressing the issues 
As for me, the only thing I thought wasn't entirely random were the brackets and the spread of players
After this OP, I can almost assume I'm right or it would have been addressed as well
|
It would be funny if Blizzard made balanced maps and then found out that all their previous patch changes were unnecessary and f-ed up the game. Terran imba was all caused by the shitty rush distances and cliffs. Zerg just needed more space. And Protoss could get scouted in plenty of time before being able to abuse zealot or void ray rushes.
|
On December 01 2010 Junnka wrote:
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.
Wait a minute, they removed the vetos because they didn't want to have the same maps over and over again, only to end up with season 3 where we're seeing the same maps over and over again?
If that was their concern, and I don't doubt that they did the paper box thing, after seeing that "hey, it looks like we have steppes of war, oh, only every match ever", why not just remove certain maps from the box during some picks just to diversify it up a little?
Or why not just do a rotating list thing so that every map sees play, since that was their intent anyways.
|
I suspect that there is a mid-ground between no vetoes and two vetoes..
Maybe that is a better solution?
|
Random ?How come every match is pretty much the same. I mean, New Dawn, Ret, FD all have steppes of war ?
|
On December 01 2010 Junnka wrote:
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.
I sure hope Blizzard wouldnt be that lame.
edit: I cant believe enough people accused them of map fixing that they needed to say this.
|
On December 01 2010 12:18 Krigwin wrote:
If that was their concern, and I don't doubt that they did the paper box thing, after seeing that "hey, it looks like we have steppes of war, oh, only every match ever", why not just remove certain maps from the box during some picks just to diversify it up a little?
Or why not just do a rotating list thing so that every map sees play, since that was their intent anyways.
I agree about rotations. If however, they decided to remove certain maps during some picks - it wouldn't be random and that would guarantee people gaining fodder for 'Why did Moon have Steppes removed from the box against Jinro' and all that.
|
well to be fair people complain about almost all of the maps lol. especially regarding TvZ so the whole thing is amplified.
Steppes - Z complain
LT - Z complain
DQ - Z complain
Scrap - T complain
Meta close - Z complain
Meta far away - T complain ( slightly)
Shakuras - alright pretty neutral
Xelnaga- not much complain except maybe PvZ a little
So people basically only doesnt complain when the map pool is xelnaga shakuras metal.
|
On December 01 2010 12:19 hitman133 wrote:
Random ?How come every match is pretty much the same. I mean, New Dawn, Ret, FD all have steppes of war ?
Random doesn't mean automatic equal distribution, especially given the small data set. Even an octopus can get lucky and pick the winning soccer team 10 times in a row.
Plus, it's obviously a crooked box.
|
I always felt accusations made were stupid and baseless. gsl is the biggest tourney there is in korea and with the esports culture so big there the integrity of sc tournaments is going to be pretty high.thanks to john also for posting that.
|
On December 01 2010 11:34 Reason.SC2 wrote:Also lol @ Show nested quote +I spent 20 minutes building this stupid box in which we put papers with map names and draw them out.
This made me smile too
|
John is an awesome guy, but the reason for not using custom BALANCED maps is a total cop-out. Does anyone really want to watch GSL 5 months down the road using blistering sands and steppes of war because Blizzard takes too long to update their pool, just like with WC3? NO.
GOM needs to take the next step forward: hire the profesional map-makers responsible for creating BW maps used in OGN/MBC/Kespa tournaments and leagues. If GOM is unsure whether this will be allowed by Blizzard then they need to open that discussion up with them. Having an assumption of the matter will not be an excuse in the future.
I also am unable to understand the worry that using non-Blizzard maps will somehow give an advantage to players on teams. As long as the map is available on bnet for everyone to use and players are made aware of the map's use in GSL tournaments, all players will practice on it. With over 3000 people competing and other players just wanting balanced maps it should not be difficult at all to find ways to get practice.
|
Thanks john!!! Junkka is the business real talk, I love that guy.
