[Discuss] SC2 Mini-Tournament Amendments Pre-#3

[s3rius]

Thank you very much for agreeing twice with me :3

 

[Vestras]

I think as long as the map pool is more up-to-date (there is a reason why a lot of those maps aren't played anymore..) there shouldn't be a problem. I don't think we actually need voided maps anymore in this case.

About the "THL" - I don't think it'd turn out that well.
First we don't have a lot of players anyway, even if we pool US and EU together. And I think a good percentage of the people who participated in the THT #2 don't visit this site often or don't even play melee anymore (or only seldomly).
And also there's a large difference in the players' skill. We'd probably see the same faces rise to the top and duke it out again and again.

I don't agree; we all have friends that play StarCraft 2, and having an active SC2 tournament would probably keep them here, along with a community of players that are interested in the game. Also, there are big skill level differences in the pro world aswell, but upsets are made. If you keep playing in the tournament you are bound to get better anyway.

 

[Bloodcount]

Sorry for the double post, it was not intended.


Ves, I understand to a large degree where you are going to- by having a league and calling more people we can raise the activity of the forum. I like this idea, however ESL have this set up already. What is more, they have it set up for leagues too, so you are always offered a fair challange, they have cash prizes too.


What about a weekly friendly tournament or something ? We can have a different tourney each week, 1v1, 2v2, monobattles, and so on, you know just for fun, with simvolik rep for reward (like 10/7/5) Whadda ya guys say ? : PP

 

[Miz]

What about a weekly friendly tournament or something ? We can have a different tourney each week, 1v1, 2v2, monobattles, and so on, you know just for fun, with simvolik rep for reward (like 10/7/5) Whadda ya guys say ? : PP

If it were up to me to say, I would rather just have more mini-tournaments but just make the dead lines somewhat shorter but still casual. I mean a weekly thing might be cool but even then its arguable if everyone will want to join and participate every week. (Looks at the Prose of the Week Archive) Because currently we can have as many different tourney under the sun.

I think as long as the map pool is more up-to-date (there is a reason why a lot of those maps aren't played anymore..) there shouldn't be a problem. I don't think we actually need voided maps anymore in this case.

Does utilizing the map pools Monsterous, Vestras and Sevion have provided match a more "up-to-date" map pool for everyone to agree on?
As for Voided Maps, that is more up to you guys to keep. I can make it just so everyone can void one map to balance it out or we can get rid of that system and you just have to face whatever gets thrown at you.

Edit -

I think we should have a poll of how many games would people be willing to play vs an opponent, and how long should the tournament last first

maybe some sort of agreement between players such that they can choose to play best of 5/7 if they want, and when they meet their opponent, they play the minimum # of matches (between them & their opponent), that way if 2 people who have more time and can play best of 5, then they can, but if 1 person is busy and can only do a best of 3, then best of 3 it is

I am a little bit at odds with this suggestion. While I think it makes sense, I foresee some trouble with not all the people making those matches and then they are stuck at like 2 to 2 out of 4 matches. So there is no real clear winner. At the same time though if people can make the deadline and play more games that doesn't really cause a problem. Yet I don't see many other tournaments doing something like this. (Even though we are more casual) I just don't really have a clear measure on this idea.

However like I said I don't think it isn't practical or a bad idea, but I would definitely want everyone else to give input.

 

[Bloodcount]

I think that the mappool should be the the current list of 1v1 maps and perhaps some of the GSL maps.(I don't see why not)

The edited versions of metalopolis and such where there is a supply depot and you can't spawn in short positions are maps for cowards for me- they deny some styles of play, buff some styles of play... after all SCII is so great because you can go almost any style of play.

 

[Miz]

I think that the mappool should be the the current list of 1v1 maps and perhaps some of the GSL maps.(I don't see why not)

The edited versions of metalopolis and such where there is a supply depot and you can't spawn in short positions are maps for cowards for me- they deny some styles of play, buff some styles of play... after all SCII is so great because you can go almost any style of play.

So you more so have a problem with the MLG maps then? (They are the ones with the Supply Depot I believe)

 

[Bloodcount]

Yes, I do have a problem with them.

HOWEVER I won't have a problem with them, IF the standard versions are added as well. That way the people who like them will get a chance to play on them and the people who don't like them(like me) will have a chance not to play on them ^_^ It will be luck based, but in a way, everyone wins.

 

[Miz]

Well currently I am getting a few ideas I think everyone is happy with.

