|
Map Pools. The most overlooked aspect yet most important aspect in Starcraft II. A map pool can change everything about a tournament. As much as people hate comparisons to Brood War, maps are very much the same, just with new tricks and features the new editor allows. To quote the effect maps had on Brood War I quote Liquipedia
Custom-made Maps are the bread and butter of competitive StarCraft. Without frequent exchange of maps to accomodate for trends and shifts in the meta game, the incredibly dynamic evolution of StarCraft progaming arguably could not have happened.
However in Starcraft II the rotation of maps has changed. While in both games it's true the good maps lasted longer then others (Metalopolis, Destination, etc) the lack of rotation of old or bad maps has changed. There is a great deal of factors such as ladder, however in the end tournaments can dictate the maps people play, and push the scene ahead, however this has not happened. Instead tournaments rely on map pools that other tournaments did, and it seems that maybe a lot of organizers do not understand building a pool.
Want to make a map pool that's good awesome? One that I won't complain on Twitter about? Read this.
Please note in this guide, all my sample pools are five maps, this is detailed why below, but also just is so I can save some time. Also this guide DOES NOT cover team league map pools, which I have little experience with, only individual leagues. For those that do not know, I own and run the ESV Map team, so many of the sample pools contain heavily ESV maps, this is not saying these are the exact maps that could be used, just the ones I personally know best.
Last warning is these are my opinions, they tend to be right in the long run, but just a fair warning.
+ Show Spoiler +Mr Chae wants you.... to make a good map pool! So here you are, you are a tournament admin and you have a tournament all set up. However, maps have not been set up. What do you do? Easy, follow this guide and in a few simple steps you will have a map pool that not only is very fun to play on, but also will be well received by both the community, players, and mapmakers alike. So I just grab 7 to 9 maps and throw them in, mainly just the ladder maps, right? No. There is quite a few issues with a map pool like this, and we will cover them below. Just think, as a organizer of a tournament you are putting your heart and soul into to make the best possible why spend so little time on something so major? This can influence the style of games of you tournament, the overall run time, and a million other things. Would you just randomly grab a tournament structure and format? Obviously not, and a good map pool is just as important if not more important then a format.
+ Show Spoiler +Let's start at square one, which maps are available to pick from. This is where you have the most choices in how you want to shape your map pool. The main decision you have to make comes down to do you make a traditional map pool or a innovative one. This will set the tone of your map pool and mindset going into the full creation stage, and is very important very much like having a clean opener in SC2 is to a player. Also like an opener, they have ups and down associated with them but offer different risk/reward factors. Traditional Map Pool: This is the type that most major tournaments choose to go with modern day. This contains all maps that have been used in major tournaments or events before, and refuses to take chances with new maps. Pros: Safe picks that are tried and tested, predictable game times, Non-Korean players will enjoy not having to learn new maps. Cons: Expect your tournaments games to look like every other tournament, fans and mapmakers will complain. Example Traditional Map Pool:+ Show Spoiler +MLG Shakuras Plateau MLG Tal'Darim Altar GSL Daybreak GSL Cloud Kingdom MLG Metalpolis Innovative Map PoolThis is the true rarity in the Starcraft II scene. It focuses on using some of the traditional maps, but cycles out old maps in favor of new unexplored maps. While this contains more risks, it often contains even bigger rewards is great games. As far as I know only myself with the Korean Weekly and the GSL are using this style. Other orgs recently have been trying these types of pools, but we have not seen if they will continue to do so, or they did not continue to do so. Pros: Contains some tried and tested maps while pressing boundaries, fans and mapmakers will applaud you. Cons: Non-Korean players will complain about having to learn new maps or not train on them properly, more variance in game time. Example Innovative Map Pool:+ Show Spoiler +GSL Cloud Kingdom ESV Afterglow GSL Daybreak ESV Sidewinder GSL Metropolis
Ok so you have seen both types, now you start your decision here. Do I want to stay standard and play it safe or do I want to take a risk with possibly a great reward? Neither choice is a wrong choice.
+ Show Spoiler +One of the longest and biggest debates, "how many maps should I pick to compose my pool?" There is also no right answer to this one yet, however there is wrong answers. I will cover this section by going over each size and what is good/bad about it. The one thing to keep in mind and that I will be showing here is how much practiced is required with each size. All players have different training regiments, but until you have played a map 20+ times (except for Gumiho or TaeJa), you will not be playing the map optimally. After 20 games, you may still not be using 100% of the map 100% right, but you will know a loy of the layouts, trick spots, and a lot of other map specific info. 8+ Maps:What my face looks like when I see map pools with 8+ maps Want to screw up your map pool? Put in this many maps. There is not a single excuse in the world for having a map pool this big. You have to add in artificial rules like double veto's just to make it work. Worse is that NO ONE is going to practice the entire pool, they are going to only practice a portion of it properly. If you are thinking of making a map pool of this size, stop right here and shrink it. If you are an organization that has both a individual league and a team league, have separate pools like the GSTL. Putting the responsibility of learning this many maps on a single player is too much, even for tournaments with massive prize pools. You will get a lower quality of game, and have to add in a slew of rules to accommodate for this. Any tournament that has this size of pool should immediately look to shrink it. If you have a 11 map pool, you need to scratch the entire pool, and start from square one as any modifications to bring it down to 7 or below will unbalance the style and scale of the pool. 7 Maps: The golden standard of Starcraft II. For the longest time I personally believed this was the best way to do a pool. Allows for a BO7 with no repeats of maps. Still a big map pool, but not too big. If you choose a seven map pool, you will do alright. It will offer lots of variety in picks, and will likely not contain any racial imbalances that cannot be fixed with vetos. However one thing I came to realize over time is that almost every tournament only has one BO7 series in the entire event. The finals. What I mean is that the best reason and the reason seven map pools became the golden standard is you potentially have a bo7 on all unique maps, no repeats. This concept was designed when the map pools contained maps (Steppes of War, Kulas Ravine, close positions maps) that very heavily favored certain races (Terran) for a long period of time when no one knew how to play the game right, let alone abuse the maps (CatZ excluded). So players developed ways to play against a blackout Terran map pool, and individual players got good on different maps with different strategies. Now the overall map pool is a lot more fair and balanced, and some maps favor one race/match up (Sanshorn Mist T>Z), and some maps seem to have pretty even stats and just fluctuate with the metagame (Daybreak). There is more stability, and just including Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Entombed Valley, and Antiga Shipyard 1.2 (no golds, cross only) can provide a fair and balanced experience by themselves. By introducing three maps outside this core four on top, you are introducing more instability into your own tournament for no payoff. No matter what tournament players are playing in, they practice those four maps (and historically there has always been a core four) leaving more time to prepare for your tournament. Instead of them being able to focus on the one non-core map they now need to focus on three, leading to sub-par preparation normally. You are rewarding the better player while still introducing a mechanic of that player having to go outside the norm to practice for your event. If you already have a seven map pool, that's good however you should look to "trim some of the fat" with a 5 map pool as described below, but do not worry too much, a seven map pool is still very good. 5 Maps:This is a new size of map pool that has not traditionally used in Starcraft, but been theorized on by notable community members on State of the Game like Artosis and Liquid`Nony. This is the size of map pool I have been using for my tournament, the ESV TV Korean Weekly for about 6 months now. I personally also believe this is the ideal map pool size for all tournaments, big or small in Starcraft II. Unlike in BW, BO7 is something that is actively used on a professional level and a four map pool would end with a lot of repeats. With a 5 map pool you only have a max of two repeats per five maps. In the event of a BO5, there is no repeat and all five maps are used. Creating a smaller pool allows you to properly introduce new maps. The players will run into them more often in the tournament, they will have less to practice (since every pool has three+ known maps, even mine), and will get more time to figure out said map. I think if you could teleport in time and see what kind of map pools are being used five years from now, this will be the type. It is easy for fans to follow, easy for players to practice, and easy for tournament's to introduce new maps to make themselves different from the rest. If in the future the BO5 standard for finals takes over however, this may all change. I think all tournaments should be looking as soon as possible to move to a five map format. If four maps ends up being the future, the change from five to four will be much smoother compared to the one from seven to four. Relevant video4 Maps:Many people are probably wondering, why 4 maps? No one uses it? Well KeSPA does and in their first season in SC2 they are sticking with what they did in BW with SC2 at this point. So it needs to be addressed This is a very interesting format, and worked VERY well for the BO5 heavy BW leagues. It very well stand to be the better option for SC2, and until the proleague starts we really won't know, and even then it will take several seasons to be sure. I admit I have never used a a map pool of only four maps, however I still feel that it would be an acceptable standard for tournaments. 3 Maps:This happens from time to time with GSL qualifier related events. There is not much to talk about, if you intend to broadcast the tournament ever in any way shape or form, don't do this. If it's not meant to be broadcasted and will contain a large number of amateur players it can work. I cannot stress the point enough that your tournament loses most of it's appeal with these pools, and again should NEVER be used in anything that is broadcasted. These pools also also allow for a bad pick of maps to influence a tournament deeply. Pick two maps that are heavily Terran favored, and you should end up with Terrans taking most of the Top 8, same with other races. You want racial diversity as much as possible and a three map pool decreases that.]