Like I said in the Boxer forum thread... people are just so paranoid on these forums. and its incredibly annoying because there's always some conspiracy theory going on with tons of ignorant posts.
|
On December 01 2010 12:19 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 Junnka wrote:
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.
I sure hope Blizzard wouldnt be that lame. edit: I cant believe enough people accused them of map fixing that they needed to say this.
I'm pretty sure David Kim said that the ladder maps werent ment for tournaments and that if they wanted to use custom maps for tournaments they didn't really care.
|
Junkka rules, haters gonna hate.
|
On December 01 2010 12:24 dtz wrote:
well to be fair people complain about almost all of the maps lol. especially regarding TvZ so the whole thing is amplified.
Steppes - Z complain
LT - Z complain
DQ - Z complain
Scrap - T complain
Meta close - Z complain
Meta far away - T complain ( slightly)
Shakuras - alright pretty neutral
Xelnaga- not much complain except maybe PvZ a little
So people basically only doesnt complain when the map pool is xelnaga shakuras metal.
Maybe that's what they should be playing then. Everyone playing the same 3 maps, it would seem balanced to everyone. You could argue that it may turn out to be boring, but hey if players can't come up with their own innovative plays after playing on a map for so long, then it's the fault of the game.
Are people tired of watching Pathfinder->Gladiator->Aztec on OSL? Don't think so. Sure, there are imba comments, but everyone is playing on a level playing field - they cannot be accused of map rigging. Also, PL recently took Central Plains out of their map pool because every game on it turned out to be a PvP, it's not that hard to change your map rotation if it heavily favors a certain race.
I think it would be beneficial to e-sports if Blizzard did something about their maps if GSL only played 3-4 of the current ladder maps citing imbalance as the reason for not using the rest. It might spur a more active map making process from Blizzard - that is what we want yes? Also it would change the state of the solo ladder - Iccup users have the privilege to play on the same map cycle as the pros - with it changing every few months.
To everyone saying the other thread should have been closed: Isn't it great that we got a response from GOM? At least they acknowledge it and are doing something about it - it helps.
PS - He seems pissed about having to make a box. Could stick a bunch of Mutas on it and be like magic box magic box.
|
On December 01 2010 12:34 Pawshter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 12:19 Mastermind wrote:On December 01 2010 Junnka wrote:
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.
I sure hope Blizzard wouldnt be that lame. edit: I cant believe enough people accused them of map fixing that they needed to say this. I'm pretty sure David Kim said that the ladder maps werent ment for tournaments and that if they wanted to use custom maps for tournaments they didn't really care.
He might mean Blizzard Korea
|
I think the veto system is a band-aid fix for the terrible maps. I think the way they have it now is fine................................................... if some of the maps didn't suck total donkey dick. If the map pool consisted of 7-11 fair balanced maps, then I think the random thing would be fine.
|
On December 01 2010 12:32 setzer wrote:
John is an awesome guy, but the reason for not using custom BALANCED maps is a total cop-out. Does anyone really want to watch GSL 5 months down the road using blistering sands and steppes of war because Blizzard takes too long to update their pool, just like with WC3? NO.
GOM needs to take the next step forward: hire the profesional map-makers responsible for creating BW maps used in OGN/MBC/Kespa tournaments and leagues. If GOM is unsure whether this will be allowed by Blizzard then they need to open that discussion up with them. Having an assumption of the matter will not be an excuse in the future.
I also am unable to understand the worry that using non-Blizzard maps will somehow give an advantage to players on teams. As long as the map is available on bnet for everyone to use and players are made aware of the map's use in GSL tournaments, all players will practice on it. With over 3000 people competing and other players just wanting balanced maps it should not be difficult at all to find ways to get practice.
Only the first 3 GSL is Open. They have said that for the future GSLs they are looking towards having custom maps, hopefully balanced ones. So hopefully they'll get that sorted out.