Removal of Regulation 6

6) Each Player beforehand will be able to pick two maps he or she would like to void from their game pool. These Voided Maps will not be selected for your match up. However, once the tournament begins these two choices can NOT be changed. So for the most part if you submit them, your stuck with them. So choose wisely.​

Amendment to Regulation 5

5) The Maps that you will be playing on for each of the games per round will be selected at random from a pool and given to both you and your match-up. YOU MUST PLAY THE MAPS CORRESPONDING TO THE CORRECT GAME IN THE MATCH UP. YOUR GAMES WILL NOT COUNT IF YOU PLAY THEM OUT OF ORDER OR PLAY DIFFERENT MAPS THAN THE ONES GIVEN.​

5) For the first game of every match-up, the first map will be given to you and your opponent after being randomly selected from the map pool. YOU MUST PLAY THE MAP CORRESPONDING TO YOUR FIRST GAME CORRECTLY IN EVERY MATCHUP. YOUR GAMES WILL NOT COUNT IF THE FIRST MATCH IS PLAYED WITH A DIFFERENT MAP.

6) After the conclusion of each match, the loser of the previous match will be able to select any map from the pool of his/her choosing.​

It won't be exactly that wording (at least for right now) as I am going to be rewriting a lot of the old rules. However for the most part, Void Maps are to be eliminated and Losers' Pick will be added in.

As I said before I need more opinions on a current Map pool. Right now I have

Shattered Temple
MLG Metalopolis (In dispute)
MLG Shakuras Plateau (In dispute)
MLG Shattered Temple (In dispute)
MLG Tal’darim Altar (In dispute)
MLG Testbug (In dispute)
MLG Typhon Peaks (In dispute)
MLG Xel’Naga Caverns (In dispute)
GSTL GSL Bel'Shir Beach
GSTL GSL Crossfire
GSTL GSL Crevasse
GSTL GSL Tal'Daram Altar
GSTL GSL Terminus RE
​

Plus

Blistering Sands
Desert Oasis
Scrap Station
Steppes of War
Xel'Naga Caverns
Incineration Zone
Kulas Ravine
Metalopolis
Delta Quadrant
Jungle Basin
Shakuras Plateau​

The only removal from the old list has been Lost Temple for Shattered Temple and of course more suggestions can always be added.
Remember with Losers pick you guys have far more of a say now in what maps you play so if you have any suggestions it might help you.

 

[s3rius]

I'd go with Vestras' map pool:

MLG Xel Naga Caverns
MLG Metalopolis
MLG Shattered Temple
MLG Shakuras Plateau
GSTL GSL Bel'Shir Beach
GSTL GSL Crossfire
GSTL GSL Crevasse
GSTL GSL Tal'Daram Altar
GSTL GSL Terminus RE

Plus
MLG Testbug
Jungle Basin
Delta Quardrant

Maps like Incineration or Blistering are HORRIBLE. Not only because their balance is highly questionable but they also have a bad design (backdoors to your main base -.-) and they're not played in tournaments, ladder or custom games. So most of us haven't played on them since last THT.

And if we have a MLG/GSL version of a map I don't see the need to also add the normal version. MLG/GSL versions are mainly changed to discourage cheeses, which is good.

Also I'd say that the first map shouldn't be completely randomed, but it should generally be a very neutral map such as Shattered or Xel'Naga. The map could change for every round.

Those maps allow for greater variety of play styles are you're not completely fked if you happen to get a map you can't really play on (e.g. being weak in macro games and having to play on Terminus as first map).

 

[Sevion]

I think having the map pool be simply

GSTL GSL Tal'Darim Altar

is the best. It's not Zerg-favored at all. <3

 

[Miz]

Also I'd say that the first map shouldn't be completely randomed, but it should generally be a very neutral map such as Shattered or Xel'Naga. The map could change for every round.

Those maps allow for greater variety of play styles are you're not completely fked if you happen to get a map you can't really play on (e.g. being weak in macro games and having to play on Terminus as first map).

Well I do understand what you are trying to say. However I feel it more properly prepares players for other tournaments, where more often than not they really don't care about what you want.

Loser's Pick I feel compromises with the first randomized map. So even if you lose that first map you can still pick one you feel you have an advantage in. However that is just my opinion, and it isn't the final statement.

---

As for the Map Pool, I have pretty much taken what you all have said, and S3rius' statements to create this list. While I do understand Bloodcounts shakiness with the MLG Maps, it seems that a majority of you want these over the regular blizzard versions. So I will add them to the map pool. This list is very similar to the one S3rius posted except that it removes Jungle Basin. Just from talking with others I believe I have a proper census that almost all of you hate that map. (For some reason) So I will remove it and replace it with Xel'Naga Fortress, which is a competitive map that I feel is mostly different than the ones we have now. At the bottom of the list are two other maps that are currently in dispute for getting onto the list. So I would like to hear your thoughts on them.

MLG Xel'Naga Caverns (2)
MLG Metalopolis (4)
MLG Shattered Temple (4)
MLG Shakuras Plateau (4)
MLG Typhon Peaks (4)
MLG Testbug (2)[SUP]3 Bases[/SUP]
GSTL GSL Bel'Shir Beach (2)
GSTL GSL Crossfire (2)
GSTL GSL Crevasse (4)
GSTL GSL Tal'Daram Altar (4)
GSTL GSL Terminus RE (4)

PLUS
Xel'Naga Fortress (2)[SUP]3 Bases[/SUP] (Replacing Jungle Basin)

Delta Quadrant (4) * - In Dispute because I have heard people wanting to keep the map and people wanting to remove the map saying its unbalanced or it sucks. It is the only map that is retained from the past pool, so I am not even sure if I should keep it just because of that reason alone.

