|
I don't think pros will stop laddering. This is my prediction:
1) The community riots to end Blizzard's small/bad maps [already happening]
2) Large tournaments switch entirely to custom maps [starting]
3) Pros decide they like the custom maps, and start playing on them regularly
4) Blizzard puts them on Diamond+ ladder
This is just general, but I'd imagine this is what happens eventually (1+ years). Its kind of embarrassing for Blizzard to have to do this, but if they don't update ladder according community feedback, Starcraft II will die out after billions of games on the same maps. Custom games just don't work right now because they rely on the Popularity system or chat channels (which in PTR weren't very functional).
|
Any chance some of the GSL maps will get added to the ladder? Or is it Blizzard policy to always make their own ladder maps?
|
Um, as far as I know GSL didn't make them. They're from the community, and they just picked them out. Is this wrong? I wouldn't think that GSL actually had a mapmaking team.
|
On January 10 2011 07:38 link0 wrote:
The bigger the map, the more likely Protoss will win because warp-gates ignore the defender's advantage.
You nailed it.
|
Regarding map size and race balance... Actually think it goes 1) zerg 2) terran 3) protoss
Big maps favor macro games that go late...this favors zerg the most because they can spread more creep, they can expand/saturate so easily, their indirect production costs are the lowest and big maps favor air units which is great news for the zerg because they have the best air unit in the mutalisk.
2nd best goes to the terran. Again large maps = more macro and more late game play and more expansions. Terran can expand very easily because of mules and because PF's are so strong. That and terran through their use of mules gets more resources on average than protoss late game while their units are cheaper which leaves protoss scrambling for AOE units because they inevitable get outnumbered and outgunned by a terrain economy.
Other reason late game favors terrain is because gas is the big constrictor in late game and terrain units are cheaper in this regard. Marauder costs only 25g while the stalker costs 50g, the immortal 100g, colossi costs 200g, etc... Toss units are very gas expensive!
Lastly...again big maps favor air units and terran has better air units than protoss. Medivac/Viking/Banshee/Raven/BC trumps Phoenix/Void/Carrier/Mothership/Warp Prism.
Proxy warpins are somewhat overrated as it takes a LOT of warpgates to warp in a killing blow. For the most part as toss, you still have to rally to a ball and move attack that ball to the enemies base.
|
Yeah, people need to stop thinking SC2 is SC: BW. Entirely big maps will not make the game better or more balanced.
With a few exceptions, I think the ladder pool is fine. As long as they keep adding/removing maps I'm fine.
Edit: And yes, the bigger the map, the safer it is for the Protoss, while the map size will NEVER leave XvP safe, as warpgates will mean early aggression is always a threat.
|
Here is what will happen if blizzard does not endorse these maps.
We will have to rely on a separate ladder where there is a website you go to to find matches. I don't really think this is a problem, if this is what we need to ensure we play good maps and have proper ranking for tourney invites. Sure it's slower than normal laddering, but it's certainly doable, this has been how people have been ranked in the past without official in-game ranking.
Also, patch 1.2 will allow players to organize in channels and find customs much easier. Also the use of threads to find practice partners will become more relevant than ever.
I don't forsee GSL changing map pool being a problem, what I do forsee is that other tournaments don't follow suit. We really need every tourney to step up and realize we don't need blizzard for e-sports, we can do it ourselves. Blizzard is going to help a bit with chat channels, but as far as maps go, if blizzard doesn't get it soon, then we can definitely do it ourselves.
|
On January 10 2011 10:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Um, as far as I know GSL didn't make them. They're from the community, and they just picked them out. Is this wrong? I wouldn't think that GSL actually had a mapmaking team.
You're correct, these maps are chosen from the community. The GSL did not make them.
|
They're removing 3 ladder maps from their map pool, right?
Well, every player is allowed to down vote three maps on the ladder. Down voting the GSL-removed maps is a good place to start, at the least. Practicing on the non-ladder maps will be difficult without a team, of course.
|
On January 10 2011 09:07 link0 wrote:
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though.
Amen, I'm gonna go ahead and call this here with linko too.
The bigger the map, the more proxy pylon locations, which means that protoss can always safely decide between 4 gate all-in or mega fast expand. Either way, they are completely and utterly safe, while if the T does not build defense, they automatically lose. If P sees defense, they just expand.
These maps will definitely be insanely difficult for TvP, and TvZ as well. We may see that the medivac speed nerf affects the game a lot more than blizzard thought it would.
But if you look at the maps too, there are some insane locations for planetary fortress expands that would be nigh invincible lmao. xD so we'll see...
