|
With Homestory Cup IV going on right now, I've really taken notice to the different styles of vetoing maps, as well as what maps are being used in tournaments. Being a tournament organizer myself and also having other jobs (R&D IRL, father, husband) I don't get a lot of time to watch the different tournaments that are out there, but when I do, and I see something I like, I want to implement it the best I can.
From what I can see, there are advantages and disadvantages to any of the options, and I listed the ones that I could come up with below the survey. Some of them, like the HSC IV method, I am not terribly familiar with, but I did the best I can for descriptions and PRO/CON.
So here's a few questions for you guys:
Based on a Best of 3
*As of fixing the poll on wording, votes so far*
+ Show Spoiler + Veto 3 = 7
Map 1 auto, veto 1 = 2
Veto 1 = 1
Poll: What do you think is the best style of map vetoing in tournamentsMap 1 auto, veto 1 (29) 45% Veto 3 (19) 29% Map elimination (9) 14% Map 1 auto (5) 8% Map elimination, veto 1 (3) 5% 65 total votes Your vote: What do you think is the best style of map vetoing in tournaments (Vote): Map 1 auto
(Vote): Map 1 auto, veto 1
(Vote): Map elimination, veto 1
(Vote): Veto 3
(Vote): Map elimination
Map 1 auto
This style has the first map already chosen before the start of the tournament. No vetoing is done and the loser picks the next map. This was one of the earlier forms of tournaments used a lot during beta
Pros
Players already know what to expect well before each round begins. This allows them ample time to reduce the amount of strategies they can pick from.
Cons
Maps may heavily favor one race over the other two, thus giving an advantage to certain matchups at different stages of the game.
Map 1 auto, veto 1
This is the veto style that was used by MLG last season. The first map auto picked and the players veto 1 map each before the game starts. The loser picks the map for round 2 and the vetoed maps can not be chosen.
Pros
Same as above, however the player can now eliminate a map that either heavily favors his opponent, or is just a really bad map.
Cons
Same as above. This style favors the winner of the first map as they could have eliminated the largest map threat to them before the matches even started.
Map elimination, veto 1
There are a lot of variations on this one. However, the most common that I have seen has players eliminating maps with the higher seed starting first until there is one map left. This is similar to the Map 1 auto method, but the first map is not static. 1 map is vetoed by each player for round 2 and 3 if needed.
Pros
Eliminates the advantage that may be given for each tournament round based on a a static first map.
Cons
Allows the winner to eliminate a map from the pool which may swing the game in favor of his opponent in game 2 and game 3.
Veto 3
This is the style I see in HSC IV. I hope I have it right. Each player eliminates 3 maps from a pool of 9 maps. They will then play their best of 3 based on that map pool. Seed, then loser picks.
Pros
This is similar to the ladder where you can eliminate 3 maps you don't want to see because they are either bad for your race, or good for your opponent. This also allows you to know what map game 2 and 3 may be on by eliminating the choices
Cons
This may create some boredom on the spectator side of things. The same maps may trend over and over again for certain race match-ups.
Map elimination
This style that I have been using in my tournaments and is similar to Veto 1, except there are no vetoes for rounds 2 or 3.
Pros
This gives the player that lost map 1 a big advantage as he still has the entire map pool to choose from.
Cons
This puts the winner of the 1st map at a slight disadvantage. Maps that may be considered imba for the race matchup, are fully available and can't be removed.
Now these are just my opinions and I think the HSC IV format is the best to come out so far, but that isn't always the case. As with all things, there are multiple points of view on things and even the PRO/CON of each veto method may look different from someone else's POV. What's your take on it?
And btw, if this was your map pool, which one would you veto?
Poll: 9 maps, which to veto?MLG Dual Sight (23) 36% MLG Tal'Darim Altar (16) 25% Ohana RE (8) 13% MLG Shakuras Plateau (5) 8% GSL Bel'Shir Beach (winter) (4) 6% GSL Metropolis (3) 5% ESV Edge of Oblivion (3) 5% MLG Antiga Shipyard (2) 3% GSL Daybreak (0) 0% 64 total votes Your vote: 9 maps, which to veto? (Vote): GSL Metropolis
(Vote): Ohana RE
(Vote): MLG Dual Sight
(Vote): GSL Daybreak
(Vote): GSL Bel'Shir Beach (winter)
(Vote): MLG Tal'Darim Altar
(Vote): MLG Antiga Shipyard
(Vote): MLG Shakuras Plateau
(Vote): ESV Edge of Oblivion
|
The poll is misleading, Veto 1 should mean vetoing 1 map per player not vetoing every map until there is one left, that would be your 'map elimination' method.
|
On January 06 2012 22:42 XenoX101 wrote:
The poll is misleading, Veto 1 should mean vetoing 1 map per player not vetoing every map until there is one left, that would be your 'map elimination' method.
But they are two different methods. In the map elimination one, there are no vetoes after the first round. In Veto 1, one map is eliminated. But I understand what you are saying and will change the poll accordingly. Luckily there aren't that many votes yet.
|
Veto 3
MLG Dual Sight
end of story
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Yea, i think veto 3 is probably best, Dual Sight is also kinda broken PvZ.
|
While it's being brought up I am beginning to suspect that 5 map map pools might be the way to go vs 7.
