EPTScrap and Delta are the ones that are vetoed from the start of the ladder,they are just horrible designed
Season 3 Ladder Map Changes (Official) - Page 41
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Crying
Bulgaria778 Posts
Scrap and Delta are the ones that are vetoed from the start of the ladder,they are just horrible designed | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
dont you think its not that great of an idea to take out our most loved map of all time and leave in a map like typhon peaks lol this is just crazy wHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy blizzard wHHHHHHHHHHHHHHyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy | ||
|
AJMcSpiffy
United States1154 Posts
| ||
|
TSM
Great Britain584 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
1) Tournaments mostly use their own maps or modified maps, not ladder maps. 2) The sample size for tournaments are next to nothing compared to ladder. Individual skill difference have a huge impact when the sample size is small. 3) What may be be balanced on pro level may be unbalanced for the 99.99% of the players that are not pro. Ladder maps should be balanced for ladder play. Let GSL worry about their own maps. | ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
On July 26 2011 20:55 Crying wrote: meta was kinda good except the close pos,still too bad that zergs on that map had hard time (im a protoss) so dont flame me Scrap and Delta are the ones that are vetoed from the start of the ladder,they are just horrible designed Zergs had a hard time on that map? Did you even read the original post? O.o I'd much rather have seen Blizzard balance out the game, as we're nowhere near the point where maps alone can balance the MUs. The problem is still the uneven strenght at various phases of the game. | ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:06 MockHamill wrote: Tournament results are close to irrelevant since 1) Tournaments mostly use their own maps or modified maps, not ladder maps. 2) The sample size for tournaments are next to nothing compared to ladder. Individual skill difference have a huge impact when the sample size is small. 3) What may be be balanced on pro level may be unbalanced for the 99.99% of the players that are not pro. Ladder maps should be balanced for ladder play. Let GSL worry about their own maps. because players want to play maps that are not played by the pros right? | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
My issues with tal'darim and shakuras tho is the free expos PvZ, unlike other maps. The rocks on the third for tal'darim should seriously be removed - otherwise Z can't grab their third when P FE's | ||
|
BobMcJohnson
France2916 Posts
On July 26 2011 20:30 imareaver3 wrote: Statistics say that Terran has a 65% win-rate on XNC against Z over the past month at the highest levels of play, (for comparison, metalopolis was 56% for Z) but no one is calling for its removal... The sample size is way too small to mean anything, TLPD is great but the number of games is just not big enough to be used as backup statistics in order to prove a point. I'd like to quote this post from earlier in the thread : On July 26 2011 11:45 xdeacon wrote: Just wanted to point out for the thread that while TLPD is totally awesome for what it is, you can't really get meaningful map balance statistics out of it because of the small numbers involved. Check out the binomial probability distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution. For a coinflip (i.e. perfectly balanced map 50%), one standard deviation = 1/sqrt(number of games). Meta 1.1 lists 296 games played. If I flip a coin 296 times one standard deviation will be about 6%. This means TLPDs 53.7% ZvT win ratio could be just as likely representing a sample that is 60% (hugely favored for Zerg) or 48% (slightly favored for Terran) with a 1/3 probability that the margin could be larger. This is why it is so important to have a humongous sample like blizzard should have (in theory) because the variance shrinks by the square root of total games (1% sigma = 10000 games!). This also has the additional effect of washing out the effect of steep skill differences that appear in tourney matchups that get reflected in TLPD. I hope this also reinforces the point that just because something 'feels' unbalanced anecdotally (I for one have awful TvZ on Metalopolis!), it really requires an unbiased large sample to determine accurately. tldr: just because a number sounds convincing, don't believe it! And this is for the 296 games played on Metalopolis 1.1. Your link only provides 48 games played on Xelnaga. Compared to that, the number of results Blizzard has access to is just HUGE, and I'm gonna trust Blizz's stats on this one. All in all, I'm quite happy about those changes. Like a lot of peoples, my three vetoes are gone, and I doubt that anyone would disagree with removing Scrap Station, Delta Quadrant and Slag Pits. The new maps aren't really good, but they are not as bad as those three. Of course I'm gonna miss Metalopolis, it was one of my favourite maps, even with its flaws, but it has made it's time. Old maps need to get rotated out one day, regardless of their quality, this is not the problem. the real problem is that the quality of the new maps does not match the one from the removed maps, and this is the point that blizzard needs to improve, not their choice of map removals. That said, the stats blizzard gives are a bit worrying (60%+ win for zergs on maps that are considered as good) And as much as I like the idea, I'm not sure if it's the right time to try to achieve balance by the maps if it forces them to introduce "bad" maps into the pool. I'd rather see balance changes to make to game work on GSL-like maps and only then fine tune with maps, than this kind of rocks heavy maps. | ||