I hope they put the maps as ladder maps.
|
On January 10 2011 11:37 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 09:07 link0 wrote:
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though. Amen, I'm gonna go ahead and call this here with linko too. The bigger the map, the more proxy pylon locations, which means that protoss can always safely decide between 4 gate all-in or mega fast expand. Either way, they are completely and utterly safe, while if the T does not build defense, they automatically lose. If P sees defense, they just expand. These maps will definitely be insanely difficult for TvP, and TvZ as well. We may see that the medivac speed nerf affects the game a lot more than blizzard thought it would. But if you look at the maps too, there are some insane locations for planetary fortress expands that would be nigh invincible lmao. xD so we'll see... I hope they put the maps as ladder maps.
Maybe these imbalances will balance out, like in Brood War...One can only hope. Blizzard seems to stay firm that they don't want complicated maps in ladder, but maybe that will change with the GSL.
|
I'm afraid I don't have a link to support it but big'ol Dustin Bowder has said a few times, and on the record, that he expects turnys and pros will use a dif map pool than the ladder. It actually what he wants. I recall his words being that they don't want overly techincal maps in ladder...
This is what I was afraid of... I sincerely hope that an iccup server or something similar comes up in this case.
It's not ideal, but its better than a pros playing on bad maps. Plus no more "mid to high diamond" for incontrol, lol.
PS a link to this would be good 
|
United States17042 Posts
|
On January 10 2011 11:26 TheHumanSensation wrote:
They're removing 3 ladder maps from their map pool, right?
Well, every player is allowed to down vote three maps on the ladder. Down voting the GSL-removed maps is a good place to start, at the least. Practicing on the non-ladder maps will be difficult without a team, of course.
It's four. SoW, DQ, BS, and an "unknown" map. My guess is Jungle Basin, but I have no clue. Those four maps will be removed.
Honestly, I think this change can only be good for SC2. Blizzard will probably (hopefully) change the ladder mappool in response partially because they have what seems to be a pretty tight partnership with GOM in terms of SC2. Also, it'd be completely fucking retarded for them to ignore all the community feedback and pigheadedly continue to ignore everything.
|
I just hope that blizzard adds these maps to the pool
|
On January 10 2011 12:47 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 11:26 TheHumanSensation wrote:
They're removing 3 ladder maps from their map pool, right?
Well, every player is allowed to down vote three maps on the ladder. Down voting the GSL-removed maps is a good place to start, at the least. Practicing on the non-ladder maps will be difficult without a team, of course. It's four. SoW, DQ, BS, and an "unknown" map. My guess is Jungle Basin, but I have no clue. Those four maps will be removed. Honestly, I think this change can only be good for SC2. Blizzard will probably (hopefully) change the ladder mappool in response partially because they have what seems to be a pretty tight partnership with GOM in terms of SC2. Also, it'd be completely fucking retarded for them to ignore all the community feedback and pigheadedly continue to ignore everything.
It should be either Jungle Basin or Lost Temple I'd imagine. I can't imagine removing any of the other maps before those 2.
I also agree it'd be fucking retarded. Leaving a 'wide variety' of maps in the pool is one thing, leaving maps that are incredibly imbalanced in the pool is just stupid though. Dealing with the current map pool is incredibly frustrating right now.
|
IMO they can and should keep the maps for ladder EXCEPT for the master and GM league since those players are the ones who are going to play competitively and are the ones who know how to abuse the small map size or certain positional advantages available on the map.
|
On January 10 2011 12:55 netherDrake wrote:
IMO they can and should keep the maps for ladder EXCEPT for the master and GM league since those players are the ones who are going to play competitively and are the ones who know how to abuse the small map size or certain positional advantages available on the map.
No... if they are going to do that it should be for Platinum and up
Many people have wanted "advanced" maps for a long time, but it's not the top 1% that should get them, it's the top 25%. It would give people more incentive to get better as well, being able to finally play on new maps for a change.
This would also allow blizzard to gauge the balance of new maps, since most of the feedback will be from players with at least a slight grasp on the game.
|
On January 10 2011 07:38 link0 wrote:
The bigger the map, the more likely Protoss will win because warp-gates ignore the defender's advantage.
This only applies if the Protoss plans on building his entire army through a proxy pylon.
|
On January 10 2011 12:58 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 12:55 netherDrake wrote:
IMO they can and should keep the maps for ladder EXCEPT for the master and GM league since those players are the ones who are going to play competitively and are the ones who know how to abuse the small map size or certain positional advantages available on the map.
No... if they are going to do that it should be for Platinum and up Many people have wanted "advanced" maps for a long time, but it's not the top 1% that should get them, it's the top 25%. It would give people more incentive to get better as well, being able to finally play on new maps for a change. This would also allow blizzard to gauge the balance of new maps, since most of the feedback will be from players with at least a slight grasp on the game.
No... they just shouldn't do anything like that at all. Better players get to play on more balanced maps? What kind of message would that send?
EDIT: oops i didnt realize i just posted in this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