 

[YourFace]

Hey, I would contribute to this thread but I've been playing a lot of maplestory.
OT: The tournaments should never be over 2 vs 2 unless it becomes extremely popular.
Second, I think there should be a silver league or higher requirement. I know it's for fun, but pitting a diamond league to a bronze league would be lame for both players.
Third, no tournies should be monobattle. There's no really strategy, skill, or rts type gaming and defeats the purpose of the RTS type game.
Finally, we could use both a casting team for semi finals and finals, and a performance ranking. People who perform well should enter the semi-finals even if they lose a match. It's probably frustrating to lose the first match and way 2-3 months for the next tournament right? With the performance ranking, we can get the best players who still lost to play again.

 

[Sevion]

This is why I would like to implement THL.

 

[s3rius]

Loser's Pick I feel compromises with the first randomized map. So even if you lose that first map you can still pick one you feel you have an advantage in. However that is just my opinion, and it isn't the final statement.

My thinking went like this:
Let's assume we play a best-of-3 against each other. You love long macro games, whereas I am a cheesy rusher.
So I love to play on smaller maps, or maps that give me some pushing favor. You want to play on large maps where you don't have to fear a push as much.

Let's say we random Xel'Naga. Small map, that's good for me. I win. Now you choose Tal'Darim. Large map, I lose. Now I get to choose again. I choose Crossfire and tankpush the hell out of you.
I win.

If we random Terminus I'll lose. Then I get to choose Crossfire and win. Now you get to choose Tal'Darim and win.
You win.

So even though one of us has the chance to select the second map it's being equalized by the fact that the other will get a chance too (if he doesn't outright win).
That's why I think it's better to start with a more neutral map, which is neither very small nor very large.
It might make a small difference, or none at all. But it's a quick change to get rid of a potential problem.

 

[Miz]

Hey, I would contribute to this thread but I've been playing a lot of maplestory.
OT: The tournaments should never be over 2 vs 2 unless it becomes extremely popular.
Second, I think there should be a silver league or higher requirement. I know it's for fun, but pitting a diamond league to a bronze league would be lame for both players.
Third, no tournies should be monobattle. There's no really strategy, skill, or rts type gaming and defeats the purpose of the RTS type game.
Finally, we could use both a casting team for semi finals and finals, and a performance ranking. People who perform well should enter the semi-finals even if they lose a match. It's probably frustrating to lose the first match and way 2-3 months for the next tournament right? With the performance ranking, we can get the best players who still lost to play again.

A little bit out of order, but I do have some questions to ask you.

To your Second Comment - I am against this entirely. It goes against what this whole thing is for. While I see your point, I still stand on the ideal that these tournaments should be open for everyone. Currently we do not have enough people to split the leagues up between Rookies and Pros (silver league+). However I do see that as an appropriate compromise and can see that become a possibility in the future.

To your First and Third Propositions - Currently it will remain 1v1 because I haven't seen a push for things beyond that. However what I was mentioning is that there will be possibilities for other types in future tournaments if people want that. Monobattle tournaments can occur if enough people have a desire to do them. Same for 2v2 and Team/Relay. Its honestly up to how everyone wants to play.

On your Final Comment, I am somewhat confused on what you desire to do. Elaborate please. Also consider this, how will this "performance ranking" be judged and administered fairly? Furthermore, it will lengthen the tournament more wouldn't it?

So even though one of us has the chance to select the second map it's being equalized by the fact that the other will get a chance too (if he doesn't outright win).
That's why I think it's better to start with a more neutral map, which is neither very small nor very large.
It might make a small difference, or none at all. But it's a quick change to get rid of a potential problem.

I hear you out entirely, but the problem is how we decide what a "neutral" map. No player is the same, so some people are better at other maps. What one individual might call "neutral", the other might say it isn't. So I can't say I can easily incorporate this and still remain fair and balance. Currently randomizing is the only fair way to administer the first map in my position I believe.

PS - I still need everyone to approve or comment on the Map List to get a census on how everyone feels about it.

 

[Vestras]

The map list has my approval.

 

[Sevion]

The map list has my approval.

Ditto.

 

[Slapshot136]

I don't care about the maps too much.. my only suggestion would be that on 4 player maps to have the other person spawn directly across from you to eliminate "random luck" from where to scout first

 

[Bloodcount]

Technically, if I 6 pool you, I know exactly where to go ^_^

 

[Sevion]

I don't care about the maps too much.. my only suggestion would be that on 4 player maps to have the other person spawn directly across from you to eliminate "random luck" from where to scout first

I disagree. While I'm lazy with scouting, I don't believe that this should be implemented. Rushing will be more common and easier to perform.