+ Show Spoiler +This is where the fun begins. 2 player/4 player splitThis should be one of the first concerns, and this is how you will help control game length so you don't have a tournament you were expecting to run in five hours take 15. This is a pretty easy part really. The more four player maps you have, the longer the tournament will take. The reasoning being of course that on four player maps proxy'ing is even more risky than normal and it's only a move a player tends to use when up multiple games in a series, or when matched against an opponent they do not think they can beat in a straight up game. You should always have at least two or more two player maps. Unless you have a very small tournament player wise (IEM for example) you should have more two player maps then four player. This will allow the tournament to flow better, and prevent all the two player maps from being veto'd (unless you are playing 8+ maps with double vetoes, sigh). You should never have all two player or all four player maps. Map SizeThis is something that gets very overlooked. At ESV we personally classify maps in three main categories: 1: Rush Maps 2: Medium Maps 3: Macro Maps You should be looking to fill all the categories with a minimum of two "rush maps". This allows cheese to be a part of your tournament, and it is an important part of a tournament. This also forces your players to be diverse, and not be able to rely on only hitting large maps and winning off superior macro. The remaining 1-3 slots (depending on size of your map pool) should be depending on your tournament size and timeframe. Examples: Rush Maps: Ohana, Korhal Compound Medium Maps: Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak Macro Maps: Metropolis, Entombed Valley Introducing new mapsI will make this simple because I want this to stick. You will NEVER ruin a tournament by introducing 1-2 new maps (unless your map pool is three maps). NEVER introduce more then two new maps in a tournament map pool. The ONLY exception is when updating versions (ie: Korhal Compound LE >>>> Korhal Compound TE) of commonly used maps. Map age and quality of gameAt a certain point in a maps life the map reaches the end of it's life. When this happens the map still "works" per se. You get games that play like standard games and they are ok. On a map that is not outdated, you will get a large number of "great" or "epic" games. On on outdated map, you will get many less. Every tournament wants to have those memorable games that everyone remembers, you are decreasing your odds of doing so by keeping in old maps. Many games will blur together with the 3000+ other games the viewer has seen on that map. You are putting most of the time players that play this game for eight or more hours a day that do this for a profession, they can make a spectacular game on any map, but you can make more on a fresh map pool. Just because one game was great (for example Stephano/Kiwikaki on Shattered Temple) does not mean the map is great. It means Stephano and Kiwikaki is a great stylistic match up between two of the most creative minds of their respective races in the most violate non-mirror match up. They would have put on a show on Steppes of War, but a good map that does not make it. When does a maps life start and end? A start point would be when it was accepted into ladder or major tournaments for the first time. Once a map has reached 8-12 months from that point, it should be looked at "Is the map producing interesting and fresh games?" needs to be the question you ask. Now to call out a few, in my opinion, none of these maps should ever be used in a tournament that involved any type of a prize ever again because they have stagnated and the average quality of game has gone gone a lot. If you are a tourney admin and have one of these maps, you should remove it and look for a suitable replacement right away. You will only be benefiting your players, fans, and yourselves by doing so. Shattered Temple Sanshorn Mist AE Shakuras Pleateau Terminus Metalopolis Bel'Shir Beach Crossfire Tal'Darim Altar Dual sight Xel'Naga Caverns Testbug Xel'Naga Fortress Crevasse Which version to use?Ask the mapmaker! They will not bullshit you. If the LE is better, they will tell you. If the GSL version is the best they will tell you. These maps represent them, and they want them to play the best it can. When in doubt, don't use the LE. As some general guidelines however you should look to use the version the map creator is actively using/pushing. An example of this would be Metropolis. Several revisions have been made to it. First was the stuff to fix the lag issues, then the removal of the island to prevent 0 supply wins. However there is a version with fixes for both of these, and it's one of the original versions! 대도시 Lite is a version of the map that has been published for a long time on the Korean server. It contains some fixes for the lag issues, and also has neutral tumors on the islands that require a unit with an attack and detection to kill. Many problems could have been solved by quickly asking the mapmaker about these issues and the fixes, and finding out everything is fixed in an alternate version. Another example is tournaments that use Korhal Compound instead of the tournament focused Korhal Compound TE. Mapmakers hate having multiple versions of the same map generally and if they feel that a TE is worth it, there is often a reason behind it. Check with the mapmaker, have them explain why they made these changes or what your concerns are, most of the time the smallest things may be something that an entire map is designed around, and you can destroy the main idea behind a map without even realizing or meaning to if you just go edit the map on your own. Let the mapmakers work on your concerns with you, instead of grabbing whomever spent 12 minutes in the editor that one time in the office and having him edit it. Having 43 versions of one map is bad for everyone.
Ask a mapmaker! They are all accesible! They want to help you and present thier product and your tournament the best. In fact here is links on how to contact them right here on TL. I assure you they will be really helpful!
ESV Map Team: Click Here Crux Map Team (GSL Mapmakers): Click Here TPW Map Team: Click Here
Additionally some players have offered to provide their opinions on your map pool on SoTG, this is how to contact them. If you are a pro player that wants to be on this list let me know:
Liquid`Tyler: Click Here Liquid`Sheth: Click Here
If you are a big enough tournament, just ask all your players, it will get lots of constructive stuff.
This is my no means 100% complete, but I think it should provide some good direction.
|
Let me know what you think of this !
|
Great Read Diamond, I agree with most points raised, HOWEVER, I feel that the average map pool has 4 map types, rather than three.
1- Rush Maps Ohana, Antiga 2- Standard Maps Daybreak, Entombed 3- Macro Maps Metropolis, Whirwind 4- Strategy Maps Cloud Kingdom Strategy maps are those that require you to play differently from any standard game. Another example could be Crossfire LE. These maps are great, innovative, but need to be cycled out of map pools relatively quickly (after 2, max 3 seasons), because you figure out the way to play the map and this ruins both the quality of games and the balance of the map (Crossfire is the obvious example of an overstayed welcome, but CKLE is fast approaching this state as well).
If a tournament keeps a standard 3 (or perhaps 4) maps fitting into all the other categories, they can tamper with this map the most. Which means that map makers can innovate most with the non-standard map, meaning it's win-win for everyone
In my opinion, having 4 maps is a golden standard because it has one of each map type. Having 5 is ok because you can put in 1 more map into one of the primary 3 categories depending on what you are lacking (for example, in a pool of Daybreak, Metropolis, Ohana, and CKLE, you have all four maps with easy cheese due to spawning patterns, so throwing in a Whirwind might help. If you take out Daybreak and put in Entombed, you can put in a different rush map, for instance.
Anyway, those are my thoughts <3 Great write up Dia
|
Awesome read, thanks Diamond. Great 8k post. I hope all tournaments take note!
One thing I disagreed with, however:
7 Maps: The golden standard of Starcraft II. For the longest time I personally believed this was the best way to do a pool. Allows for a BO7 with no repeats of maps. Still a big map pool, but not too big. If you choose a seven map pool, you will do alright. It will offer lots of variety in picks, and will likely not contain any racial imbalances that cannot be fixed with vetos.
However one thing I came to realize over time is that almost every tournament only has one BO7 series in the entire event. The finals. While that is great to be prepared for it, it is creating thousands of useless practice games for nothing, since all the players but the Top 2 will be forced to still practice all seven.
This is a minor problem, but still a problem nonetheless. In a tournament that may contain up to 200 players, why are 200 people practicing maps that only 2 people will use. You are making 99% of your player base work for something that only benefits the Top 1%. It's a inefficient system, and also with a veto system you sometimes create rounds that can go on forever if all the 2 player maps get veto'd out. If you already have a seven map pool, that's good however you should look to "trim some of the fat" with a 5 map pool as described below, but do not worry too much, a seven map pool is still very good.
While I agree that having 5-map pools may make for better games due to more intensified practice on fewer maps, I don't think the efficiency argument is quite the way you present it. Even though none of the players but the top 2 will actually use all 7 maps in one match (and actually usually not even in the finals unless they go 4-3), they will still get to play on every map, just spread out over multiple rounds of the tournament (unless they get knocked out round 1). Assuming the tournament fully cycles out maps in the rotation each round, you will see variety of all the maps.
My personal opinion on the number of maps in a pool would be that 7 is ideal for tournaments that allow one veto per player, but 5 is ideal if no vetoes are allowed.
|
|
Wow. This is a complete other specialization. It's like an art. Very interesting. Thanks for this.
|
I didn't think you'd actually write this guide, I thought you were just joking. I agree with you though, and pleasantly surprised at the lack of ESV favouritism.
|
There's this aspect and then also having maps that favor a race by a small proportion so the veto system can "balance" matchups. It isn't a very popular strategy, but having a map like Metalopolis (for lack of a better example) in to balance Metropolis in TvZ can work.
|
Nice. What about having 6 maps, and allowing each player to veto a map in every Best of, it would limit players to 5 maps for each matchup still, and it would give KeSPA and the like their 4 map bo5's. (6-1-1=4 maps left over for the series)
there may be a problem with my idea, what do you guys think?
|
On May 19 2012 12:36 thurst0n wrote: Nice. What about having 6 maps, and allowing each player to veto a map in every Best of, it would limit players to 5 maps for each matchup still, and it would give KeSPA and the like their 4 map bo5's. (6-1-1=4 maps left over for the series)
there may be a problem with my idea, what do you guys think?
Having 6 maps in a pool has all the negative aspects of 7 and 4. The repetition of 4 map pools with the need to practise 6 maps, only to have 2 vetoed means that this doesn't really work. You're actually taking away from players who want to develop map specific strategies by throwing in more maps that theoretically wouldn't be used.
|
this was a great read. I never thought of picking map pools that extensive. However i´d like to note, to me it seems that Kespa using 4 maps is risking some boredom of repetition from viewers. Seeing just 4 maps all over might be a bit short.
|
I would agree that there's a fourth type of map - the strategy map - and would throw Terminus in as one. I think it's also important to look at racial data, which you touched on. Even within a category - say, macro maps - there are some that are better for different races. Base placement, ramp sizes and locations and other factors can make one macro map hugely better for one race or another. A five-map pool that has a rush map, a macro map, two 'standard' maps and a strategy map can still be terrible if there's a racial imbalance. So our hypothetical map pool of:
Cloud Kingdom (TvZ, ZvP) Crossfire (ZvP) Metalopolis (TvZ) Shakuras Plateau (TvP, ZvT) Antiga Shipyard (TvP, TvZ)
- has serious problems (setting aside that it has lots of outdates maps in similar categories). Three of the maps trend strongly (more than a 5% swing) in favor of Terran in TvZ. Two trend strongly in favor of Z in the ZvP matchup. Two trend strongly in favor of T in the TvP matchup. Only Shakuras trends strongly against Terran in any matchup - TvZ. No map[ has a strong trend in favor of Protoss. This map pool sets Protoss players up for failure, and it ain't looking pretty for Zergs playing ZvTs either. You'd expect, all other things being equal, to have a lot more Terrans in your later rounds with this pool at the expense of Zergs and especially Protoss players. That makes your tournament much less compelling.
|
While I disagree with some things you're doing nowadays, I wholeheartedly agree with this.
BW (and SotG) have been more than right about the smaller map pools. It's important that every maps can be practiced for every matchup to ensure the quality of the games and variety of strategies (opposed to playing the same general strategies on all maps).
Also it's much better for introducing new maps if you have small map pools where you can actually practice every single map.
I really hope tournaments realize this in the future. Repeating maps in bo7 final really isn't an issue at all if you made good map picks.
One more thing, admins/staff aren't really capable of judging maps properly and picking the right ones on their own. Sorry but this is something only the top mapmakers can really do... this may sound elitist but trust me it is the case...
|
Really nice post. Even though I don't organize any tournaments, I still enjoyed reading this post.
As an aside, I'm especially enjoying Frigid Pass. I'd like to see more tournaments pick it up.
|
I wouldn't want to argue but I can see why in a best of 5 they would allow for like 9 maps and allow each player to veto 2. Like id hate to play on entombed and korhal for instance against a protoss. Entombed for obvious reasons if you spawn either close positions you have a really close rush distance and not much time to react, its really hard to trade units and not die too and that is bad for zerg and/or can never take a safe third because your third is more or less on top of their base and korhal because heavy sentry pushes to the third is really strong because you can use the hatch as part of the wall against the defending units. I veto these maps on ladder along with Ohana on ladder but that is more preference because I don't like facing mech on it.