But it's understandable that for Open tournaments, they have to use ladder maps because it's so much harder for people who does not have teams to practice customs and the open tournament is supposed to give fair chance to everyone. InControl says IdrA practices mainly on the ladder as well. c4rn, everyone else who trains in PC Bang won't be able to find adequate practice.
|
I do not think Blizzard will approve it anyway.
that's such a shame. why isn't blizzard supporting sc2 / esports like they always claim they will and cough up some new maps or at least commission some? their logo is all over the gom tv studios... apart from the game and the licence, why can't they contribute more?
Great 3 points by John. esp the last 1. Its really bad to see the same maps being played over and over.
|
i freaking love john
no one reads the forums on gom, much less posts, I love that he takes the time to give answers
|
Love you John, thanks for informing us
|
I see no problem in getting rid of the veto system. If they are truly the best player, they can still win, right?
|
Love Junkka and his works for esports.
Blizzard should introduce more balanced maps so there will be less conspiracy theory and more map variations.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 01 2010 13:14 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I see no problem in getting rid of the veto system. If they are truly the best player, they can still win, right?
Complete bullshit ;/ You can be a better player but still not be so much better that you can overcome a hueg imbalance.
|
Nerf the drawing-box. It is clearly a T player
|
I always thought the map problem is more of blizzard fault not gomtv. However i would love to see map veto option brought back.
If blizzard fixed up the currents maps or released some new more balanced maps we wouldn't be having this discussion.
A prime example is, I as many thought WTF when they saw ST_Monsters map lineup vs MarineKing(Foxer).
|
On December 01 2010 13:39 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 13:14 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I see no problem in getting rid of the veto system. If they are truly the best player, they can still win, right? Complete bullshit ;/ You can be a better player but still not be so much better that you can overcome a hueg imbalance.
Jinro fighting!
Here's what Im curious about though... If a map is Zerg favored... then it is unbalanced(Scrap station, cross metal), if it's Zerg unfavored, then it is also unbalanced. I feel like maps and people's approach to them are from a zerg standpoint, and it appears from GSL when Artosis and Tasteless talk about maps, they talk about it from a zerg point of view.
From the top of my head, the only balanced map that stands out is Xel Naga caverns and Shakura plateau.
|
Whilst I do not feel strongly against the current system, I do think some of the reasons given here are shaky at best.
For example, it was cited that since in the finals players won't be able to veto maps, that all players shouldn't be able to from the beginning. However since many earlier rounds are BO3, players won't have other maps to fall back on like in a BO7. This is the luck factor involved that players have been complaining about.
Citing viewer complaint in a case like this is also unconvincing. I understand that GOM is trying to incorporate community feedback to improve as much as possible, but in an issue like this, people are going to complain no matter what. More consultation with players should have occurred and discussions held before a major decision like this is made.
Also as GSL starting next year won't be open tournaments, does that mean we can expect to see some custom maps?
|
no let's NOT play on non-ladder maps. most people only play on ladder maps... let alone practice on random 3rd party maps, watching games on maps we can relate to is much better.
|
John is a stud, for taking the time to answer questions like this. The logic is all there in what he gave us. Sure people can always argue that it could be ran this way or that. Irony is, the fans almost encouraged them to do it this way, minus eliminating the veto system.
Blizzard is making decent maps, and continue removing and adding new ones to the ladder pool. I don't think GOM will ever branch to the custom map area. The maps would become hard to distribute and the players probably wouldn't get as much practice on them as they would like.
The game is still fairly new, maybe here soon we will see the progamers realize that a 15 hatch opening on Steppes isn't the greatest idea.
|
On December 01 2010 12:24 dtz wrote:
So people basically only doesnt complain when the map pool is xelnaga shakuras metal.
And not surprisingly those are the only 3 maps worth playing. The rest need to be tossed out and left to die in a fire.
By removing the veto system you imbalance the game in favor of the other races plain and simple. Sure there's A favored zerg map (Scrap), but there's also a Protoss auto-win (Jungle), Protoss favored maps (Steppes), and very favorable Terran maps (DQ, LT, Steppes).
So while it's not biasing the system in the sense of hand picking maps, you're almost sure to bias it against zerg given our current pool. It's not GOM's fault our map pool sucks so much, but they're now opting to exchange balanced maps for a wider map diversity. It's understandable, but it's still clear what the effect is going to be.
