After all, if you're asking to test out balance changes, wouldn't that create the same disincentivization that would be associated with practicing a different map?
(design changes not balance).
Sure that has a learning curve too (perhaps higher), but it has clear advantages: To inspire Blizzard! Or to satisfy the need of the communtiy to see what the game could like look if all of the stuff we are theoretizing about was implemented.
I honestly have a difficult time seeing the purpose of "crazy" map mechanics. If it is something that could generate a lot more viewers than design changes, sure, okay that would make sense, but I am not convinced that's actually the case.
And I think Totalbiscuit - from having listened to his opinions over the years - would be interested in testing the design changes. I guess that was probably the reason Starbow was implemented in the first place. But obviously Starbow was a misfit as it wasn't intended to inspire Blizzard or test improvements to Starcraft 2.
Why would progamers play this for passion when most of these maps are played almost exclusively in this tournament?
Passion in this context = You play it because its fun even if it doesn't grant you any "career" advantages. So if the maps were made for the players, then you would still see some players play this when not practicising for the tournament. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
So what is the advantage of having a clan war with weird map mechanics over a clan war that tests design changes.
If it's design changes that you seek, what matters does the map shape take? Just make those mods that can be transcribed to any map like Gameheart (unless that's not possible... I'm not well-versed in modding).
If you want each map to have its own set of changes, that can be far more demanding for the players to practice than what exists currently.
Finally, if the changes aren't radical enough or is out of reach (for instance, perhaps the role of the ultralisk is changed, or really anything to do with carriers), what guarantee is there that the game won't be played out standard? Late game units are particularly susceptible at being left out if the game closes out early with a timing attack. If a game goes standard without showcasing what it's supposed to, that kills the point of testing design changes, no? Players aren't incentivized to test out the units on the stage, they're incentivized to win, so if they see something bad that we don't during practice and because of that reason they never utilize the changes, we as viewers don't actually get an opportunity to critique them to begin with. (We can prod them for answers, but that can have similarly varying results.) Maps themselves don't suffer this because the map itself is always showcased no matter the changes in the parameters of units; even if the acid is completely avoided or rocks are never tipped over or cannons are never taken, the map itself still lends a unique format of parameters (number of bases, rush distance, etc.) from which "standard" is slightly different and interesting to identify (presuming maps don't stick around so long as to stagnate).
And I still don't really get the argument why progamers would or should play these maps out of passion. I mean no offense to the mapmakers; it's just simply more pragmatic to practice maps more common to big league and individual tournaments because of both the ladder system and the obvious incentives. I don't follow streamers a lot, but beyond common arcade archetypes and single-player mods, I don't see a lot of them playing around with maps not within ladder or tournament range. It just doesn't seem like a topically relevant argument.
So I posit the question again: What exactly do you mean by "implementing design changes"? Even a single example would clarify the ambiguity.
On June 17 2015 23:17 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: I dont watch because I dislike the maps... Can it be the same for the teams that dont want to partake? Is it a TB thing?
also the line ups are generally weak ( from what I have watched).
the sandisk tourney he made last year was so epic. Its THE best online event I have ever seen. The Flash BByong series was so sick! Make another one of these instead plz TB!
The teams knew about the different types of maps well before signing up as league participants. Having strange maps is a huge part of the very concept of this Shoutcraft iteration.
But honestly its just not a good concept. Making drastic new maps creates a learning barrier, and that's only a good thing if it leads to significantly better gameplay. But too a large extent, many of these changes are merely changes for the sake of changes, and players just doesn't wanna bother learning that.
Most of the games have been really lame as a result.
I highly doubt that the maps or the learning barrier are that absurd.
Looking at the more eccentric maps, the only difference on Engines of War are the cannons, which tends to whittle down gameplay to two bases, but generally plays out normally if both players are alert (and don't lose three overlords). Crazy Clash allows you to open standard, as the gimmicks don't really have a major impact on the early game (mid game, possibilities open up). 2v2s are always going to be a real toss-up, no matter how many gimmicks you add in. LotV has its hiccups, but it's LotV, there's plenty of interest in that.
