The WCS Global Finals at BlizzCon is the crown jewel of StarCraft II esports, guaranteed to be the most hyped, most watched event of the year. But there are still ways to make it even better. One of the most glaring shortcomings is the map pool. Under the current format, the Global Finals is played on the ladder map pool at the time of the tournament. However, no ladder season has a perfect map pool, and it's likely that one or two maps will be deemed 'questionable' at best. This is apparent in the pick/veto numbers from previous Global Finals.
*Players ban 4 maps in BO3 and 2 maps in BO5. Includes maps picked but not played (due to series ending early). Grand finals not included (no vetoes; all maps played).
At the 2017 Global Finals, Catallena survived vetoes just 5 times in 26 total series, and was banned in every single BO5. In contrast, Ascension to Aiur was picked 20 times. Going back to the 2016 Global Finals, Dasan Station and Apotheosis were distinctly unpopular compared to the other maps (Dasan was picked for game seven in the ban-less grand final).
This is partially due to the tendencies of progamers, who typically prefer to play on 'standard' macro maps. However, some maps are too flawed or imbalanced to fault progamers for being conservative. A map like Dasan Station might force creativity with its incredibly close rush distance and exploitable backdoor ramp, but it's a type of creativity that's completely out of sync with the rest of professional StarCraft II. Catallena’s asymmetrical layout creates game situations that one can't even prepare for, with inconsistent creep expansion patterns at different spawn positions actually affecting the 2017 grand final. An absolute worst case scenario would see a map like the infamous Daedalus Point—utterly broken in a single match-up—slip into the Global Finals. Vetoes are mostly able to keep those maps out of best of three series, but they will slip through into best of fives and sevens. The result is underwhelming gameplay and dissatisfying games.
Solution: Let players pick maps from the entire year
How could the situation be improved? One solution would be to let the Global Finalists select the map pool from all the maps played during the competitive year. The sixteen finalists are determined more than a month before the tournament—they could submit their votes on the seven (or more) maps they want played at BlizzCon from the ENTIRE pool of ladder maps that year. All player votes would be added together and the maps receiving the most votes would form the map pool.
Not only would this protect the competition from being diluted by flawed maps, but it would allow the return of proven battlegrounds that had cycled out of the map pool. BlizzCon is supposed to be the culmination of an entire year of competitive StarCraft. All the best maps—from start to finish—should be celebrated. Players should be able to show the full extent on their skills on the very best maps.
Problems and potential solutions
Of course, there are some problems with this solution. If the racial balance of the Global Final participants isn't perfect, players from the most-represented race would naturally vote for maps that worked in their favor. Nine Terrans, Protoss, or Zerg could force through a map pool favorable to their race, something that would put them at a distinct advantage.
One possible workaround is weighting votes equally by race. Another is to simply use the player voting as a reference while Blizzard curates their own master list.
Another issue is player practice. While many players find designated practice partners to help them prepare for BlizzCon, there are still players who rely heavily on ladder play. This may not be a big deal for Code S players who are used to playing on GSL's non-ladder maps, but WCS Circuit players may find it hard to adjust.
Issues can be worked out and the exact implementation can be determined through careful consideration. The core premise is the same: Expanding the BlizzCon map pool to encompass the entire year and giving the players a say would improve the Global Finals.
A change like this would give the sixteen best players in the world a chance to play at their absolute highest level, while viewers would get to see why these battlefields and combatants were the best of 2018. The final product would be a competition more worthy of Blizzard’s vision for WCS.
Pro-player feedback
TeamLiquid.net sent out an anonymous questionnaire to Korean players (including previous Global Finalists) regarding a direct player-vote to choose the BlizzCon map pool.
Player A
• What do you think of this proposal? Good proposal. Unbalanced maps not only cause race imbalances, but also make the games less fun to watch for viewers.
• Are there any issues that stick out? None.
• How would you improve upon this system? It's good.
Player B
• What do you think of this proposal? I think that the ladder maps are better, because it is easier to practice.
• Are there any issues that stick out? Being harder to practice? And the chance that maps with skewed balance will be selected by the players.
• How would you improve upon this system? Blizzard selecting balanced maps in a fair manner.
Player C
• What do you think of this proposal? I think it is a good proposal, but I think that [race imbalance in voting] is a very big issue. It would be good if there was a halfway solution. SC2, as a game, is greatly affected by the maps
• Are there any issues that stick out? I think it’s a good idea.