Given that you can't veto Zergs are really really lucky that there's almost no qualified protoss players.
I still <3 Junkka though.
EDIT:
Saying don't 15 hatch on Steppes is pretty ignorant. First off the game is reasonably balanced when zergs DO get to 15/14 hatch so playing on a map where that's not possible is immediately a little troublesome for zergs. Beyond that though it's not the opening that makes the map tough. It's the fact that certain pushes arrive much faster and 1 round of vomitted larva can make the difference between winning and losing. It's also the fact that you can't play as much of a pressure game to keep them from pushing. On a larger map you can harass and they can't move out without taking heavy losses. On Steppes it's much easier for the T/P to get into a position where they can force your units back to defend because they're right on top of your natural. That really changes the mid game dynamic for Zerg.
Besides Steppes isn't even really the worst map in the pool for zerg in many ways (Jungle ZvP is the worst imo).
|
Why don't we get a set of map makers band together and create a few custom map that are deemed balanced. A constant test cycles within the community, then submit it to major sites, promoting it on front pages. And most important of all, is putting them in our own tournaments.
Once it has become popular, Blizzard might add it into their map pool, then GSL will update as well. Everyone has to work together, maybe it's about time to do something ourself as a community, and not being a whiny bitch.
For example, I never played the ICCUP maps, but from what I heard, those maps aren't counted in the official ICCUP. How do you expect custom maps get popular without forcing them into tournaments and all, IMO everyone needs to take some responsibility, and don't expect Blizzard to baby feed you.
|
On December 01 2010 13:50 adeezy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 13:39 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 01 2010 13:14 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I see no problem in getting rid of the veto system. If they are truly the best player, they can still win, right? Complete bullshit ;/ You can be a better player but still not be so much better that you can overcome a hueg imbalance. Jinro fighting! Here's what Im curious about though... If a map is Zerg favored... then it is unbalanced(Scrap station, cross metal), if it's Zerg unfavored, then it is also unbalanced. I feel like maps and people's approach to them are from a zerg standpoint, and it appears from GSL when Artosis and Tasteless talk about maps, they talk about it from a zerg point of view. From the top of my head, the only balanced map that stands out is Xel Naga caverns and Shakura plateau.
Its because Zerg is the only race in which its attacking style is much different than the other races. This is in general, but when you talk about zerg you talk about SWARMS so they need large open maps. but for terran and protoss you always hear about the big unit BALL so they prefer smaller corridors and walls/cliffs etc.
Thats why I feel as if its easier to say Zerg favored/unfavored rather than specifically terran or protoss favored, because their styles can be similar.
|
On December 01 2010 13:50 adeezy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 13:39 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 01 2010 13:14 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I see no problem in getting rid of the veto system. If they are truly the best player, they can still win, right? Complete bullshit ;/ You can be a better player but still not be so much better that you can overcome a hueg imbalance. Jinro fighting! Here's what Im curious about though... If a map is Zerg favored... then it is unbalanced(Scrap station, cross metal), if it's Zerg unfavored, then it is also unbalanced. I feel like maps and people's approach to them are from a zerg standpoint, and it appears from GSL when Artosis and Tasteless talk about maps, they talk about it from a zerg point of view. From the top of my head, the only balanced map that stands out is Xel Naga caverns and Shakura plateau.
I understand what your saying and agree to a certain extent(artosis takes it overboard though) but take steppes of war for example - While this may sound silly, the unbalance towards zerg on this map is so much more then say unbalance towards terran on metro with on x-positions.
|
So we're never going to see custom maps used in the GSL? What the fuck?
