|
On February 10 2011 06:03 setzer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 05:30 Vasoline73 wrote:
Won't be watching the tournament without some iccup maps. Not really a big sc2 fan but iccup maps would make it interesting for me imo.
I mean, this isn't BW.. we shouldn't have to use the maps Koreans are playing on always. Game is still new, set a new standard TL That's your loss. 13 players from Asia are being invited and I would assume most of are already in GSL code S. Then you have some of the foreigners that are in Code A (ret, huk) that could potentially also be in TSL3, so it simply makes sense to include GSL maps when a lot of the TSL3 players are in GSL. That said it is unfortunate the map pool is final. I strongly believe Testbug is one of, if not the, best map out there. And with the constant iccup tournaments, showmatches and map promotions I think it's safe to say their maps have undergone the same level of balance testing the GSL maps have.
Not just the same level of balance testing, but significant levels of revision have occurred on almost all current ICCup maps. More revision than any other maps out there. Many people think that just because they're not "official Blizzard maps" or "official GSL maps" that somehow they aren't good enough for high level, large tournaments. Well if the ICCup maps aren't good enough, no foreign community made maps will EVER be good enough. I really feel for the ICCup team, they pour everything they've got into making their maps top of the line and nobody gives them any credit.
|
Crossfire SE is a million times worse than Scrap Station ever was.
The main problem with it is that there are just so many ramps that allow anyone to easily split the map by setting up an almost impenetrable defensive position, not to mention literally every area in the map can be walled off with no more than three force fields. It sets up a whole number of balance problems that will limit numbers of options Terran and Protoss can go for while almost automatically killing Zerg - I haven't even touched on the fact that the third is so far away from the natural.
I'm a Protoss player and it's easy to see how easily Colossi would dominate on this map if one simply plays defensively on Sentry based play.
I don't have many complaints about the other maps, though. Scrap Station isn't great but I'd take it over Crossfire any day.
|
On February 10 2011 06:01 Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 05:52 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On February 10 2011 05:50 Wolf wrote:
GHOSTCLAW makes the best point here. The GSL maps are much more reliable to use in a tournament since they've been professionally tested and are currently being tested. How is that different then iCCup maps? Are the NA and EU pros not good enough to test these maps? If so then why are these same players allowed in the TSL? iCCup maps haven't had as much extensive testing. They're great maps when you look at them, and they're made by some of the best mapmakers in the world (if not the best), but then once they're made, they kinda sit in a hub (which here happens to be the custom maps thread) for a while before tournaments just decide to pick them up based on how they look and some random here and there testing of high level gamers. Then they're used in fairly small scale tournaments and become more popular that way (although this is fairly recent). The GSL maps were made by mapmakers that are in a clan with professional gamers testing them constantly. The mapmakers for most of the new GSL maps were Prime members, and the others of course were made by Blizzard (and slightly modified by mapmaking teams). They've just had more extensive testing overall to make sure they were ready for the biggest SC2 league that currently exists. Tested by paid professionals. And now they're being used in a tournament (just ONE tournament), that has more spectators worldwide than any other, and is widely considered the most prestigious. On a side note, I like most iCCup maps more than the Prime-made maps.. I'm just trying to give objective points!
Ok I believe you may be misinformed. We don't just make maps and let them do their thing. We highlight them multiple times a week in iCCup events, including the professional ones. We look constantly at the balance based on the current game state. Thus why we released the refined pool. We also consider changes to the maps based off player feedback as proven by the 4th base Testbug magically gained based off said feedback.
I don't get however how you can say these have more testing? Last I checked they have only been trying them out for a month or so with Gisardo and GOM. We have been doing this since the day the map making thing came out. Also we have a staff of 10 or so members of a team dedicated to nothing other then mapmaking.
On February 10 2011 06:04 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 05:48 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On February 10 2011 05:43 GHOSTCLAW wrote:On February 10 2011 05:30 Vasoline73 wrote:
Won't be watching the tournament without some iccup maps. Not really a big sc2 fan but iccup maps would make it interesting for me imo.
