| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KillerSmile
Germany95 Posts
On July 12 2021 16:28 Harstem wrote: Let it be a co-operative effort rather than part of the judging stage and let it be conversational. I am all for this. The judges should be able to check each other in the making of the scores. Looking at the maps should not be a lonely slog, but a lively conversation where the participants are still allowed to have differeing opinions and scores. | ||
|
bubunuh
2 Posts
Regarding the 4 player maps, there was actually a couple of 4 players maps to which HeroMarine gave a high score of 4 if I remember correctly. He even mentioned that he would like to see more 3 player maps, because they create some variety in the game by keeping low the coin-flipping aspect of not knowing your opponent's spawn position. Regarding the maps with the edge bases layout, he actually explained why he don't like them, but apparently the OP thought convenient to left out this fact. He said that he felt games would be uninteresting, as there could be little or no action in the middle where there are no bases to be fought for. He clearly judged the maps based on some of his PERSONAL preferences, which might not necessarily coincide with yours, mine, ops's, and the mapmaker's. When you give no clear criteria to judge, or not demand any sort of justification, how do you expect them to be thorough, and judge objectively?. It seems to me this is a problem with the organization of the event, not with the judges | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:10 hjpalpha wrote: That is in general how voluntary stuff works. + Show Spoiler + Do you think Liquipedia contributors get anything out of editing hours and hours every week? What we get is the satisfaction to help the community, document the (competitive) history of the game, the fun wile editing (be it writing lua modules, templates, creating player/team/tournament (and even mapmaker) pages, updating scores, ...) and of course the cool community we have on the Liquipedia discord (across the games/wikis). You on the other hand even have a contest with prize money. Yeah there for sure is room for improvement, but this crying about everything the whole time (and bashing players/judges while at it) is annoying af in my opinion. Do pro players know they can refuse if they don't want to do this properly? I am lazy and that's why I don't do any voluntary work. And if anybody asks me I refuse it. It really isn't that hard to say - nope, I won't judge any maps for you. There! | ||
|
Wardi
England898 Posts
On July 12 2021 14:59 StasisField wrote: You're right. 4-player maps have had some incredible games played on them, especially Frost. Frost also had very balanced win/loss for each match up with its worst winrate sitting at a 49% winrate for Terran in TvZ. And guess what? All 4 spawns are enabled on Frost too. Frost also saw professional play in HotS and LotV and it produced great games in both. Honestly, if LotV hadn't soured so many people's opinions towards 4-players maps, I think Frost would be SC2's Fighting Spirit. Frost came up in the downtime during the tournament yesterday, with both players saying how they loved it, because at least once you knew the spawn you knew whether it was a free win or a free loss. Frost had a lot of issues and as SC2 has been fine tuned over the years I think these issues would only be more apparent. 50% winrate is nice, but it is not a 50% winrate for each spawn location. I think yesterdays games showed some core issues with four player maps : the power of close by ground air armies, queen walks and the roll the dice 12 pool which can end a game. These games aren’t fun to watch and imo don’t make up for the times a map can provide a great game. We can have maps that provide great games consistently without having an rng factor. | ||
|
Gina
241 Posts
| ||
|
Legan
Finland577 Posts
On July 12 2021 19:13 Gina wrote: A noob like me would think that just showing where the opponent has spawned, like in ladder games, would help with the randomness of scouting. Why doesn't that work? When you know where you opponent has spawned, the maps becomes just possibly asymmetric big map that has weird corners. For example you can try to visualize what current ladder maps would look if they had another unused main and natural in their corners instead of what they currently have. Paths and flow of map needs to work differently near main and natural compared to corners. The main and natural setup behind one choke makes weird deep pocket that can easily trap both defending and attacking forces that push in. For example you destroy the base at extra natural and move in to destroy the base at extra main while owner of the bases arrives outside of the extra natural to prevent you from leaving. Now you are trapped while opponent can move to destroy your bases outside the extra natural. | ||
|
M3t4PhYzX
Poland4258 Posts
Would be cool if SC2 orgas tried the same approach at least from time to time.. Thx for the thread | ||
|
Gina
241 Posts
| ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On my end I don't understand why current pros are part of this as judges at all. As we all know balance from now on will be done through maps, just like BW. So if sc2 is balanced through the mappool isn't asking current top pros to vote for maps similar to if we say, gather 2 casters, 2 streamers and 3 progamers and ask them to vote if they want the proposed nerf to widow mines to go through? Catz is great and while I would trust him to be decently objective even back in his pro days I don't think this is the kind of situation were its about trust. I think its fine Catz is part of it, he isn't a current pro player but I don't think the top players should get votes like this. Think about it, not only does pros have vested self interest in trying to skew the racial balance in their favor it goes further than that. The better a player is doing (the closer to the top he is) the more beneficial it will be for him to keep the meta as stale and uninnovative as possible. Thats the thing about "new" maps, if they really are new it will take a long time to know how to play on it, which builds are viable and often new builds all together. This is things that gives the pro players that are at the bottom a chance to catch up and resets all the effort the top players have put into becoming the best on the standard maps. Not to mention that certain maps, even if they might be balanced can favor certain playstyles. If Gumigod was a judge I believe in general he would favor maps that are good for mech. There is really no good reason to have current pros given power to "vote" like this. I've read some arguments about how pros knows which maps are "ladder ready" and so on but that is bull. Truely innovative maps no one will know what the meta will involve into until its playtested enough to develop their own builds. No pro can look at a map and accurately predict how the meta would evolve unless they have already played on the same map before for a long time, which would mean a map just like it has been in the laderpool before. Pros in general don't want the maps to change, they want to keep it standard so why ask them what maps they want when we already know. Also if pros don't want to put in the effort to judge maps, then don't be a judge. If you choose to be a judge but quite clearly don't put any effort in it that makes it look like you just want the power to effect the mappool (for some reason that I cant understand). Blizzard continously asked pros for feedback on balance but they didn't get to "vote" on it. Blizzard listened to the pros opinion, on their reasoning behind it and filterered it through their own opinions, maybe did some testing and then Blizzard decided. Why cant the TLMC do the same? I have no idea what would be a good format for this but maybe 2 casters and 2 streamers vote many maps through into like a top 30. After that the 3 pros gets to look at the top 30 and score them, with added comments on why they gave that score. Then the actual judges can filter the pros comments and make the finals scores, this way the pros "opinions" will only carry weight if they have good enough reasons to effect the judges opinion of the maps. The judges can also look at the pros comments (hopefully from different races) and compare. I get this might be too much work to ever be feasible but its once way to get the pros comments without them getting a vote. Edit: Also in regards to the posts writing that it "balances itself out", bias would balance itself out if it was 20 000 zerg, 20 000 terrans and 20 000 protoss who weighted in. But the smaller the sample size the more skewed it becomes depending on the individuals, imagine three players were of each race votes and decided the zerg player is super biased while the protoss player takes it seriously and is as objective as possible. The result is a monster | ||
|
bubunuh
2 Posts
On July 12 2021 21:11 Shuffleblade wrote: Great post and the discussion throughout has been interesting to read, especially how polarising its been. Catz post in particular puts a different perspective on things. On my end I don't understand why current pros are part of this as judges at all. As we all know balance from now on will be done through maps, just like BW. So if sc2 is balanced through the mappool isn't asking current top pros to vote for maps similar to if we say, gather 2 casters, 2 streamers and 3 progamers and ask them to vote if they want the proposed nerf to widow mines to go through? Catz is great and while I would trust him to be decently objective even back in his pro days I don't think this is the kind of situation were its about trust. I think its fine Catz is part of it, he isn't a current pro player but I don't think the top players should get votes like this. Think about it, not only does pros have vested self interest in trying to skew the racial balance in their favor it goes further than that. The better a player is doing (the closer to the top he is) the more beneficial it will be for him to keep the meta as stale and uninnovative as possible. Thats the thing about "new" maps, if they really are new it will take a long time to know how to play on it, which builds are viable and often new builds all together. This is things that gives the pro players that are at the bottom a chance to catch up and resets all the effort the top players have put into becoming the best on the standard maps. Not to mention that certain maps, even if they might be balanced can favor certain playstyles. If Gumigod was a judge I believe in general he would favor maps that are good for mech. There is really no good reason to have current pros given power to "vote" like this. I've read some arguments about how pros knows which maps are "ladder ready" and so on but that is bull. Truely innovative maps no one will know what the meta will involve into until its playtested enough to develop their own builds. No pro can look at a map and accurately predict how the meta would evolve unless they have already played on the same map before for a long time, which would mean a map just like it has been in the laderpool before. Pros in general don't want the maps to change, they want to keep it standard so why ask them what maps they want when we already know. Also if pros don't want to put in the effort to judge maps, then don't be a judge. If you choose to be a judge but quite clearly don't put any effort in it that