[G] Map Pool Creation Guide - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Fiendish
United States210 Posts
| ||
pStar
996 Posts
Keep up the good work. | ||
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On May 22 2012 06:16 Liquid`NonY wrote: Most people choose which map to veto by which map they practice the least or by which they think is bad for the matchup they're about to play. These two reasons are damn good reasons to not have the map in the map pool at all. Vetoes are band-aids on bad map pools. Every map in a map pool should be thoroughly practiced by all players and no map should be bad for a certain matchup. And it's not out of laziness or lack of effort that players aren't able to practice every map pool. There are just too many maps out there and the map pools are too big. Just making up numbers, there are maybe 15 maps that might be used at a major tournament and a major tournament will require you to be ready to play on any of 7 maps in one weekend. That does not produce quality games. Not possible to practice all three matchups on that many maps. People seem so freaked out about the possibility for an extremely imbalanced map to occupy 1/4 or 1/5 of a map pool for a few tournaments. It's not a big deal. It gets removed quickly. The way it is now, we aren't really living. No risk no reward. So many maps are played in such generic ways that hardly anyone can do anything drastically different on any map. If we want to see variety and refinement and creativity, we must do that at the risk of some new strategy or innovation being imbalanced. The first players to exploit an imbalance get a few easy wins as a reward for seeing something that no one else did and then the map is promptly removed from all competitive play. I completely agree, I was just stating that if tournaments are going to use vetoes (because I know some are going to whether we like it or not) that 5 would probably be too few in a pool (then you would be down to just 3 maps total to play in a bo5). I know a lot of people disagree with you, however, on it not being okay to have a map that has some matchups that are imbalanced. A lot of people seem to think it's healthy to do this because players will play around it and it will create an interesting map choice order or something. I personally agree with you, and think we should strive for the ideal of trying to get every map as close to 50/50 on each matchup as possible. This in the long run achieves more close games as opposed to just close series, it produces more even games, and perhaps most importantly it helps foster more consistency in the players. | ||
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
On May 22 2012 06:16 Liquid`NonY wrote: Most people choose which map to veto by which map they practice the least or by which they think is bad for the matchup they're about to play. These two reasons are damn good reasons to not have the map in the map pool at all. Vetoes are band-aids on bad map pools. Every map in a map pool should be thoroughly practiced by all players and no map should be bad for a certain matchup. And it's not out of laziness or lack of effort that players aren't able to practice every map pool. There are just too many maps out there and the map pools are too big. Just making up numbers, there are maybe 15 maps that might be used at a major tournament and a major tournament will require you to be ready to play on any of 7 maps in one weekend. That does not produce quality games. Not possible to practice all three matchups on that many maps. People seem so freaked out about the possibility for an extremely imbalanced map to occupy 1/4 or 1/5 of a map pool for a few tournaments. It's not a big deal. It gets removed quickly. The way it is now, we aren't really living. No risk no reward. So many maps are played in such generic ways that hardly anyone can do anything drastically different on any map. If we want to see variety and refinement and creativity, we must do that at the risk of some new strategy or innovation being imbalanced. The first players to exploit an imbalance get a few easy wins as a reward for seeing something that no one else did and then the map is promptly removed from all competitive play. Thank you for the reply in this thread, was about to PM you to see what you thought ! Any other pros or notable people want to pitch in? I know I am not perfect so I'd love to hear your thoughts. | ||
Teodice
Sweden641 Posts
Me myself will be arranging the NärCon Starcraft 2 tournament with a slot in the IESF finals as first price. I think I will be using the 5 map pool concept. I think it creates more exciting games in the BO7 finals if it comes to a Ace match stage. THen you will have them playing 2 maps again and (hopefully) do some wild and well planned cheese etc. My only concern is what maps I´m going to use. To be honest, I love Starcraft but I´m not that good at it. The only map I really know that I want in is: ESV Muspelheim which has been displayed in the GSTL. I want to create as much variation for the players, observers to make the tournament as interesting as possible! The format: 16 players from start -> Group play, top 2 advance from the 4 groups -> Single elimination BO5 bracket with 8 players -> BO7 finals, 2 maps have to be repeated if the situation occurs. | ||
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
| ||
chuDr3t4
Russian Federation483 Posts
| ||
KirA_TheGreaT
France204 Posts
| ||
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On July 22 2012 21:40 chuDr3t4 wrote: DreamHack cut mappool to 5 for Summer heh. Was pleasantly surprised when I saw that. Hope to see more of this in the future | ||
redoxx
United States333 Posts
Do tournament organizers recognize this and keep all three simply because there are so few tournament tested three and four player maps, or is it because they want to allow players to feel comfortable on all maps in a pool of 7 maps when they know that each player wouldn't be able to prepare for 7 completely different maps. I know that the logic in both decisions is quite flawed, but I can't seem to think of any other reason why tournaments like MLG and others haven't immediately taken the advice given in Diamond's post. It seems like tournaments are trying to keep a familiar format for player comfort, but in the end, map pools are suffering for it. | ||
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
That is the reality we face now. MLG is very bad at this. The currect pool is all ladder maps and it has been the current one since april. If the summer championships in august have the same mappool as the arena then the current MLG map pool with be 4 mounths old. In other words MLG changes their mappool at least twice as slow as Blizzard! MLG is a really big name right now in the SC2 scene and it really is them that could change this. But they currently don't. | ||
chuDr3t4
