Meavis Profile Blog Joined September 2011 Netherlands 1296 Posts #1 Not entirely sure if the general forum is best suited for this, but I gues the general forum voices criticism better than blogs.



Today I feel like ranting, so get your popcorn out or whatever you like to do when reading rants.

Now what is there to rant about maps?

Well, a lot, a whole damn lot.



Firstly, I'd like to rant about the ladder, map pools and their influence. it is no secret, that almost all melee games are played on ladder, nor is it a secret that proffesional players refuse to play on maps they haven't practiced on.

With that in mind, and on top of that the WCS ruling of using ladder maps in WCS tournaments, it's not hard to gues the result: being that just like online, every single proffesional game is played on ladder maps as well.



Now what is the problem with this you ask?

the problem here is the great power and influence the ladder has on which maps are played on proffesional level, and with this great power comes great responsibility, a greater responsibility than is being acted towards.



Instead of acting up to that responsibility, blizzard has failed time and time again.

who can't forgot those wonderfull maps like alterzim, Daedelus point, deadwing, derelict watcher, klontas mire, waystation, etc..

and more recently inferno pools, secret spring and vaani.

What is understandable about these maps being in the ladder, is that whilst they might suck, they provide as wide of a variety as much as they suck, which is great for the casual player who couldn't give a fuck about map he plays on as long he can wall his main, nat, and has reasonable expansions available.



The problem with this, is that these very same maps, are unavoidably played on the highest level off proffesional starcraft, because of how much influence the ladder has.

This whole thing goes back to WoL, when the decision was made to have the ladder map pool represent those of tournaments more, so players feel more connected with the tournaments.

There's nothing wrong with this on it's own, but this has formed the behaviour of all practice going through ladder, which causes a whole lot of trouble for map pools.

If blizzard wants to put in maps more friendly to the casual player, there have to be solutions for the problems at hand.



Those would be one or more of:

seperate ladders (or similair alternative) for casual, and proffesional map pools.

pro players stopping to bitch about maps they don't play on ladder and manning the fuck up.

disbanding the WCS ruling of using ladder maps. tournament organizers getting their shit together and not blindly following the ladder map pool.



Now wouldn't that be nice, but if time has learned us anything, is that neither Blizzard, nor pro players, nor tournament organizers are willing to take any responsibility.





Moving on to other points,



Another problem, which wouldn't be to much of an issue if the prior didn't exist, is the map selection proces behind the ladder.

It is a complete mystery how blizzard goes about their process, but a few things have been seen conistent enough.



1 Blizzard likes a map they see played in a tournament

(good luck finding these cases anywhere outside of korea, and even there proleague's unique maps seem to have fallen, leaving only the GSL behind.)

notable examples would be daybreak, overgrowth, habitation station, king sejong, and more recently iron fortress.



2 It get's in through the team liquid map contest.

this one has problems of it's own, being the more recent ones being plagued by controversial and questionable picks. examples of this would be: biome, deadwing, timberwolf, adun's shrine.

good examples of maps that did make it in to ladder through the TLMC would be cloud kingdom, ohana, frost, yeonsu, foxtrot labs, and most recently echo, coda and cactus valley.



3 And here we arrive at what is probably the biggest problem, there is no 3.

thats right, there has not been proven any other reliable way of a map appearing on ladder, but there are very few exceptions to this rule.

an example would be nimbus, which won the lesser known map of the month awards.





Moving on to another point, misconceptions.



A great misconception, is the criticism of mapmakers not being creative at all.

if you're wondering how one can disagree with that, with the masses of "similair" maps "same 3base pattern" etc...

The reason behind the appearence of these maps, is not that the exception is impossible, but rather that there is absolutely no reason to deviate from the norm.

anything stepping away from the norm, is instantly dismissed by hypocritical mentions, of it not being the norm.



But back to the point, why aren't we seeing these maps?

With the already high unlikelyhood of the map not being played due to the ladder system, and secondly the dismissal of the playerbase, the map simply won't get played.

if a map won't get played at all, it is understandable there is no great motivation to make it, let alone for it to be optimized for gameplay on it.



Another complaint I have, is Blizzards way of handling map optimization. you occasionaly hear about this, and how tedious of a process this is, but so far there has been both confirming and denying evidence.



The confirmation would be that blizzard has gone to the length of taking in and optimizing custom objects, such as for example the TPW logo on nimbus.



