Using Map Polls instead of Map Pools in competitive games // Poll and Discussion

[site]

I have used a map poll system for my New Years Invitational and now that some games have been played and a few people have opinions both as viewers and players I would like to get the opinion of the community in general and high level players in specific (PR 35+).

Here is how the system works...

There is a pool of ESOC 2.2 Maps to vote on.
There are 100+ viewers.
A live poll is run in the twitch livestream and everyone can vote on the next map to be played.
The winning map is the next map to be played and can no longer be voted for.

The idea is that it drives viewer participation and eliminates the possibility of Tournament Admin having bias with map pools.
You can't get screwed playing the same map 9 times because a map is only allowed once per series.

What do you all think?

@H2O_

notification

@lordraphael

notification

@WickedCossack

notification

@Kaiserklein

notification

@Mitoe

notification

@Kynesie

notification

@uhlan

notification

[sdsanft]

I think it works though I think the ideal setup is a combination of both. With over 20 maps to choose from the votes get very spread out among all the candidates and so typically the winner only gets 5 votes or less. I think it would be better if you maybe split the map pool up into 3 sperate pools and then games 1 4 7 are played on a map from pool 1, 2 5 8 are from pool 2 and 3 6 9 are from pool 3 or something like that. That way I believe that the results will be a more accurate representation of what the crowd wants.

[site]

I think it works though I think the ideal setup is a combination of both. With over 20 maps to choose from the votes get very spread out among all the candidates and so typically the winner only gets 5 votes or less. I think it would be better if you maybe split the map pool up into 3 sperate pools and then games 1 4 7 are played on a map from pool 1, 2 5 8 are from pool 2 and 3 6 9 are from pool 3 or something like that. That way I believe that the results will be a more accurate representation of what the crowd wants.

Good idea!

[sdsanft]

Just one more thing I would like to state, so far in the tourney I'd say the large majority of games are played on either new maps (nothing wrong here, but playing the same maps over and over tends to get, well, old) or non-standard maps like Indonesia. While I think it's important to show off new maps and have different maps, it gets annoying when they are played every match.

[pecelot]

Although I'm not a pro player you described, I'll stick in my two penn'orth

Paradoxically, it may only decrease the diversity of the map pool. Some are just popular, others not, which may lead to games being played on similar maps over and over again. Additionally, players are allowed to vote, too, from what I've seen, which in turn may result in picking maps favourable to one side. Further into the tournament, when the money is brought up, there is a possibility of a finalist to create multiple smurf Twitch account or persuade his friends to vote as he likes. Moreover, I'm not overly convinced that previous map pools were admin-biased. Despite all the controversy in the latest tournament, I think the system itself is not broken at all, assuming fair conditions, like suggesting a balanced choice (with all or at least most sorts of maps — TP, non-TP, water etc.) and announcing it some time before the match.

That's referring to competitive set-up. For matches in sooner rounds a popular voice seems like a good idea, as people are involved — feeling their influence on the actual gameplay, which is often not the case — and entertained. In more deciding clashes, however, I'd suggest the prepared map pool system.

[sdsanft]

Another possible idea is to get a unique map pool for each game with 3-5 maps depending on the length of the series. Each map pool will of course be all of the same type of map (low/high hunt, tp/no tp, water, etc.). This also might help increase variety, while still keeping the audience input which I do like very much.

[site]

Although I'm not a pro player you described, I'll stick in my two penn'orth

Paradoxically, it may only decrease the diversity of the map pool. Some are just popular, others not, which may lead to games being played on similar maps over and over again. Additionally, players are allowed to vote, too, from what I've seen, which in turn may result in picking maps favourable to one side. Further into the tournament, when the money is brought up, there is a possibility of a finalist to create multiple smurf Twitch account or persuade his friends to vote as he likes. Moreover, I'm not overly convinced that previous map pools were admin-biased. Despite all the controversy in the latest tournament, I think the system itself is not broken at all, assuming fair conditions, like suggesting a balanced choice (with all or at least most sorts of maps — TP, non-TP, water etc.) and announcing it some time before the match.

That's referring to competitive set-up. For matches in sooner rounds a popular voice seems like a good idea, as people are involved — feeling their influence on the actual gameplay, which is often not the case — and entertained. In more deciding clashes, however, I'd suggest the prepared map pool system.

Would you be of the same opinion if I incorporated something similar to @sdsanft's

notification

suggestion?

My thought is what if we put maps of different types into a pool and made sure to draw one map from each pool via a map poll. There could be a pool of TP heavy maps, low resource maps, water maps, etc etc. This way there is still a diverse pick, but audience has a choice.

[site]

Another possible idea is to get a unique map pool for each game with 3-5 maps depending on the length of the series. Each map pool will of course be all of the same type of map (low/high hunt, tp/no tp, water, etc.). This also might help increase variety, while still keeping the audience input which I do like very much.