The only real game-changer is Peninsula, where the mining rates really differs from most other maps, and that plays a big role in build orders and other expectations.
The other maps can be viewed as fairly close to standard maps, something that might be expected of future ladders, for instance.
Still, what is the point of these maps? Totalbiscuit definitely seems interested in wanting to see new stuff in Starcraft, but if neither the viewing quality is improved nor the players like to practice and play them, shouldn't the concept be reevaluated?
My proposal was to use the clan wars as a way to experiment with changes that the community wants to see but Blizzard for (unknown reasons) are hesistant to test/implement.
the problem Hider is that this is purely your opinion and the teams have not expressed any desire to play on standard maps in this tournament, nor have the viewers expressed desire to see standard maps.
Would you be open to having secondary teams? I would love to make Team Canada and compete vs other teams a bit like what we had last summer with nationwars. If not, maybe one day, team baguette will recruit me in their bakery.
Tell ya what. Rustle up a roster and let me know who you've got and we'll see.
Another VOD is up guys, this looks to be a good one .
Root are gr8 and I like Hydra more and more, with him being active in so many tournaments and still showing up here. I respect other top root players in WCS and other big tournaments to let their less exposed teammates play, but I just to praise the French guys, they play around the world, bring amazing results and still find time to represent their country in Clan Wars, you just got to respect that. Plus they put out some amazing games, love those guys, and love French Alps, just wish you would learn English :D .
On June 18 2015 05:00 royalroadweed wrote: I can't believe TB put in gowser and left out nerchio when talking about top foreign wol zergs.
Just out of curiosity, how long was that list? Because I'm not sure, whether I would put Goswser on a top-20 list of foreign WoL-zergs.
Team Canda sound good though, the Showmatch format allows it to be a bit more open to nations or other groups, that aren't technically teams to be included, would look forward to have a few national teams battleing it out with the rest of the teams as well.
As for standard maps, I really didn´t like the unique map pool in the beginning, but when I tested the maps out, they turned out to be playable just fine, as long as you knew them. That said, if standard maps would mean more games, I would definitely like that, but benefit of interesting strategies on strange maps is, to me at least, pretty much equal to benefit of seeing more standard matches on maps similar to the ones I play on. To be honest, what really sets this apart for me are the top of the notch VODs, the main reason why I watch this is only SC2 I watch .
On June 18 2015 05:00 royalroadweed wrote: I can't believe TB put in gowser and left out nerchio when talking about top foreign wol zergs.
Just out of curiosity, how long was that list? Because I'm not sure, whether I would put Goswser on a top-20 list of foreign WoL-zergs.
Team Canda sound good though, the Showmatch format allows it to be a bit more open to nations or other groups, that aren't technically teams to be included, would look forward to have a few national teams battleing it out with the rest of the teams as well.
On June 18 2015 05:00 royalroadweed wrote: I can't believe TB put in gowser and left out nerchio when talking about top foreign wol zergs.
Just out of curiosity, how long was that list? Because I'm not sure, whether I would put Goswser on a top-20 list of foreign WoL-zergs.
Team Canda sound good though, the Showmatch format allows it to be a bit more open to nations or other groups, that aren't technically teams to be included, would look forward to have a few national teams battleing it out with the rest of the teams as well.
Most of Goswser's performances were on HotS though.
On June 19 2015 04:28 MrFreeman wrote: As for standard maps, I really didn´t like the unique map pool in the beginning, but when I tested the maps out, they turned out to be playable just fine, as long as you knew them. That said, if standard maps would mean more games, I would definitely like that, but benefit of interesting strategies on strange maps is, to me at least, pretty much equal to benefit of seeing more standard matches on maps similar to the ones I play on. To be honest, what really sets this apart for me are the top of the notch VODs, the main reason why I watch this is only SC2 I watch .
It's worth noting that NO teams have come to me complaining about the map pool so far. If they are really not signing up because of that then they have refused to say so.
On June 18 2015 05:00 royalroadweed wrote: I can't believe TB put in gowser and left out nerchio when talking about top foreign wol zergs.