Its interesting though because you can never have an entirely balanced map and blizzard went out to say they like having a certain amount of favor to make the match ups interesting. I do know the reason why having an 8+ map pool doesn't make much sense like the players have to train on each but what would I prefer? Id say id much prefer to train on them and waste some time because it might be vetoed rather than play on a map I know id have to work a lot harder to win on because the map is heavily favored for a match up or 2 like entombed.
As for maps I think are tournament viable or not I agree with all of them but id obviously add entombed. As for what id like to see more maps like cloud kingdom which I think is pretty balanced for me other than that cannon nook which needs to go die in a fire.
|
I like the idea of putting in 1 or 2 new maps with every tourny pool. Considering how frequently they're run these days, I think 1 is better (in say a 7 map pool). The reason I like it is because it makes for spectating a little more exciting because it's just more new, and anticipation is what spectating is all about. The only potential issue is that it relies on players using the terrain well. Not necessarily exploits, but if it's played out exactly like all the other maps, it's not that exciting. Additionally, even if it's played out differently, it's really hard to see unless it's pointed out by a pro analyst caster, so it requires work from multiple parties to make new map additions worth it.
Like the idea, but I think players should have just as much say as map makers do when it comes to picking a pool.
|
On May 19 2012 13:24 phiinix wrote: I like the idea of putting in 1 or 2 new maps with every tourny pool. Considering how frequently they're run these days, I think 1 is better (in say a 7 map pool). The reason I like it is because it makes for spectating a little more exciting because it's just more new, and anticipation is what spectating is all about. The only potential issue is that it relies on players using the terrain well. Not necessarily exploits, but if it's played out exactly like all the other maps, it's not that exciting. Additionally, even if it's played out differently, it's really hard to see unless it's pointed out by a pro analyst caster, so it requires work from multiple parties to make new map additions worth it.
Like the idea, but I think players should have just as much say as map makers do when it comes to picking a pool.
The problem is that many players want the map pool to remain mostly static, because they're comfortable with the maps that are out there now. The whole point of a changing map pool is to keep the players on their toes and reward players who know how to adapt their playstyle. Players like playing on "outdated" maps because they're figured out and very comfortable. The contention in the OP, though, is that the key to really exciting tournaments is to sometimes push the players outside their comfort zone, and make them try new approaches that they may not be as familiar with.
|
Going to re-word 7 maps section a bit, I wrote this in like 2 hours so there is some thoughts that did not come through clear.
Edit: Done, I don't know if it makes more or less sense now.
Edit 2: Expanded the 'which version" section.
|
I really hope this thread will get the deserved attention. People really underestimate the value of a good map pool, and just puts in "the standard old" maps in as a default even though they may be bad...
Nice read!
|
8716 Posts
On May 19 2012 12:18 -orb- wrote: My personal opinion on the number of maps in a pool would be that 7 is ideal for tournaments that allow one veto per player, but 5 is ideal if no vetoes are allowed. Most people choose which map to veto by which map they practice the least or by which they think is bad for the matchup they're about to play. These two reasons are damn good reasons to not have the map in the map pool at all. Vetoes are band-aids on bad map pools. Every map in a map pool should be thoroughly practiced by all players and no map should be bad for a certain matchup. And it's not out of laziness or lack of effort that players aren't able to practice every map pool. There are just too many maps out there and the map pools are too big. Just making up numbers, there are maybe 15 maps that might be used at a major tournament and a major tournament will require you to be ready to play on any of 7 maps in one weekend. That does not produce quality games. Not possible to practice all three matchups on that many maps.
People seem so freaked out about the possibility for an extremely imbalanced map to occupy 1/4 or 1/5 of a map pool for a few tournaments. It's not a big deal. It gets removed quickly.
The way it is now, we aren't really living. No risk no reward. So many maps are played in such generic ways that hardly anyone can do anything drastically different on any map. If we want to see variety and refinement and creativity, we must do that at the risk of some new strategy or innovation being imbalanced. The first players to exploit an imbalance get a few easy wins as a reward for seeing something that no one else did and then the map is promptly removed from all competitive play.
|
|
Excellent writeup diamond. Very impressed
Keep up the good work.
|
On May 22 2012 06:16 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 12:18 -orb- wrote: My personal opinion on the number of maps in a pool would be that 7 is ideal for tournaments that allow one veto per player, but 5 is ideal if no vetoes are allowed. Most people choose which map to veto by which map they practice the least or by which they think is bad for the matchup they're about to play. These two reasons are damn good reasons to not have the map in the map pool at all. Vetoes are band-aids on bad map pools. Every map in a map pool should be thoroughly practiced by all players and no map should be bad for a certain matchup. And it's not out of laziness or lack of effort that players aren't able to practice every map pool. There are just too many maps out there and the map pools are too big. Just making up numbers, there are maybe 15 maps that might be used at a major tournament and a major tournament will require you to be ready to play on any of 7 maps in one weekend. That does not produce quality games. Not possible to practice all three matchups on that many maps. People seem so freaked out about the possibility for an extremely imbalanced map to occupy 1/4 or 1/5 of a map pool for a few tournaments. It's not a big deal. It gets removed quickly. The way it is now, we aren't really living. No risk no reward. So many maps are played in such generic ways that hardly anyone can do anything drastically different on any map. If we want to see variety and refinement and creativity, we must do that at the risk of some new strategy or innovation being imbalanced. The first players to exploit an imbalance get a few easy wins as a reward for seeing something that no one else did and then the map is promptly removed from all competitive play.
I completely agree, I was just stating that if tournaments are going to use vetoes (because I know some are going to whether we like it or not) that 5 would probably be too few in a pool (then you would be down to just 3 maps total to play in a bo5).
I know a lot of people disagree with you, however, on it not being okay to have a map that has some matchups that are imbalanced. A lot of people seem to think it's healthy to do this because players will play around it and it will create an interesting map choice order or something. I personally agree with you, and think we should strive for the ideal of trying to get every map as close to 50/50 on each matchup as possible. This in the long run achieves more close games as opposed to just close series, it produces more even games, and perhaps most importantly it helps foster more consistency in the players.
|
Thankyou for writing this - I don't enjoy watching Shakuras Plateau games anymore, or Tal'darim Altar, etc. These maps are not only old, but we are so used to seeing them and they are no longer visually pleasing anymore. Bring on the new maps that look fucking amazing and are done by super-talented map makers!!! We don't watch Starcraft II for its graphics but please let's take advantage of it!
|
I know some people are worried about a 5 map pool being boring in a BO7. Personally, I think touranments should have pallet swapped versions of each of their maps to keep the visuals as new as possible, while still keeping a tight map pool. Just having a "snow version" of each map could remove that minor concern and get us to the crisper, more refined games we all want to see.
|
On May 22 2012 06:16 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 12:18 -orb- wrote: My personal opinion on the number of maps in a pool would be that 7 is ideal for tournaments that allow one veto per player, but 5 is ideal if no vetoes are allowed. Most people choose which map to veto by which map they practice the least or by which they think is bad for the matchup they're about to play. These two reasons are damn good reasons to not have the map in the map pool at all. Vetoes are band-aids on bad map pools. Every map in a map pool should be thoroughly practiced by all players and no map should be bad for a certain matchup. And it's not out of laziness or lack of effort that players aren't able to practice every map pool. There are just too many maps out there and the map pools are too big. Just making up numbers, there are maybe 15 maps that might be used at a major tournament and a major tournament will require you to be ready to play on any of 7 maps in one weekend. That does not produce quality games. Not possible to practice all three matchups on that many maps. People seem so freaked out about the possibility for an extremely imbalanced map to occupy 1/4 or 1/5 of a map pool for a few tournaments. It's not a big deal. It gets removed quickly. The way it is now, we aren't really living. No risk no reward. So many maps are played in such generic ways that hardly anyone can do anything drastically different on any map. If we want to see variety and refinement and creativity, we must do that at the risk of some new strategy or innovation being imbalanced. The first players to exploit an imbalance get a few easy wins as a reward for seeing something that no one else did and then the map is promptly removed from all competitive play.
Thank you for the reply in this thread, was about to PM you to see what you thought !
Any other pros or notable people want to pitch in? I know I am not perfect so I'd love to hear your thoughts.
|
I´m not an expert of any sort and I really love the Guide. You seam to have put alot of effort into this and helping other tournament organizers.
Me myself will be arranging the NärCon Starcraft 2 tournament with a slot in the IESF finals as first price. I think I will be using the 5 map pool concept. I think it creates more exciting games in the BO7 finals if it comes to a Ace match stage. THen you will have them playing 2 maps again and (hopefully) do some wild and well planned cheese etc.
My only concern is what maps I´m going to use. To be honest, I love Starcraft but I´m not that good at it.
The only map I really know that I want in is: ESV Muspelheim which has been displayed in the GSTL.
I want to create as much variation for the players, observers to make the tournament as interesting as possible!
The format: 16 players from start -> Group play, top 2 advance from the 4 groups -> Single elimination BO5 bracket with 8 players -> BO7 finals, 2 maps have to be repeated if the situation occurs.
|
Bump because I have seen some really absurd map pool lately.
|
Russian Federation483 Posts
DreamHack cut mappool to 5 for Summer heh.
|
Nice guide i learned a lot
|
Thread is still very relevant indeed!
On July 22 2012 21:40 chuDr3t4 wrote: DreamHack cut mappool to 5 for Summer heh.
Was pleasantly surprised when I saw that. Hope to see more of this in the future
|
What do the experienced people here think about the recent influx of two player maps in tournament and ladder pools (cloud kingdom, ohana, daybreak especially)? I like all three of these maps a lot and they certainly varry in terms of the types of play promoted, whether it be agressive or economic, but I feel sometimes that having all three is redundant.
Do tournament organizers recognize this and keep all three simply because there are so few tournament tested three and four player maps, or is it because they want to allow players to feel comfortable on all maps in a pool of 7 maps when they know that each player wouldn't be able to prepare for 7 completely different maps.
I know that the logic in both decisions is quite flawed, but I can't seem to think of any other reason why tournaments like MLG and others haven't immediately taken the advice given in Diamond's post. It seems like tournaments are trying to keep a familiar format for player comfort, but in the end, map pools are suffering for it.
|
I really feel like pressure have to be brought back on tournements to introduce new maps to their pools. It was for the longest time the joke that "Duh ladder pool terrible". Result is that now that the ladder pool have some decent maps it is litterly all that is being played. Go a year back and any tournement saying "well we use only ladder maps" would be laughed by to death.
