All new maps is a bit extreme I think... That's like going into the NBA and giving them an egg-shaped Basketball and saying "Good Luck!". Like playing Soccer in a Hockey rink. You're giving the players a chance to just straight auto-lose regardless of their skill.
You've effectively shaved off an entire layer of skill from this game. Furthermore, the commentating is going to suffer as well. Our top commentators, at least, generally know what builds are normal for the standard maps and are able to identify and talk about any deviations or risky play. With all new maps, who the hell knows if it's a good idea to Nexus/CC/Hatch first or whatever.
I expect players that are involved in several different tournaments to suffer from this the most as they won't be able/willing to spare the time to practice on these new maps. Seeing as the how the players who are in the most tournaments are likely to be the best players, I think this move is crippling the NASL. The level of play (and commentating) will not be as high as it could be.
do they really expect anyone to pay 10$ to play a tournament on stupid maps to qualify for another tournament with 16 non-announced pros? where is the trick?
On September 15 2011 07:41 Toxi78 wrote: do they really expect anyone to pay 10$ to play a tournament on stupid maps to qualify for another tournament with 16 non-announced pros? where is the trick?
The trick is the prize money if you win the NASL finals.
On September 15 2011 07:24 Sylvr wrote: You've effectively shaved off an entire layer of skill from this game.
Or they added the skill to react to a new map
That's going to depend on the map really. Some stuff, it just isn't reasonable to expect anyone to intuit. Mostly thinking about stuff like proxy locations, prime harass locations (Think of the cliff at the Natural on Tal'Darim), back doors, ambush points (like shrubbery), scouting paths, attack paths, and probably a lot more that I'm not thinking of. There are a lot of things that people learn about a map over time that really serve to showcase a player's skill if they're able to exploit or defend against them.
I just can't help but see that many more chances for a player to lose and say "Oh, I didn't know about that", which I, personally, don't want to see at the highest levels of play.
On September 15 2011 07:49 dezi wrote: Lol, people crying about maps ... i really wonder what they do when Blizz changes Ladderpool (again). Stop playing because it's new ... hahaha.
I agree with this, if they are a good enough player then the new maps shouldn't affect them that much because the other person they face won't know much about the maps either.
On September 15 2011 07:49 dezi wrote: Lol, people crying about maps ... i really wonder what they do when Blizz changes Ladderpool (again). Stop playing because it's new ... hahaha.
At the pro level, ladder is little more then a means of practice against random opponents and the things that come with practice (build experimentation, metagame participation, refinement of mechanics and so forth).
Tournaments, especially big-name ones, are where you play 'for reals' and test your skill in true competition and apply all that you learned and refined in practice in competition against others who have done the same. The end result of this is that you get fantastic, high-level games.
You also get the added element of preparing against specific players, the mind games involved with this (I normally do X, so knowing he knows this I will do something else unless he actually thinks I will do something else... etc) and map-specific builds and metagame.
Essentially blindsiding the players via map pool can certainly can lead to some amusing entertainment, but it cheapens the competition. You remove a lot of the preparation possible which leads to much better games (see Boxer in NASL 1, and how much his preparation paid off).
In relation to this, many pros have complained having to try to practice so many different maps for different tournaments, and this complaint often comes from rather subtle variants in the maps (like various shakuras variants). Having a totally new map pool may sound cool and make the map makers you are endorsing (and their fans) happy, but you make things harder on your players and thus cheapen the spectators experience as well (as the players will be less likely to be able to produce their best games).
To comment on the maps specifically, it is 'interesting' that you did not take the cues from GSL to make a varied map pool that allowed for diverse styles of play without being too gimmicky (dual sight, XNF, daybreak) instead of just making everything like Crevasse. Hope you like hour-long TvTs and your giant maps.
On September 15 2011 07:49 dezi wrote: Lol, people crying about maps ... i really wonder what they do when Blizz changes Ladderpool (again). Stop playing because it's new ... hahaha.
At the pro level, ladder is little more then a means of practice against random opponents and the things that come with practice (build experimentation, metagame participation, refinement of mechanics and so forth).
Tournaments, especially big-name ones, are where you play 'for reals' and test your skill in true competition and apply all that you learned and refined in practice in competition against others who have done the same. The end result of this is that you get fantastic, high-level games.
You also get the added element of preparing against specific players, the mind games involved with this (I normally do X, so knowing he knows this I will do something else unless he actually thinks I will do something else... etc) and map-specific builds and metagame.
Essentially blindsiding the players via map pool can certainly can lead to some amusing entertainment, but it cheapens the competition. You remove a lot of the preparation possible which leads to much better games (see Boxer in NASL 1, and how much his preparation paid off).
In relation to this, many pros have complained having to try to practice so many different maps for different tournaments, and this complaint often comes from rather subtle variants in the maps (like various shakuras variants). Having a totally new map pool may sound cool and make the map makers you are endorsing (and their fans) happy, but you make things harder on your players and thus cheapen the spectators experience as well (as the players will be less likely to be able to produce their best games).