|
On December 01 2010 14:23 theherder2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 13:50 adeezy wrote:On December 01 2010 13:39 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 01 2010 13:14 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I see no problem in getting rid of the veto system. If they are truly the best player, they can still win, right? Complete bullshit ;/ You can be a better player but still not be so much better that you can overcome a hueg imbalance. Jinro fighting! Here's what Im curious about though... If a map is Zerg favored... then it is unbalanced(Scrap station, cross metal), if it's Zerg unfavored, then it is also unbalanced. I feel like maps and people's approach to them are from a zerg standpoint, and it appears from GSL when Artosis and Tasteless talk about maps, they talk about it from a zerg point of view. From the top of my head, the only balanced map that stands out is Xel Naga caverns and Shakura plateau. Its because Zerg is the only race in which its attacking style is much different than the other races. This is in general, but when you talk about zerg you talk about SWARMS so they need large open maps. but for terran and protoss you always hear about the big unit BALL so they prefer smaller corridors and walls/cliffs etc. Thats why I feel as if its easier to say Zerg favored/unfavored rather than specifically terran or protoss favored, because their styles can be similar.
Terran and Protoss have more flexibility too because of their diverse units. If a map is narrow and full of chokes the Protoss can make more or less sentries to take advantage of that and a Terran can lean more on tanks. If a map is wide open a Terran may lean more on bio and drops while a Protoss might try to transition to HTs faster. For stuff like distances it may adjust what kind of timings you go for or how many sentries you feel you need. It matters, but not nearly as much as it does for zerg.
With Zerg you're choices aren't as distinct. An infestor is as good in the open as it is in a choke, roach/hydra/lings all want the same thing (open area), even banelings are wary of chokes. Likewise features like destructible rocks are nice, but can be walled off or FFed and the zerg needs to dig into its economy early on to really make an aggressive play that takes advantage of such features. Basically to take advantage of map features Terran and Protoss can skew their plan or composition slightly. As zerg any Terrain abuse leans more on coming up with a distinct and separate strategy.
So someone might think, hmmm why is Scrap Zerg favored then? Well from what I can tell the one really nice thing about scrap for zerg is they get an easy fast expo (long rush distance) while no other races do (wide ramps) and the same extends to their 3rd where it's easier for zerg to take and hold the 3rd than it is for other races due to it's position on the map.
|
John I would love to watch GSL everytime it's on but time is the biggest issue for myself.
|
I never really thought that any map fixing was going on but the fact is that a lot of the maps in the pool are garbage. Steppes of war and jungle basin in particular are garbage for zerg and it seems like most zergs are hitting one or both of them. I'd be in favor of bringing back the veto, maybe limit it to one veto instead of two if people are taking issue with too many maps being excluded but it's absurd that Ret has to play steppes and jungle in his series when both of those are maps that he would probably veto.
|
I spent 20 minutes building this stupid box
Hmmm, you don't like your creation? Stupid box? I don't think your building it right. Why don't you just go and buy a box? I'm sure the price of the box is worth less than your time.
BTW: Boxes are never stupid. I <3 Boxes, one used to be my room when I was a little kid but when I turned 10, my parents made me live in the living room. Hmmff
|
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.
|
Canada11349 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.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Well thanks for clearing it up. I was beginning to suspect something fishy was going on since Steppes just disappeared from Ro16 but i guess lightening does strike multiple times on the same coordinates. Oh and i understand why you removed the veto system but it's still a bad idea. Entertainment is important in any sports but it should never be prioritised over quality of play. Nonetheless, we appreciate your hard work.
|
Well it's good to know that they aren't fixing the maps, and it's really nice of John to release information like this to us, really shows that the e-sports is being taken seriously and that GomTV is caring.
|
Lol someone tell Junnka about random.org so we don't get one map way more often because one ripped slip of paper is bigger or more bent or sticky or something.
|
|
|
Well, I think if GOM wants to rid itself of the accusations then they should hold the bracket pairings and map draws in public
|
|
|
i cant see how viewers would prefer random maps over a veto system? what this does is give u alot of games that have less quality because some map-imballance is "abused". this doesnt make the game more interesting to watch.
|
I definitely don't believe maps were fixed but I also believe GomTV should take charge and make their own maps. It is a very high profile tournament so the excuse that ladder players won't be familiar won't apply. And if experience is a rule esports organizations can make better maps than Blizzard. They can release the maps to the teams before the seasons start, or even change it only every two seasons or something.