Denying however, would be the following points:

TLMC4 maps taken in to ladder were taken in blindly without any testing, the version of nimbus being uploaded was one for testing close only spawns.

given a couple of test games, or looking through the map settings this could've been detected rather easily.



Or remember when Blizzard made the 2015 s1 maps available early?

secret spring's natural ramp was not possible to wall off due to an object interfering with the placement grid.

The only excuse would be that exactly as they said it was an early release.

the counter point to this, is that ANY testing should've detected this almost instantly.

With this in mind it is almost 100% safe to assume not a single test game was performed on the map.

Now this happend again, on multiple maps, with the lotv beta map pool, showing that blizzard, again, didn't go as far as playing any test games before making the maps available. at the time of writing even, it is still impossible to wall on cactus valley AND coda.



where is this oh so tedious testing and optimizing of maps?





Another topic I'd like to mention, is maps and balance.



One big question, is the position of maps when it comes to game balance, the majority of you will probably agree on that makes can and should actively participate in balancing the game.

But that isn't the real question, as the previous was obvious, the big question is how and to what extend.

I'm sure everyone would love it if maps could carry this weight, this may however not be the case.

As you've probably seen is that maps in sc2 bear some similairity in their design, that being the mold of balance.

Maps can only carry as much weight as can fit within this mold.



The biggest reason behind all of this is not directly balance, but rather unit design. the so called "features" being used in maps, all play a role in strategy, but not every unit, or better said race, can use every feature to the same ammount as other races, making features on maps assymetrical to balance.



In brood war, unlike in SC2, every race was more or less equally well equipped with tools. now compare that to SC2, where terran's drop tech is literally part of their army in the form of the medivac, providing near unlimited options to exploit terrain at any given chance, how can warp prisms match up to this strength?

Well they don't, you could consider zerg to be equally strong, with their supply being dropships, but it still comes down to the same problem, an investment of 300/300 that is drop tech, and just that, it doesn't add any strength like the healing of the medivac, which on it's own is worth the investment, making drop tech practicly free and instantly available.





A final point I would like to adress briefly, is the rotation of the map pool, within 5 years of starcraft, we've had 2 big cases of stale map pools.



One that many probably know, is the everlasting WoL map pool of cloud kingdom, ohana and daybreak, some of these lasting almost 2 entire years, which at the time was 2/3rd's of SC2's life span.

Recently, overgrowth, merry go round and king sejong (some of these still being played in korean leagues) were all on their way to accomplish the very same, with all of these maps spanning over a full year of starcraft, and only recently had their streak put to an end.



At the moment I don't feel like writing this out fully, but you can and probably should understand, that constant maps and repetitiveness isn't great for both viewership, and keeping gameplay exciting and fresh.







TL;DR, maps are in some sort of identity crisis, It isn't clear if the ladder is ment for amateurs or proffesionals, and it is unclear what role they play in balance, or if blizzard wants them to play a role in starcraft at all. Ex organizer of Starcraft Mapmaking Association, currently retired.

TRaFFiC Profile Blog Joined December 2010 Canada 1442 Posts #2 Overall interesting perspective, but can't say I agree with everything you say. I think Vani is a great map as do many pros. Keeping a select few maps around for a long time can give viewers who watch casually a connection to the game. I think it benefits players who are more build order centric as opposed to free styling. Just because it's the same map doesn't mean it will play out the same as the meta evolves. I thought it was awesome when they brought back maps like Day Break in HOTS. 2v2, 1v1, Zerg, Terran http://www.twitch.tv/trafficsc2

Arceus Profile Blog Joined February 2008 Vietnam 8290 Posts #3 My concern with the map situation only has to do with spectator's interest in watching the game. Due to the thing called WCS, every single league uses the same map pool and the same format. Even SPL uses ladder maps. Back then GSL was a different, MLG was different, SPL was one of a kind, now everything is more of the same.



We have more starcraft action than we've ever had but it just feels repetitive for me. The veto system that most league uses only make it worse as more non-standard (or simply new) map wont ever see the light. And whats up with Korean map makers anyway?



I know the less maps they play, the better they might perform but it's getting incredibly boring lately. The only thing that separate GSL, DH, IEM etc might just be their time slots. Tournaments are in identity crisis as well

Big J Profile Joined March 2011 Austria 16272 Posts Last Edited: 2015-04-02 18:35:21 #4 Agree with most things. What I really don't like is the idea of a "casual" mappool. I really like how I'm playing on the same maps I'm watching.



The most interesting part is of course the role of a map and its implications on balance. I think it is much more important to keep the mappool diverse and balance the units around those maps, than limiting mapdesign so that imbalances don't occur.



