| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Lots of maps changing can be trying for the players of course, but if you aren't proactive about rotating you end up with trash like proxima station sticking around. I do 100% agree that a non-ladder map getting vetoed non-stop in GSL doesn't say much at all about the map. And Darkness Sanctuary isn't getting vetoed solely because it's 4 player, but also because it isn't too well designed even within that framework, and walling off the natural is a pain. | ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
On May 20 2018 06:24 Liquid`Snute wrote: In many other spaces people would've been fired for allowing a product with a 2-7% customer approval rate to be one seventh of a product portfolio... Professional players are not the customer, viewers are. When selecting vetoes, players value comfort over everything else. Viewer entertainment isn't a factor when they choose vetoes. If map fatigue is a real thing, and if viewers want variety, the least vetoed maps should be rotated out. Of course I'll have to add a caveat that truly awful maps should also be rotated out too. I'm not going to defend the inclusion of Darkness Sanctuary, as it's probably in the awful category for a number of reasons, but I don't want people using bad reasons to attack its inclusion. If you have a map pool where everything is equally vetoed, none of them are doing anything interesting. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
If map fatigue is a real thing, and if viewers want variety, the least vetoed maps should be rotated out I personally disagree. I think it's better to keep trying to get really good maps to stay with maps trying to live up to those standards in different ways. When we have fairly balanced maps that all do interesting things, such as the mega-standard Blackpink, the experimental Neon Violet and the middleground of Abyssal Reef, I feel like the vetoes can begin to cater more towards playstyle rather than uncomfort. I think this would be the best thing to strive for. We just need to keep working on medium, rush and "new" maps for a while longer to get to this point. I personally don't care for much of the new pool, I'm pretty eh on Dreamcatcher, and I think Redshift can be a good wild card without being too ridiculous like Ulrena or Dasan Station. The problem with Map Fatigue is people get tired of it when there are *no* real other good options. I only know of a small few who were tired of Blackpink and Catalyst. But now that Catalyst is really the only thing left, I expect Map Fatigue to set in quickly for it, even if it doesn't really deserve it. Sometimes an aesthetic refresh is all we need too. I can't imagine people being too upset with playing Abyssal Blackpink Catalyst Ascension if they all got drastic aesthetic changes when fatigue began to set. We just haven't tried. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On May 20 2018 09:26 Timmay wrote: Professional players are not the customer, viewers are. What? A game is meant to be played, not meant to be watched. Nobody cares if a game is fun to watch if nobody plays it. Look at Overwatch; it's not particularly fun to watch but people still watch it because it's fun to play. The "viewers first" approach or "tyranny of the spectator" as TheDwf put it is one of the reasons that led to the downfall of sc2. | ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9UMS5GF.png) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On May 20 2018 11:01 Liquid`Snute wrote: Another piece of history It's quite interesting, but I'm not sure what the lesson is. That if almost all the maps in the pool are terrible, some of the slightly less terrible ones will inevitably see play? | ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
On May 20 2018 10:02 Charoisaur wrote: What? A game is meant to be played, not meant to be watched. We were talking about pro player vetoes in a tournament setting, not map preferences for casual players. Obviously the game needs to be fun for the people playing it, but I don't think anyone is quitting because Redshift was added to the ladder pool. | ||
|
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
On May 20 2018 11:08 ZigguratOfUr wrote: It's quite interesting, but I'm not sure what the lesson is. That if almost all the maps in the pool are terrible, some of the slightly less terrible ones will inevitably see play? I think it is good evidence that some maps are capable of being brutally unwanted for competition, even two in the same map pool. Not even mirror match-ups could save these. Somewhere in the process, these can be weeded out before this type of damage can occur, imo. Interesting how the rest of this map pool had a lot of evenly spread love for its remaining maps. I'm sure there's a lot one could look into.. But personally my point of focus is that some maps clearly are capable of getting dumped into veto hell, and it's bad for everyone. I have a feeling Darkness Sanctuary is about to