Just out of curiosity, how long was that list? Because I'm not sure, whether I would put Goswser on a top-20 list of foreign WoL-zergs.
Team Canda sound good though, the Showmatch format allows it to be a bit more open to nations or other groups, that aren't technically teams to be included, would look forward to have a few national teams battleing it out with the rest of the teams as well.
Dunno. For wol it was stephano, nerchio being a distant second, then idra. After that, who cares?
On June 18 2015 05:00 royalroadweed wrote: I can't believe TB put in gowser and left out nerchio when talking about top foreign wol zergs.
Just out of curiosity, how long was that list? Because I'm not sure, whether I would put Goswser on a top-20 list of foreign WoL-zergs.
Team Canda sound good though, the Showmatch format allows it to be a bit more open to nations or other groups, that aren't technically teams to be included, would look forward to have a few national teams battleing it out with the rest of the teams as well.
Most of Goswser's performances were on HotS though.
Yes, that was, what I was thinking. In early HoTs he was quite good for a time, even finishing in the semifinals of a DH once. But in WoL itself he earned less money than sYz or Kenzy. But anyway, this shouldn't matter to much (I was surprised to be quoted that often), since it was just a question about a single comment, so we should probably go back to topic.
On June 18 2015 05:00 royalroadweed wrote: I can't believe TB put in gowser and left out nerchio when talking about top foreign wol zergs.
Just out of curiosity, how long was that list? Because I'm not sure, whether I would put Goswser on a top-20 list of foreign WoL-zergs.
Team Canda sound good though, the Showmatch format allows it to be a bit more open to nations or other groups, that aren't technically teams to be included, would look forward to have a few national teams battleing it out with the rest of the teams as well.
Dunno. For wol it was stephano, nerchio being a distant second, then idra. After that, who cares?
Well, DIMAGA and Sen deserve some credit. TLO and Ret were also pretty decent most of the time. Sheth, moonglade, Darkforce and sometimes Haypro had their moments. Scarlett, Vortix and Snute began to rise at the end of WoL.
On June 17 2015 23:17 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: I dont watch because I dislike the maps... Can it be the same for the teams that dont want to partake? Is it a TB thing?
also the line ups are generally weak ( from what I have watched).
the sandisk tourney he made last year was so epic. Its THE best online event I have ever seen. The Flash BByong series was so sick! Make another one of these instead plz TB!
The teams knew about the different types of maps well before signing up as league participants. Having strange maps is a huge part of the very concept of this Shoutcraft iteration.
But honestly its just not a good concept. Making drastic new maps creates a learning barrier, and that's only a good thing if it leads to significantly better gameplay. But too a large extent, many of these changes are merely changes for the sake of changes, and players just doesn't wanna bother learning that.
Most of the games have been really lame as a result.
I highly doubt that the maps or the learning barrier are that absurd.
Looking at the more eccentric maps, the only difference on Engines of War are the cannons, which tends to whittle down gameplay to two bases, but generally plays out normally if both players are alert (and don't lose three overlords). Crazy Clash allows you to open standard, as the gimmicks don't really have a major impact on the early game (mid game, possibilities open up). 2v2s are always going to be a real toss-up, no matter how many gimmicks you add in. LotV has its hiccups, but it's LotV, there's plenty of interest in that.
The only real game-changer is Peninsula, where the mining rates really differs from most other maps, and that plays a big role in build orders and other expectations.
The other maps can be viewed as fairly close to standard maps, something that might be expected of future ladders, for instance.
Still, what is the point of these maps? Totalbiscuit definitely seems interested in wanting to see new stuff in Starcraft, but if neither the viewing quality is improved nor the players like to practice and play them, shouldn't the concept be reevaluated?
My proposal was to use the clan wars as a way to experiment with changes that the community wants to see but Blizzard for (unknown reasons) are hesistant to test/implement.
the problem Hider is that this is purely your opinion and the teams have not expressed any desire to play on standard maps in this tournament, nor have the viewers expressed desire to see standard maps.