That is the reality we face now. MLG is very bad at this. The currect pool is all ladder maps and it has been the current one since april. If the summer championships in august have the same mappool as the arena then the current MLG map pool with be 4 mounths old. In other words MLG changes their mappool at least twice as slow as Blizzard! MLG is a really big name right now in the SC2 scene and it really is them that could change this. But they currently don't.
|
Russian Federation483 Posts
On July 22 2012 23:23 Sumadin wrote: I really feel like pressure have to be brought back on tournements to introduce new maps to their pools. It was for the longest time the joke that "Duh ladder pool terrible". Result is that now that the ladder pool have some decent maps it is litterly all that is being played. Go a year back and any tournement saying "well we use only ladder maps" would be laughed by to death.
That is the reality we face now. MLG is very bad at this. The currect pool is all ladder maps and it has been the current one since april. If the summer championships in august have the same mappool as the arena then the current MLG map pool with be 4 mounths old. In other words MLG changes their mappool at least twice as slow as Blizzard! MLG is a really big name right now in the SC2 scene and it really is them that could change this. But they currently don't. I feel like out of all "Premier Tournaments" MLG currently is the most conservative one. They tried Testbug long time ago, it didn't work out, and they just gave up.
Add: And I checked Liquipedia, Testbug was in the MLG map pool from http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Dallas to http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Raleigh , for 4 months, but how could it be successful when map pool was 7 maps and tournament is Bo3?
|
Despite Nony's post (whose opinion I respect), I think map pools need vetoes. He's describing too much of an ideal world situation with only weekend tournaments. In an ideal situation, all maps are well balanced and any imbalanced map is rejected by the next tournament. However, we live in the world of GSL (2 months), NASL (3+ months), and now Pro League (4-5 months?). A map may be considered balanced/acceptable at the start of one of those seasons and be considered completely imbalanced by the time playoffs come around (NASL suffered from this). Even a weekend tournament can announce a map pool a month beforehand and find out by the time of the tournament that one of the maps is imbalanced. This can be especially true if you are introducing 1-2 new maps in the season that have not been extensively play-tested in tournament situations.
Map pools need vetoes because vetoes allow the players to keep the map pool balanced in the current meta-game. If a series is a Bo3, having a veto is a necessity because one bad map can be extremely punishing whereas a Bo7 is much more forgiving. Vetoes also allow a player to practice less maps for the tournament or weekly match while still giving the viewer more variety overall.
I'd love to see a recommended veto system and/or map-pick system added to the OP for each of the map pool sizes in a Bo3, Bo5, and Bo7. I think those things are essential for fair play and the quality of your games.
For example, if a tournament has a finals with a best of 7, I think that a 5-map system could be very bad depending on how the maps are picked. If the loser of game one is allowed to pick the 2nd map (his most favored map), and if the 2nd map is recycled into also being the 7th map, then you've just put the most imbalanced map into game 7 and potentially created a poor final game.
In my ideal world, a weekend tournament (MLG, Dreamhack, IEM, IPL, WCS) would use a 5-map pool because they have the ability to pick a current map pool and at the worst, a bad map lasts for one weekend. I would still give players one veto for any Bo3 series (meaning that you'd only have to practice 4 maps to get past the Bo3 stages), but remove vetoes for any Bo5 series. In a Bo7, I would allow the winner of game #1 to veto a map for only game #2 and the loser picks from the three remaining maps (the vetoed map is eligible for game 3/4/5). Map #1 would be used in game #6 and map #2 in game #7. This way, your game 7 can't be ruined by one imbalanced map that snuck into the pool.
Every longer running league (NASL, GSL) should use a 7 map pool. I'd actually recommend giving each player two vetoes in Bo3s (so they only have to practice five maps), one veto in a Bo5, and no vetoes in a Bo7. They'll already have a ton of practice on the other maps, so they can dedicate a lot of their time to the map(s) they haven't practiced in the week leading up to the Bo5 or Bo7.
This all presumes that tournaments have players alternate rejecting maps (vetoes first, then just rejections) until the 1st map is chosen because that allows the least hated map to become map #1 (and potentially #6 in a Bo7 with 5 maps). It also presumes that tournaments allow the loser to pick the next map, which I think is smart because it encourages longer series.
|
Ah.... I wish MLG officials read this before doing dumb shit (Antiga golds, Entombed all spawns, and fucking Taldarim Altar and Shakuras Plateau in the pool)
Good read, Diamond. That was instructive.
|
Russian Federation483 Posts
|
Gonna continue the discussion from the ProAm thread to this one, since it's more appropriate (thanks ArcticRaven!)
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + Er, no, one week isn't enough time to learn the ins and outs of 4-5 maps (I'm assuming the amount of maps remaining after vetos in a 20-map pool).
Then you just argued against say Dreamhack introducing new maps, because that's exactly what they did with ESV vicious, or what MLG did with Testbug, you had about a week to get accustomed to that new map, and then you went with it. Also, you don't have to learn 4-5 every week. You veto out the same 8 maps every time as a player obviously, or you do it per matchup, I don't know, which leaves you with as 12 player map pool for the entire GSL. You can also assume that there are some unpopular maps which everyone vetos out, so that gives you 10, that's your 'personal map pool' for the GSL under this system essentially, is that really that much more than the 8 map pool GSL has now? The major difference is that this system establishes a personal map pool essentially for each player. It could even be so far to demand players to stick with the same vetos for the entire GSL if so need be. The system in place now gives you 8 maps to consider for the entire GSL, this gives you 10 in practice, is that really such a difference in preparation time and demand for players in order to achieve A: Many more maps in rotation. B: Many more different maps for the fans. C: A much, much higher refresh rate for maps. D: A clear statistic on which maps the pros favour to play on. I'm not sure how you failed to understand the gigantic flaws of this kind of system, especially when I already explained it earlier in the ProAm thread.
1.) Players don't get a "personal map pool", they merely get the reassurance that they don't have to play some of the maps. After taking into account their opponent's vetos, the pool that actually gets played on can vastly change, and there's no real way to practice all the remaining maps efficiently. If we take a look at GSL's current map pool, it contains 8 maps. Frankly, I still feel that to be too large a pool, but GSL can get away with it because 5 of the maps are in the current battle.net ladder pool. That only leaves 3 maps that players really have to spend time trying to figure out on their own and preparing for: Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis (which also was on the ladder for a short time), and Whirlwind. The other five can get figured out reasonably enough by just hitting that "find match" button a lot.
When you give an excessively large map pool where even with vetos you have to practice 8-10 maps, it's a guarantee that most of them won't be ladder maps. Without ladder practice, it becomes much more difficult for anyone not in a rigid team house to get adequate practice in, and even then will still be difficult. You can say goodbye to non-Koreans ever standing a competitive chance in tournaments.
2.) Like TPW Ragoo pointed out in the ProAm thread (and as I pointed out earlier in the ProAm thread as well), the system also doesn't work as you intend by sheer virtue that pros will collectively agree to always veto certain maps to reduce the issues I mention in flaw #1. Dreamhack sets good precedent for this being the case, with Frigid Pass and Vicious pretty well never seeing the light of day despite its map pool consisting of only 9 maps (unlike the 20ish you would want).
I read your counter-point to Ragoo on this, but quite frankly you leave out a basic fact: what you're trying to accomplish and what will end up happening do not co-incide. Your whole purpose for this excessive map pool size is to get more new maps being played in tournaments. The simple reality is that new maps will not be played by virtue of veto. From a pro perspective, why spend time learning new maps when you can just keep playing on the maps you're comfortable with? I really don't feel you're thinking this stuff through.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +I'm sorry to say, but you have no idea the kind of preparation that goes into tournaments like the GSL and OSL if you think this is the case. That 1 week of preparation time is to prepare specifically for the opponent -- not to learn how to play the map. I don't, see the above part, you make an error in your mathematical reasoning behind what this system pans out to. As I detailed above, this system leads to each player having a personal map pool of 10 or so maps to consider for the tournament, the old system leads to 8, except that every player shares the map pool whereas in this case they are with respect to certain players. No, there is no "mathematical error" for me. What you claim to be a mathematical error on my part is actually the thing that puts your whole idea out of commission. New maps just won't get played via veto. It's happened before in the GSL, it's happened in Dreamhack, and it'll happen again whenever there's prize money on the line and the pros don't want to leave it to chance on an unfamiliar map. It makes your whole system completely pointless in the end.
The (unlikely) alternative is that pros decide to play it differently and don't agree on constantly vetoing certain maps. If this is the case, then your "personal 10 map pool" claim is bunk. For there to be 10 maps remaining after vetos in a 20 map pool, that means each player gets 5 vetos. With only 5 guaranteed maps not being played per player, that's actually a 15 map pool a player has to practice, which is completely impractical. Alternatively, if you mean that both players get 10 vetos for a guaranteed maximum 10 maps to practice, then the veto system is flawed. Both players could veto the opposite maps, leaving no maps to be played on (20 - 10 - 10 = 0, for simplicity's sake).
That's a completely broken veto system. No, the mathematical error does not lay with me. It's with you.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +It's also completely unreasonable to expect pros to know every detail of 20 maps in advance, so that they can prepare for their opponent on whichever 4-5 maps will be used. That sort of thing takes a lot of time. They don't, because you veto out 8 maps, so it's 12 maps you have to know the details of, furthermore you can assume that if you are a T player and there is a certain highly T favoured map that every P and Z player is going to veto that map out against you, which leaves you realistically with about 10 maps, which is quite reasonable. Again, your numbers don't make sense. In this case, you're speaking of 8 vetos per player. First off, like you mention, having to learn 12 maps is way too much. It's not reasonable at all -- go be a professional player yourself if you need to learn and understand this point in a more direct manner. That's larger than any map pool out there, which, quite frankly, are already too big (an issue that gave birth to this map pool creation guide).
Also, unless pros get together and agree on what maps to veto (which is most likely to happen, as I mentioned, but let's pretend this isn't the case for a second) then the whole notion of assuming which maps opponents might veto so you don't have to practice them is absolutely ridiculous. No decent pro with money on the line is going to leave something like that up to luck. We're talking about people's careers, here. Their livelihood.