Russian Federation483 Posts
On July 22 2012 23:23 Sumadin wrote: I really feel like pressure have to be brought back on tournements to introduce new maps to their pools. It was for the longest time the joke that "Duh ladder pool terrible". Result is that now that the ladder pool have some decent maps it is litterly all that is being played. Go a year back and any tournement saying "well we use only ladder maps" would be laughed by to death. That is the reality we face now. MLG is very bad at this. The currect pool is all ladder maps and it has been the current one since april. If the summer championships in august have the same mappool as the arena then the current MLG map pool with be 4 mounths old. In other words MLG changes their mappool at least twice as slow as Blizzard! MLG is a really big name right now in the SC2 scene and it really is them that could change this. But they currently don't. I feel like out of all "Premier Tournaments" MLG currently is the most conservative one. They tried Testbug long time ago, it didn't work out, and they just gave up. Add: And I checked Liquipedia, Testbug was in the MLG map pool from http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Dallas to http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Raleigh , for 4 months, but how could it be successful when map pool was 7 maps and tournament is Bo3? | ||
RenSC2
United States976 Posts
Map pools need vetoes because vetoes allow the players to keep the map pool balanced in the current meta-game. If a series is a Bo3, having a veto is a necessity because one bad map can be extremely punishing whereas a Bo7 is much more forgiving. Vetoes also allow a player to practice less maps for the tournament or weekly match while still giving the viewer more variety overall. I'd love to see a recommended veto system and/or map-pick system added to the OP for each of the map pool sizes in a Bo3, Bo5, and Bo7. I think those things are essential for fair play and the quality of your games. For example, if a tournament has a finals with a best of 7, I think that a 5-map system could be very bad depending on how the maps are picked. If the loser of game one is allowed to pick the 2nd map (his most favored map), and if the 2nd map is recycled into also being the 7th map, then you've just put the most imbalanced map into game 7 and potentially created a poor final game. In my ideal world, a weekend tournament (MLG, Dreamhack, IEM, IPL, WCS) would use a 5-map pool because they have the ability to pick a current map pool and at the worst, a bad map lasts for one weekend. I would still give players one veto for any Bo3 series (meaning that you'd only have to practice 4 maps to get past the Bo3 stages), but remove vetoes for any Bo5 series. In a Bo7, I would allow the winner of game #1 to veto a map for only game #2 and the loser picks from the three remaining maps (the vetoed map is eligible for game 3/4/5). Map #1 would be used in game #6 and map #2 in game #7. This way, your game 7 can't be ruined by one imbalanced map that snuck into the pool. Every longer running league (NASL, GSL) should use a 7 map pool. I'd actually recommend giving each player two vetoes in Bo3s (so they only have to practice five maps), one veto in a Bo5, and no vetoes in a Bo7. They'll already have a ton of practice on the other maps, so they can dedicate a lot of their time to the map(s) they haven't practiced in the week leading up to the Bo5 or Bo7. This all presumes that tournaments have players alternate rejecting maps (vetoes first, then just rejections) until the 1st map is chosen because that allows the least hated map to become map #1 (and potentially #6 in a Bo7 with 5 maps). It also presumes that tournaments allow the loser to pick the next map, which I think is smart because it encourages longer series. | ||
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
Good read, Diamond. That was instructive. | ||
chuDr3t4
Russian Federation483 Posts
Check these out: 2008-2009 Shinhan Bank Proleague 2010-2011 Shinhan Bank Proleague | ||
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Then you just argued against say Dreamhack introducing new maps, because that's exactly what they did with ESV vicious, or what MLG did with Testbug, you had about a week to get accustomed to that new map, and then you went with it. Also, you don't have to learn 4-5 every week. You veto out the same 8 maps every time as a player obviously, or you do it per matchup, I don't know, which leaves you with as 12 player map pool for the entire GSL. You can also assume that there are some unpopular maps which everyone vetos out, so that gives you 10, that's your 'personal map pool' for the GSL under this system essentially, is that really that much more than the 8 map pool GSL has now? The major difference is that this system establishes a personal map pool essentially for each player. It could even be so far to demand players to stick with the same vetos for the entire GSL if so need be. The system in place now gives you 8 maps to consider for the entire GSL, this gives you 10 in practice, is that really such a difference in preparation time and demand for players in order to achieve A: Many more maps in rotation. B: Many more different maps for the fans. C: A much, much higher refresh rate for maps. D: A clear statistic on which maps the pros favour to play on. I'm not sure how you failed to understand the gigantic flaws of this kind of system, especially when I already explained it earlier in the ProAm thread. 1.) Players don't get a "personal map pool", they merely get the reassurance that they don't have to play some of the maps. After taking into account their opponent's vetos, the pool that actually gets played on can vastly change, and there's no real way to practice all the remaining maps efficiently. If we take a look at GSL's current map pool, it contains 8 maps. Frankly, I still feel that to be too large a pool, but GSL can get away with it because 5 of the maps are in the current battle.net ladder pool. That only leaves 3 maps that players really have to spend time trying to figure out on their own and preparing for: Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis (which also was on the ladder for a short time), and Whirlwind. The other five can get figured out reasonably enough by just hitting that "find match" button a lot. When you give an excessively large map pool where even with vetos you have to practice 8-10 maps, it's a guarantee that most of them won't be ladder maps. Without ladder practice, it becomes much more difficult for anyone not in a rigid team house to get adequate practice in, and even then will still be difficult. You can say goodbye to non-Koreans ever standing a competitive chance in tournaments. 