makes it look like you just want the power to effect the mappool (for some reason that I cant understand). Blizzard continously asked pros for feedback on balance but they didn't get to "vote" on it. Blizzard listened to the pros opinion, on their reasoning behind it and filterered it through their own opinions, maybe did some testing and then Blizzard decided. Why cant the TLMC do the same? I have no idea what would be a good format for this but maybe 2 casters and 2 streamers vote many maps through into like a top 30. After that the 3 pros gets to look at the top 30 and score them, with added comments on why they gave that score. Then the actual judges can filter the pros comments and make the finals scores, this way the pros "opinions" will only carry weight if they have good enough reasons to effect the judges opinion of the maps. The judges can also look at the pros comments (hopefully from different races) and compare. I get this might be too much work to ever be feasible but its once way to get the pros comments without them getting a vote. Edit: Also in regards to the posts writing that it "balances itself out", bias would balance itself out if it was 20 000 zerg, 20 000 terrans and 20 000 protoss who weighted in. But the smaller the sample size the more skewed it becomes depending on the individuals, imagine three players were of each race votes and decided the zerg player is super biased while the protoss player takes it seriously and is as objective as possible. The result is a monster While I agree that "forcing" pros to be innovative by making them playing in different maps could generate interesting games, how would you fix the problem of "different" maps never being picked/always getting banned in tournaments? How would you fix this asymmetry? Would the solution be to make all the maps extremely different? | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
On July 12 2021 18:45 bubunuh wrote: Regarding the 4 player maps, there was actually a couple of 4 players maps to which HeroMarine gave a high score of 4 if I remember correctly. He even mentioned that he would like to see more 3 player maps, because they create some variety in the game by keeping low the coin-flipping aspect of not knowing your opponent's spawn position 3 player maps have been submitted. Many 4 player maps with spawn restrictions shakuras-plateau, that are technically 3 player maps, were submitted. Like the one good map that he gave a 1. None got through. | ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2655 Posts
On July 12 2021 21:11 Shuffleblade wrote: Blizzard continously asked pros for feedback on balance but they didn't get to "vote" on it. Blizzard listened to the pros opinion, on their reasoning behind it and filterered it through their own opinions, maybe did some testing and then Blizzard decided. Why cant the TLMC do the same? I have no idea what would be a good format for this but maybe 2 casters and 2 streamers vote many maps through into like a top 30. After that the 3 pros gets to look at the top 30 and score them, with added comments on why they gave that score. Then the actual judges can filter the pros comments and make the finals scores, this way the pros "opinions" will only carry weight if they have good enough reasons to effect the judges opinion of the maps. The judges can also look at the pros comments (hopefully from different races) and compare. I get this might be too much work to ever be feasible but its once way to get the pros comments without them getting a vote. Sounds good to me  Whoever decides on the next tlmc, pls take this idear into consideration | ||
|
MarianoSC2
Slovakia1855 Posts
On July 12 2021 21:26 bubunuh wrote: While I agree that "forcing" pros to be innovative by making them playing in different maps could generate interesting games, how would you fix the problem of "different" maps never being picked/always getting banned in tournaments? How would you fix this asymmetry? Would the solution be to make all the maps extremely different? Thats simple. More map options and less vetos. | ||
|
stilt
France2755 Posts
On July 12 2021 22:13 MarianoSC2 wrote: Thats simple. More map options and less vetos. So less competition for the sake of more show ? That's a shitty idea | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1908 Posts
On July 12 2021 00:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Balanced around pro play != pros judging while putting in little effort and just angling to get good maps for their race on ladder with no regard for map quality. And the non-standard maps they pick in TLMC often simply aren't balanced, so it's not as though a good job at picking balanced maps. yeah i agree pros should put in effort thats why i used showtime as an example. you cant blanket statement all pros out of judging. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On July 12 2021 21:26 bubunuh wrote: While I agree that "forcing" pros to be innovative by making them playing in different maps could generate interesting games, how would you fix the problem of "different" maps never being picked/always getting banned in tournaments? How would you fix this asymmetry? Would the solution be to make all the maps extremely different? I don't think there's a right answer here, just a lot of different opinions and options. One idea is to reduce the standard maps available in the tournament map pools, pretty much forcing pros to play them. I like the idea of making the map pool bigger on ladder, if we do that and add more diverse maps while keeping the map pool size in pro play while removing some of the standard maps. For pros they would hate it since they would be forced to learn to adapt to new maps but maybe that would end with those maps