• How would you improve upon this system? Instead of the ladder maps for the very last season, it would be good to choose among the whole year’s ladder maps.
Player D
• What do you think of this proposal? It's good. I think it would be possible to have fair map selection.
• Are there any issues that stick out? None.
• How would you improve upon this system? N/A
Player F
• What do you think of this proposal? I think it’s a good proposal. It would be less convenient for the players’ practice, but it would give the fans some novel enjoyment. Also, BlizzCon is the conclusion of a year’s worth of tournaments, and it seems right that they use the maps that came before.
• Are there any issues that stick out? If not for the previously mentioned problem where more players of one certain race qualify and maps favoring that race get picked more, I think it would be okay.
I'd much rather have Blizzard pick the maps from the entire year than players. Selecting maps from the entire year by itself solves the problem of bad maps that we didn't know were bad maps before they got played from getting in. Adding player input just adds more problems (such as those mentioned in the article), and also the problem that players like to play on the most dull and generic maps possible, where they can do their regular stuff without ever adapting.
Of course Blizzard would have to try to create a balanced map pool (even if you have seven maps which are fine by themselves, you still have a problem if six of them slightly favours terran in TvZ for example), which they aren't very good at, but what can you do.
The worst solution would of course be to get the public to vote on the maps going in.
Additionally with the timing of TLMC 11 it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard introduced a new map pool after WCS Montreal so that Blizzcon would be played on maps that haven't been played in a big tournament before.
Why do the players need to be involved at all in terms of voting? Wouldn't it just be easier to pick the least vetoed maps or the maps with the most balanced ones? Adding player voting just adds more issues and even in your little survey they don't seem to care about voting, so if it creates problems and even the players don't want it, why do it that way?
I don't mind it but I do think practice matters a great deal and your only response to that problem was "Issues can be worked out and the exact implementation can be determined through careful consideration" so we have no meaningful solutions yet other than "future us can figure it out."
I do think it is a good idea but without removing the player voting and no solution for practice I'm not sold on it. I like the idea but I'm not sold on it without solving those two issues. But the premise is important, a bad ladder map selection shouldn't be the choice for the biggest tournament.
But does that mean we change the map pool for the IEM Championship as well since it is similarly important in terms of quality and money? No idea, just a thought.
EDIT: After reading a few comments about how this idea would lead to just 7 samey games is making me rethink the idea at the core. I had issues with the HOW the maps would be chosen I didn't think how it would lead to all the maps and games playing out the same. I'm not sure that I like that idea now that someone pointed that out.
I do like the idea on principle, BUT: the biggest issue here is map diversity. That's something that Blizzard has been pushing hard since last year, and that's why we always have at least one "wonky" map and 2 "a bit different" ones per season. If we go with this proposal,and let players vote, you can bet that will have the most bog-standard of maps picked. Catalyst - Lost an Found - Acid Plant - Black Pink. Every series. Yes, players would love this - but would it be "good" for the games? Like, we had some very memorable games on some of the less-standard maps this year.
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.
In regards to @haik above, that reasoning is pretty bleh considering even complete most bog-standard maps can still produce the wonky proxy / 2 base all-in or they can produce the super standard game. That's the best part about the super standard maps, they are able to do anything as long as it's a good map.
The other question, for instance just taking the top 7 most picked maps of 2016 & 2017 leaves us with: Ascension to Aiur, Abyssal Reef, Odyssey, King Sejong, Frozen Temple, Galactic Process & Frost.
Now, in those two years, those were the 7 most played maps, but if say that was the map pool for 2018, would say Ascension and KSS still be the most played? Or were they only the most played because there was a handful of other "unbalanced" maps. Could you expect that season to have, say 15 total plays for each map or would certain ones still stand out above the rest.
Wonky maps are fine, hell, I've made my fair share of them but when it comes to seeing who is the best of the best, I'd prefer every game be played on super standard well balanced maps because at that point, planning your strategies in those BoX series will really help the player who works harder.
One solution would be to let the Global Finalists select the map pool from all the maps played during the competitive year.
I think this might be the worst idea I've read in a long, long time.
If players helped us test our maps more often, and we had better categories in the TLMCs that favor well made maps with variety rather than shoe-horning specific content (rush maps, 4p maps, 3p maps, gold base maps, scrap station maps) then we'd see improvement across the board.....
edit: in fact arent you the guy who said every game should be played on overgrowth? That alone should be quite disqualifying...