But watching the same maps over and over again gets boring. Even playing them does, but I guess that's up to Blizzard to fix.
|
Who the heck were the people that complained about having the same maps over and over again?
(The funny response would be: Terran players)
|
I'm glad GOM is forcing less favored maps to be played. Bliz will eventually make more maps and or custom maps will become more used.
Even if you don't like the way GOM is doing it... at least it is fair for all the players. No one is getting any sort of advantage by the random picking, doesn't matter what their race is. Because they had the same percentage to draw out Scrap Station for a Zerg as they did Lost Temple for a Terran, etc.
|
I'm actually kinda shocked that they thought the most efficient way to randomize something is through paper drawing from a box.
|
cant really blame gom for this
blizzard is the real bad guy here, they release all those stats about races/players doing well but dont give us shit on maps and haven't shown an incentive to fix/create/scrap maps (desert/kulas being the only exception here). Blizzard needs an active map making team that keeps in close touch with players/gom.
|
People are complaining about seeing the same maps over and over again, but they don't want to use ICCUP maps? By GSL 5, Blistering Sands will be old. You're going to need some way to introduce more maps.
|
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..
|
On December 02 2010 03:13 rackdude wrote:
People are complaining about seeing the same maps over and over again, but they don't want to use ICCUP maps? By GSL 5, Blistering Sands will be old. You're going to need some way to introduce more maps.
They said they didn't want to use custom maps when most players can't practice them.
IMO when it comes to the GSL of next year, they should look at custom maps, when there's a player pool set. Those players should take on the responsibility of practicing said custom maps.
When holding an open tournament though, it's hardly fair to make it custom maps, and that's what GSL1-3 were, open tournaments.
Hopefully going forward they might develop it more and get some fresh maps out.
|
They use a box and draw slips?
Why cant they just do a basic program that randomizes it? Takes like 5 minutes.
|
Drawing papers from a box is a pretty solid way to randomize something. As long as you shake the box properly, you'll get a random map out of the selection process. I guess it's a bit odd in this modern age to spend 20 minutes making a box and sheets when you can just use a random-number generator, but the result is the same more or less.
Junkka makes it sound like there hasn't been much discussion between GOM and Blizzard about the map pool. They might be able to work out something to provide a better map pool for the GSL. But Junkka's points are good. Players without a team couldn't really practice GSL maps if they're not on the ladder.
|
john i dont think u shouldve get drawn in to the trolling.
but players do agree that not vetoing maps sucks
|
Some maps are imbalanced, but GOMTV has nothing to do with it. Its blizzards fault
|
I'm hoping that since GSL3 is going to be over (there will be a small break finally before the GSL S-class seasons etc to start), that some new rules/maps are introduced. Also, it'd be really easy for Blizzard to do a ladder reset (and allow for some new maps) around this time, since Blizzcon 2010 is over and all...
|
lol they should make the map drawing an event.
Imagine Idra sitting there chanting "Not steppes, not jungle--> Shakuras plzzzzzzz" ahaha
|
Honestly, any rigging/fixing comments should be disregarded by default (if not penalized by mods). There is a lot of them popping up lately, people sure like to pull these out of their backside.
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.
|
I think after this everyone doubting should face consequences
Who can we trust if not John the translator guy...
|
Agree that they should stream the map drawing and also the bracket drawing .
|
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.
|
Well what i don't get is why they completely got rid of the Veto system. I mean I know they wanted to making the maps for volatile for more excitement. However keep in mind that in the previous seasons, each played vetoed 2 maps. That really eliminates the possibly of maps that will be played.
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.
|
It's actually pretty sad that Junnka felt he had to respond to the conspiracy trolls on this one. At this point the perpetual QQ mentality of some zerg players (including prominent community members who have a soapbox to stand on) has become a self-parody.
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.
|
Artosis: Well, this is the very best possible scenario for zerg, a map that is only slightly favored for Terran!