To comment on the maps specifically, it is 'interesting' that you did not take the cues from GSL to make a varied map pool that allowed for diverse styles of play without being too gimmicky (dual sight, XNF, daybreak) instead of just making everything like Crevasse. Hope you like hour-long TvTs and your giant maps.
what the hell are u talking about. the tournament is in 15 days, enough time to practice the maps. and furthermore when u say everything look like crevasse and is huge i know for 100% that u didnt take a single look on them.
the maps are all pretty standard and no pro player should have problems to adept strategies. an i personally thing that new maps are not really a big thing in starcraft2. its still the same, earing minerals building armee, take a natural etc.
I'm glad you're using planetary workshop maps. I think showcasting them in the open is the best way to test it, much like how GSL uses the GSTL as the map testing ground.
I don't understand people whining about map exploits. If you have the skill to find that and others don't, then you should be rewarded for it...instead of being the person who grinded the most on any given map. As long as NASL is willing to patch any obvious exploits that pop up, I don't see the problem.
But I'm a bit confused about the timing. So the open tournament is happening *before* the regular tournament this time?
its like people sat down at a table and tried to design the most horrible, nonn-entertaining, lame for the players and watchers, tournament design possible.
the following is something i wrote to show some problems with code A and Code S that causes code S to sort of feel stale
with the current system, code a could be seen as a season-long qualifier to get into the next code S tournament...
I think the main possible area of improvement i see in all of this is, lets say some dude out there is extremely skilled after a few months of practice and has a few weeks of incredible genius in sc2 for some unknowable reason.
I this this is EXTREMELY hypothetical, but hear me out.
If this dude wanted to get into code S he would need to spend 1 entire season doing code A, then he would have to get far enough into code A in that season to get into up/down. Then he would have to win the up/down and he could be in code S.
So he would have to do the season-long code a which is like a qualifiers to get into the next code S
(( And winning the up/down seems kind of like a silly format given that its BO1's between top players... but thats another discussion. ))
I guess im trying to say, if this dude somehow has a flash of genius right now id wanna see that dude in the code S tournament right now, not next season. With a type of open seeding element added to the tournament, the same dude could theoretically win code S in a single season without having to wait.
however, i agree my scenario is very hypothetical... but i believe sc2 has a high level of volatility that increasing the "new blood" level of a code s tournament could give Code S even more of a highly competitive mystique because the code S players would have to be superior to eachother and be superior to any bright stars that are materializing at that very moment.
And lets say one of these bright stars does good in code A, gets into code S, then during that season loses and goes to up/down and goes back into code A. Such a person would be doing a entire codeA season to qualify for one codeS season, then after dropping out he has to do ANOTHER codeA SEASON AGAIN to qualify for 1 more code S season. And if such a bright star has a flash of genius yet again he no longer has the "chance" to win code s for that season because his only option now is to spend another season trying to qualify again.
Im not saying the dude doesnt deserve to drop out for losing his games, im just saying such a system is not too forgiving in the time-department for many pro players out there.
Also heres another way of looking at it. if a pro wants to qualify into code S he has to spend a entire long season doing code A, and then its not even a garuntee. So a pro spends like a 50 day Code A season of playing and doesnt even know after that whether or not his chance is 100% of being in the next code S tournament.
With my idea, a pro would ONLY need to spend a few days playing that open tournament, and if he places high enough in the open tournament he knows after only a few days whether or not he 100% has a spot in the code s tournament or not. Giving pro players such a quick way (however a highly competitive way) to spend a few days playing to give them a 100% yes/no answer of "you are seeded in the next code s tournament" is a great way of increasing the chances of pros from around the world trying it out.
the thing about the above problem is at least Code S is known as the greatest pinnacle of competition so they can have a sort of raunchy system and get away with it
something that makes NASL lame compared to GSL is the fact that in GSL you know for sure after the first week whether or not you are eliminated from the tournament. after you get knocked out of the Code S RO32, you are free to fly all over the world competing in other tournaments with no other responsibility
in NASL, players arent knocked out every week. instead you have to play for the FULL entire massive group play period, then theres a short few-day-final where people are knocked out
like 99% of nasl is the pool play period.
. essentially, EVERY nasl player has to play the ""entire tournament"" before he knows if hes been knocked out. in GSL, you may only need to play 1 day and you lose so you are knocked out and you dont have to play in the tournament any more and you can travel around the world and be free until next season
in GSL, its possible for you to only need to play for 1 week/day before you know your knocked out of the finals. in NASL, every player needs to play the entire tournament....
To the people saying that they have plenty of time to practice the maps, and that the person who takes the time to practice them SHOULD have an advantage: A lot of the best players in this tournament are preparing for SEVERAL tournaments. This means that they might NOT have plenty of time to practice on them. Lower tier players that aren't invited/don't qualify for as many tournaments don't have this problem, which gives them a potential advantage that may make the gap between the players look much smaller than it actually is.
I'd prefer not to see worse players winning series just because they had all the time in the world to sit at home and grind out these maps while the top pros had to prepare for half a dozen other tournaments that used completely different maps. It's gimmicks like this that give us these flash-in-the-pan champions who exploit some non-skill aspect of the game/tournament and then fall off the scene because they're actually terrible. It's almost as bad as a Bo1 tourney.
I'm pretty sure every player who pays to join will see that they will be playing on new maps. It's not like they take off a blindfold and "surprise! you get to play new maps this tournament, good luck!" They will be able to see what they're getting themselves into. So if they lose MISERABLY, you can't say they weren't prepared for it.
EPT