The assumptions you make for your proposed system to work simply do not make sense.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +What's the best way to FFE? Can it be done? How about 1-rax FE? Can Zerg take a fast 3rd in response and be safe? How does one punish these kinds of builds with early timings? Can they be punished? These kind of questions must be re-asked and re-answered every single time a new map enters the pool, and that's only the really basic, early-game stuff. The questions become a lot more difficult to answer for later stages of the game until there's been enough play time on them. With a map pool of 20, there simply isn't enough time, mathematically speaking. The likely thing to happen is that the GSL pros would just come together and agree to not play certain maps (if you think pros don't collaborate on topics like this, then you really don't know what you're talking about), so that they never even have to be considered. As you can imagine, that defeats the entire purpose of having a large pool. Again, see above, you make a mathematical mistake in your reasoning. It's 10 maps versus 8, not 20 versus 8. I've already corrected your errors here.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + You do realize that in BW, maps have been known to get patched mid-season to remove imbalances, yes? That's something unheard of in SC2, where patches and changes only get applied between seasons.
Indeed, but an OSL season is far longer than a GSL season. SC2 is still statistically a far more balanced game than BW ever was despite some people not wanting to admit that and SC2 maps are more balanced. No doubt because the SC2 player pool is far larger than the BW player pool ever was allowing for more detailed information about map statistics. And because BW mapmakers are not afraid to radically experiment while in SC2 that mentality has been largely diminished over the course of the game. You start off with some correct information and then delve straight into wrong reasons and conclusions. SC2 is much more balanced statistically for a number of reasons:
1. Blizzard is far more active in monitoring and tweaking balance than they ever were in Brood War. 2. Games played in SC2 over a certain period of time far outnumber anything Brood War achieved. OSL matches were few and far between (one or two every 1-2 weeks), compared to GSL which often has 5+ matches a day. You note this yourself when you mention OSL seasons being much longer than GSL ones. OSL also doesn't have the whole Code A/Up & Down televised matches, meaning even if the seasons ran for similar amounts of time, GSL would still far outweigh the OSL in total games played. 3. One of the biggest reasons for the larger discrepancies in BW balance stats is specifically the very small amount of total games in comparison to SC2. When you have a much larger pool of games, stats tend to even out a lot more (unless something is seriously broken).
None of that has to do with more balanced maps or a more balanced game. Even if we do assume those two things, nothing here gives proof of those claims. At the end of the day, BW utilized a smaller map pool (which made it much better for the players) and patched maps mid-season if need be to ensure major balance issues didn't go unaddressed. Your proposed map pool size doesn't offer anything superior. Rather, your solution is simply to have players mask broken maps with vetos, which defeats the purpose of having those maps in the pool in the first place. Why would you not just pull/replace a completely broken map from a smaller pool, or patch it mid-season if it was just a tweak that needed to be done to make it playable? You offer no reasoning that makes a 20 map pool more appealing; rather, it just brings in additional complications.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +The one good exception to this is the ESV Korean Weekly, where they have no problem adding and removing maps from week to week, though it'd be even better if they took a more subtle approach of patching maps that only need some tweaking to fix. Of course, they might have additional reasons as well, such as simply wanting to get some initial play testing in on more maps. Indeed, and they most certainly don't give you weeks to analyze, players just go with it, which is sort of the charm of the tournament honestly, you see a lot of new fresh maps and players improvising. It's also not a major/premier tournament that has tens of thousands of dollars on the line just between taking 1st or 2nd. Even the current Grand Prix II (which has a $3500 prize pool) doesn't rotate maps for the sake of the players; the map pool is the same as week #8. ESV knows that when money is on the line, there needs to be some stability in terms of maps.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Like I mentioned before, having more maps isn't a solution. What's the point of swapping out 4-8 maps when it's likely none of those will have gotten played in the first place? It's a waste, and an unnecessary one. It's also why it was a good thing that GSL moved away from the veto system -- when there were vetos, we saw maps that never got played in certain matchups, and that was a pool much smaller than 20. Exactly! and if maps are never played then this is a clear, clear indication that they need to go. Not a shred of doubt in my mind exists that pretty much every P player would veto crossfire or Dual Sight if they could, yet they were forced to play on these very imbalanced maps for PvZ and PvT for a very long time. If maps are constantly vetoed and never played, remove them, the best indication you can honestly have that a map isn't good. What a flawed conclusion. Many maps are vetoed because players don't want to have to learn something new, and would rather stick to what they know in order to win. Every time we've seen new maps get introduced in tournaments with a veto system, it gets overwhelmingly vetoed. This is completely natural and understandable from a competitive standpoint. Your conclusion here is completely unfair to mapmakers, and would definitely be counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +There's also nothing wrong with seeing maps used again in a BoX -- OSL Bo5 matches have the first map played again in the final game, which gives precedence in StarCraft competition. There isn't, but seeing the same 4 maps used for an entire OSL tournaments starts to get boring, especially because what people often do is just re-use the same strategy on the same map the entire time. It gets boring. Variety is the spice of life, the star that shines barely is all the brighter for its brevity. Or putting this metaphor in a more contemporary context, Zero Punctuation has been going on forever and it's been getting boring. Even if you find flaw in the length of time an OSL takes place, applying the same concept to a GSL, which is only 2 months, is not a very long time. If you get bored of maps after only 2 months, then that's a personal issue you need to work out; don't start recommending that player's livelihoods get completely upended with an excessively large (even after vetos) and uncertain map pool to practice.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Also, do you get tired of seeing hockey rinks? Football fields? Basketball courts? As silly as this analogy is, I do, football and hockey and what not are extremely repetitive sports compared to say StarCraft or chess. ... More repetitive than chess? Really?
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +The idea of getting "only" a couple of fresh maps every 2 months isn't exactly all that bad. That's a pretty high turnover rate, especially given current SC2 standards. For example, how many seasons did that awful map Crossfire stay in the GSL for? Indeed, and it would be out of there long ago with my system, every single P player vetoing it is a clear sign of its badness, despite Artosis' insisting it's a good PvZ map. The point is, mapmakers like to complain that their new maps aren't getting exposure, big map pools give exposure, throw a couple of radical maps in there, maps from unknown mapmakers, if they are good and/or interesting, then progamers will not veto them and they get a shot, if they are bad, they will be vetoed. Big map pools don't give exposure. They make practice much more difficult for players, force players to veto maps just to try and keep the pool manageable, cause those vetos to be declared "bad maps" by people like yourself, even if they might be amazing (they're just never given a chance), and really hurt mapmakers of these vetoed maps, who have made potentially great maps that are declared bad without even gaining any real data to determine how to make the map better.
It's bad for everyone, and I say this also as a new mapmaker that's trying to get exposure for my maps. I get that you have good intentions for people like myself, but your idea is simply not the right way to go about it.
|
On July 23 2012 03:54 stormfoxSC wrote: 1.) Players don't get a "personal map pool", they merely get the reassurance that they don't have to play some of the maps. After taking into account their opponent's vetos, the pool that actually gets played on can vastly change, and there's no real way to practice all the remaining maps efficiently. They do, this is mathematics, if the total pool is 20 and they are allowed 8 consistent vetos at the start of the tournament, their personal pool is 12 in the theoretically worst case, 12 maps they have to consider, however in practice it will be closer to 10 because there's bound to be at least 2 maps that are really good for their race that players of the other races have vetoed or that everyone just has vetoed because they are bad maps. Apart from that they know the vetoes of the other race, so even though it's 10-12 for the entire tournament, it's a pool of say 6 considering the opponent and his race, which is more than enough.
If we take a look at GSL's current map pool, it contains 8 maps. Frankly, I still feel that to be too large a pool, but GSL can get away with it because 5 of the maps are in the current battle.net ladder pool. That only leaves 3 maps that players really have to spend time trying to figure out on their own and preparing for: Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis (which also was on the ladder for a short time), and Whirlwind. The other five can get figured out reasonably enough by just hitting that "find match" button a lot. I am pretty sure most progamers do not use the ladder for practice for the GSL at all, another thing is that using customs with members of your team takes the same amount of time as 'find match', so the issue is moot.
When you give an excessively large map pool where even with vetos you have to practice 8-10 maps, it's a guarantee that most of them won't be ladder maps. Without ladder practice, it becomes much more difficult for anyone not in a rigid team house to get adequate practice in, and even then will still be difficult. You can say goodbye to non-Koreans ever standing a competitive chance in tournaments. Do you know someone who is currently in the GSL who does not enjoy team house practice?
In fact, making the map pool larger and thereby removing the advantage of preparation would give players without a team house far more of a shot. The fact that you can prepare for the GSL is an advantage for the GSL, if you basically give people the maps they play on the very day they play and reveal their opponent as a surprise preparation is removed and it becomes a 'raw skill' tournament which removes the advantage of specific team house practice and gives foreigners a bigger chance.
2.) Like TPW Ragoo pointed out in the ProAm thread (and as I pointed out earlier in the ProAm thread as well), the system also doesn't work as you intend by sheer virtue that pros will collectively agree to always veto certain maps to reduce the issues I mention in flaw #1. Dreamhack sets good precedent for this being the case, with Frigid Pass and Vicious pretty well never seeing the light of day despite its map pool consisting of only 9 maps (unlike the 20ish you would want). I beg to differ, Dreamhack showed exactly the virtues of this system, because Vicious was played far more than frigid pass there, demonstrating that progamers like it more, giving you a statistic to work with.
I read your counter-point to Ragoo on this, but quite frankly you leave out a basic fact: what you're trying to accomplish and what will end up happening do not co-incide. Your whole purpose for this excessive map pool size is to get more new maps being played in tournaments. That, and simply enabling vetos to stop pros being forced to play on maps they do not enjoy.
The simple reality is that new maps will not be played by virtue of veto. From a pro perspective, why spend time learning new maps when you can just keep playing on the maps you're comfortable with? I really don't feel you're thinking this stuff through. Because your opponent is in the very same boat. I'm pretty sure if you gave DRG the choice of playing on Entombed or on a map he and his opponent have relatively little experience with, he would veto out entombed.
MLG also showed that people were comfortable picking certain MLG-specific maps such as Testbug, IPL also showed how players were comfortable picking Atlantis Space Ship, Darkness Falls and Sandshorn Mist when these maps were pretty much isolated to use in IPL. Apparently because they looked at the maps and thought they were good maps? This was when the IPL map pool was so large that they didn't have to, but they choose to.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: No, there is no "mathematical error" for me. What you claim to be a mathematical error on my part is actually the thing that puts your whole idea out of commission. New maps just won't get played via veto. It's happened before in the GSL When did this happen in the GSL?
it's happened in Dreamhack Dreamhack showed Vicious being played a lot more than Frigid Pass, it was even set to play in the finals because the wallof bug ruined it. This shows people do pick new maps they seem to like, but not new maps they don't.