I mean, this isn't BW.. we shouldn't have to use the maps Koreans are playing on always. Game is still new, set a new standard TL Super tough to have this idea gain general acceptance in the community. Just a few problems that this brings up: How do you ensure that the new maps are anywhere near balanced and have entertaining games on them? You need professional gamer level testers, which is almost impossible. You're asking progamers, who's time (at least in coaching) is around 50 USD/hour, to take time that could being going into practice and using it to test maps that may/may not be balanced. That's tough; the koreans handle it by having the high level clans also create high level maps that can then be tested and refined inside of the clan. Odd. We have hundreds of games by top top top NA and EU players on these maps, many pages of feedback notes, and every time an ESL EU event runs we have even more info..... The next problem is that you're asking spectators to essentially learn new maps in order to enjoy the game. One of the things that has been preventing the adoption of esports in the mainstream is the difficulty of following the game at a higher level; adding in understanding new maps makes following the esport even harder. On the other hand, new maps is what originally drew me to competitve BW (well that and Tasteless). I know if I were to show my mother SCII it's a lot harder to explain the 1,000,000 small things going on then the map. The map is decoration for fans, and for players a way to keep the game fresh. Finally, the risk of failing for teamliquid is that it will hurt the adoption of foreign maps, instead of help the adoption of foreign maps. TSL is one of the biggest tournaments, and if the the maps chosen are poor, it will create backlash which will hurt foreign mapmakers. In the same token, what happens if the GSL maps suck? This is a new game and we are approaching new territory, some mistakes will be made. Fuck we used Sin Chupung Reyong (WORST SCII map ever) in some tournaments before we knew it sucked and received no backlash. Obviously not TSL sized tournaments but still the point stands. I guess i'm not arguing that the iccup maps shouldn't be used, it's that the GSL maps are an easier call to make and defend. The Iccup maps are great, and tested in weekly casted matches that aren't as well covered as the GSL. With that in mind, the size of the TSL, and the type of exposure it receives in korea (TSL 1 and TSL 2 were good, therefore TSL 3 will probably receive exposure on fomos and other forums as well), reinforces the argument about backlash and having GSL maps included. This time around, it's a worldwide pool that includes koreans, and many other people around the world. In addition "what happens if the gsl maps suck?" - the answer is that it goes back to GomTV. Also, this is a preliminary map list, but the point still stands, the TSL won't need to worry about it as much as if they used iccup maps. (Again, the argument is about why GSL maps are easier to defend as a choice if you're going to pick four new maps). Finally, the players will need to learn the GSL maps anyway (as they will be used next season), whereas it is unclear if the iccup maps will be used in a tournament as large as the GSL. I understand that for the iccup maps to be used in larger tournaments, the maps should be used in the TSL as a stepping stone to acceptance into korean tournaments. I suppose that the teamliquid staff running TSL disagrees (I haven't done anything at all for TSL as far as I know), for all the reasons that I've mentioned. As for the spectators and the maps, I strongly disagree on a personal level - I got into starcraft:bw because my friends played and followed progaming; when i started playing on the newer maps it was quite difficult to understand all the nuances of the new maps, and how they affected gameplay (6/5/4 fact push TvP to punish various third timings, dt/sair vs reaver/sair, etc.) This leads me to believe that understanding the maps is going to mean different things to different spectators, and the more widely known the maps are, the more people will feel that they get out of watching the TSL.
So if the thing is that you have someone to blame if the maps end up sucking, why not blame iCCup TV if the maps end up sucking? Which they won't, because we test the living shit out of them and get direct feedback from the best non koreans in the world.
And soon, we will have feedback from the top Korean players....
|
I imagine two main reasons (at least) drive TL's choices here.
1. Theoretical balance is no match for heavy testing over time. That's why the Blizzard maps are there.
2. For a tournament as large as the TSL, you have to play it somewhat safe. I imagine they want to add new maps, but when iCCup maps haven't been seen in major tournaments so they'd be a risky choice. Sure, the new GSL maps haven't been tested all that heavily either, but at least this way they can make the tournament more accessible for the 13 invites from Asia. ESL's choice of a couple iCCup maps is much less influential on the practice scene than GSL's unveiling of its future pool.
The new GSL maps will also have seen greater tournament testing by the time the TSL pool will be finalized, so TL can have more confidence that they will have sufficient data to know which ones to cut.
|
United States1697 Posts
I would say a 50/50 mix of GSL maps + Iccup maps would be the best map pool. No one needs Lame Temple , or crap station (c wut I did thar?) anyways, We've played those maps enough on ladder, and watched enough games on them.
|
I love it! Thanks for incorporating the GSL maps. Hopefully the other tournaments will follow suit.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
These are the maps that have been chosen. If you want to talk about other potential maps, please do it outside of this thread.
|
United States17042 Posts
|
Remove Crap Station and include the new Lost Temple and we are good to go :D
|
On February 10 2011 06:07 Ironical wrote:
Crossfire SE is a million times worse than Scrap Station ever was.