2.) Like TPW Ragoo pointed out in the ProAm thread (and as I pointed out earlier in the ProAm thread as well), the system also doesn't work as you intend by sheer virtue that pros will collectively agree to always veto certain maps to reduce the issues I mention in flaw #1. Dreamhack sets good precedent for this being the case, with Frigid Pass and Vicious pretty well never seeing the light of day despite its map pool consisting of only 9 maps (unlike the 20ish you would want). I read your counter-point to Ragoo on this, but quite frankly you leave out a basic fact: what you're trying to accomplish and what will end up happening do not co-incide. Your whole purpose for this excessive map pool size is to get more new maps being played in tournaments. The simple reality is that new maps will not be played by virtue of veto. From a pro perspective, why spend time learning new maps when you can just keep playing on the maps you're comfortable with? I really don't feel you're thinking this stuff through. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: I don't, see the above part, you make an error in your mathematical reasoning behind what this system pans out to. As I detailed above, this system leads to each player having a personal map pool of 10 or so maps to consider for the tournament, the old system leads to 8, except that every player shares the map pool whereas in this case they are with respect to certain players. No, there is no "mathematical error" for me. What you claim to be a mathematical error on my part is actually the thing that puts your whole idea out of commission. New maps just won't get played via veto. It's happened before in the GSL, it's happened in Dreamhack, and it'll happen again whenever there's prize money on the line and the pros don't want to leave it to chance on an unfamiliar map. It makes your whole system completely pointless in the end. The (unlikely) alternative is that pros decide to play it differently and don't agree on constantly vetoing certain maps. If this is the case, then your "personal 10 map pool" claim is bunk. For there to be 10 maps remaining after vetos in a 20 map pool, that means each player gets 5 vetos. With only 5 guaranteed maps not being played per player, that's actually a 15 map pool a player has to practice, which is completely impractical. Alternatively, if you mean that both players get 10 vetos for a guaranteed maximum 10 maps to practice, then the veto system is flawed. Both players could veto the opposite maps, leaving no maps to be played on (20 - 10 - 10 = 0, for simplicity's sake). That's a completely broken veto system. No, the mathematical error does not lay with me. It's with you. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: They don't, because you veto out 8 maps, so it's 12 maps you have to know the details of, furthermore you can assume that if you are a T player and there is a certain highly T favoured map that every P and Z player is going to veto that map out against you, which leaves you realistically with about 10 maps, which is quite reasonable. Again, your numbers don't make sense. In this case, you're speaking of 8 vetos per player. First off, like you mention, having to learn 12 maps is way too much. It's not reasonable at all -- go be a professional player yourself if you need to learn and understand this point in a more direct manner. That's larger than any map pool out there, which, quite frankly, are already too big (an issue that gave birth to this map pool creation guide). Also, unless pros get together and agree on what maps to veto (which is most likely to happen, as I mentioned, but let's pretend this isn't the case for a second) then the whole notion of assuming which maps opponents might veto so you don't have to practice them is absolutely ridiculous. No decent pro with money on the line is going to leave something like that up to luck. We're talking about people's careers, here. Their livelihood. The assumptions you make for your proposed system to work simply do not make sense. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Again, see above, you make a mathematical mistake in your reasoning. It's 10 maps versus 8, not 20 versus 8. I've already corrected your errors here. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Indeed, but an OSL season is far longer than a GSL season. SC2 is still statistically a far more balanced game than BW ever was despite some people not wanting to admit that and SC2 maps are more balanced. No doubt because the SC2 player pool is far larger than the BW player pool ever was allowing for more detailed information about map statistics. And because BW mapmakers are not afraid to radically experiment while in SC2 that mentality has been largely diminished over the course of the game. You start off with some correct information and then delve straight into wrong reasons and conclusions. SC2 is much more balanced statistically for a number of reasons: 1. Blizzard is far more active in monitoring and tweaking balance than they ever were in Brood War. 2. Games played in SC2 over a certain period of time far outnumber anything Brood War achieved. OSL matches were few and far between (one or two every 1-2 weeks), compared to GSL which often has 5+ matches a day. You note this yourself when you mention OSL seasons being much longer than GSL ones. OSL also doesn't have the whole Code A/Up & Down televised matches, meaning even if the seasons ran for similar amounts of time, GSL would still far outweigh the OSL in total games played. 3. One of the biggest reasons for the larger discrepancies in BW balance stats is specifically the very small amount of total games in comparison to SC2. When you have a much larger pool of games, stats tend to even out a lot more (unless something is seriously broken). None of that has to do with more balanced maps or a more balanced game. Even if we do assume those two things, nothing here gives proof of those claims. At the end of the day, BW utilized a smaller map pool (which made it much better for the players) and patched maps mid-season if need be to ensure major balance issues didn't go unaddressed. Your proposed map pool size doesn't offer anything superior. Rather, your solution is simply to have players mask broken maps with vetos, which defeats the purpose of having those maps in the pool in the first place. Why would you not just pull/replace a completely broken map from a smaller pool, or patch it mid-season if it was just a tweak that needed to be done to make it playable? You offer no reasoning that makes a 20 map pool more appealing; rather, it just brings in additional complications. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Indeed, and they most certainly don't give you weeks to analyze, players just go with it, which is sort of the charm of the tournament honestly, you see a lot of new fresh maps and players improvising. It's also not a major/premier tournament that has tens of thousands of dollars on the line just between taking 1st or 2nd. Even the current Grand Prix II (which has a $3500 prize pool) doesn't rotate maps for the sake of the players; the map pool is the same as week #8. ESV knows that when money is on the line, there needs to be some stability in terms of maps. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Exactly! and if maps are never played then this is a clear, clear indication that they need to go. Not a shred of doubt in my mind exists that pretty much every P player would veto crossfire or Dual Sight if they could, yet they were forced to play on these very imbalanced maps for PvZ and PvT for a very long time. If maps are constantly vetoed and never played, remove them, the best indication you can honestly have that a map isn't good. What a flawed conclusion. Many maps are vetoed because players don't want to have to learn something new, and would rather stick to what they know in order to win. Every time we've seen new maps get introduced in tournaments with a veto system, it gets overwhelmingly vetoed. This is completely natural and understandable from a competitive standpoint. Your conclusion here is completely unfair to mapmakers, and would definitely be counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: There isn't, but seeing the same 4 maps used for an entire OSL tournaments starts to get boring, especially because what people often do is just re-use the same strategy on the same map the entire time. It gets boring. Variety is the spice of life, the star that shines barely is all the brighter for its brevity. Or putting this metaphor in a more contemporary context, Zero Punctuation has been going on forever and it's been getting boring. Even if you find flaw in the length of time an OSL takes place, applying the same concept to a GSL, which is only 2 months, is not a very long time. If you get bored of maps after only 2 months, then that's a personal issue you need to work out; don't start recommending that player's livelihoods get completely upended with an excessively large (even after vetos) and uncertain map pool to practice. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: As silly as this analogy is, I do, football and hockey and what not are extremely repetitive sports compared to say StarCraft or chess. ... More repetitive than chess? Really? On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Indeed, and it would be out of there long ago with my system, every single P player vetoing it is a clear sign of its badness, despite Artosis' insisting it's a good PvZ map. The point is, mapmakers like to complain that their new maps aren't getting exposure, big map pools give exposure, throw a couple of radical maps in there, maps from unknown mapmakers, if they are good and/or interesting, then progamers will not veto them and they get a shot, if they are bad, they will be vetoed. Big map pools don't give exposure. They make practice much more difficult for players, force players to veto maps just to try and keep the pool manageable, cause those vetos to be declared "bad maps" by people like yourself, even if they might be amazing (they're just never given a chance), and really hurt mapmakers of these vetoed maps, who have made potentially great maps that are declared bad without even gaining any real data to determine how to make the map better. It's bad for everyone, and I say this also as a new mapmaker that's trying to get exposure for my maps. I get that you have good intentions for people like myself, but your idea is simply not the right way to go about it. | ||
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:54 stormfoxSC wrote: They do, this is mathematics, if the total pool is 20 and they are allowed 8 consistent vetos at the start of the tournament, their personal pool is 12 in the theoretically worst case, 12 maps they have to consider, however in practice it will be closer to 10 because there's bound to be at least 2 maps that are really good for their race that players of the other races have vetoed or that everyone just has vetoed because they are bad maps. Apart from that they know the vetoes of the other race, so even though it's 10-12 for the entire tournament, it's a pool of say 6 considering the opponent and his race, which is more than enough.1.) Players don't get a "personal map pool", they merely get the reassurance that they don't have to play some of the maps. After taking into account their opponent's vetos, the pool that actually gets played on can vastly change, and there's no real way to practice all the remaining maps efficiently. If we take a look at GSL's current map pool, it contains 8 maps. Frankly, I still feel that to be too large a pool, but GSL can get away with it because 5 of the maps are in the current battle.net ladder pool. That only leaves 3 maps that players really have to spend time trying to figure out on their own and preparing for: Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis (which also was on the ladder for a short time), and Whirlwind. The other five can get figured out reasonably enough by just hitting that "find match" button a lot. I am pretty sure most progamers do not use the ladder for practice for the GSL at all, another thing is that using customs with members of your team takes the same amount of time as 'find match', so the issue is moot.When you give an excessively large map pool where even with vetos you have to practice 8-10 maps, it's a guarantee that most of them won't be ladder maps. Without ladder practice, it becomes much more difficult for anyone not in a rigid team house to get adequate practice in, and even then will still be difficult. You can say goodbye to non-Koreans ever standing a competitive chance in tournaments. Do you know someone who is currently in the GSL who does not enjoy team house practice?In fact, making the map pool larger and thereby removing the advantage of preparation would give players without a team house far more of a shot. The fact that you can prepare for the GSL is an advantage for the GSL, if you basically give people the maps they play on the very day they play and reveal their opponent as a surprise preparation is removed and it becomes a 'raw skill' tournament which removes the advantage of specific team house practice and gives foreigners a bigger chance. 