On August 04 2010 11:48 Backpack wrote: Plus we've all been playing ladder maps for the past 6 months. Not BW remakes
Let's logically extend that argument. In six more months you could be saying 'well we've been playing these ladder maps for the past year.'
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
General Rule #2 is completely unacceptable. But I'm not a pro-gamer so you won't be butting heads with me over it. But seriously, when you have to start telling the players how they can and can't dress for the sake avoid avoiding "conflicts with your sponsors", you have started to go a bit far. For example, if Pepsi helps sponsor the event, will you tell me I can't be seen drinking a Coke or a Dr. Pepper? Nooooonsense.
Gameplay rules #14 and #16 sound like they may be abusable.
The rest mostly seems fine and designed to encourage fair, competitive play. I shall now dip out of this thread before I make myself look (more) ignorant by bitching about sponsorship-related issues.
On August 04 2010 12:02 UniversalSnip wrote: Let's logically extend that argument. In six more months you could be saying 'well we've been playing these ladder maps for the past year.'
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you played them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
Because then the players would have to download these maps they probably haven't played on before in short notice. The ladder maps are more standard because people have been playing them since beta or release. Give it time and tournaments will pick up newer maps.
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
If they announce the map pool more than say 24 days ahead of time, we would have time to practice on them. But you can't just expect players to know old BW maps.
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
They're better in your opinion. They haven't had nearly the amount of high level games that the Blizzard maps have had, so the balance situation is very ambiguous.
On August 04 2010 11:48 Backpack wrote: Plus we've all been playing ladder maps for the past 6 months. Not BW remakes
Let's logically extend that argument. In six more months you could be saying 'well we've been playing these ladder maps for the past year.'
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
They're better in your opinion. They haven't had nearly the amount of high level games that the Blizzard maps have had, so the balance situation is very ambiguous.
The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Failure to manage is not failure of hardware. Shape up. Banning the Logitech mini optical, and USB headsets, is, to be completely and clearly blunt, fucking stupid.
did you bother reading the thread? usb headsets are banned because for WOW they patch into the player's audio and team chat, which apparently they can't do if they're using usb. they can use the logitech minioptical all they want if they have a ps2 to usb converter.
Is this WOW? Do you even need voice chat for a 1v1 tournament?
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Source?
He's telling the truth. In the best buy interview Blizzard said they will not be putting complex maps to the map cool as we can just make our own maps and play them. Gl to the rest of the players who can't practice with the pro's on those maps sense they wont' be on the ladder
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Source?
He's telling the truth. In the best buy interview Blizzard said they will not be putting complex maps to the map cool as we can just make our own maps and play them. Gl to the rest of the players who can't practice with the pro's on those maps sense they wont' be on the ladder
I'm not questioning it, I'm legitimately asking for a source, as this came up in a discussion elsewhere.
On August 04 2010 06:40 Senx wrote: It's a shame you didn't take the opportunity to use some of the more balance maps, ex SC:BW remakes for example.
BW maps for BW.
Doesn't mean it will be balanced for SC2.
Not to mention the complete lack of practice players have with these maps. AND it's the first event. Good idea, let's make our first tournament feature maps that no one's played on. Most tournaments throughout beta used the ladder maps. Don't know what gave you the idea that MLG would be different.
9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game. 10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game.
Races should be locked for the entire event IMO.
And 10 just seems a bit pointless... Leaving has always mean to concede the game. Why would any player ask the referee that they want to leave? So the consequence for leaving the game (aka forfeiting and losing the game) without permission is... to lose the game?? What?
9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game. 10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game.
Races should be locked for the entire event IMO.
And 10 just seems a bit pointless... Leaving has always mean to concede the game. Why would any player ask the referee that they want to leave? So the consequence for leaving the game (aka forfeiting and losing the game) without permission is... to lose the game?? What?
It's probably so you can't do things like say your equipment isn't working, or claim there was a glitch and leave, when you're actually just unhappy with your spawn or messed up your split or something.
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Source?
He's telling the truth. In the best buy interview Blizzard said they will not be putting complex maps to the map cool as we can just make our own maps and play them. Gl to the rest of the players who can't practice with the pro's on those maps sense they wont' be on the ladder
I'm not questioning it, I'm legitimately asking for a source, as this came up in a discussion elsewhere.
Guest-300: are we going to see more 4 player maps that are 1v1 friendly, or bigger 1v1 maps in the final game? I feel that most of the maps that are in beta right now are pretty small, especially comparing them to maps that are played in the professional BW scene right now DustinB:: Professional BroodWar maps are for professional broodwar players.=) We are not planning on introducing those types of maps to the ladder in the near future. Ladder maps are smaller and less complicated on purpose because they have to serve a much wider community than the top 1% of players. We expect that professional players will be making their own maps and we will see more and more of those in tournament play going forward.
3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning.