|
Brainiac
Poland641 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:09 KaiserJohan wrote: Metalopolis is great, except for the close spawn. They just should disable that. Dude, they said that including close spawn map is heavily zerg biased (60%). So guess what happens when they remove close positions? Yeah, it will be even more zerg biased. | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:14 Eufouria wrote: Also I can't help but feel that the imbalance of Tal'Darim is because Blizzard decided to change the number of mineral patches at some of the bases, from the GSL version, because it might confuse Johnny Bronze when his 2 base maxed on pure marine 'timing attack' hits a bit later. This one made my day :D | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:00 AJMcSpiffy wrote: They explained why they removed Metalopolis people, read the OP. It makes sense to me, I'd rather have some new maps. It's not like tournaments will stop using it, and they even said themselves that they could reintroduce it later on. I'm excited though, two of my down-voted maps are removed now, so I have some freedom to get rid of other crappy maps. I don't know anything about the new 1v1 maps, gotta go look up info on them. They said they didn't like the predictability of metalopolis without close positions. Without close positions it has 4 possible pairs of spawning locations as opposed to 6. Thats still more than a 2 or 3 player map. Overall their choices if map removals were good, aside from removing metalopolis instead of slag pits or shattered temple. Also I can't help but feel that the imbalance of Tal'Darim is because Blizzard decided to change the number of mineral patches at some of the bases, from the GSL version, because it might confuse Johnny Bronze when his 2 base maxed on pure marine 'timing attack' hits a bit later. On July 26 2011 21:11 Brainiac wrote: Dude, they said that including close spawn map is heavily zerg biased (60%). So guess what happens when they remove close positions? Yeah, it will be even more zerg biased. No! They said Tal'Darim was 60% zerg biased, they didn't specify who close pos. Metalopolis was biased in favour of, but its obviously Terran. | ||
|
ckukner
Turkey54 Posts
| ||
|
Brainiac
Poland641 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:14 Eufouria wrote: They said they didn't like the predictability of metalopolis without close positions. Without close positions it has 4 possible pairs of spawning locations as opposed to 6. Thats still more than a 2 or 3 player map. They also said that Metalopolis is 60% biased zerg if you missed that... | ||
|
ShnAndrei
Romania164 Posts
I was certain that Backwater Gulch would have been the one to be removed. I can't believe this! | ||
|
Brainiac
Poland641 Posts
Dude, they said that including close spawn map is heavily zerg biased (60%). So guess what happens when they remove close positions? Yeah, it will be even more zerg biased. No! They said Tal'Darim was 60% zerg biased, they didn't specify who close pos. Metalopolis was biased in favour of, but its obviously Terran. Dude, learn to understand what you read. Here is the blue post for you again, highlighted the important part for you: Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool, and along with Scrap Station (also being removed) and Tal’darim Altar, has a heavy (60%+) bias toward zerg at the highest levels of play. | ||
|
BobMcJohnson
France2916 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:15 ckukner wrote: Ladder can be skewed becuase of the different skill levels. Only reliable source of information can be pro-level tournaments. Tournaments are just as bad in term of skill difference. Take a look at the MLG groups for example, do you think that you can make balance assumptions based on the results of MVP vs Machine? Or from Alicia vs RandomBobbyUSA in the open bracket? | ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:19 Brainiac wrote: Dude, learn to understand what you read. Here is the blue post for you again, highlighted the important part for you: You probably shouldn't post until you have basic English comprehension skills. Edit: Apparently ment for the guy he was responding to, as the quoted guy messed up his own quote ^^ | ||
|
Deleted User 45971
533 Posts
 They really need to remove or fix the maps that have 1 really short rush distance. Metal is out now so hopefully next season Shattered goes away too.I'm kinda surprised they only got one 2 player map and the rest is 4 player maps. 9 different 4 player maps is kinda heavy. Would be nice with some 3 player maps and maybe 1 or 2 more 2 player maps. | ||
|
scBruceee
4 Posts
| ||
| ||