/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.
|
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.
|
#2 is stupid. The maps suck and GOMTV is a massive part of SC2 as an esport. These pro players play in team houses and using custom maps made by GOMTV would help deal with the crappy maps.
|
Spent 20 mins making the box lol i bet the box is RIGGED!
|
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.
|
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.
|
![[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.
|
Map choice wouldn't be an issue at all if they didn't use Blizzard's horrendous pieces of crap. Blizzard maps are good for one thing and one thing only - balanced towards the PLAYERS in that any skill level player can feel confident on Blizzard's maps. For high level play on the other hand they are simply abysmal. In all seriousness the GSL using Blizzard's maps is akin to using a frozen pond to play NHL hockey on as opposed to a properly maintained rink.
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.
|
Given the small sample size that seems perfectly within how a random distribution would look like.
|
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.
|
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.
|
But but but... CONSPIRATION!
Coincidence is funny, people will allways speculate just because theyre bored, even if no riggedness, it will allways just pass time and seem suspicious
|
On December 02 2010 05:46 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Why are people suddenly up in arms about giving players the right to veto maps? It's not like OSL or MSL let players select the map they play on and both of those leagues have had their fair share of terrible maps too. The only reason this is an issue at all is the fact that Blizzard's maps are terrible, but that's something to be taken up with Blizzard rather than GomTV.
Also, John's reasoning for using Blizzard maps as opposed to a set of custom maps is completely weak. It's been shown that the competitive community will play maps if major leagues adopt them. If not as part of the ladder system, you would see much more 1v1 custom games using those maps. Blizzard's ladder system is just flawed and doomed to fail in the long run anyway for this precise reason. Eventually tournament organizers are going to realize that they can't sit around and wait for Blizzard to approve new maps and add them into the ladder rotation every single time because it hinders the development and progress of the game from a competitive standpoint. His comment about Blizzard potentially not approving of using non-ladder maps is just sad to me...
|
On December 02 2010 05:44 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I read this several times and I'm not following, I'm saying that it makes sense because if you look at the total distribution numbers they are all close to the ideal 11.11% percent. Probably within 1 standard deviation.
On December 02 2010 05:56 LegendaryZ wrote:
Why are people suddenly up in arms about giving players the right to veto maps?
What? Pretty sure people are up in arms about the complete opposite. The fact that players have no right to veto maps and they are forced to play on unbalanced maps.
On December 02 2010 05:56 LegendaryZ wrote:
Also, John's reasoning for using Blizzard maps as opposed to a set of custom maps is completely weak. It's been shown that the competitive community will play maps if major leagues adopt them. If not as part of the ladder system, you would see much more 1v1 custom games using those maps. Blizzard's ladder system is just flawed and doomed to fail in the long run anyway for this precise reason. Eventually tournament organizers are going to realize that they can't sit around and wait for Blizzard to approve new maps and add them into the ladder rotation every single time because it hinders the development and progress of the game from a competitive standpoint. His comment about Blizzard potentially not approving of using non-ladder maps is just sad to me...
Its basically a big FU to Blizz saying that your maps suck and we aren't going to use them. It is a compelling argument as Gom doesn't want to do anything to offend Blizzard.
|
On December 02 2010 05:49 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 05:46 Talin wrote: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. 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.
There's still the A Code tournaments though, with spots that will in turn be open to top players on the ladder (at least I read that on TL somewhere). If true, that setup is still tied-in with the ladder and allows for the influx of new faces into the scene, which is as it should be.
On December 02 2010 05:56 LegendaryZ wrote:
It's been shown that the competitive community will play maps if major leagues adopt them. If not as part of the ladder system, you would see much more 1v1 custom games using those maps.
Not in this game it hasn't.
For better or worse, Blizzard accomplished what they intended to with the bnet 2.0 and other steps they've taken to ensure that the competitive community isn't ran independently from them in any way. I'm pretty sure you won't be seeing any by-passing of Battle.net ladders and map pool by any major leagues or tournaments in the foreseeable future (and if that eventually does happen, it will pretty much mean that SC2 is falling apart).