becoming accepted. The problem with none standard maps is that pros have no incentive to play them and since pros don't play them the meta and balance doesn't really get figured out at the highest level. Subsequently we don't even know if the maps are balanced and good because they don't get tested. Every single none standard map that made it into the map pool was disliked and banned in the beginning, before they started to get figured out and then got popular. Some maps doesn't even get the chance because no one plays them even if they were the map pool. On July 12 2021 22:28 stilt wrote: So less competition for the sake of more show ? That's a shitty idea What does this even mean, does more vetoes equal more competition? Or does more maps equal less competition? Either way it doesn't make sense, competition would increase from players competing to figure out none standard maps. Pros would have to practise more to gain new skills instead of relying on doing the same thing over and over and over again. Maybe you think the pinnacle of competition is a BO7 only on overgrowth but many people disagree, as do I. On July 12 2021 22:49 CicadaSC wrote: yeah i agree pros should put in effort thats why i used showtime as an example. you cant blanket statement all pros out of judging. Yes you can, because they are biased. Science say even if you are unaware of it you are always biased. I trust showtime but its not about trust, there's a reason recusals work as they do. If you have personal interest you cant be a judge period, it doesn't matter if you are trustworthy or not that is just arbitrarary and very unreliable. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On July 12 2021 13:41 [Phantom] wrote: I just want to make one comment and say I think I must have been drinking kool-aid because as far as I remmember 4 player maps were in starcraft for at least 5-6 years, got progressively better and some of the best games of all time were played there. But apparently they can't possibly work. Yeah, so as a lover & maker of 4p maps (don't hate), whilst I understand some of the complaints people have for them, many of these aspects can be mitigated (if only given the chance) or experimented with. And then there are other points which I just don't understand what is the fuss about. Was there some sort of completely-broken 4p map in LotV that made everyone hate it once and for all? Understandable concerns: 'Quadrant Syndrome': In LotV, players expand a lot and need to take 5ths in most games. However, the first four bases needs to be close, because of the changed economics. There are so many ways of trying to fix this. One way is to use mineral walls, like Undercity, to transition between quadrants. (I think the fact that the bases are on the lowground is counteractive to this, but that's besides the point). You can also use 20 bases, since high number of bases is actually not a concern in LotV. The last method is not my favourite, but you could disable one of the spawns, too (I think this is a boring way of going about it though). + Show Spoiler + On July 12 2021 19:04 Wardi wrote: Frost came up in the downtime during the tournament yesterday, with both players saying how they loved it, because at least once you knew the spawn you knew whether it was a free win or a free loss. Frost had a lot of issues and as SC2 has been fine tuned over the years I think these issues would only be more apparent. 50% winrate is nice, but it is not a 50% winrate for each spawn location. I think yesterdays games showed some core issues with four player maps : the power of close by ground air armies, queen walks and the roll the dice 12 pool which can end a game. These games aren’t fun to watch and imo don’t make up for the times a map can provide a great game. We can have maps that provide great games consistently without having an rng factor. Cross Spawns are too far and close spawns are too close: This is definitely a concern, but mapmakers are always trying to innovate on this. I think the AZGs on Nautilus are refreshing, as they make cross-spawns closer than normal. But a well-made 4p map actually goes around the issue of close spawns being too close, where the shortest path is forced through the center to increase rush distance, but there are other, further paths available to take. The map only utilizes half of the map in close spawns: This again I think can be mitigated through design, where if the quadrants are connected together properly, and sufficient defender's advantage is given, the map design should allow for players to explore the rest of the map. Not actually a concern: Rotational imbalance: This is actually not a concern, because you can just make rotational maps that don't have the imbalances. In my opinion, 3 out of 4 of the 4p picks this time around were simply bad picks, because they were rotational maps which made absolutely no attempt at balancing out between the two close spawns. I mean, just look at Bulwark, where the thirds for close spawns are simply disadvantageous for one player. Look at Tidehunter, where one player needs to mine out the mineral walls to take a third while the other doesn't in close spawns. How were these maps approved by the pros, who usually really care about map balance above anything else? You can make rotational maps which reduce this effect, like Whirlwind. Whirlwind obviously has some rotational imbalance but it is far more mitigated then the two maps I've mentioned above. Also, you can just make mirror 4p maps too... Map plays out differently based on spawns - why not make a 2p map instead? Because 4p maps play out differently. Because you don't know where the spawns are, you can't have a premeditated, brainless plan every game, and you have to think more on