The difficult thing about picking "The best" or "most played" maps from the last year is you are going to get a bunch of very similar maps for the whole finals.
Then you get the argument of map variety and the strategy + different game play none ultra standard maps bring.
So you came up with the idea for players to pick the map pool, and then only asked players if it was a good idea. Of course they are going to side with you. Players value comfort over everything else. They want to win, and viewer entertainment is not something they value if they want to compete. If you want a better perspective, why not ask commentators or some other interest group who would value entertainment over comfort?
I know that fans like to have the "weird" maps, but they're implemented in the current WCS/BlizzCon system in way that really doesn't serve anyone. They're basically bannable until the super late rounds of a tournament where they suddenly pop-up. Fans don't get to see them all that often, players end up not having to practice for them until the absolute most crucial moment, and fans don't get to see them played at max preparation.
You have to 'force' the integration of weird maps like they did in the old GSL system, where the first map in a series is predetermined by the organizer, before any vetoes come in. But then Daedalus Point happened, revealing why that can be a bad, bad, bad idea.
I'm not particularly interested in seeing all BO3's narrowed down to the same four macro maps, but I'm also not particularly interested in Dasan randomly showing up in game seven of the grand finals.
The players will never accept any responsibility that they could have a heavy hand in helping balance maps, they just expect everything to piece together perfectly and we'll always just have new ideas like Abyssal just work out the gate.
How do we let the players choose the maps when we have yearly balance and design changes that could, and would affect map design? Does anyone else think that players should responsible for helping test these new ideas and working towards a more diverse ability to design new things? Or no, we can just fuck off on Overgrowth for the next 200 years. That sounds so much fun.
On July 25 2018 12:00 Avexyli wrote: The players will never accept any responsibility that they could have a heavy hand in helping balance maps, they just expect everything to piece together perfectly and we'll always just have new ideas like Abyssal just work out the gate.
How do we let the players choose the maps when we have yearly balance and design changes that could, and would affect map design? Does anyone else think that players should responsible for helping test these new ideas and working towards a more diverse ability to design new things? Or no, we can just fuck off on Overgrowth for the next 200 years. That sounds so much fun.
Pro-player testing is bad in just about every esports game, not just StarCraft II (Dota, LoL, CS fans have all seen plenty of broken shit make it to live). Incentives just don't align for pros to commit extensive time to testing things that don't benefit them in immediate competition. Unless developers can conclusively demonstrate that there are REAL long-term benefits to helping to test things that aren't in actual competition (I don't think is obvious at all), and implement feedback systems that make players feel like they're not wasting their time, it will remain that way forever.
Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.
On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote: Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.
I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments.
On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote: Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.
I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments.
Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool.
On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote: Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.
I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments.
Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool.
Choosing slanted map pools is an age old tradition in BW. How else could you make sure the legend of the fall survived?
On July 25 2018 14:28 starkiller123 wrote: Man I want King Sejong Station back, probably my favorite map of all time. I also think Terraform was a fun map and should come back
Absolutely ridiculous that actual progamers who know all maps in and out would have a say in deciding what a million dollar tournament map pool would look like. Can't they just shut up and play on new, interesting and blatantly imbalanced maps that I, the viewer enjoy?
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.
You'd have to get the maps on ladder before BlizzCon, otherwise it'd massively favor players in team house setups (Jin Air) that have practice partners provided for them. But I don't mind the idea. Anything that has us play on better map pools is fine with me.
I don't mind the idea but the ladder problem could be circumvented if there was a special 'Blizzcon' ladder season wherein they implemented those top maps based on weighted voting.
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)...
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.
How about just don't involve the players at all and Blizzard chooses a Blizzcon season map pool either with the best 7 maps of the year or a bigger map pool with all the years maps just with a different Pick and Veto system.
On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote: Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.
I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments.
Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool.
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.
if blizzard is interested in doing something like this they should collect as much feedback / data as possible before making any decisions. dont just ask the pros, ask as many people as possible and evaluate their input according to their qualifications and perspective.
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.
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.
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.
I like the idea that map pool for BlizzCon contains selected maps from all seasons, not just current map pool. It is getting boring to see the same map pool that you've seen in current ladder for months before BC. It seems like everyone just forget that we have like 4 seasons in a year and the last season seems to be the only one that matters. By having more maps to choose, we can get rid of some horrible maps in current ladder if there are anything. It is a win-win solution. I'm sure progamers would want to have good maps to play not just restricted in current map pool only.