2.) Like TPW Ragoo pointed out in the ProAm thread (and as I pointed out earlier in the ProAm thread as well), the system also doesn't work as you intend by sheer virtue that pros will collectively agree to always veto certain maps to reduce the issues I mention in flaw #1. Dreamhack sets good precedent for this being the case, with Frigid Pass and Vicious pretty well never seeing the light of day despite its map pool consisting of only 9 maps (unlike the 20ish you would want). I beg to differ, Dreamhack showed exactly the virtues of this system, because Vicious was played far more than frigid pass there, demonstrating that progamers like it more, giving you a statistic to work with.I read your counter-point to Ragoo on this, but quite frankly you leave out a basic fact: what you're trying to accomplish and what will end up happening do not co-incide. Your whole purpose for this excessive map pool size is to get more new maps being played in tournaments. That, and simply enabling vetos to stop pros being forced to play on maps they do not enjoy.The simple reality is that new maps will not be played by virtue of veto. From a pro perspective, why spend time learning new maps when you can just keep playing on the maps you're comfortable with? I really don't feel you're thinking this stuff through. Because your opponent is in the very same boat. I'm pretty sure if you gave DRG the choice of playing on Entombed or on a map he and his opponent have relatively little experience with, he would veto out entombed.MLG also showed that people were comfortable picking certain MLG-specific maps such as Testbug, IPL also showed how players were comfortable picking Atlantis Space Ship, Darkness Falls and Sandshorn Mist when these maps were pretty much isolated to use in IPL. Apparently because they looked at the maps and thought they were good maps? This was when the IPL map pool was so large that they didn't have to, but they choose to. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: When did this happen in the GSL?No, there is no "mathematical error" for me. What you claim to be a mathematical error on my part is actually the thing that puts your whole idea out of commission. New maps just won't get played via veto. It's happened before in the GSL it's happened in Dreamhack Dreamhack showed Vicious being played a lot more than Frigid Pass, it was even set to play in the finals because the wallof bug ruined it. This shows people do pick new maps they seem to like, but not new maps they don't.The (unlikely) alternative is that pros decide to play it differently and don't agree on constantly vetoing certain maps. If this is the case, then your "personal 10 map pool" claim is bunk. For there to be 10 maps remaining after vetos in a 20 map pool, that means each player gets 5 vetos. With only 5 guaranteed maps not being played per player, that's actually a 15 map pool a player has to practice, which is completely impractical. Alternatively, if you mean that both players get 10 vetos for a guaranteed maximum 10 maps to practice, then the veto system is flawed. Both players could veto the opposite maps, leaving no maps to be played on (20 - 10 - 10 = 0, for simplicity's sake). I said everyone gets 8, again, you make a mathematical error. Everyone gets 8 vetos. Which makes your personal map pool 12 in theory, but 10 in practice because there will be 2 maps that players of other races will always veto because they are unfavourable. That's a completely broken veto system. No, the mathematical error does not lay with me. It's with you. I'm sorry but you've clearly shown to not have correctly read and understood my post, I've said multiple times that everyone gets 8 already.Again, your numbers don't make sense. In this case, you're speaking of 8 vetos per player. First off, like you mention, having to learn 12 maps is way too much. It's not reasonable at all -- go be a professional player yourself if you need to learn and understand this point in a more direct manner. That's larger than any map pool out there, which, quite frankly, are already too big (an issue that gave birth to this map pool creation guide). Also, unless pros get together and agree on what maps to veto (which is most likely to happen, as I mentioned, but let's pretend this isn't the case for a second) then the whole notion of assuming which maps opponents might veto so you don't have to practice them is absolutely ridiculous. No decent pro with money on the line is going to leave something like that up to luck. We're talking about people's careers, here. Their livelihood. You still know the maps you are going to play on a whole week in advance, you know which set on which map you are going to play a week in advance, you have all the time to adjust.On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: Correct.You start off with some correct information and then delve straight into wrong reasons and conclusions. SC2 is much more balanced statistically for a number of reasons: 1. Blizzard is far more active in monitoring and tweaking balance than they ever were in Brood War. 2. Games played in SC2 over a certain period of time far outnumber anything Brood War achieved. OSL matches were few and far between (one or two every 1-2 weeks), compared to GSL which often has 5+ matches a day. You note this yourself when you mention OSL seasons being much longer than GSL ones. OSL also doesn't have the whole Code A/Up & Down televised matches, meaning even if the seasons ran for similar amounts of time, GSL would still far outweigh the OSL in total games played. Correct3. One of the biggest reasons for the larger discrepancies in BW balance stats is specifically the very small amount of total games in comparison to SC2. When you have a much larger pool of games, stats tend to even out a lot more (unless something is seriously broken). Incorrect, the balance disastering of some BW map cannot be explained by a too small sample size and these maps are with 99% certainty to be able to be said to not fall within 45-55 as you increase the amount of games played on it. BW maps are simply more imbalanced than SC2 maps and BW is more imbalanced as a game than SC2. This is most likely due to the mentality and BW mapmakers being less afraid to experiment.Your proposed map pool size doesn't offer anything superior. Rather, your solution is simply to have players mask broken maps with vetos If a map gets vetoed out a lot by a certain race only, you can always decide to patch it mid season if must be.which defeats the purpose of having those maps in the pool in the first place. That is why the system is there, you remove unpopular maps that get vetoed a lot, it gives you a clear indication.Why would you not just pull/replace a completely broken map from a smaller pool Because you do pull them, you of course remove maps that get vetoed by everyone, there's no point in keeping them and this system offers a clear statistic of which maps are unpopular.or patch it mid-season if it was just a tweak that needed to be done to make it playable? You offer no reasoning that makes a 20 map pool more appealing; rather, it just brings in additional complications No, it gives you a clear statistic in vetos about which maps are unpopular.On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: ESV thinks that, and that's their opinion on the matter.It's also not a major/premier tournament that has tens of thousands of dollars on the line just between taking 1st or 2nd. Even the current Grand Prix II (which has a $3500 prize pool) doesn't rotate maps for the sake of the players; the map pool is the same as week #8. ESV knows that when money is on the line, there needs to be some stability in terms of maps. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: That is what you claim, but I don't see it. For one, how could you, because not a lot fo tournaments use vetos these days. Furthermore players pick out new maps all the time or maps that are only used in that specific tournament. Darkness Falls and Sandshorn mist are isolate to IPL and see plenty of picks there. Players seem to be fairly confident picking out a map they are unfamiliar with as long as they know their opponent is too.What a flawed conclusion. Many maps are vetoed because players don't want to have to learn something new, and would rather stick to what they know in order to win. Every time we've seen new maps get introduced in tournaments with a veto system, it gets overwhelmingly vetoed. This is completely natural and understandable from a competitive standpoint. Your conclusion here is completely unfair to mapmakers, and would definitely be counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm pretty sure most people think that, else GSL would not have such a large map pool in the first place, at least, GSL believes it too and they want to please the fans. Which they should, for their business depends on it. They could have a 4 map pool to play a Bo7 on, but they don't.Even if you find flaw in the length of time an OSL takes place, applying the same concept to a GSL, which is only 2 months, is not a very long time. If you get bored of maps after only 2 months, then that's a personal issue you need to work out; don't start recommending that player's livelihoods get completely upended with an excessively large (even after vetos) and uncertain map pool to practice. On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:... More repetitive than chess? Really? Yes? Chess is one of the most dynamic games. A skilled player in a tournament will have many different openings in his repertoire so he cannot be studied and anticipated. Every chess player has a distinct style of play and theoretical novelties are still found to this day. Furthermore, chess grandmasters constantly develop chess variants for this very reason. Bobby Fischer, one of the most talented chess players even, invented Chess960, which is specifically designed to combat the advantage of preparation, you cannot prepare for a Chess960 game, it all comes down to raw strength and on the spot creativity, not from studying the openings of your opopnent.On July 22 2012 09:45 SiskosGoatee wrote: You say that new maps get vetoed, but I'm not so sure, experience seems to tell that people will just veto maps that they consider imbalanced against their race. When the GSL still had vetos and introduced new maps, people continued to veto maps that are imbalanced against their race. Everyone was extremely keen to try out Terminus, Crevasse and TDA which at the time where considered fairly radical maps, people didn't veto those at all, they continued to veto the maps they didn't like or were imbalanced against their race.Big map pools don't give exposure. They make practice much more difficult for players, force players to veto maps just to try and keep the pool manageable, cause those vetos to be declared "bad maps" by people like yourself, even if they might be amazing (they're just never given a chance), and really hurt mapmakers of these vetoed maps, who have made potentially great maps that are declared bad without even gaining any real data to determine how to make the map better. | ||
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: They do, this is mathematics, if the total pool is 20 and they are allowed 8 consistent vetos at the start of the tournament, their personal pool is 12 in the theoretically worst case, 12 maps they have to consider, however in practice it will be closer to 10 because there's bound to be at least 2 maps that are really good for their race that players of the other races have vetoed or that everyone just has vetoed because they are bad maps. Apart from that they know the vetoes of the other race, so even though it's 10-12 for the entire tournament, it's a pool of say 6 considering the opponent and his race, which is more than enough. Why do you repeat things that have already been discussed? I'll say it once again: relying on chance and sheer dumb luck in hoping that your opponent will veto a map because of perceived "imbalances" is incredibly absurd. There's money on the line here, and for a pro not to practice a certain map because he thinks his opponent might veto it is an incredibly dumb position to put a pro in. That alone should tell you that this system of yours would not work. It also doesn't take into account that time and time again we've seen maps that have swung in and out of certain race's favours, based on shifting metagames and better understanding of the map as it gets played more. The worst part is how you think 12 maps is a reasonable number for a pro to practice. That's 50% larger than the GSL map pool, which is already large. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: I am pretty sure most progamers do not use the ladder for practice for the GSL at all, another thing is that using customs with members of your team takes the same amount of time as 'find match', so the issue is moot. Do you not understand the concept of practicing a map? What GSL players do when they prepare for their matches mostly revolves around preparing for the player, not for the map. As in, picking specific strategies that would best account for their opponent's styles, weaknesses, etc. Players grind the ladder so they can understand the maps beforehand and do that higher-level preparation, rather than try and learn just how to take a third or something a week before their match. I'm not sure how you can be this disconnected from how professional StarCraft works. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Do you know someone who is currently in the GSL who does not enjoy team house practice? Prior to his dropping out of the GSL (which just happened), we would have Millenium fOrGG. We also have SuperNoVa. We have all the foreigners at the GOM house (who are generally in "Code B" anyway, but moving toward your map format would make it pretty well impossible for them to ever hope to reach Code A). So on and so forth. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're really not well informed on these kinds of things. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: In fact, making the map pool larger and thereby removing the advantage of preparation would give players without a team house far more of a shot. The fact that you can prepare for the GSL is an advantage for the GSL, if you basically give people the maps they play on the very day they play and reveal their opponent as a surprise preparation is removed and it becomes a 'raw skill' tournament which removes the advantage of specific team house practice and gives foreigners a bigger chance. You... you can't be serious. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game. All you're advocating at this point is the removal of strategic skill in favour of randomness. That's not even similar to weekend events like MLG or Dreamhack, as those tournaments feature familiar map pools for the players in order to avoid some of the randomness factor. Practice and preparation are huge parts of the game professionally. I can guarantee you'll kill the game by favouring randomness, as people watch lower-skill no-names make huge upsets because the more skilled player didn't know about something like a certain possible proxy location (as an example). Nobody cares for mid-Master ladder-quality games. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: I beg to differ, Dreamhack showed exactly the virtues of this system, because Vicious was played far more than frigid pass there, demonstrating that progamers like it more, giving you a statistic to work with. Comparison of games played on those maps at Dreamhack Eizo Open Stockholm: ESV Frigid Pass - 10 ESV Vicious - 17 Some more "standard" maps for comparison, from the same tournament: Antiga Shipyard - 43 Crux Daybreak - 45 ESV Cloud Kingdom - 51 Try not to over-exaggerate too much about how much more Vicious was played over Frigid Pass, and certainly try not to downplay too much how large of a failure the veto system was for those two ESV maps. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: That, and simply enabling vetos to stop pros being forced to play on maps they do not enjoy. It's their career, their job. Throwing in a huge amount of uncertainty and turmoil into player practice so that they don't have to play on some maps they don't "like" is ridiculous. Besides, what happens if the maps they do "like" get vetoed by their opponent? This really does not feel thought through on your part. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Because your opponent is in the very same boat. I'm pretty sure if you gave DRG the choice of playing on Entombed or on a map he and his opponent have relatively little experience with, he would veto out entombed. MLG also showed that people were comfortable picking certain MLG-specific maps such as Testbug, IPL also showed how players were comfortable picking Atlantis Space Ship, Darkness Falls and Sandshorn Mist when these maps were pretty much isolated to use in IPL. Apparently because they looked at the maps and thought they were good maps? This was when the IPL map pool was so large that they didn't have to, but they choose to. Your arguments for this system rely on very flimsy assumptions. While declaring that DRG would rather veto Entombed than a map he has little experience in cannot be disproven without actually asking him, it cannot be proven either. In any argument, the onus of proof lay with the one making the statement. This is not a valid argument on your part. Regarding Testbug, it was in the map pool at a time when there was still Scrap Station, Xel'Naga Caverns, Shattered Temple, and Crossfire. It was also during this time that MLG was highly criticized for its terrible map pool. The fact that Testbug was played at all is a testament to how bad the map pool was. That's not exactly a solid argument to make. Darkness Falls did not appear in IPL, it appeared in IPL TAC 2, which was an online team league in Bo9 format that featured a 10 map pool. Of course Darkness Falls is going to end up getting some play time in that situation. However, that's an entirely different environment than we're discussing. Again, not a solid argument. Sanshorn Mists AE was in the same boat as Darkness Falls, but did also make an appearance in IPL 4. It got a reasonable amount of play, which is unsurprising considering the map had long been featured in the ESV Korean Weekly, so the Koreans who made up the vast majority of players using the map were more than comfortable with it. Out of the 48 games played on the map in that tournament, only 4 were played between two non-Koreans. Hm, seems that doesn't really support your point either. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: When did this happen in the GSL? Back when they had a veto system. It's since been removed. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Dreamhack showed Vicious being played a lot more than Frigid Pass, it was even set to play in the finals because the wallof bug ruined it. This shows people do pick new maps they seem to like, but not new maps they don't. No, that just got debunked. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: I said everyone gets 8, again, you make a mathematical error. Everyone gets 8 vetos. Which makes your personal map pool 12 in theory, but 10 in practice because there will be 2 maps that players of other races will always veto because they are unfavourable. I'm sorry but you've clearly shown to not have correctly read and understood my post, I've said multiple times that everyone gets 8 already. I was actually just pointing out your logical flaws, but it seems you still don't get it. You can't have 8 map vetos in a 20 map pool and expect players to only practice 10 maps (I say "only" with a great deal of irony). You're just doing a poor job of downplaying the fact that players would have to practice 12 maps in a system like that. Basically, you're trying to have it both ways, where the number of vetos doesn't break the system, while at the same time wanting it to seem like the number of maps to practice isn't as bad as it really would be with a working veto system. Worse is that you're doing so with the flimsiest of ideal assumptions -- that there would be a guaranteed couple of maps a player could ignore due to supposed balance issues. What happens if the number of imbalanced maps, after vetos, is greater or less than two? It's a really dumb way to try and make a point. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Again, it's 10 because each race wil surely veto at least 2 maps consistently as they are bound to be imbalanced, leaving you assured of 10, not 12, in practice. No, read above. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: You still know the maps you are going to play on a whole week in advance, you know which set on which map you are going to play a week in advance, you have all the time to adjust. That doesn't matter when none of the players are comfortable on the maps anyway, because there are simply too many to practice. Your idea only results in low quality games. I highly recommend you poll some pros and hear their opinions on your supposed system. Don't be too surprised when they end up saying similar things as I do. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Correct. Correct Incorrect, the balance disastering of some BW map cannot be explained by a too small sample size and these maps are with 99% certainty to be able to be said to not fall within 45-55 as you increase the amount of games played on it. BW maps are simply more imbalanced than SC2 maps and BW is more imbalanced as a game than SC2. This is most likely due to the mentality and BW mapmakers being less afraid to experiment. Are you serious? Let's take a look at the current map stats for the 2012 tving OSL: New Sniper Ridge: Record: TvZ: 2-0 (100%) | ZvP: 1-2 (33.3%) | PvT: 0-0 (0%) Mirrors: 3 TvT | 2 ZvZ | 2 PvP Neo Electric Circuit: Record: TvZ: 2-1 (66.7%) | ZvP: 1-0 (100%) | PvT: 1-0 (100%) Mirrors: 1 TvT | 6 ZvZ | 3 PvP Neo Ground Zero: Record: TvZ: 2-0 (100%) | ZvP: 1-2 (33.3%) | PvT: 2-2 (50%) Mirrors: 1 TvT | 5 ZvZ | 1 PvP Gladiator: Record: TvZ: 2-1 (66.7%) | ZvP: 3-0 (100%) | PvT: 1-1 (50%) Mirrors: 1 TvT | 4 ZvZ | 1 PvP Oh dear God, look how imba-- oh wait, there's like barely any games played on them, despite the OSL already being at the finals. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: If a map gets vetoed out a lot by a certain race only, you can always decide to patch it mid season if must be. That is why the system is there, you remove unpopular maps that get vetoed a lot, it gives you a clear indication. Because you do pull them, you of course remove maps that get vetoed by everyone, there's no point in keeping them and this system offers a clear statistic of which maps are unpopular. No, it gives you a clear statistic in vetos about which maps are unpopular. And again, nothing you've said here gives any argument to why your system would be any better than a smaller map pool that is actively maintained and patched as need be. Explain to me the necessity for a "clear statistic in vetos about which maps are unpopular", and how a similar statistic could not be attained merely by doing something such as polling the pros -- and perhaps even the viewers -- at the end of a season. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: ESV thinks that, and that's their opinion on the matter. Forgive me, but I feel much more inclined to go with the opinion of one of the few premier mapmaking teams, who also happen to run their own professional-level tournament that features Code S-level players, than with someone with no credentials on the TL forums who seems to lack even a basic understanding of professional SC2 training regimen. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: That is what you claim, but I don't see it. For one, how could you, because not a lot fo tournaments use vetos these days. Furthermore players pick out new maps all the time or maps that are only used in that specific tournament. Darkness Falls and Sandshorn mist are isolate to IPL and see plenty of picks there. Players seem to be fairly confident picking out a map they are unfamiliar with as long as they know their opponent is too. You don't see it because it seems pretty clear you don't pay attention to professional players at all or their practice regimen. Teams like EG will sometimes stream their internal practice prior to major tournaments, so it's not like the knowledge can't be had. You also blatantly ignore how greatly unfamiliar maps get vetoed, downplaying this effect and make gross exaggerations of their use by the players who are unfamiliar with them. You do this despite testimonial stating otherwise from professional mapmakers and the pretty clear statistical evidence from past events. So long as you retain that kind of attitude, there's really not much more to discuss on the matter. I can debate all day with a fellow who swears the sky is really green, but it's neither productive nor useful. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm pretty sure most people think that, else GSL would not have such a large map pool in the first place, at least, GSL believes it too and they want to please the fans. Which they should, for their business depends on it. They could have a 4 map pool to play a Bo7 on, but they don't. A 4 map pool works with up to Bo5, which is what OSL is. I recommend reading the OP of this thread to get a good idea of what ideal map pool sizes should be, based on the length of tournament matches. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yes? Chess is one of the most dynamic games. A skilled player in a tournament will have many different openings in his repertoire so he cannot be studied and anticipated. Every chess player has a distinct style of play and theoretical novelties are still found to this day. Furthermore, chess grandmasters constantly develop chess variants for this very reason. Bobby Fischer, one of the most talented chess players even, invented Chess960, which is specifically designed to combat the advantage of preparation, you cannot prepare for a Chess960 game, it all comes down to raw strength and on the spot creativity, not from studying the openings of your opopnent. Welp, seems like you don't really pay attention to traditional sports, either. Hard habit to break, I suppose. On July 23 2012 08:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: You say that new maps get vetoed, but I'm not so sure, experience seems to tell that people will just veto maps that they consider imbalanced against their race. When the GSL still had vetos and introduced new maps, people continued to veto maps that are imbalanced against their race. Everyone was extremely keen to try out Terminus, Crevasse and TDA which at the time where considered fairly radical maps, people didn't veto those at all, they continued to veto the maps they didn't like or were imbalanced against their race. It doesn't matter to me if you're not sure. Do the research yourself, then. I've given a little bit of data in this post, though there's plenty more out there. Quite frankly, when you're not sure about something, you might want to reconsider making a heavy argument one way or the other. Regarding the GSL maps, people were "keen" to play those maps because, much like how Testbug saw plenty of use in MLG, the old Blizzard maps were absolutely atrocious. Nowadays, there are plenty of complaints for tournaments to stop using TDA, and Terminus/Crevasse have generally already been removed from professional map pools and were done so without the need of a veto system. Ignoring context and reason for certain actions doesn't suddenly give you an argument to work with. Anyway, that's about it for me. Like I mentioned, I don't really see the point in continuing until you do a bit more research into the matter. I think it's great for people to come up with ideas like you have, but closing your eyes to data, precedence, and simply the realities of the industry for why that idea won't work isn't really conducive to a healthy discussion. | ||
| ||