your feet. The metagame would be completely different from 2p maps because different builds are possible, knowing that you can go for them because it is less likely to be scouted. + Show Spoiler + On July 12 2021 17:56 deacon.frost wrote: Yeah, like Frost, right? But back at HotS you had the 6-worker start so the only rush that could have killed you was the 6 pool and even that against a greedy opening. But now? If you have a full proper 4p map and you scout your enemy last? Why scout then, you've already chosen your tech and the enemy as well and you have nothing to scout. And if they chose to do some rush it's already way too late. 4p maps work bad at LotV because of the rushed start. You simply don't have the time to do the proper scouting. And once you force spawns it's technically a 4p map but in reality 2p map (3p if you deny horizontal or vertical spawns only) Spawn randomness breaks the game. No. I think coin-flipping early games are fine. If 12 pools are really your concern, you can just play safe early game. In fact, this sort of poker-like plays are a mainstay of Brood War, where we see 2 raxes vs zerg all the time in 4p maps. We saw it in the recent ASL finals. It is basically a coinflip. This is fine. The burden is on the players to choose to take risks. Mindgames in the early game are just a natural part of RTS. + Show Spoiler + On July 12 2021 19:32 Legan wrote: When you know where you opponent has spawned, the maps becomes just possibly asymmetric big map that has weird corners. For example you can try to visualize what current ladder maps would look if they had another unused main and natural in their corners instead of what they currently have. Paths and flow of map needs to work differently near main and natural compared to corners. The main and natural setup behind one choke makes weird deep pocket that can easily trap both defending and attacking forces that push in. For example you destroy the base at extra natural and move in to destroy the base at extra main while owner of the bases arrives outside of the extra natural to prevent you from leaving. Now you are trapped while opponent can move to destroy your bases outside the extra natural. It's bad to have an expansion that only has a 1x entrance. . This is such a non issue, the further mains are going to be your 6th or 7th. Those bases are not gamebreaking. There's no airspace in 4p maps. I don't think this is a problem. If anything, I think air units are too strong in SC2. Also, a lack of airspace can be accounted for through other features. Not having a single feature doesn't break the map, in the hands of a good mapmaker, imo. ------------------------------------ But mostly, I think there are still so many things that can be tried out in the space of 4p maps. I really wish there were more opportunities to test them out. I don't think that people should count out 4p maps (or any other category of maps for that matter), especially if there has been so few that were seriously played. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1908 Posts
On July 12 2021 23:01 Shuffleblade wrote: I don't think there's a right answer here, just a lot of different opinions and options. One idea is to reduce the standard maps available in the tournament map pools, pretty much forcing pros to play them. I like the idea of making the map pool bigger on ladder, if we do that and add more diverse maps while keeping the map pool size in pro play while removing some of the standard maps. For pros they would hate it since they would be forced to learn to adapt to new maps but maybe that would end with those maps becoming accepted. The problem with none standard maps is that pros have no incentive to play them and since pros don't play them the meta and balance doesn't really get figured out at the highest level. Subsequently we don't even know if the maps are balanced and good because they don't get tested. Every single none standard map that made it into the map pool was disliked and banned in the beginning, before they started to get figured out and then got popular. Some maps doesn't even get the chance because no one plays them even if they were the map pool. What does this even mean, does more vetoes equal more competition? Or does more maps equal less competition? Either way it doesn't make sense, competition would increase from players competing to figure out none standard maps. Pros would have to practise more to gain new skills instead of relying on doing the same thing over and over and over again. Maybe you think the pinnacle of competition is a BO7 only on overgrowth but many people disagree, as do I. Yes you can, because they are biased. Science say even if you are unaware of it you are always biased. I trust showtime but its not about trust, there's a reason recusals work as they do. If you have personal interest you cant be a judge period, it doesn't matter if you are trustworthy or not that is just arbitrarary and very unreliable. ok well then if you are biased get an equal number of terran protoss and zerg judging then they can cancel eachother out with their biases also non pros arent exempt by youre logic and literally no one is objective. | ||
|
Legan
Finland577 Posts
| ||
|
Apom
France656 Posts
The freestyle category providing only one map with real "freestylish" features is also problematic, but we can say that one in three is at least better than zero in four. All of that comes down to extreme conservatism on the judges and/or the instructions they received (Catz makes valid points on this). In addition, having active pro players in the jury clearly can not help on advancing map making - only stalling it. Hopefully the next contest learns from this. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