Edit: Oh, and blizzard should really keep their hands off making maps if Alterzim is the best they have managed to create in all of HotS.

Meavis Profile Blog Joined September 2011 Netherlands 1296 Posts #5 On April 03 2015 03:29 Big J wrote:

Agree with most things. What I really don't like is the idea of a "casual" mappool. I really like how I'm playing on the same maps I'm watching.



And that's exactly why there need to be two options, or Blizzard needs to stop forcing maps intended for a casual audience upon everyone.

Combining these things just doesn't end up well. And that's exactly why there need to be two options, or Blizzard needs to stop forcing maps intended for a casual audience upon everyone.Combining these things just doesn't end up well. Ex organizer of Starcraft Mapmaking Association, currently retired.

OtherWorld Profile Blog Joined October 2013 France 17332 Posts #6 I think that having the same map pool for ladder and top-tier WCS tournaments (basically WCS, GSL, NSSSSL, and Tier 1 WCS events) is definitely something good. However I'd like to see non-WCS tournaments organizers take some responsabilities and put some non-ladder map in their map pool. O'Gaming did that with both Nation Wars ; they are still doing it with Underdogs, and while I dunno if many pro complained about this, the fact is that they did it anyway.



I think that the ladder and official WCS map pool should feature the best maps available. But in order to select those you need to see which maps are good and which are bad when played ; thus having non-WCS tournaments with non-ladder maps would allow to separate the good from the bad, and the excellent from the good. Used Sigs - New Sigs - Cheap Sigs - Buy the Best Cheap Sig near You at www.cheapsigforsale.com

boxerfred Profile Blog Joined December 2012 Germany 8357 Posts #7 I totally agree. I think one thing worth saying is that the map pool was a huge reason for me to stop playing, simply due to being boring and repetitive. I really like the "split map pools for pros and casuals" thing, that would be awesome!

Big J Profile Joined March 2011 Austria 16272 Posts #8 On April 03 2015 03:34 Meavis wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 03 2015 03:29 Big J wrote:

Agree with most things. What I really don't like is the idea of a "casual" mappool. I really like how I'm playing on the same maps I'm watching.



And that's exactly why there need to be two options, or Blizzard needs to stop forcing maps intended for a casual audience upon everyone.

Combining these things just doesn't end up well. And that's exactly why there need to be two options, or Blizzard needs to stop forcing maps intended for a casual audience upon everyone.Combining these things just doesn't end up well.

I don't know the intention behind the maps they make or choose, so I wouldn't go as far as saying they are made for a casual audience. But yes, their monopol over the mappools and their unwillingness to keep their hands away from making horrible maps is really bad for the game. I don't know the intention behind the maps they make or choose, so I wouldn't go as far as saying they are made for a casual audience. But yes, their monopol over the mappools and their unwillingness to keep their hands away from making horrible maps is really bad for the game.

OtherWorld Profile Blog Joined October 2013 France 17332 Posts #9 On April 03 2015 03:37 Big J wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 03 2015 03:34 Meavis wrote:

On April 03 2015 03:29 Big J wrote:

Agree with most things. What I really don't like is the idea of a "casual" mappool. I really like how I'm playing on the same maps I'm watching.



And that's exactly why there need to be two options, or Blizzard needs to stop forcing maps intended for a casual audience upon everyone.

Combining these things just doesn't end up well. And that's exactly why there need to be two options, or Blizzard needs to stop forcing maps intended for a casual audience upon everyone.Combining these things just doesn't end up well.

I don't know the intention behind the maps they make or choose, so I wouldn't go as far as saying they are made for a casual audience. But yes, their monopol over the mappools and their unwillingness to keep their hands away from making horrible maps is really bad for the game. I don't know the intention behind the maps they make or choose, so I wouldn't go as far as saying they are made for a casual audience. But yes, their monopol over the mappools and their unwillingness to keep their hands away from making horrible maps is really bad for the game.

I don't think their goal is really to appeal to casuals, or else we would have had that rising lava map on ladder d:

I think that whoever is in charge of their map selection department is just bad tbh I don't think their goal is really to appeal to casuals, or else we would have had that rising lava map on ladder d:I think that whoever is in charge of their map selection department is just bad tbh Used Sigs - New Sigs - Cheap Sigs - Buy the Best Cheap Sig near You at www.cheapsigforsale.com

goiflin Profile Blog Joined November 2010 Canada 1181 Posts Last Edited: 2015-04-02 19:14:08 #10 You cant really split the map pool into two ladders. That would increase queue times even further, especially at higher ranks. A good option for this would be to put them in unranked, but then again, people like using unranked for practice, and wouldnt want to deal with shitty queue times because you want to play delta quadrant.



