EPTYou can listen to the argument here, it's an interesting point:
+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L7bGsvUtOI
Discussion of map pool starts at 26:13
Some details:
Discussion of map pool starts at 26:13
Some details:
- Map pool should be 4 maps.
- Tournament rounds should be bo5 at most.
- In bo5 rounds, use the same map in the 1st game and 5th game.
I agree with this view because it makes intuitive sense, but certainly it's open for discussion. The overall vision that I want to put forward isn't a competitive scene where each and every tournament uses the exact same maps. Rather, that tournaments have smaller map pools of 4 or 5 maps, and there is a set of maps which most tournaments use, especially online tournaments and most major events and championships. There will be some deviations and notable exceptions, but overall the scene has a much more standardized set of maps.
Feel free to dispute these claims in the thread as well. However, assuming that overall the argument is true, I think the much tougher question is implementing that advice.
Sure, each tournament can decide to keep their map pool small if they listen to their viewers and players, but every tournament uses different map pools. There are a ton of online tournaments and online qualifiers these days and some major LAN tournaments are scheduled close together. Plus there are leagues like the GSL which run all year long. Even if tournaments begin to limit the number of maps, we will only see a minor improvement in play if we maintain this level of map pool diversity in the competitive scene.
So the question I want to address in this thread is this: Assuming that a standardized map pool would improve professional play, how do we take steps toward that goal? How do we get tournaments which are not affiliated with each other to choose to use the same maps?
My perspective is that I can see two ways which seem viable but I'm sure that there are others. I also don't know which would be most effective, but I think both could work. The aspect which both of them have in common is that I assume that tournaments are responsive to the demands of viewers and professional players. Collectively we have to pressure the tournament hosts not just to use smaller map pools, but to use certain maps.
There are plenty of examples of when tournaments have been pressured to change their practices by the viewers and players. Even Blizzard has been responsive to map suggestions by finally removing close spawns and using larger maps. Remember Steppes of War? We just have to be persistent--but not rude. Let the tournament know what we want and that we hope that they're listening, but do it through the proper channels. Let them know that it benefits the professional players, too. Bring it up when they post announcements, tournament threads, on their twitters, when they ask for suggestions, etc. Pro players will need to voice their preference as well, assuming that they agree.
Part of the goal of this thread is to spread the message that the entire competitive scene can benefit from a simple idea, if we can all agree to implement it. In fact, it makes economic sense. Overall, tournaments would not have to spend resources (time) deciding which maps to use, that decision would be made for them. And they would know that their viewers enjoy their product more at no expense to them.
Option 1 All tournaments should adopt the map pool of the GSL.
+ Show Spoiler +
One of the most intuitive ways to standardize something is to identify the best example that you have and go with that as the archetype. The GSL is widely considered the best league/tournament that we have. Code S Champion is the most prestigious crown.
The benefit that the GSL has going for it is that it has universal recognition. These days, every major LAN boasts about how many "GSL Players" it has in attendance. The second major benefit of the GSL is that it already has a pretty good team of map developers and editers. This one really can't be understated and is the reason why I think the GSL model is the best option.
The downside of using the GSL as the model is that, while I know the GSL has had a good relationship with MLG, IEM, Dreamhack and other major competitions in Europe and NA, it may be difficult to get the smaller cups and tournaments on board. Although, my suspicion is that that will be the problem with any standardized map pool, regardless of how it's standardized.
My other concern is the legality of using the GSL's entire map pool. I know that most tournaments use at least some GSL maps, so I assume that there's no legal problem if tournaments just use the GSL's entire map pool? If there is, it may require the extra step of each tournament getting the GSL's permission, or slightly altering the GSL's maps. I don't know if that would be an obstacle or not.
The benefit that the GSL has going for it is that it has universal recognition. These days, every major LAN boasts about how many "GSL Players" it has in attendance. The second major benefit of the GSL is that it already has a pretty good team of map developers and editers. This one really can't be understated and is the reason why I think the GSL model is the best option.
The downside of using the GSL as the model is that, while I know the GSL has had a good relationship with MLG, IEM, Dreamhack and other major competitions in Europe and NA, it may be difficult to get the smaller cups and tournaments on board. Although, my suspicion is that that will be the problem with any standardized map pool, regardless of how it's standardized.
My other concern is the legality of using the GSL's entire map pool. I know that most tournaments use at least some GSL maps, so I assume that there's no legal problem if tournaments just use the GSL's entire map pool? If there is, it may require the extra step of each tournament getting the GSL's permission, or slightly altering the GSL's maps. I don't know if that would be an obstacle or not.