The (unlikely) alternative is that pros decide to play it differently and don't agree on constantly vetoing certain maps. If this is the case, then your "personal 10 map pool" claim is bunk. For there to be 10 maps remaining after vetos in a 20 map pool, that means each player gets 5 vetos. With only 5 guaranteed maps not being played per player, that's actually a 15 map pool a player has to practice, which is completely impractical. Alternatively, if you mean that both players get 10 vetos for a guaranteed maximum 10 maps to practice, then the veto system is flawed. Both players could veto the opposite maps, leaving no maps to be played on (20 - 10 - 10 = 0, for simplicity's sake). I said everyone gets 8, again, you make a mathematical error. Everyone gets 8 vetos. Which makes your personal map pool 12 in theory, but 10 in practice because there will be 2 maps that players of other races will always veto because they are unfavourable.
That's a completely broken veto system. No, the mathematical error does not lay with me. It's with you. I'm sorry but you've clearly shown to not have correctly read and understood my post, I've said multiple times that everyone gets 8 already.
Again, your numbers don't make sense. In this case, you're speaking of 8 vetos per player. First off, like you mention, having to learn 12 maps is way too much. It's not reasonable at all -- go be a professional player yourself if you need to learn and understand this point in a more direct manner. That's larger than any map pool out there, which, quite frankly, are already too big (an issue that gave birth to this map pool creation guide). Again, it's 10 because each race wil surely veto at least 2 maps consistently as they are bound to be imbalanced, leaving you assured of 10, not 12, in practice.
Also, unless pros get together and agree on what maps to veto (which is most likely to happen, as I mentioned, but let's pretend this isn't the case for a second) then the whole notion of assuming which maps opponents might veto so you don't have to practice them is absolutely ridiculous. No decent pro with money on the line is going to leave something like that up to luck. We're talking about people's careers, here. Their livelihood. You still know the maps you are going to play on a whole week in advance, you know which set on which map you are going to play a week in advance, you have all the time to adjust.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: You start off with some correct information and then delve straight into wrong reasons and conclusions. SC2 is much more balanced statistically for a number of reasons:
1. Blizzard is far more active in monitoring and tweaking balance than they ever were in Brood War.
Correct.
2. Games played in SC2 over a certain period of time far outnumber anything Brood War achieved. OSL matches were few and far between (one or two every 1-2 weeks), compared to GSL which often has 5+ matches a day. You note this yourself when you mention OSL seasons being much longer than GSL ones. OSL also doesn't have the whole Code A/Up & Down televised matches, meaning even if the seasons ran for similar amounts of time, GSL would still far outweigh the OSL in total games played. Correct
3. One of the biggest reasons for the larger discrepancies in BW balance stats is specifically the very small amount of total games in comparison to SC2. When you have a much larger pool of games, stats tend to even out a lot more (unless something is seriously broken). Incorrect, the balance disastering of some BW map cannot be explained by a too small sample size and these maps are with 99% certainty to be able to be said to not fall within 45-55 as you increase the amount of games played on it. BW maps are simply more imbalanced than SC2 maps and BW is more imbalanced as a game than SC2. This is most likely due to the mentality and BW mapmakers being less afraid to experiment.
Your proposed map pool size doesn't offer anything superior. Rather, your solution is simply to have players mask broken maps with vetos If a map gets vetoed out a lot by a certain race only, you can always decide to patch it mid season if must be.
which defeats the purpose of having those maps in the pool in the first place. That is why the system is there, you remove unpopular maps that get vetoed a lot, it gives you a clear indication.
Why would you not just pull/replace a completely broken map from a smaller pool Because you do pull them, you of course remove maps that get vetoed by everyone, there's no point in keeping them and this system offers a clear statistic of which maps are unpopular.
or patch it mid-season if it was just a tweak that needed to be done to make it playable? You offer no reasoning that makes a 20 map pool more appealing; rather, it just brings in additional complications No, it gives you a clear statistic in vetos about which maps are unpopular.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: It's also not a major/premier tournament that has tens of thousands of dollars on the line just between taking 1st or 2nd. Even the current Grand Prix II (which has a $3500 prize pool) doesn't rotate maps for the sake of the players; the map pool is the same as week #8. ESV knows that when money is on the line, there needs to be some stability in terms of maps. ESV thinks that, and that's their opinion on the matter.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: What a flawed conclusion. Many maps are vetoed because players don't want to have to learn something new, and would rather stick to what they know in order to win. Every time we've seen new maps get introduced in tournaments with a veto system, it gets overwhelmingly vetoed. This is completely natural and understandable from a competitive standpoint. Your conclusion here is completely unfair to mapmakers, and would definitely be counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish. That is what you claim, but I don't see it. For one, how could you, because not a lot fo tournaments use vetos these days. Furthermore players pick out new maps all the time or maps that are only used in that specific tournament. Darkness Falls and Sandshorn mist are isolate to IPL and see plenty of picks there. Players seem to be fairly confident picking out a map they are unfamiliar with as long as they know their opponent is too.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Even if you find flaw in the length of time an OSL takes place, applying the same concept to a GSL, which is only 2 months, is not a very long time. If you get bored of maps after only 2 months, then that's a personal issue you need to work out; don't start recommending that player's livelihoods get completely upended with an excessively large (even after vetos) and uncertain map pool to practice. I'm pretty sure most people think that, else GSL would not have such a large map pool in the first place, at least, GSL believes it too and they want to please the fans. Which they should, for their business depends on it. They could have a 4 map pool to play a Bo7 on, but they don't.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:... More repetitive than chess? Really? Yes? Chess is one of the most dynamic games. A skilled player in a tournament will have many different openings in his repertoire so he cannot be studied and anticipated. Every chess player has a distinct style of play and theoretical novelties are still found to this day. Furthermore, chess grandmasters constantly develop chess variants for this very reason. Bobby Fischer, one of the most talented chess players even, invented Chess960, which is specifically designed to combat the advantage of preparation, you cannot prepare for a Chess960 game, it all comes down to raw strength and on the spot creativity, not from studying the openings of your opopnent.
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Big map pools don't give exposure. They make practice much more difficult for players, force players to veto maps just to try and keep the pool manageable, cause those vetos to be declared "bad maps" by people like yourself, even if they might be amazing (they're just never given a chance), and really hurt mapmakers of these vetoed maps, who have made potentially great maps that are declared bad without even gaining any real data to determine how to make the map better. You say that new maps get vetoed, but I'm not so sure, experience seems to tell that people will just veto maps that they consider imbalanced against their race. When the GSL still had vetos and introduced new maps, people continued to veto maps that are imbalanced against their race. Everyone was extremely keen to try out Terminus, Crevasse and TDA which at the time where considered fairly radical maps, people didn't veto those at all, they continued to veto the maps they didn't like or were imbalanced against their race.
|
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:54 stormfoxSC wrote: 1.) Players don't get a "personal map pool", they merely get the reassurance that they don't have to play some of the maps. After taking into account their opponent's vetos, the pool that actually gets played on can vastly change, and there's no real way to practice all the remaining maps efficiently. They do, this is mathematics, if the total pool is 20 and they are allowed 8 consistent vetos at the start of the tournament, their personal pool is 12 in the theoretically worst case, 12 maps they have to consider, however in practice it will be closer to 10 because there's bound to be at least 2 maps that are really good for their race that players of the other races have vetoed or that everyone just has vetoed because they are bad maps. Apart from that they know the vetoes of the other race, so even though it's 10-12 for the entire tournament, it's a pool of say 6 considering the opponent and his race, which is more than enough. Why do you repeat things that have already been discussed? I'll say it once again: relying on chance and sheer dumb luck in hoping that your opponent will veto a map because of perceived "imbalances" is incredibly absurd. There's money on the line here, and for a pro not to practice a certain map because he thinks his opponent might veto it is an incredibly dumb position to put a pro in. That alone should tell you that this system of yours would not work. It also doesn't take into account that time and time again we've seen maps that have swung in and out of certain race's favours, based on shifting metagames and better understanding of the map as it gets played more.
The worst part is how you think 12 maps is a reasonable number for a pro to practice. That's 50% larger than the GSL map pool, which is already large.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +If we take a look at GSL's current map pool, it contains 8 maps. Frankly, I still feel that to be too large a pool, but GSL can get away with it because 5 of the maps are in the current battle.net ladder pool. That only leaves 3 maps that players really have to spend time trying to figure out on their own and preparing for: Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis (which also was on the ladder for a short time), and Whirlwind. The other five can get figured out reasonably enough by just hitting that "find match" button a lot. I am pretty sure most progamers do not use the ladder for practice for the GSL at all, another thing is that using customs with members of your team takes the same amount of time as 'find match', so the issue is moot. Do you not understand the concept of practicing a map? What GSL players do when they prepare for their matches mostly revolves around preparing for the player, not for the map. As in, picking specific strategies that would best account for their opponent's styles, weaknesses, etc.
Players grind the ladder so they can understand the maps beforehand and do that higher-level preparation, rather than try and learn just how to take a third or something a week before their match. I'm not sure how you can be this disconnected from how professional StarCraft works.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +When you give an excessively large map pool where even with vetos you have to practice 8-10 maps, it's a guarantee that most of them won't be ladder maps. Without ladder practice, it becomes much more difficult for anyone not in a rigid team house to get adequate practice in, and even then will still be difficult. You can say goodbye to non-Koreans ever standing a competitive chance in tournaments. Do you know someone who is currently in the GSL who does not enjoy team house practice? Prior to his dropping out of the GSL (which just happened), we would have Millenium fOrGG. We also have SuperNoVa. We have all the foreigners at the GOM house (who are generally in "Code B" anyway, but moving toward your map format would make it pretty well impossible for them to ever hope to reach Code A). So on and so forth. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're really not well informed on these kinds of things.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: In fact, making the map pool larger and thereby removing the advantage of preparation would give players without a team house far more of a shot. The fact that you can prepare for the GSL is an advantage for the GSL, if you basically give people the maps they play on the very day they play and reveal their opponent as a surprise preparation is removed and it becomes a 'raw skill' tournament which removes the advantage of specific team house practice and gives foreigners a bigger chance. You... you can't be serious. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game. All you're advocating at this point is the removal of strategic skill in favour of randomness. That's not even similar to weekend events like MLG or Dreamhack, as those tournaments feature familiar map pools for the players in order to avoid some of the randomness factor.
