| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Charoisaur
Germany16085 Posts
That doesn't mean we need 7 Daybreak clones, maps like Apotheosis, Neon Violet Square, Dreamcatcher are fine to name a few examples. We just shouldn't have blatantly broken maps like Dasan Station or Redshift in it. If we let pros choose there will be 7 Daybreak clones which wouldn't be particularly interesting. | ||
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
| ||
|
CoyFish_
Australia13 Posts
| ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
1/ Making maps is easy, making a map that will generate "good" games is more of a "lucky day" (mainly seeing how blizz hard has not finished balancing the three races and uses maps to do so) 2/ pro players should have had (from WoL) realized that they are an integral part of the equation that makes a "good" map, yet no one is forcing them so they never see the light (except snute .. SCHnoooot hype <3) 3/ Making maps and making a map pool are two separate issues, the system has to be a/make crazy maps b/play crazy maps, see how the players do with them c/ remake the maps with the changes that are required to make it a better map d/re play the map (and get there or abandon the ideas, or some other mapmaker goes further with the ideas and make a crazy map) rinse and repeat How sc2 has "only" teamliquid to do such a tournament is beyond me :/ (it has been 8 years of sc2 and its mapmaking is going nowhere fast) !bully There will be no "revolution" in map making (and never a good map pool that would shove sc2 to 100k viewership) until map makers unite! You all gloat that it is next to impossible to do, then you don't even try properly. Take the 13 most prominent/active/vociferous/reactionary/etc mapmakers and make them all work on ALL the maps. You say pro players are lazy and will never commit to testing those maps.. check your own backyard first. You all treat making maps (yes tlmc tl dudes first and most prominently.. but everyone in the mapmaking community really) as a competition.. rather than an objective in itself. Let me make a run for it... Lets say this was tlmc: Each map maker makes a map (same "categories (all the big 4/+ player maps on one side, the smaller 1v1 on an other, the "new" (read "not working yet but could improve the game overall so we trying until we get there or abandon") in a third corner etc) Each mapmaker has to open all the maps and study them All mapmakers play the maps together All maps are changed (or not) Maps compete (in whatever way gets voted on i don't particularly invest in that aspect, it is not as important a part if there are many maps and many mapmakers)... i mean, is this happening? No. So why isn't it happening? is it because the mapmaking community is a + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
ArtyK
France3144 Posts
On July 25 2018 11:40 SidianTheBard wrote: The best idea to have the most balanced map pool would be maybe a month before, have Blizzard find the least vetoed maps and/or most balanced maps, put them together and force them on ladder for that final month. Could be the "Global Finals 2018 Season". Then the pros will get their month or so to be able to practice the maps on ladder and it will be on all different mostly balanced maps. This How could anyone think having a map like catallena every Blizzcon is good for the game. Guess what, everybody vetos it so the map pool becomes 6 instead of 7 maps, so much for diversity. And the only time where you might see it is in the single most important bo1 at 3-3 in the finals, where you'd want a map to be as balanced as possible to decide who the best player is. Doesn't sound like such a good idea anymore does it? The diversity argument is stupid, crazy maps get vetod more often, resulting in the same 3-5 maps being played every boX, instead of the same 7 you could see in a more standard map pool. And standard maps allow for every type of strategies. Crazy maps allow for the exact same type of strategy every game. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Boggyb
2855 Posts
On July 25 2018 13:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Choosing slanted map pools is an age old tradition in BW. How else could you make sure the legend of the fall survived? Not to get too much off topic, but I feel like the solution to BW map pools is to have a different set of maps for each match up. I say that because the game is horribly imbalanced without the map pool correcting issues and the issues that need to be corrected for each match up are not the same as those for another. So when a tournament selects the map pool, they are selecting who is favored. If TvZ is played on A, B, C, TvP on D, E, F, and ZvP on G, H, I, you bypass that issue. | ||
|
Executer08
Germany163 Posts
On July 25 2018 16:46 Charoisaur wrote: maps like Apotheosis, Neon Violet Square, Dreamcatcher are fine to name a few examples. lol those are still maps that heavily favor races in certain matchups and NVS was just a huge map with a dead center which created super long, stale games (much like backwater, or mech depot before that). sure, a mined out map scenario where every resource counts is tense, but its not very exciting gameplay wise and can still be imbalanced if one race has an inherently more cost efficient lategame army comp like with the old raven. | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On July 25 2018 16:46 Charoisaur wrote: A better solution would be to just not have blatantly imbalanced maps in the ladder map pool. That doesn't mean we need 7 Daybreak clones, maps like Apotheosis, Neon Violet Square, Dreamcatcher are fine to name a few examples. We just shouldn't have blatantly broken maps like Dasan Station or Redshift in it. If we let pros choose there will be 7 Daybreak clones which wouldn't be particularly interesting. I can't tell if it's sarcasm, but Apotheosis was probably less balanced than Redshift it, and Dreamcatcher isn't much better. