Community Feedback Update - March 31 - Page 2

On April 01 2016 03:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
If Blizzard does in fact rotate out maps that prove to be extremely problematic asap that's pretty good, but they haven't ever done so in the past, so I'm not terribly hopeful.

Realistically no matter how good your map selection process is, if you select experimental maps there will be failures, so replacing bad maps mid-season is an absolute necessity.

On April 01 2016 04:03 Liquid`Snute wrote:
Glad to see this update, maps imba per matchup constantly vetoed out of tournaments until the very grand finals is a bad thing. (obviously)

Agree with the above. But it's important to emphasize that when people want more 'standard' maps, at least personally (I think examples are best to explain this):

We're not talking about close to no variety such as 4x Overgrowth or 4x Daybreak, it's more like ... King Sejong, Coda, Polar Night and Whirlwind - instead of Korhal Carnage/Secret Spring/Inferno Pools/Deadalus Point. Standard-ish maps can be very different and still have unique quirks and midfields, Polar Night and King Sejong are great examples of this.


^ This is the best part of this community feedback update to me and I think this sets a very positive tone for the future

On April 01 2016 04:16 Seeker wrote:

Can someone explain this to me?

On April 01 2016 04:13 OtherWorld wrote:

Replacing maps mid-season is not the solution imo. What we need, what we badly need, is that tournaments not held by WCS rules about map-pool (though we don't know if these exist anymore, since we don't have a 2016 Handbook) start using non-ladder maps (and I mean no ladder maps AT ALL). That way good maps can be differenciated from bad maps, and all maps can be perfected and fixed. Remember that Habitation Station became the top-tier map that it is now considered to be because it got played in tournament, and Sidian fixed the map according to the feedback he got (sadly the feedback didn't make him change the name, eh).

-> It creates a healthy, competitive map-making scene
-> It allows for maps to be selected through widely seen experiences and not through judgement of select individuals
-> It allows pro-players to play an active part in the way the game is going through map lobbying [can you imagine that stuff? "Map endorsed by Liquid.Snute". That's what the scene needs, that's a way to connect the community and the pro scene more]
-> It allows tournaments organizers to differenciate their foreigner-only online tournament and generate additional interest in them
-> With such a system Blizzard has no excuse to pick bad maps/make their own maps
-> It encourages players to do intelligent training (map-dependent), instead of brainless ladder spam 24/24
-> It allows players and viewers to get involved and debate about the game in a way that is something else than balance/design whine

The notion that a top-down map-picking system, what we actually have, can be anything else than a mess seems absurd to me. Maps come from the people, and I wish the guys making ladder maps at Blizzard would be payed to do something else, something productive and positive for the game. For fuck's sake, the community is giving away tons of workhours for FREE with mapmaking. Why bother paying people to do what people are willing to do for free?

On April 01 2016 04:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


Except the WCS rules about map-pools only say that the maps need to be ladder maps OR maps that Blizzard okays. I don't think a single tournament organizer (apart from the GSL) has even tried to have a non-ladder map pool simply because so many players get the bulk of their practice from ladder and want to play on maps they are familiar with.

So the fact that tournaments use exclusively ladder map pools isn't really on Blizzard.

On April 01 2016 04:33 chipmonklord17 wrote:


How long has this been going on for? As a Zerg player I've never once noticed this

On April 01 2016 03:46 Ansibled wrote:
Yay colours.

I hope they'll add Overgrowth or KSS to ladder.