Option 2 We need an independent standardized map pool selection.
+ Show Spoiler +
I think the GSL model is more realistic and simple, but I'll throw this out just for the sake of dicussion. I also can't think of a real problem with using the GSL's map pool.
Perhaps it would be perceived as more fair if all tournaments adhered to an independent map pool selection, but I don't see why that would be the case. The GSL already invests resources into making and editing maps which are downloadable for free, so they aren't gaining an advantage in that regard. The GSL would gain prestige and recognition if most other tournaments followed their lead on the map pool, but that seems like a relatively minor concern.
It's also possible that the GSL doesn't have the best maps, and that's certainly up for discussion. I do think that most people have high esteem for the GSL map pool. But it might be the case that it would simply work better for other reasons if an independent party suggested the map pool, perhaps because of better communication or organization with smaller tournaments. But I doubt it, and if the GSL were not in control of the map pool then what incentive would they have to constantly adjust it and create new maps?
Nevertheless, a respected site like Team Liquid could suggest a selection of maps to be used in the competitive scene. It would be their suggestion, and it would be up to the fans and the players to convince tournaments to use that map pool.
Perhaps it would be perceived as more fair if all tournaments adhered to an independent map pool selection, but I don't see why that would be the case. The GSL already invests resources into making and editing maps which are downloadable for free, so they aren't gaining an advantage in that regard. The GSL would gain prestige and recognition if most other tournaments followed their lead on the map pool, but that seems like a relatively minor concern.
It's also possible that the GSL doesn't have the best maps, and that's certainly up for discussion. I do think that most people have high esteem for the GSL map pool. But it might be the case that it would simply work better for other reasons if an independent party suggested the map pool, perhaps because of better communication or organization with smaller tournaments. But I doubt it, and if the GSL were not in control of the map pool then what incentive would they have to constantly adjust it and create new maps?
Nevertheless, a respected site like Team Liquid could suggest a selection of maps to be used in the competitive scene. It would be their suggestion, and it would be up to the fans and the players to convince tournaments to use that map pool.
Poll Should there be a standardized map pool?
+ Show Spoiler +
Poll Should we use the GSL's map pool?
+ Show Spoiler +
Poll: Should we use the GSL's map pool?
Yes, with some format changes (such as less total maps). (12)
50%
Yes, as it is. (6)
25%
No, use a different map pool entirely. (6)
25%
24 total votes
Yes, as it is. (6)
No, use a different map pool entirely. (6)
24 total votes
Your vote: Should we use the GSL's map pool?
(Vote): Yes, as it is.
(Vote): Yes, with some format changes (such as less total maps).
(Vote): No, use a different map pool entirely.
Thanks for reading
Another thing that I began to wonder is just how diverse the map pools in the competitive scene actually are. I decided to do a little comparison. First I'll look at the major tournaments which all happened to take place in late 2011. I chose them because there happened to be a lot of them over a short period of time. Comparing tournaments which take place over too great of a time span isn't meaningful because over time map pools will change due to overall trends.
November 2011 major tournament map pool comparison
+ Show Spoiler +
GSL November 2011: Antiga Shipyard, Bel'Shir Beach, Calm Before the Storm, Crossfire SE, Daybreak, Dual Sight, Tal'Darim Altar LE
DreamHack Winter 2011: Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard, Daybreak, Dual Sight, Shakuras Plateau, Tal’Darim Altar LE, Terminus SE
MLG Providence 2011: Antiga Shipyard, Dual Sight, Metalopolis, Shakuras Plateau, Shattered Temple, Tal'Darim Altar, Xel'Naga Caverns
DreamHack Winter 2011: Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard, Daybreak, Dual Sight, Shakuras Plateau, Tal’Darim Altar LE, Terminus SE
MLG Providence 2011: Antiga Shipyard, Dual Sight, Metalopolis, Shakuras Plateau, Shattered Temple, Tal'Darim Altar, Xel'Naga Caverns
- All three tournaments used 7 maps.
- All three had these maps in common: Antiga Shipyard, Dual Sight, Tal'Darim Altar.
- The combined map pool of these three championships was 12 maps.
- The map pool of all 3 tournaments combined, duplicates removed, was: Antiga Shipyard, Bel'Shir Beach, Calm Before the Storm, Crossfire SE, Daybreak, Dual Sight, Tal'Darim Altar, Metalopolis, Shakuras Plateau, Terminus SE, Shattered Temple, Xel'Naga Caverns
I also looked up a couple of the map pools of notable weekly and monthly tournaments, they typically have a map pool of about 10 maps with moderate overlap.