Practice and preparation are huge parts of the game professionally. I can guarantee you'll kill the game by favouring randomness, as people watch lower-skill no-names make huge upsets because the more skilled player didn't know about something like a certain possible proxy location (as an example). Nobody cares for mid-Master ladder-quality games.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +2.) Like TPW Ragoo pointed out in the ProAm thread (and as I pointed out earlier in the ProAm thread as well), the system also doesn't work as you intend by sheer virtue that pros will collectively agree to always veto certain maps to reduce the issues I mention in flaw #1. Dreamhack sets good precedent for this being the case, with Frigid Pass and Vicious pretty well never seeing the light of day despite its map pool consisting of only 9 maps (unlike the 20ish you would want). I beg to differ, Dreamhack showed exactly the virtues of this system, because Vicious was played far more than frigid pass there, demonstrating that progamers like it more, giving you a statistic to work with.
Comparison of games played on those maps at Dreamhack Eizo Open Stockholm:
ESV Frigid Pass - 10 ESV Vicious - 17
Some more "standard" maps for comparison, from the same tournament:
Antiga Shipyard - 43 Crux Daybreak - 45 ESV Cloud Kingdom - 51
Try not to over-exaggerate too much about how much more Vicious was played over Frigid Pass, and certainly try not to downplay too much how large of a failure the veto system was for those two ESV maps.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +I read your counter-point to Ragoo on this, but quite frankly you leave out a basic fact: what you're trying to accomplish and what will end up happening do not co-incide. Your whole purpose for this excessive map pool size is to get more new maps being played in tournaments. That, and simply enabling vetos to stop pros being forced to play on maps they do not enjoy. It's their career, their job. Throwing in a huge amount of uncertainty and turmoil into player practice so that they don't have to play on some maps they don't "like" is ridiculous. Besides, what happens if the maps they do "like" get vetoed by their opponent? This really does not feel thought through on your part.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +The simple reality is that new maps will not be played by virtue of veto. From a pro perspective, why spend time learning new maps when you can just keep playing on the maps you're comfortable with? I really don't feel you're thinking this stuff through. Because your opponent is in the very same boat. I'm pretty sure if you gave DRG the choice of playing on Entombed or on a map he and his opponent have relatively little experience with, he would veto out entombed. MLG also showed that people were comfortable picking certain MLG-specific maps such as Testbug, IPL also showed how players were comfortable picking Atlantis Space Ship, Darkness Falls and Sandshorn Mist when these maps were pretty much isolated to use in IPL. Apparently because they looked at the maps and thought they were good maps? This was when the IPL map pool was so large that they didn't have to, but they choose to. Your arguments for this system rely on very flimsy assumptions. While declaring that DRG would rather veto Entombed than a map he has little experience in cannot be disproven without actually asking him, it cannot be proven either. In any argument, the onus of proof lay with the one making the statement. This is not a valid argument on your part.
Regarding Testbug, it was in the map pool at a time when there was still Scrap Station, Xel'Naga Caverns, Shattered Temple, and Crossfire. It was also during this time that MLG was highly criticized for its terrible map pool. The fact that Testbug was played at all is a testament to how bad the map pool was. That's not exactly a solid argument to make.
Darkness Falls did not appear in IPL, it appeared in IPL TAC 2, which was an online team league in Bo9 format that featured a 10 map pool. Of course Darkness Falls is going to end up getting some play time in that situation. However, that's an entirely different environment than we're discussing. Again, not a solid argument.
Sanshorn Mists AE was in the same boat as Darkness Falls, but did also make an appearance in IPL 4. It got a reasonable amount of play, which is unsurprising considering the map had long been featured in the ESV Korean Weekly, so the Koreans who made up the vast majority of players using the map were more than comfortable with it. Out of the 48 games played on the map in that tournament, only 4 were played between two non-Koreans. Hm, seems that doesn't really support your point either.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + No, there is no "mathematical error" for me. What you claim to be a mathematical error on my part is actually the thing that puts your whole idea out of commission. New maps just won't get played via veto. It's happened before in the GSL
When did this happen in the GSL? Back when they had a veto system. It's since been removed.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Dreamhack showed Vicious being played a lot more than Frigid Pass, it was even set to play in the finals because the wallof bug ruined it. This shows people do pick new maps they seem to like, but not new maps they don't. No, that just got debunked.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +The (unlikely) alternative is that pros decide to play it differently and don't agree on constantly vetoing certain maps. If this is the case, then your "personal 10 map pool" claim is bunk. For there to be 10 maps remaining after vetos in a 20 map pool, that means each player gets 5 vetos. With only 5 guaranteed maps not being played per player, that's actually a 15 map pool a player has to practice, which is completely impractical. Alternatively, if you mean that both players get 10 vetos for a guaranteed maximum 10 maps to practice, then the veto system is flawed. Both players could veto the opposite maps, leaving no maps to be played on (20 - 10 - 10 = 0, for simplicity's sake). I said everyone gets 8, again, you make a mathematical error. Everyone gets 8 vetos. Which makes your personal map pool 12 in theory, but 10 in practice because there will be 2 maps that players of other races will always veto because they are unfavourable. Show nested quote +That's a completely broken veto system. No, the mathematical error does not lay with me. It's with you. I'm sorry but you've clearly shown to not have correctly read and understood my post, I've said multiple times that everyone gets 8 already. I was actually just pointing out your logical flaws, but it seems you still don't get it. You can't have 8 map vetos in a 20 map pool and expect players to only practice 10 maps (I say "only" with a great deal of irony). You're just doing a poor job of downplaying the fact that players would have to practice 12 maps in a system like that. Basically, you're trying to have it both ways, where the number of vetos doesn't break the system, while at the same time wanting it to seem like the number of maps to practice isn't as bad as it really would be with a working veto system. Worse is that you're doing so with the flimsiest of ideal assumptions -- that there would be a guaranteed couple of maps a player could ignore due to supposed balance issues. What happens if the number of imbalanced maps, after vetos, is greater or less than two?
It's a really dumb way to try and make a point.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + Again, your numbers don't make sense. In this case, you're speaking of 8 vetos per player. First off, like you mention, having to learn 12 maps is way too much. It's not reasonable at all -- go be a professional player yourself if you need to learn and understand this point in a more direct manner. That's larger than any map pool out there, which, quite frankly, are already too big (an issue that gave birth to this map pool creation guide).
Again, it's 10 because each race wil surely veto at least 2 maps consistently as they are bound to be imbalanced, leaving you assured of 10, not 12, in practice. No, read above.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Also, unless pros get together and agree on what maps to veto (which is most likely to happen, as I mentioned, but let's pretend this isn't the case for a second) then the whole notion of assuming which maps opponents might veto so you don't have to practice them is absolutely ridiculous. No decent pro with money on the line is going to leave something like that up to luck. We're talking about people's careers, here. Their livelihood. You still know the maps you are going to play on a whole week in advance, you know which set on which map you are going to play a week in advance, you have all the time to adjust. That doesn't matter when none of the players are comfortable on the maps anyway, because there are simply too many to practice. Your idea only results in low quality games. I highly recommend you poll some pros and hear their opinions on your supposed system. Don't be too surprised when they end up saying similar things as I do.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + You start off with some correct information and then delve straight into wrong reasons and conclusions. SC2 is much more balanced statistically for a number of reasons:
1. Blizzard is far more active in monitoring and tweaking balance than they ever were in Brood War.
Correct. Show nested quote +2. Games played in SC2 over a certain period of time far outnumber anything Brood War achieved. OSL matches were few and far between (one or two every 1-2 weeks), compared to GSL which often has 5+ matches a day. You note this yourself when you mention OSL seasons being much longer than GSL ones. OSL also doesn't have the whole Code A/Up & Down televised matches, meaning even if the seasons ran for similar amounts of time, GSL would still far outweigh the OSL in total games played. Correct Show nested quote +3. One of the biggest reasons for the larger discrepancies in BW balance stats is specifically the very small amount of total games in comparison to SC2. When you have a much larger pool of games, stats tend to even out a lot more (unless something is seriously broken). Incorrect, the balance disastering of some BW map cannot be explained by a too small sample size and these maps are with 99% certainty to be able to be said to not fall within 45-55 as you increase the amount of games played on it. BW maps are simply more imbalanced than SC2 maps and BW is more imbalanced as a game than SC2. This is most likely due to the mentality and BW mapmakers being less afraid to experiment. Are you serious? Let's take a look at the current map stats for the 2012 tving OSL:
New Sniper Ridge: Record: TvZ: 2-0 (100%) | ZvP: 1-2 (33.3%) | PvT: 0-0 (0%) Mirrors: 3 TvT | 2 ZvZ | 2 PvP
Neo Electric Circuit: Record: TvZ: 2-1 (66.7%) | ZvP: 1-0 (100%) | PvT: 1-0 (100%) Mirrors: 1 TvT | 6 ZvZ | 3 PvP
Neo Ground Zero: Record: TvZ: 2-0 (100%) | ZvP: 1-2 (33.3%) | PvT: 2-2 (50%) Mirrors: 1 TvT | 5 ZvZ | 1 PvP
Gladiator: Record: TvZ: 2-1 (66.7%) | ZvP: 3-0 (100%) | PvT: 1-1 (50%) Mirrors: 1 TvT | 4 ZvZ | 1 PvP
Oh dear God, look how imba-- oh wait, there's like barely any games played on them, despite the OSL already being at the finals.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Your proposed map pool size doesn't offer anything superior. Rather, your solution is simply to have players mask broken maps with vetos If a map gets vetoed out a lot by a certain race only, you can always decide to patch it mid season if must be. Show nested quote +which defeats the purpose of having those maps in the pool in the first place. That is why the system is there, you remove unpopular maps that get vetoed a lot, it gives you a clear indication. Show nested quote +Why would you not just pull/replace a completely broken map from a smaller pool Because you do pull them, you of course remove maps that get vetoed by everyone, there's no point in keeping them and this system offers a clear statistic of which maps are unpopular. Show nested quote +or patch it mid-season if it was just a tweak that needed to be done to make it playable? You offer no reasoning that makes a 20 map pool more appealing; rather, it just brings in additional complications No, it gives you a clear statistic in vetos about which maps are unpopular. And again, nothing you've said here gives any argument to why your system would be any better than a smaller map pool that is actively maintained and patched as need be. Explain to me the necessity for a "clear statistic in vetos about which maps are unpopular", and how a similar statistic could not be attained merely by doing something such as polling the pros -- and perhaps even the viewers -- at the end of a season.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + It's also not a major/premier tournament that has tens of thousands of dollars on the line just between taking 1st or 2nd. Even the current Grand Prix II (which has a $3500 prize pool) doesn't rotate maps for the sake of the players; the map pool is the same as week #8. ESV knows that when money is on the line, there needs to be some stability in terms of maps.