I have a few thoughts on this rule. There are really only two ways to do it when the computer or internet connection is not the player's: 1) always regame, or 2) give the player whose comp malfunctioned a loss.
In online tournaments, since the player has 100% control over his connection and equipment, it's easy. If disc, you lost. There's those horrible situations where a player is winning by a lot (think eliminating buildings) and then discs, but ultimately you can point and say that's his equipment (even though it might have just been random chance).
Here, however, all of the computer/monitor/connection stuff is MLG's, thus it's going to be really bad if someone is winning and the computer shuts down, because its an automatic replay no matter how much a player is winning. The advantages to this approach is that it removes all administrative discretion in awarding wins, so there's no human error to blame. The nightmare situation is what I described above, someone is eliminating his opponents' buildings and discs and they have to replay. You can't even fault the player at all since it's not his stuff, it's purely bad luck.
There is no easy way to solve this issue, and it could result in some grossly unjust results if the comps or internet breaks down in bad situations. Frankly I don't know which way is better, but it would be nice if the admins had at least a little discretion in terms of whether game would be replayed or not. But even doing that could open you up to a lot of whining about who had the advantage.
3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning.
I have a few thoughts on this rule. There are really only two ways to do it when the computer or internet connection is not the player's: 1) always regame, or 2) give the player whose comp malfunctioned a loss.
In online tournaments, since the player has 100% control over his connection and equipment, it's easy. If disc, you lost. There's those horrible situations where a player is winning by a lot (think eliminating buildings) and then discs, but ultimately you can point and say that's his equipment (even though it might have just been random chance).
Here, however, all of the computer/monitor/connection stuff is MLG's, thus it's going to be really bad if someone is winning and the computer shuts down, because its an automatic replay no matter how much a player is winning. The advantages to this approach is that it removes all administrative discretion in awarding wins, so there's no human error to blame. The nightmare situation is what I described above, someone is eliminating his opponents' buildings and discs and they have to replay. You can't even fault the player at all since it's not his stuff, it's purely bad luck.
There is no easy way to solve this issue, and it could result in some grossly unjust results if the comps or internet breaks down in bad situations. Frankly I don't know which way is better, but it would be nice if the admins had at least a little discretion in terms of whether game would be replayed or not. But even doing that could open you up to a lot of whining about who had the advantage.
LOL this happened very recently in MLG for Halo. It cost one team a chance for the title and completely demoralized them.
Here TD is about to win the game and cap the flag. They are ahead and its clear that the player is about to cap it. His xbox freezes, they have to reply the game over and continue to lose the next two games, get knocked into the losers bracket and then have a huge team breakup. This is pretty crazy, but it seems MLG will always have this rule
3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning.
I have a few thoughts on this rule. There are really only two ways to do it when the computer or internet connection is not the player's: 1) always regame, or 2) give the player whose comp malfunctioned a loss.
In online tournaments, since the player has 100% control over his connection and equipment, it's easy. If disc, you lost. There's those horrible situations where a player is winning by a lot (think eliminating buildings) and then discs, but ultimately you can point and say that's his equipment (even though it might have just been random chance).
Here, however, all of the computer/monitor/connection stuff is MLG's, thus it's going to be really bad if someone is winning and the computer shuts down, because its an automatic replay no matter how much a player is winning. The advantages to this approach is that it removes all administrative discretion in awarding wins, so there's no human error to blame. The nightmare situation is what I described above, someone is eliminating his opponents' buildings and discs and they have to replay. You can't even fault the player at all since it's not his stuff, it's purely bad luck.
There is no easy way to solve this issue, and it could result in some grossly unjust results if the comps or internet breaks down in bad situations. Frankly I don't know which way is better, but it would be nice if the admins had at least a little discretion in terms of whether game would be replayed or not. But even doing that could open you up to a lot of whining about who had the advantage.
I'd say it's just like that because it's easier for them. No decision making necessary. "By the book."
Ideally, you could have a panel of experts come to a decision (I'm assuming their refs don't know anything about the game).
And people will whine when it comes to making a decision that's not too clear cut. People constantly bitch about the calls a referee makes during ball games. But at least the easy calls can be made because telling people to replay a match that was heavily in the favor of one of the players can easily produce just as much controversy.
On August 04 2010 06:40 Senx wrote: It's a shame you didn't take the opportunity to use some of the more balance maps, ex SC:BW remakes for example.
BW maps for BW.
Doesn't mean it will be balanced for SC2.
Not to mention the complete lack of practice players have with these maps. AND it's the first event. Good idea, let's make our first tournament feature maps that no one's played on. Most tournaments throughout beta used the ladder maps. Don't know what gave you the idea that MLG would be different.
I don't know if you know this but the BW maps actually port over really really well from SC2. Have you tried playing on them?
I'm not saying that you should go and use untested maps for a tournament or anything but the BW map ports have so far proven to be rather balanced...far more balanced than the awful ladder maps that Blizzard has self admittedly said aren't for tournaments.
EPT