From the perspective of someone who's been playing since the first, and worst, version of desert oasis was a ladder map, the ladder map pools have improved a huge amount. Having a ladder that qualifies you for wcs qualifiers necessitates having the map pool mirror the wcs pool. Having pro players actually use the ladder, instead of just practicing in customs with their friends (which is what most pros had to do when tournaments first shifted away from the ladder pool), gives up and coming players a better chance since they can actually play against pros, when attempting to qualify for wcs quals.



I dont want to go back to lost temple. And neither did the majority of the community, whose outcry over shitty ladder maps made this change happen. Maybe that's changed now but looking at how many people were moaning about infernal pools, i'd be inclined to think this isnt the case.



Edit; it seems that the qualifiers for 2015 no longer require a ladder rank, from what i read on the wcs 2015 site. So that definately helps the case. It'd still suck for queue times but it'd be interesting to try something like that out, at least to see if queue times remain reasonable.

opisska Profile Blog Joined February 2011 Poland 8848 Posts #11 No, no, no! Separate casual mappool is absurd, nobody is going to play on that anyway, because nobody is going to admit that they are "casual" and yet play ladder.



The only thing that needs to happen is that Blizzard needs to drop the absurd notion of "casual" players and moreso the notion that they somehow understand what these "casual players" want. The control-freakiness of Blizzard is sometimes absurd, they are literaly pushing their money and work by force when nobody needs their help. They should just let the big tournament organizers and community in general come up with maps and swiftly adopt them on ladder with much faster rotation (in particular, ignoring their silly concept of "seasons").



Oh god, how I wanted to play Crevasse and whatnot I saw in GSL on ladder while being stuck with stupid Blizzard maps back in the day. Never again please!! "Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk

jubil Profile Blog Joined March 2011 United States 2396 Posts Last Edited: 2015-04-02 19:31:53 #12



I personally enjoyed some of the "imba" Blizzard maps; it's nice to have some variety in the pool. Basically, I think the general idea behind what they're doing is fine: keep the boring, stable, macro maps in the ladder map pool for a relatively long time, and tournaments mostly just use those, and rotate the quirky and rush maps more quickly in and out of the ladder pool, with tournaments only using the best ones. This way you get a nice balance between the two, and keep the number of maps in the pool at any one time to a reasonable number.



In theory splitting the ladder pool into casual and serious maps is a fine idea, but not only would it increase queue times, I don't think it's a good thing to have too many different maps in the pool at once as it's confusing and overwhelming to newer players.I personally enjoyed some of the "imba" Blizzard maps; it's nice to have some variety in the pool. Basically, I think the general idea behind what they're doing is fine: keep the boring, stable, macro maps in the ladder map pool for a relatively long time, and tournaments mostly just use those, and rotate the quirky and rush maps more quickly in and out of the ladder pool, with tournaments only using the best ones. This way you get a nice balance between the two, and keep the number of maps in the pool at any one time to a reasonable number. On April 03 2015 04:17 opisska wrote:



Oh god, how I wanted to play Crevasse and whatnot I saw in GSL on ladder while being stuck with stupid Blizzard maps back in the day. Never again please!!



For me, I really wanted to give a try to Arkanoid or Maze, those crazy Proleague maps with tons of rocks. Those were the kinds of maps that really drastically altered strategy. They might get old quick, but I think they would have been really fun to have at least a little time with. For me, I really wanted to give a try to Arkanoid or Maze, those crazy Proleague maps with tons of rocks. Those were the kinds of maps that really drastically altered strategy. They might get old quick, but I think they would have been really fun to have at least a little time with. Marineking-Polt-Maru-Fantasy-Solar-Xenocider-Suppy fighting!

Meavis Profile Blog Joined September 2011 Netherlands 1296 Posts #13



this can be solved in many ways, alternatively, the ladder map pool could be broader with more vetoes for example.