Our only realistic hope really is that Blizzard fixes the official map pool.
|
haha Junnka laying down the info like a boss. Thanks for the news
|
Australia326 Posts
On December 02 2010 05:32 SichuanPanda wrote:Map choice wouldn't be an issue at all if they didn't use Blizzard's horrendous pieces of crap. Blizzard maps are good for one thing and one thing only - balanced towards the PLAYERS in that any skill level player can feel confident on Blizzard's maps. For high level play on the other hand they are simply abysmal. In all seriousness the GSL using Blizzard's maps is akin to using a frozen pond to play NHL hockey on as opposed to a properly maintained rink. Show nested quote +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.
Whoa there, drama queen. Hold your horsies.
Firstly, your analogies to hockey and soccer are, as in your own words: horrendous pieces of crap. The closet comparison I can think of in profession sport is tennis (where the surfaces change), but even that doesn't really make sense.
Also, no one is forcing players to do anything. GSL is just one tournament, (albeit the largest and most lucrative one) and people are free to attend or not attend.
Secondly, you didn't even mention which maps you thought to be 'horrendous pieces of crap'. In my humble opinion, the only ones which have fatal design flaws were two in the original pool: Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine. Personally (again, my opinion), I don't feel that any of the current maps are ridiculous in their architecture/ layout/ size (maybe Lost Temple could be improved).
Finally, I don't see any strong evidence showing particular races struggling on particular maps. Of course people will reply: 'ohhhhh but that just means those guys played BETTER (fruit, etc.)', and I'm not going to be baited by trolls.
As a sidenote, people should learn how basic probability works before accusing GOMTv of anything. You'll find that 'unlikely' events can occur more often than you think. The amount of people QQ'ing about certain players getting favourable or unfavourable matchups/ maps gives me brain cancer, as Tasteless says.
|
1. Why use a box?
2. Why does it take 20 minutes to make?
|
Jon you know I love you but the NO VETO rule seems stupid and the explanation doesn't add up one bit!! Please come up with a better one soon. First 2 points are valid though!
No veto rule changes the set so much that often MAP defeats a player esp. when playing against someone with gameplay suited to a particular map. The whole point of vetoing is so that abusive strats CAN be lessened!
THIS IS THE BIGGEST REASON THIS GSL HAS HAD SO MANY ALL-INS, CHEESE and ABUSE inspite of overall level being higher than even the last GSL!
|
I do not think Blizzard will approve it anyway.
wat?
does blizzard have to approve anything? O_o
|
We should not be playing on Blizzard maps with this much money on the line. We need to break away from Blizzard's shitty maps and someone needs to take the first step. GSL is the largest tournament, so they should be the ones to take this step.
Please. > <
|
On December 01 2010 12:32 setzer wrote:
I also am unable to understand the worry that using non-Blizzard maps will somehow give an advantage to players on teams. As long as the map is available on bnet for everyone to use and players are made aware of the map's use in GSL tournaments, all players will practice on it. With over 3000 people competing and other players just wanting balanced maps it should not be difficult at all to find ways to get practice.
It's exactly as you said, the maps will likely be available to the general public, but how are you (as a single player) going to practice these maps over and over with skilled players unless you are on a team?
|
It disappoints me that he sounds so... disappointed, but I hope it's just that it sounds so and he does not feel so.
Oh good point (2), didn't think of that (people without teams can only really practice on Bliz maps because they would have to use laddering as their main practice)
|
Unfortunate to hear that we are stuck with shitty Blizzard maps
|
On December 02 2010 06:52 Pintos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 12:32 setzer wrote:
I also am unable to understand the worry that using non-Blizzard maps will somehow give an advantage to players on teams. As long as the map is available on bnet for everyone to use and players are made aware of the map's use in GSL tournaments, all players will practice on it. With over 3000 people competing and other players just wanting balanced maps it should not be difficult at all to find ways to get practice. It's exactly as you said, the maps will likely be available to the general public, but how are you (as a single player) going to practice these maps over and over with skilled players unless you are on a team?
Play a custom with the other thousands of people practicing on the same maps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