Would you be open to having secondary teams? I would love to make Team Canada and compete vs other teams a bit like what we had last summer with nationwars. If not, maybe one day, team baguette will recruit me in their bakery.
Tell ya what. Rustle up a roster and let me know who you've got and we'll see.
I wasn't clear in my post, I would like to have HuK and Scarlett in my team Canada roster, would that be a problem with the system that you have in place? If it is, I still think I could come up with a potentially decent roster, but maybe not up to your standards
On June 17 2015 23:17 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: I dont watch because I dislike the maps... Can it be the same for the teams that dont want to partake? Is it a TB thing?
also the line ups are generally weak ( from what I have watched).
the sandisk tourney he made last year was so epic. Its THE best online event I have ever seen. The Flash BByong series was so sick! Make another one of these instead plz TB!
The teams knew about the different types of maps well before signing up as league participants. Having strange maps is a huge part of the very concept of this Shoutcraft iteration.
But honestly its just not a good concept. Making drastic new maps creates a learning barrier, and that's only a good thing if it leads to significantly better gameplay. But too a large extent, many of these changes are merely changes for the sake of changes, and players just doesn't wanna bother learning that.
Most of the games have been really lame as a result.
I highly doubt that the maps or the learning barrier are that absurd.
Looking at the more eccentric maps, the only difference on Engines of War are the cannons, which tends to whittle down gameplay to two bases, but generally plays out normally if both players are alert (and don't lose three overlords). Crazy Clash allows you to open standard, as the gimmicks don't really have a major impact on the early game (mid game, possibilities open up). 2v2s are always going to be a real toss-up, no matter how many gimmicks you add in. LotV has its hiccups, but it's LotV, there's plenty of interest in that.
The only real game-changer is Peninsula, where the mining rates really differs from most other maps, and that plays a big role in build orders and other expectations.
The other maps can be viewed as fairly close to standard maps, something that might be expected of future ladders, for instance.
Still, what is the point of these maps? Totalbiscuit definitely seems interested in wanting to see new stuff in Starcraft, but if neither the viewing quality is improved nor the players like to practice and play them, shouldn't the concept be reevaluated?
My proposal was to use the clan wars as a way to experiment with changes that the community wants to see but Blizzard for (unknown reasons) are hesistant to test/implement.
the problem Hider is that this is purely your opinion and the teams have not expressed any desire to play on standard maps in this tournament, nor have the viewers expressed desire to see standard maps.
Would you be open to having secondary teams? I would love to make Team Canada and compete vs other teams a bit like what we had last summer with nationwars. If not, maybe one day, team baguette will recruit me in their bakery.
Tell ya what. Rustle up a roster and let me know who you've got and we'll see.
I wasn't clear in my post, I would like to have HuK and Scarlett in my team Canada roster, would that be a problem with the system that you have in place? If it is, I still think I could come up with a potentially decent roster, but maybe not up to your standards
I think you need at least 5 people for a team, since you have to field at least that many for the 5 1v1 matches per series. You can double field for the 2v2 though, so 5 is the minimum.
On June 17 2015 23:17 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: I dont watch because I dislike the maps... Can it be the same for the teams that dont want to partake? Is it a TB thing?
also the line ups are generally weak ( from what I have watched).
the sandisk tourney he made last year was so epic. Its THE best online event I have ever seen. The Flash BByong series was so sick! Make another one of these instead plz TB!
The teams knew about the different types of maps well before signing up as league participants. Having strange maps is a huge part of the very concept of this Shoutcraft iteration.
But honestly its just not a good concept. Making drastic new maps creates a learning barrier, and that's only a good thing if it leads to significantly better gameplay. But too a large extent, many of these changes are merely changes for the sake of changes, and players just doesn't wanna bother learning that.
Most of the games have been really lame as a result.
I highly doubt that the maps or the learning barrier are that absurd.
Looking at the more eccentric maps, the only difference on Engines of War are the cannons, which tends to whittle down gameplay to two bases, but generally plays out normally if both players are alert (and don't lose three overlords). Crazy Clash allows you to open standard, as the gimmicks don't really have a major impact on the early game (mid game, possibilities open up). 2v2s are always going to be a real toss-up, no matter how many gimmicks you add in. LotV has its hiccups, but it's LotV, there's plenty of interest in that.