ESV thinks that, and that's their opinion on the matter. Forgive me, but I feel much more inclined to go with the opinion of one of the few premier mapmaking teams, who also happen to run their own professional-level tournament that features Code S-level players, than with someone with no credentials on the TL forums who seems to lack even a basic understanding of professional SC2 training regimen.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + What a flawed conclusion. Many maps are vetoed because players don't want to have to learn something new, and would rather stick to what they know in order to win. Every time we've seen new maps get introduced in tournaments with a veto system, it gets overwhelmingly vetoed. This is completely natural and understandable from a competitive standpoint. Your conclusion here is completely unfair to mapmakers, and would definitely be counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish.
That is what you claim, but I don't see it. For one, how could you, because not a lot fo tournaments use vetos these days. Furthermore players pick out new maps all the time or maps that are only used in that specific tournament. Darkness Falls and Sandshorn mist are isolate to IPL and see plenty of picks there. Players seem to be fairly confident picking out a map they are unfamiliar with as long as they know their opponent is too. You don't see it because it seems pretty clear you don't pay attention to professional players at all or their practice regimen. Teams like EG will sometimes stream their internal practice prior to major tournaments, so it's not like the knowledge can't be had. You also blatantly ignore how greatly unfamiliar maps get vetoed, downplaying this effect and make gross exaggerations of their use by the players who are unfamiliar with them. You do this despite testimonial stating otherwise from professional mapmakers and the pretty clear statistical evidence from past events.
So long as you retain that kind of attitude, there's really not much more to discuss on the matter. I can debate all day with a fellow who swears the sky is really green, but it's neither productive nor useful.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + Even if you find flaw in the length of time an OSL takes place, applying the same concept to a GSL, which is only 2 months, is not a very long time. If you get bored of maps after only 2 months, then that's a personal issue you need to work out; don't start recommending that player's livelihoods get completely upended with an excessively large (even after vetos) and uncertain map pool to practice.
I'm pretty sure most people think that, else GSL would not have such a large map pool in the first place, at least, GSL believes it too and they want to please the fans. Which they should, for their business depends on it. They could have a 4 map pool to play a Bo7 on, but they don't. A 4 map pool works with up to Bo5, which is what OSL is. I recommend reading the OP of this thread to get a good idea of what ideal map pool sizes should be, based on the length of tournament matches.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Yes? Chess is one of the most dynamic games. A skilled player in a tournament will have many different openings in his repertoire so he cannot be studied and anticipated. Every chess player has a distinct style of play and theoretical novelties are still found to this day. Furthermore, chess grandmasters constantly develop chess variants for this very reason. Bobby Fischer, one of the most talented chess players even, invented Chess960, which is specifically designed to combat the advantage of preparation, you cannot prepare for a Chess960 game, it all comes down to raw strength and on the spot creativity, not from studying the openings of your opopnent. Welp, seems like you don't really pay attention to traditional sports, either. Hard habit to break, I suppose.
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + Big map pools don't give exposure. They make practice much more difficult for players, force players to veto maps just to try and keep the pool manageable, cause those vetos to be declared "bad maps" by people like yourself, even if they might be amazing (they're just never given a chance), and really hurt mapmakers of these vetoed maps, who have made potentially great maps that are declared bad without even gaining any real data to determine how to make the map better.
You say that new maps get vetoed, but I'm not so sure, experience seems to tell that people will just veto maps that they consider imbalanced against their race. When the GSL still had vetos and introduced new maps, people continued to veto maps that are imbalanced against their race. Everyone was extremely keen to try out Terminus, Crevasse and TDA which at the time where considered fairly radical maps, people didn't veto those at all, they continued to veto the maps they didn't like or were imbalanced against their race. It doesn't matter to me if you're not sure. Do the research yourself, then. I've given a little bit of data in this post, though there's plenty more out there. Quite frankly, when you're not sure about something, you might want to reconsider making a heavy argument one way or the other.
Regarding the GSL maps, people were "keen" to play those maps because, much like how Testbug saw plenty of use in MLG, the old Blizzard maps were absolutely atrocious. Nowadays, there are plenty of complaints for tournaments to stop using TDA, and Terminus/Crevasse have generally already been removed from professional map pools and were done so without the need of a veto system.
Ignoring context and reason for certain actions doesn't suddenly give you an argument to work with.
Anyway, that's about it for me. Like I mentioned, I don't really see the point in continuing until you do a bit more research into the matter. I think it's great for people to come up with ideas like you have, but closing your eyes to data, precedence, and simply the realities of the industry for why that idea won't work isn't really conducive to a healthy discussion.
|
Been re-watching some old(ish) BW vods today and I'm definitely hoping Sc2 can get to the point where there are maps that radically change how the game is played. Like Andromeda with its super easy mineral only, Outsider with its cool ring of bases, even HBR (and a number of similar "ridge" maps) with these ridges all over the place. But yeah, like it says in the OP, tournaments seem to be afraid of trying cool stuff out. T_T
Fingers crossed for Kespa!
|
|
Lol, <3 Diamond.
MLG can't actually care about the map pool. I mean even the casters know the map pool is dumb (One of them saying "There's gold bases on this map?" at Arena). But time and time again, they've shown no response, so I wouldn't waste your time trying to help MLG.
|
On July 28 2012 07:11 iGrok wrote: Lol, <3 Diamond.
MLG can't actually care about the map pool. I mean even the casters know the map pool is dumb (One of them saying "There's gold bases on this map?" at Arena). But time and time again, they've shown no response, so I wouldn't waste your time trying to help MLG.
That's what shocks me, you think that'd be the wake up call. But guess not.
|
wish mlg would follow this at least a little bit.
|
You would think that with the new MLG season format it would make sence to have a change in mappool every season.
But nope MLG is fine with using the same pool for Spring and Summer. Only ladder maps left? Sure. Twice as slow as Blizzard? Why would that be a problem.....
Sigh.
|
I wonder if any of the MLG guys pay attention to this post at all...
|
Russian Federation483 Posts
ASUS ROG Summer had good map pool system for Bo5 all day erry day tournament: 7 maps in pool, 1 veto for each player. Every series was Bo5 except finals which was Bo7(all maps). Actually, nevermind lol. 5 map pool would be still better.
|
So MLG did actually change something on their map pool. Antiga no longer has golds. In other words the one innovative thing on MLGs mappool is gone. IMO it is a step sideways... at best.
Ill be honest i am not against golds, infact i wanna see maps with golds, NEW maps that uses golds in an innovative way. But right now, even if these maps existed then we are stuck with what i would like to call the "ladder six"
The ladder six are: + Show Spoiler +Antiga Shipyard Daybreak Entombed valley Cloud Kingdom Ohana Metropolis(The former ladder map)
These 6 maps have kinda become the standard of tournement ladder pools. We see them listed in every major tournement usually only with minimal variation(Some pools needs 7 maps afterall). It has been like this for a few mounths now and personally i am starting to get really tired of it. It is the same problem as with the old stanated maps, only much earlier in these maps life span and i will try to explain why.
It is not a new thing to have an unofficial general pool for tournements. If you go back a year from now you could see that tournements mappools overlapped quite a bit aswell and if i were to name a simillar map group it would be the "GSL eight"
Those are: + Show Spoiler +4 ladder maps from then: Shattered Temple Shakuras Pleateau Metalopolis Xel'Naga Caverns
Then 4 tournement maps from then: Dual sight Crevasse Terminus Taldarim altar(well sorta a tournement map)
So really everything is as it used to be right? No. The variation in maps have drastically fallen. First of all because those were 8 standard maps and now we got just 6(duh), but tournements still varied alot more away from those back then. Only 4 of the maps from this pool were ladder maps so there was alot other ladder maps that tournements could take and they would still be considered "safe" takes. Also back then there really wasn't a golden standard for map pool size. IPL 3 for example sported a glorius 11 maps for their map pool. Those were the days
Compared to today anyway. All the maps from the "ladder six" are ladder maps or were at some point, hence the name. The remaining ladder maps are either antiques or just not accepted by the general tournement scene. No variation here. If we look at other tournement maps only one that really seems to get some major play is Atlantis Spaceship(Again because they usually need 7 maps). We also generally don't see many 8+ mappools anymore. Good for players, bad for variety.
I don't see any quick fixes to this. GSL still updates their mappool regually so plenty to take from there yet noone seems to do that. Blizzard also have implemented a new map recently and we can't really push them to update the pool faster than this with HOTS coming up and stuff. It wouldn't solve much anyway because the reason we got the ladder six is because Blizzards mappool got too good, too "tempting" if you will. Ultrasafe yet totally balanced and players will still like it.
I just wanna put focus on this problem now. We generally have moved beyond the maps that Diamond listed as old and stagnated, but those we got now are fast getting to that point, because they are fewer and played more consistantly.
MLG is still really bad at this and this is kinda also a message to them. Once they around to their annual mappool update i hope they won't just go " Hey Shakuras is out, welcome Ohana". Because even then it will be too late, and it will just be another tournement following this stuck pool.
|
On August 12 2012 22:24 Sumadin wrote: [...]We also generally don't see many 8+ mappools anymore. Good for players, bad for variety.[...]
That's wrong. Bigger map pools means you can train every individual map less and that means that maps have to be more standard (so you don't have to train specific strategies for specific maps) and map rotation is slower. If tournaments used smaller map pools like in BW (4 or 5 maps) there would be more room for a faster map rotation and more innovative maps.
And saying we can't have 4 or 5 maps cos of bo7 is extremely shallow argument. I would definitely trade maps repeating for more interesting maps in the map pool any day. It's not even boring if a map repeats, it's actually interesting to see what players do when they play each other a second time on a map.
|
On August 12 2012 22:34 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 22:24 Sumadin wrote: [...]We also generally don't see many 8+ mappools anymore. Good for players, bad for variety.[...] That's wrong. Bigger map pools means you can train every individual map less and that means that maps have to be more standard (so you don't have to train specific strategies for specific maps) and map rotation is slower. If tournaments used smaller map pools like in BW (4 or 5 maps) there would be more room for a faster map rotation and more innovative maps. And saying we can't have 4 or 5 maps cos of bo7 is extremely shallow argument. I would definitely trade maps repeating for more interesting maps in the map pool any day. It's not even boring if a map repeats, it's actually interesting to see what players do when they play each other a second time on a map.
That is not really my point. Yes smaller map pools allow for easier variety in mappools but we aren't seeing it. This pool of 6 maps have been dominant all over the major tournements. A year ago we had maybe 8 maps and a smaller number of maps that went on-off depending on how many maps the tournement wanted to use. It meant higher variety in the maps that was used and in the games that was played, even if mappools were still rather locked.
Now through most tournements only use 5-7 maps in their pool, but alot of them don't differ from this pool at all. It should be possible with smaller pools, but it isn't happening currently. I agree that through that smaller pools are better for players and allows them to train better for each map.
|
|
|
|