The main problem with it is that there are just so many ramps that allow anyone to easily split the map by setting up an almost impenetrable defensive position, not to mention literally every area in the map can be walled off with no more than three force fields. It sets up a whole number of balance problems that will limit numbers of options Terran and Protoss can go for while almost automatically killing Zerg - I haven't even touched on the fact that the third is so far away from the natural.
I'm a Protoss player and it's easy to see how easily Colossi would dominate on this map if one simply plays defensively on Sentry based play.
I don't have many complaints about the other maps, though. Scrap Station isn't great but I'd take it over Crossfire any day.
You clearly havent played Crossfire SE, yes most of the places on the map can be walled of with 2-3 FF's but the map is made so its very easy to come with an army from more then one side. The only place one the map that is very hard to attack a protoss army is where there are 2 ramps to a high ground but there is no reson you should attack a protoss there as zerg since they cant hit any base from there.
I think its because it looks smaller then it is on the pic and many havent played it.
|
On February 10 2011 06:22 Kennigit wrote:
These are the maps that have been chosen. If you want to talk about other potential maps, please do it outside of this thread.
The thread name is candidate map pool... Talking about ups and downs of the maps and what maps should be in or be replaced should be done in this thread.
|
Scrap station looks like the weakest candidate among the pool. I think one of crossfire and xel'naga caverns will go out with scrap but this is just me. Again, this is just me but i think half gsl half iccup maps would make a better environment because of the reason stated by someone in first page. Gsl maps are as good as iccup ones if not better ofc.
|
On February 10 2011 06:33 Frankon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 06:22 Kennigit wrote:
These are the maps that have been chosen. If you want to talk about other potential maps, please do it outside of this thread. The thread name is candidate map pool... Talking about ups and downs of the maps and what maps should be in or be replaced should be done in this thread.
I think you should read the op before posting... there are 8 Candidate maps but they will only use 5 or 6 in the TSL.
|
Already the korean bias? I understand the reasons behind it so I'm not arguing that this is a mistake, but if any tournament that matters was ever going to use a foreign map it would've been TSL. I think this solidly sets the precedent bw had about foreign maps in stone. RIP iccup mapping team 
|
Awesome map pool. I personally would remove Xel Naga, because of the wide nat, and Crossfire/Scrap. I like that on four player maps, usually, the player can choose to attack a certain expansion. On two player maps, unless you're dropping, it's almost guaranteed where and when you're going to hit: fourth, third, nat, main.
|
Well then foreigners better get to practicing on the GSL maps, and plus the Koreans will have a bigger Latency disadvantage, so the slightly more map knowledge (which is negligible) evens out.
|
Cool. Personally I kinda hope Xel'Naga doesn't make it. It's a good map, just seen soooooo many matches on it. Guess we should keep our fingers crossed Blizzard gets on it and adds a few of these to the ladder as well.
|
I like it, nice job TL. Really looking forward to some (more) serious competition on these things.
As for the other argument.. you're splitting the scene either way and this is a more internationally focussed tournament. Let's just see how both sets work out and take the ones that work best next, instead of the ones made by whoever.
|
If metalopolis is chosen, I hope there's a policy to remake a game when close spawns occur  .
All in all though, excellent choices for potential maps.
|
On February 10 2011 06:32 TaKemE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 06:07 Ironical wrote:
Crossfire SE is a million times worse than Scrap Station ever was.
The main problem with it is that there are just so many ramps that allow anyone to easily split the map by setting up an almost impenetrable defensive position, not to mention literally every area in the map can be walled off with no more than three force fields. It sets up a whole number of balance problems that will limit numbers of options Terran and Protoss can go for while almost automatically killing Zerg - I haven't even touched on the fact that the third is so far away from the natural.
I'm a Protoss player and it's easy to see how easily Colossi would dominate on this map if one simply plays defensively on Sentry based play.
I don't have many complaints about the other maps, though. Scrap Station isn't great but I'd take it over Crossfire any day. You clearly havent played Crossfire SE, yes most of the places on the map can be walled of with 2-3 FF's but the map is made so its very easy to come with an army from more then one side. The only place one the map that is very hard to attack a protoss army is where there are 2 ramps to a high ground but there is no reson you should attack a protoss there as zerg since they cant hit any base from there.
You clearly do not have eyeballs. There's absolutely way to stop a Protoss from simply playing defensively and creating a deathball on this map. None. First, of course it's possible to flank, as is possible on any map, but that's made extremely less effective by the fact that A) the avenues of attack have starting points that diverge very far from where you would attack to flank, essentially splitting your army for very long periods of time, then B) the reason why forcefields would be so powerful is that it would be entirely possible to simply forcefield off a flanking army.
Of course that's possible on any map, but when all the paths are this narrow, it's a million times easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
