[NASL] New Maps Discussion - Page 3

The current most widely adopted system is to have a relatively tight map pool which gets a lot of work, and players are given the ability to remove specific maps. However this means that the same maps generally appear over and over again, and furthermore it means that the tournament must decide between having unique maps which players must practice for specially, and having maps which many prominent players are familiar with. Also an important consideration is the need to have a system to work in new maps gradually. A single new map added to a veto system has a tremendous impact on the sort of maps players will play on over and over again in the tournament.

Another system is to have a "loser's pick" system where the loser of the previous game in a series decides the next game in the series. However once again this free pick requires a small map pool since both players need to be prepared to play on all the maps, and has many of the shortcomings of the veto system.

I propose a new system which solves the problems of the two above systems, although it is a bit more complicated, it has a variety of systemic advantages. A "pick" system will allow a very large map pool, and adding new maps to the pool has less of an immediate impact, as it will appear less frequently unless it is highly favored. This allows tournaments to work in new maps, and simultaneously give players the control to choose maps they are comfortable with. Korean pros can pick the classic maps, which would naturally remain unless they have reason to be removed. And players who want to play something specific, or more novel, or have a map-specific build nobody has seen before get the chance to demonstrate it on the new maps.

OK here's the whole system. The tournament releases a map pool of a large number of maps. The number of maps will be greater than the 8-12 or so maps on ladder or in tournaments at any given time. Each player submits a list of maps which can be any length they wish. These are maps they prefer. To determine the maps used in the series, the two players' lists are compared. A map which appears on either player's list is added into the pool of maps which could be used in the series. Maps which appear on both players lists are agreed upon as being preferred, and will be randomly selected between until the list of agreed-upon maps is exhausted, at which point the set of maps which are only on one of either player's lists will be selected from randomly.

As for map selection "strategy" mechanics, all possible selection styles are valid, and are accounted for. In general, the more maps a player picks, the more control they have over the maps chosen, but their control becomes less specific to a particular map. Choose too many and their lists will agree and the short list will select the entire match's pool. The player who chooses fewer maps has less control over which maps are played if the two lists don't agree, but has more control over which specific maps when they do. The conservative option to pick and practice on an extremely tight pool of maps will work well for them if the other player includes those maps in their picks, which is more likely if they want to spam the pool by including nearly all of them to try to throw off the more conservative player. If both players choose large numbers of maps, the map selection process will be highly random, which is desirable since both players indicated they are prepared to play on a wide variety of maps. And lastly, if both players are tightly conservative and select very few maps, then the total random list of maps is very small. If both players select four maps, then there is a random pool of only eight maps, assuming they don't agree.

There are a lot of ways this system might be modified to accommodate specific needs of a tournament. For example, tournaments may elect to have "map seeds" which will always be considered even if neither player chooses them. Tournaments which want to give the players choice can let the loser pick from among a set of maps of their choosing. Tournaments might require a minimum or maximum number of picks, or could even implement a multiple-tiered pick system, or allow vetoes as well as picks. I think these are unnecessary, but it's a possibility.

The important detail is that a large tournament map pool is cut down to size by player choice, and maps which both players wish to play on are more likely to be played on, allowing a more organic evolution of the map pool as maps fall in and out of favor with players. Maps which are never played on can be phased out to make room for new maps. Players who want to stick to conservative, well-known maps will submit the maps they want, as will players who have developed something map-specific or want to play on a less stale map. This is perfectly general to any number of maps in the pool. And most importantly, it accommodates both tournaments which want to introduce new maps and players who want to play on familiar maps at the same time.