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 25 2018 22:38 ihatevideogames wrote: What's wrong with having 7 Daybreak clones? It's certainly better than getting a pre-decided game 7 on some 'unique and interesting' map. Why not only play on daybreak in that case? Clones at least have a different visual appeal which brings us to the core issue here. People don't want to see the same stuff over and over again. If every game is the same then it becomes boring because it is predictable. That is actually also the argument against unbalanced maps, you have a good idea how the game will play out before it even starts. Blizzard has the tough task of getting a mappool which is fair for the competition's sake (as fair as it can be) while also trying to get one which won't produce predictable games 24/7. Yes the viewer's opinion actually matters, without viewers there would be no competition to begin with. Asking progamers directly is completely unnecessary, all the stats are out there already so it's possible to make a good decision without any biased progamer input. The problem of the maps not being on ladder is no real problem either because it is in blizzard's power to simply change the ladder mappool accordingly for the required timeframe. This might possibly conflict with the interests of the average ladder player though, something to consider. I am not 100% sold on the argument that pros actually give maps enough of a chance for the veto stats to even matter though tbh. I certainly can see a scenario where a pro simply doesn't wanna invest any time to train for a specific map because the usual meta doesn't work on it without actually trying to find solutions. The end result are bad games obviously, but if the solution is always to simply take the standard map instead of forcing players to actually try and train these unique maps that's questionable to me as well. (i am not saying that this is true for every map and every case, but i would argue it's definitely a thing) Anyway, it's pretty tough to find the sweet spot between fair competition (you probably would only use the most balanced map if that would be the only thing to consider) and trying to give the viewers some unique experience. Both aspects matter a lot though i definitely would agree that the former should be top priority. | ||
|
Vutalisk
United States680 Posts
| ||
|
Togekiss
Canada154 Posts
Take the best maps from the entire year and throw them into a ladder season leading up to Blizzcon. Shorten the upcoming ladder season (which starts when, mid-August if memory serves me correctly?) to accommodate for a realistic practice window which includes the Blizzcon ladder map pool 4-8 weeks prior to the WCS finals. Ideally expand the pool to include a few more maps (9 or 10 would be lovely). This in and of itself would allow the participants to have more choice/options in the veto system, as well as provide some additional map diversity to keep the tournament feeling fresh from a viewing perspective. As a hardcore enthusiast and fan of the pro scene, I personally don't mind seeing a smaller rotation of maps in tournaments if it provides for the highest level of games (which in and of itself is entertaining for me), although I could argue that seeing basically the same 3-5 maps being recycled every single series in every single tournament isn't overly exciting/entertaining for viewers who are slightly less "hard-core" than myself. To sum it up, we should have a larger map pool in the ladder season leading up to Blizzcon which include a carefully selected line-up of the best maps from throughout the year. This ladder map pool will then be used at Blizzcon. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
I agree watching pros play on non-standard maps can be fun to watch and present unique games and stategies. But the idea that you need wacky maps for "diversity" is flawed by the fact they will almost always get vetoed until the latest stages of tournaments (bo7s). You'd get more diversity by having 7 good maps at the same time. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
-they'd favor extremely standard maps, like others have mentioned -players from each race would specifically vote for maps with favorable win rates for them. if more players of one specific race make it to blizzcon, they can essentially rig the map pool in their favor. | ||
|
Boggyb
2855 Posts
On July 26 2018 10:39 -NegativeZero- wrote: i like the idea of using maps from the whole year, but letting the players choose them is a bad idea, for 2 reasons: -they'd favor extremely standard maps, like others have mentioned -players from each race would specifically vote for maps with favorable win rates for them. if more players of one specific race make it to blizzcon, they can essentially rig the map pool in their favor. If you include whacky maps, they'll just be vetoed and thus what the hell was the point of this? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On July 26 2018 10:45 Boggyb wrote: If you include whacky maps, they'll just be vetoed and thus what the hell was the point of this? Non-standard != wacky . Progamers liked Dusk Towers which is a terribly boring and mediocre map. Meanwhile Neon Violet Square is non-standard and while it had a few issues it was still reasonably balanced, and gave some fun games. | ||
|
billynasty
United States260 Posts
| ||
|
FErnando141
8 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
RSL Revival
Serral vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