I've been testing it out lately and I sort of like it more. Going to run it a week or two more and see what players think.
|
I personally like having 7-8 maps, and eliminating them in turn, leaving 3 maps, with a starting map given. This allows for some choice in maps, while getting all the nasties out
|
On January 07 2012 03:43 Diamond wrote:
While it's being brought up I am beginning to suspect that 5 map map pools might be the way to go vs 7.
I've been testing it out lately and I sort of like it more. Going to run it a week or two more and see what players think.
What do you mean by this? So that all maps are used in a Bo5 or just so there is fewer maps for players to learn, and thus, all maps get used from the map pool.
|
On January 07 2012 04:25 Drogith wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 03:43 Diamond wrote:
While it's being brought up I am beginning to suspect that 5 map map pools might be the way to go vs 7.
I've been testing it out lately and I sort of like it more. Going to run it a week or two more and see what players think. What do you mean by this? So that all maps are used in a Bo5 or just so there is fewer maps for players to learn, and thus, all maps get used from the map pool.
Fewer maps (means in a bo7 two maps would be repeated once).
|
Map elimination seems pointless as often it is the same maps being picked over and over due to them being most balanced. If just for variety I would go for 1 auto 1 veto, seems like a good compromise
|
I think veto 3 is best. I'd rather see (relatively) fairer matchups on the same maps than unfair maps for certain matchups just for variety's sake.
|
Wow, I'm actually shocked by the number of votes for 1 auto 1 veto as well as the strong desire to veto Dual Sight. But what is the reasoning behind it? Let everyone else know about this poll. #8 isn't enough of a sample I think!
|
Hate tal'darim so much. I'd veto it any day in a tourny.
|
But why? Dislike how hard it is to FE, dislike how easy it is to FE, hate macro? Why do you dislike Tal'Darim so much?
|
vetoing all gives you the best games, but maybe a lot of matches on the same maps
|
On January 08 2012 10:38 Drogith wrote:
But why? Dislike how hard it is to FE, dislike how easy it is to FE, hate macro? Why do you dislike Tal'Darim so much?
zergs vote cause theres rock on 3rd
terrans vote cause its wide open macro
tosses vote cause 6pool, terran drops and hidden expansions are strong
)
the larger map pool is from the beginning and the more veto the better imo. then players get to play on the most fair maps. fixed 1st map is only good if that map is rly good
|
On January 08 2012 11:00 MorroW wrote:
the larger map pool is from the beginning and the more veto the better imo. then players get to play on the most fair maps.
^This.
More maps to choose from means more room for globally preferential options to make themselves apparent.
|
On January 08 2012 11:00 MorroW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 10:38 Drogith wrote:
But why? Dislike how hard it is to FE, dislike how easy it is to FE, hate macro? Why do you dislike Tal'Darim so much? zergs vote cause theres rock on 3rd terrans vote cause its wide open macro tosses vote cause 6pool, terran drops and hidden expansions are strong ) the larger map pool is from the beginning and the more veto the better imo. then players get to play on the most fair maps. fixed 1st map is only good if that map is rly good
See that's the type of answer I was hoping for, ty Morrow.
|
Really should include race for the last poll. The matchup matters a lot too: Protoss always pick Shakuras when they lose a game vs Zerg. Zerg's often pick Dual Sight when they lose a game vs Protoss, etc.
GSL Dual Sight is different from MLG Dual Sight, the MLG one is two versions old. GSL version is a lot better for PvZ now compared to how it was.
|
On January 08 2012 11:20 lysergic wrote:
Really should include race for the last poll. The matchup matters a lot too: Protoss always pick Shakuras when they lose a game vs Zerg. Zerg's often pick Dual Sight when they lose a game vs Protoss, etc.
GSL Dual Sight is different from MLG Dual Sight, the MLG one is two versions old. GSL version is a lot better for PvZ now compared to how it was.
What are the differences between the two versions? I never get to watch GSL with my schedule, so I miss out on a lot of trends coming from Korea, but still try.
|
How does GSL do maps? I've never really paid attention. I like narrowing the map pool to say 3 maps because you can narrow your build selection or narrow the options of your opponent. Though knowing ahead of time can be benefitial too. I don't play tournaments, but as a viewer, I prefer watching games at their best performance and the way maps are being made, it seems like balance is slowly taking hold on all maps it seems (hurray for mapmakers!).
As far as vetoing, out of the selection I chose Dual Sight, but if my reasoning is I get too distracted when playing on it for fun or even watching games on it (the change of environment throws off my game for no particular reason). If Xel'Naga was a choice that is my number one vetoed map due to the lack of an easily acquired third (I find Tal'darim easy to expand on despite the rocks, I usually take a risky third and save the rock base as a fourth)
|
Thanks to everyone for your input. I'm still going to be looking at this thread if anyone else posts, but I think we are done for now.
|
I think it depends alot on the mappool. if there is no big imbalance on any of the maps in any matchup, i think having a preset first map is fine. otherwise i really dislike that, as this can mean that you go into a matchup with a disadvantage already just because you had bad luck with the map.
|
On January 09 2012 23:50 DarKFoRcE wrote:
I think it depends alot on the mappool. if there is no big imbalance on any of the maps in any matchup, i think having a preset first map is fine. otherwise i really dislike that, as this can mean that you go into a matchup with a disadvantage already just because you had bad luck with the map.
What if there would be another Matchup-specific-Mappool to generate the first map in tournaments? Like autoveto against the "imbalanced" maps of that matchup.
...
After thinking a while: If we would go that far we should think about eliminating matchup-specific-imbalanced maps at all because they would only be played in certain matchups. So why not include better balanced maps
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