become one of those maps. If one had a way to predict and replace such maps before statistics like these are allowed to occur, I would consider it positive for pros, casuals, and viewers to do so. That's my if-i-was-a-developer take on it, anyway. | ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On May 20 2018 11:23 Liquid`Snute wrote: I think it is good evidence that some maps are capable of being brutally unwanted for competition, even two in the same map pool. Not even mirror match-ups could save these. Somewhere in the process, these can be weeded out before this type of damage can occur, imo. Interesting how the rest of this map pool had a lot of evenly spread love for its remaining maps. I'm sure there's a lot one could look into.. But personally my point of focus is that some maps clearly are capable of getting dumped into veto hell, and it's bad for everyone. I have a feeling Darkness Sanctuary is about to become one of those maps. If one had a way to predict and replace such maps before statistics like these are allowed to occur, I would consider it positive for pros, casuals, and viewers to do so. That's my if-i-was-a-developer take on it, anyway. Blizzard sucks at picking maps. What's new? (Though I will disambiguate and mention that pros will to some extent veto "unusual" maps even if they have merit. As time goes on it normalizes a bit) But as Blizzard is hardly likely to become better at picking maps overnight, one solution would be to expand the ladder map pool to say 11 maps (5 vetoes), and have tournaments pick 7 out of the 11 for their map pool. Like that tournaments can avoid disaster maps and we can even get some map diversity between different tournaments if there are enough good maps. Of course tournaments are liable to pick the seven largest turtliest macro and boring maps all the time, but it would still be an improvement. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On May 20 2018 11:17 Timmay wrote: We were talking about pro player vetoes in a tournament setting, not map preferences for casual players. Obviously the game needs to be fun for the people playing it, but I don't think anyone is quitting because Redshift was added to the ladder pool. You specificially said the viewer is the customer and not the casual player. You're obviously right that pro player preferences aren't the all deciding thing but from seeing the shitstorm in the forums every time a very non-standard map gets added I'm sure the opinion of the casual players is very similar to that of pro players in this regard. The only people who seem okay with maps like Redshift are those who mainly watch the game and don't play it hmmmmmm... | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
In-base naturals tho... | ||
|
nimbim
Germany986 Posts
I don't have any objection to the current map pool, but I'm also not in GM. | ||
|
Spirit_HUN
24 Posts
I dont understand this. Blizzard doesnt play his own game or what? What was the reason that this garbage was added to the pool? | ||
|
Elentos
55593 Posts
| ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2090 Posts
Darkness sanctuanary colour scheme is kind of a pain and the huge 4 pl maps feel pretty to alternate between cheese and sterile macro too often. Once again it takes pretty immense skill to have interesting games on such a big map, on my level it feels like two players fumbling around without much ability to actually use the space. The rest seem passable or interesting. I haven't had enough games on Redshift to have much say in it, but at least I find the golds there to be interesting initially. We'll see how abusive gets in the longer run. | ||
Poopi
France13015 Posts
You can't even see your health bar on it btw -_- | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
| ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
Except for Lost and Found they are all disgustnigly bad. Redshift and Dreamcatcher don't even need any comments. God they are aweful. But 16-bit. Seriously?! It's 2018 and we still get that lousy texture sets. Dark grey squares. All over the place. For real? And another thing i can't stress enough, though noone really listens. Dear, Mapmackers! STOP MAKING DARK-THEMED MAPS! Test your maps on lower/hybrid settings. I've complained for ages about lighting issues on Abyssal (though the map itself was ok), now we got 16-bit and Darkness sanctuary. If you don't care about players, then look at it from a viewers perspective. Just open a random SC2 stream and watch some games being played on 16-bit/DS. I'd die from horror if i were a SC2 newcomer. I can't fcking get it. All in all. Blizzard! Just replace Redshift with Blackpink (a really awesome map that deserves another season or 2). And we are fine. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs PianO
JyJ vs sSak
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Mini vs Calm
Queen vs EffOrt
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Escore
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