Seems simple enough based on what I'm reading here.
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.
Just have the ladder season before blizzcon have 7 classic/not hated maps.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I like the idea of taking the best maps from thruout the year & having a special ladder season leading up to Blizzcon that showcases them. I doubt we'll see any of these changes in this thread, but I think its a better idea than what we've had in the past. It doesn't serve anyone seeing the same few maps played over & over again. Hopefully Blizzard takes note of the discussion here & seriously considers it
Just let Blizzard select the maps from all seasons. No need for progamers to vote or anything of that. This is BlizzCon after all (organized by Blizzard). Players are paid to come and play so just focus on playing. They should've played all of the maps before. Don't involve them into some nonsense voting. GSL vs The World is ridiculous enough as it is when it comes to voting.
On top of that, Blizzard can select the 7 maps into required catalogs like 2 standard, 2 macro, 2 rush, 1 4-players map. That will create enough variety in term of map types without making the map pools too boring or too "standard" like some folks said above.
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?
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.
Did it? All I can remember are super long turtle games and proxy void rays.
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?
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.
Did it? All I can remember are super long turtle games and proxy void rays.
Well if you're me you find the proxy voidray games fun too, but there were some games like Bunny vs Dear (Game 2) that were memorable:
On July 26 2018 11:09 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Non-standard != wacky . Progamers liked Dusk Towers which is a terribly boring and mediocre map.
This is a very critical point, and everyone in favor of Mizenhauer's idea is ignoring it. Players are not going to pick the most interesting maps. They have no incentive to do so. They might not even favor balanced maps, depending on how the vote works out.
Also, let's be honest. Players are terrible at judging maps anyway. A few months ago, uThermal called Dreamcatcher the worst map he ever played on in the history of StarCraft 2. These days, he doesn't veto it in best-of-threes, where he gets two vetoes! Are there two maps in the pool worse than the worst map ever?
On July 26 2018 11:09 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Non-standard != wacky . Progamers liked Dusk Towers which is a terribly boring and mediocre map.
This is a very critical point, and everyone in favor of Mizenhauer's idea is ignoring it. Players are not going to pick the most interesting maps. They have no incentive to do so. They might not even favor balanced maps, depending on how the vote works out.
Also, let's be honest. Players are terrible at judging maps anyway. A few months ago, uThermal called Dreamcatcher the worst map he ever played on in the history of StarCraft 2. These days, he doesn't veto it in best-of-threes, where he gets two vetoes! Are there two maps in the pool worse than the worst map ever?
Another grand argument: just because someone obviously overreacts when they see a map for a first time, they will have biased judgement of it after playing on the map for months. That happens, right?
Blizzcon is the most important tournament. The most important tournament should be played on the most current version of the game and the most current meta.
The current map pool is an inseparable part of that.
If the problem is that maps get vetoed, then pick better maps for the current pool.
Blizzcon is not some greatest hits of the year fling. The quintessential version of SC2 is whatever the current map pool is.
Does this also consider the race distribution amongst players who picked maps? The tables lose some of their expressiveness when it's not transparent what race the veteoing players have.
I remember back to Age of Empires II, where there were seed-generated maps. I would like somebody to design an entire map pool for Blizzcon, ideally, based on peoples' favourite maps but with all the things on the map (cliff edge paths, base placements, xel-naga distribution, etc) subject to a little bit of random. This would be fun to watch. Sure, it wouldn't be 'fair' in the strict sense of 'even'. But that reflects on the whole idea of SCII, that there can be 3 completely different races that have different advantages/disadvantages yet still roughly matched.
On July 30 2018 03:17 KR_4EVR wrote: I remember back to Age of Empires II, where there were seed-generated maps. I would like somebody to design an entire map pool for Blizzcon, ideally, based on peoples' favourite maps but with all the things on the map (cliff edge paths, base placements, xel-naga distribution, etc) subject to a little bit of random. This would be fun to watch. Sure, it wouldn't be 'fair' in the strict sense of 'even'. But that reflects on the whole idea of SCII, that there can be 3 completely different races that have different advantages/disadvantages yet still roughly matched.
I'll add to this the idea of dynamic maps. It would be nice to see maps where at random intervals in time (5 to 45 seconds maybe) random objects appeared in the fog of war, like rock debris from landing meteors, or shifting xel-naga towers, or random changes to elevation (with ramped edges) to random squares.
EPT
by Mizenhauer![[image loading]](/staff/Waxangel/bird_blue_16.png)
