|
I have been playing Starcraft 2 ladder on and off from release now and I keep missing the old map of the week setup iCCup used for Starcraft 1.
The current ladder system has 9 different maps and 3 different races. You can veto 3 maps leaving 6 maps in the pool.
This means you can get 18 different starts not including starting positions and if you want to test a certain map strategy vs a certain race you have to play 18 games to get one chance to do so on the ladder.
This I think has a really negative effect on most players especially newer players that are trying to get their footing in the game.
What map of the week brought was everyone playing 1 map for a full week. This made map strategies get deeper and deeper with every day of that week. Map imbalances were spotted way earlier and players had a better sense of improvement.
Poll: What system would you preferCurrent Ladder system (40) 36% Current Ladder system with fewer maps (38) 34% Map of the week (17) 15% Current Ladder system with more maps (12) 11% Map of the week none ranked system (4) 4% None of the above (1) 1% 112 total votes Your vote: What system would you prefer (Vote): Current Ladder system
(Vote): Current Ladder system with fewer maps
(Vote): Current Ladder system with more maps
(Vote): Map of the week
(Vote): Map of the week none ranked system
(Vote): None of the above
Please discuss what system you would prefer and maybe some ideas to implement them.
|
You're supposed to have pracc partners when you want to work on a build for one particular map.
Voted the current ladder system, it's fine as long as the number of poor maps does not exceed the number of vetoes.
|
and what if you figure on the monday that you hate that week's map ? you stop laddering until it goes away ?
|
Nice idea. With regards to your comment about having to play 18 games to practice a certain matchup on a certain map, this is not quite true. Some maps are much more widely liked than others, for example daybreak seems to be a map that almost no-one vetos, and so you play it a lot more than other maps. Whereas metalopolis i think a lot of people veto so it is rarely played
|
This is why I like peepmode.
|
Yeah, as a player who mostly ladders, I always hated the fact, that you can random so many different maps with 3 different matchups. It's really hard to practice that way.
I feel like some system where you could choose what map or what matchup you want to play and then queue would be a nice feature. You could make it so that you win less points in this format, so people still "play" regular ladder. Map Of The Week would be great if there weren't so many shit maps in current SC2 ladder pool.
|
I'd prefer a more predictable mapsystem. It's annoying, when you look forward to certain maps, but then you get something different for the thousands time in a row. It simply discourages thinking about maps and specific plans.
Map of the week is a bit too little variety imo, but a smaller map pool or "map of the day" would be nice. (thinking of the "Obs map of the day" map and how awesome this is)
|
I think you should have map of the week as a alternative, so if you hate the new map you don't need to play it for a week, you can just go back to normal ladder.
|
I get bored playing on the same map all of the time.
Greater pool of maps means more variety means more fun on ladder as far as I'm concerned. The fun factor is something that is so rarely considered I know, but it's worth mentioning.
|
On May 11 2012 03:40 JKM wrote:
You're supposed to have pracc partners when you want to work on a build for one particular map.
Voted the current ladder system, it's fine as long as the number of poor maps does not exceed the number of vetoes.
Uh, no.
Right now you have to have a practice partner to practice a build for a particular map. Just because that's the way Blizzard forced us into doesn't mean its the way it is suppose to be.
|
^^ i like these i want a ladder where i can chose my opponent and my map, so i don't have to train anything else and can get wins easier people.
the ladder is supposed to grant quick matches for everyone and the ladder is perfectly for that. For everything else build up your own ladder if you think yours would be better.
|
On May 11 2012 05:04 SirPsychoMantis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:40 JKM wrote:
You're supposed to have pracc partners when you want to work on a build for one particular map.
Voted the current ladder system, it's fine as long as the number of poor maps does not exceed the number of vetoes. Uh, no. Right now you have to have a practice partner to practice a build for a particular map. Just because that's the way Blizzard forced us into doesn't mean its the way it is suppose to be.
So wait,
People are complaining about the chat functions being not social enough and then when they are ought to use these functions to get practice going they deny to use it? How twisted is that?
|
eh...the last thing new players should be worrying about is map imbalances and stuff. I do think there are too many maps in the current pool, though
|
That is a horrible idea... :/
|
Current Ladder system is fine.Some maps are kinda bad and outdated but i just veto them so it's ok.
|
If I could only play one map a week I think I'd explode.
|
Canada1637 Posts
I would DRASTICALLY prefer a much larger (maybe double) ladder map pool with a scaled up number of vetoes. My only concern is the player base at the top of the ladder might not be big enough to support it.
I would prefer to see this so that more new maps could be cycled in on a more regular basis, and tournaments/leagues could endorse them so players can actually practice on them. Its unfair to up and coming players to be unable to practice on widely used maps like Dual Sight, Atlantis Spaceship, Bel'shir, and so on. As well its also difficult for tournaments to add new maps. Basically, Blizzard should work more directly with the major leagues as well as map makers to have a more thought out strategy behind the ladder map pool/veto system, what's going on now is not terribly awful, but it certainly could be much better. (For example map diversity is lacking, we are long overdue for a "Scrap Station" style map that is properly balanced)
I think people voting less maps have really not thought this out as thoroughly as they should, and are more voting that option because they want tired maps like Metalopolis Tal'darim Altar and Shakuras Plateau out, and possibly arguably failed maps like Korhal Compound (even though the TE is great, the LE is not good...). Just my take, the only way to keep the tournament scene fresh is to have a BIGGER ladder map pool. More vetoes allow you to control your own experience the same.
|
I think the ladder is fine as it is right now. The only thing I think they could improve on would be adding more tournament maps and increasing the washout rate of maps that aren't used anymore. For example, replace Koral Compound with something like Dual Sight.
|
On May 11 2012 05:22 Aelonius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 05:04 SirPsychoMantis wrote:On May 11 2012 03:40 JKM wrote:
You're supposed to have pracc partners when you want to work on a build for one particular map.
Voted the current ladder system, it's fine as long as the number of poor maps does not exceed the number of vetoes. Uh, no. Right now you have to have a practice partner to practice a build for a particular map. Just because that's the way Blizzard forced us into doesn't mean its the way it is suppose to be. So wait, People are complaining about the chat functions being not social enough and then when they are ought to use these functions to get practice going they deny to use it? How twisted is that?
Thats not what I said at all, I didn't even mention anything about the chat system nor did I say practice partners are bad. I was trying to point out the (silly) assumption many people have that the current system is the best system. This applies to anything, you should be thinking why the current system is better over alternatives, or vice versa.
When people just blindly say "Current system is fine, I don't like change" it kind of annoys me.
|
I wish they did it like they did on iCCup. Have all the maps but have like several ones that change every week and on these maps you get additional points for winning. That was great.
|
i play for fun and variety, i don't even veto maps. if it were up to me maps would be close to new everytime.
|
I would actually prefer more variety (aka more maps) and quicker cycles of maps.
One map for an entire week would be strenuous. I think it would actually discourage people from laddering.
The KotH/obs maps kind of work like that and for that it's awesome but not for ladder in my opinion.
|
Less maps. TDA, Shak, Metal, Korhal (if they keep the old version) etc just aren't needed. The previous map pool size was great, dunno why they decided to add without taking. It lets each map get super refined rather than people just playing the same on almost every map.
|
Let's stick with one idea at a time. Put less minerals at each expo, like the middle fields in daybreak.
|
On May 11 2012 07:23 Snoodles wrote:
Let's stick with one idea at a time. Put less minerals at each expo, like the middle fields in daybreak.
That's ridiculously off topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