It doesn't have to be a split map pool, the problem at hand is bad/casual maps flooding into proffesional play due to the power and influence the ladder has.this can be solved in many ways, alternatively, the ladder map pool could be broader with more vetoes for example. On April 03 2015 04:26 jubil wrote:

Basically, I think the general idea behind what they're doing is fine: keep the boring, stable, macro maps in the ladder map pool for a relatively long time, and tournaments mostly just use those, and rotate the quirky and rush maps more quickly in and out of the ladder pool, with tournaments only using the best ones. This way you get a nice balance between the two, and keep the number of maps in the pool at any one time to a reasonable number.





the problem with this, is that it has shown to be a faillure, as we've been playing some maps over a year, if this system was the way to go, Blizzard would have to be more lean on map rotation, and rotate them out more violently. the problem with this, is that it has shown to be a faillure, as we've been playing some maps over a year, if this system was the way to go, Blizzard would have to be more lean on map rotation, and rotate them out more violently. Ex organizer of Starcraft Mapmaking Association, currently retired.

toplel Profile Joined April 2013 12 Posts #14 Great post. I agree with everything wholeheartedly, introduced some points I haven't considered before. "xD" - Scrump 2013

Prugelhugel Profile Joined February 2012 Austria 637 Posts #15 Idea:

Blizz should introduce an "expirimental"/"advanced" map option: one map per season gets added to the pool. A completely new, different one, which is vetoed by standard (an additional veto which you cannot use for other maps).

This map is differently marked as "experimental map, gameplay can be unsatisfying/unbalanced, play at own risk" "This map definitly needs more rocks" - No SC2 player ever

vhapter Profile Joined May 2010 Brazil 668 Posts #16 Honestly, Blizzard should just make good maps instead. As of now, it's pretty clear they don't give a shit how awful certain maps are. It also pretty clear by now that most of these huge 1v1 maps - if not all - also suck. I don't know why it's so difficult to have a dedicated team solely focused on map making. It's not hard to come up with a handful of decent new maps in 3 months. To live is to fight, to fight is to live!

Barrin Profile Blog Joined May 2010 United States 4998 Posts #17 dedicated team solely focused on map making

I agree. They'll need to work closely with the design and balance teams, but I don't think the lead should be Dustin Browder or David Kim. I agree. They'll need to work closely with the design and balance teams, but I don't think the lead should be Dustin Browder or David Kim. Grandfather of LotV's resource model. "Fewer Resources per Base"

Qikz Profile Blog Joined November 2009 United Kingdom 11679 Posts Last Edited: 2015-04-02 21:50:08 #18 My opinion on maps of SC2 is the same as it was back when I played WoL. Honestly, it doesn't matter what the map architecture is like, all the games will end up the same if they're designed to fit around the already existing metagame. People are not willing to experiment with maps enough. FanTaSy's #1 Fan | STPL Caster/Organiser | SKT BEST KT | https://twitch.tv/stpl

[PkF] Wire Profile Joined March 2013 France 22019 Posts #19 On April 03 2015 06:49 Qikz wrote:

My opinion on maps of SC2 is the same as it was back when I played WoL. Honestly, it doesn't matter what the map architecture is like, all the games will end up the same if they're designed to fit around the already existing metagame. People are not willing to experiment with maps enough.

I don't think the variety should come first from maps, but from the game itself. If multiple openings and compositions were viable in each match-up, predominance of standardish (normal sized ramp, accessible third, neither Alterzim huge nor Steppes of War small, no backdoor...) maps wouldn't be a real issue. With LotV going away from hardcounters as a philosophy, I'm pretty confident we'll end up having a lot of distinctive styles in every mu which would really help. I don't think the variety should come first from maps, but from the game itself. If multiple openings and compositions were viable in each match-up, predominance of standardish (normal sized ramp, accessible third, neither Alterzim huge nor Steppes of War small, no backdoor...) maps wouldn't be a real issue. With LotV going away from hardcounters as a philosophy, I'm pretty confident we'll end up having a lot of distinctive styles in every mu which would really help.

OtherWorld Profile Blog Joined October 2013 France 17332 Posts #20 On April 03 2015 06:10 vhapter wrote:

Honestly, Blizzard should just make good maps instead. As of now, it's pretty clear they don't give a shit how awful certain maps are. It also pretty clear by now that most of these huge 1v1 maps - if not all - also suck. I don't know why it's so difficult to have a dedicated team solely focused on map making. It's not hard to come up with a handful of decent new maps in 3 months.

I think that they actually have a team dedicated to mapmaking though, surely Inferno and SS weren't made by a random employee? I think that they actually have a team dedicated to mapmaking though, surely Inferno and SS weren't made by a random employee? Used Sigs - New Sigs - Cheap Sigs - Buy the Best Cheap Sig near You at www.cheapsigforsale.com

1 2 Next All