The only real game-changer is Peninsula, where the mining rates really differs from most other maps, and that plays a big role in build orders and other expectations.
The other maps can be viewed as fairly close to standard maps, something that might be expected of future ladders, for instance.
Still, what is the point of these maps? Totalbiscuit definitely seems interested in wanting to see new stuff in Starcraft, but if neither the viewing quality is improved nor the players like to practice and play them, shouldn't the concept be reevaluated?
My proposal was to use the clan wars as a way to experiment with changes that the community wants to see but Blizzard for (unknown reasons) are hesistant to test/implement.
the problem Hider is that this is purely your opinion and the teams have not expressed any desire to play on standard maps in this tournament, nor have the viewers expressed desire to see standard maps.
Would you be open to having secondary teams? I would love to make Team Canada and compete vs other teams a bit like what we had last summer with nationwars. If not, maybe one day, team baguette will recruit me in their bakery.
Tell ya what. Rustle up a roster and let me know who you've got and we'll see.
I wasn't clear in my post, I would like to have HuK and Scarlett in my team Canada roster, would that be a problem with the system that you have in place? If it is, I still think I could come up with a potentially decent roster, but maybe not up to your standards
I think you need at least 5 people for a team, since you have to field at least that many for the 5 1v1 matches per series. You can double field for the 2v2 though, so 5 is the minimum.
He's asking whether players from other teams can also be on his team.
The teams knew about the different types of maps well before signing up as league participants. Having strange maps is a huge part of the very concept of this Shoutcraft iteration.
But honestly its just not a good concept. Making drastic new maps creates a learning barrier, and that's only a good thing if it leads to significantly better gameplay. But too a large extent, many of these changes are merely changes for the sake of changes, and players just doesn't wanna bother learning that.
Most of the games have been really lame as a result.
I highly doubt that the maps or the learning barrier are that absurd.
Looking at the more eccentric maps, the only difference on Engines of War are the cannons, which tends to whittle down gameplay to two bases, but generally plays out normally if both players are alert (and don't lose three overlords). Crazy Clash allows you to open standard, as the gimmicks don't really have a major impact on the early game (mid game, possibilities open up). 2v2s are always going to be a real toss-up, no matter how many gimmicks you add in. LotV has its hiccups, but it's LotV, there's plenty of interest in that.
The only real game-changer is Peninsula, where the mining rates really differs from most other maps, and that plays a big role in build orders and other expectations.
The other maps can be viewed as fairly close to standard maps, something that might be expected of future ladders, for instance.
Still, what is the point of these maps? Totalbiscuit definitely seems interested in wanting to see new stuff in Starcraft, but if neither the viewing quality is improved nor the players like to practice and play them, shouldn't the concept be reevaluated?
My proposal was to use the clan wars as a way to experiment with changes that the community wants to see but Blizzard for (unknown reasons) are hesistant to test/implement.
the problem Hider is that this is purely your opinion and the teams have not expressed any desire to play on standard maps in this tournament, nor have the viewers expressed desire to see standard maps.
Would you be open to having secondary teams? I would love to make Team Canada and compete vs other teams a bit like what we had last summer with nationwars. If not, maybe one day, team baguette will recruit me in their bakery.
Tell ya what. Rustle up a roster and let me know who you've got and we'll see.
I wasn't clear in my post, I would like to have HuK and Scarlett in my team Canada roster, would that be a problem with the system that you have in place? If it is, I still think I could come up with a potentially decent roster, but maybe not up to your standards
I think you need at least 5 people for a team, since you have to field at least that many for the 5 1v1 matches per series. You can double field for the 2v2 though, so 5 is the minimum.
He's asking whether players from other teams can also be on his team.
Oh I'm an idiot, I thought he was asking if he could just have him Huk and Scarlett
but Clan Who? overlaps players with other teams (iaguz, Petraeus, Blysk) so I don't see that being a problem either. Of course it'd TBs call though.
EPT
.