This is funny, you and I are saying the same stuff within seconds. Great minds think alike.

[sdsanft]

Another possible idea is to get a unique map pool for each game with 3-5 maps depending on the length of the series. Each map pool will of course be all of the same type of map (low/high hunt, tp/no tp, water, etc.). This also might help increase variety, while still keeping the audience input which I do like very much.

This is funny, you and I are saying the same stuff within seconds. Great minds think alike.

Brooooo

[MCJim]

I think it works though I think the ideal setup is a combination of both. With over 20 maps to choose from the votes get very spread out among all the candidates and so typically the winner only gets 5 votes or less. I think it would be better if you maybe split the map pool up into 3 sperate pools and then games 1 4 7 are played on a map from pool 1, 2 5 8 are from pool 2 and 3 6 9 are from pool 3 or something like that. That way I believe that the results will be a more accurate representation of what the crowd wants.

Good idea!

I'd just not let it go through 20 maps, that's way too much and confusing. I think it's better to make a map-poule before the series, existing out of ~10 maps (this depends on a BO3, 5, 7 or 9) and let the people vote. This way the players can some sort of prepare because they already have an idea of which maps are coming and on which maps there will probably be voted on.

Overall it's a great experience for the viewer, and not so for the players because they don't really know what they're up to. Me, as mid-level player, would like to play according to this format, but it really is up to the better players. I'm very curious to their opinion on this format.

[Kaiserklein]

I voted yes, but I never played in a tourney with this system so I can't really say I enjoy playing it. But it looks like a nice system for the viewers either way

[pecelot]

@site

notification

, yes, actually I liked that idea a lot. A nice hybrid it would certainly form. Admin-chosen map pool that would then be put on vote by the viewers.

Another note that came back to my mind was that when I was playing vs Aragun, I didn't really like the feeling of randomness in terms of the next map — I basically didn't know what to expect and couldn't think about the next MU until the viewers decided. Although my invitational experience wasn't the longest one, that's something I wanted to raise. Perhaps a nice solution would be to let people vote on the map before the match is about to get started, so that players are able to know what's gonna happen. So before the stream settles, viewers can already pick a map. After that, during game 1, they choose one for game 2 etc. Presumably you could do a live-voting for a map of the tie-break match to increase the tension

[MCJim]

Pecelot brought up a good point. I also want to point out that casters SHOULD NOT influence the poll results. They do have a big voice since hundreds of people are listening to them. The least they can say is something like "I'd vote for map X", and not something like "Go vote for Indonesia, because that map it so nice!"
Small words can influence a lot!

[site]

I wonder who you are talking about.

[pecelot]

Another option I've thought of: there could be pools divided for each match and then put on voting. For each game you could have a set of let's say 3 maps. For example, for game 1 people would pick from Cascade Range, Bengal and Pampas Sierras from a non-TP map pool; for game 2: Manchuria/Florida/Indonesia. That way me may assure certain map types will see the use in games.

Edit:
yesh:


I hadn't read it before I posted my own thoughts, interestingly enough XD

[JakeyBoyTH]

I loved the FFA, esp the KOTH.

[giveuanxiety]

in a tournament like the new years tournamnet it is a cool idea, fun and gets viewers more involved. In a more serious tournament like the main tournaments it would be a really bad idea. players should be able to train before a series on the preselected maps they know they will play on. Also in more serious tournaments with more money, an issue of people abusing the system may arise. More popular players could get a large group of players they know to all vote for a map the player wants or vote for a map they know their opponent does not want.

[oxaloacetate]

I would like to reintroduce an idea Lord Raphael proposed some time ago, during the ongoing map conundrum. Perhaps it can work with viewers voting for maps in a limited pre-decided pool?

Either way, map selection in official tournaments should be unbiased and follow an algorithm alike to what he suggested during these discussions.

maybe there should be a set rule of what maptypes the pool should consist of like . Sth like : bo5 1 water map, 1 no, tp map, 3 tp map. bo 7: 2 water maps, 2 (1) no tp maps, 3 (4) tp maps. etc. Numbers could be tweaked. Also theres the question if 5 tp maps should even be included into the mapppool anymore. Ideally the guys who make the mappools determine possible mappools before the tournament. Maybe even determine when controversial maps going to be appear in the mappool ( under controversial i understand heavy water maps such as indonesia and heavy tp maps such as high plains klondike etc) and then poll those possible mappools. Ideally such a poll would look like this.

bo3 : 3 std maps. Which map are considered standard maps would have to be determined of course.
bo 5: 3 std maps, Indonesia, Cascade range.
bo 7: 2 std maps, 1 RE map ( chosen from a pool determined beforehand aswell, like deccan siberia, etc), 2 water maps, 2 no tp maps
etc pp.
Essentially what im proposing is a certain grid with which the deciders can work with. SO that its still somewhat random but players still kinda know what to expect from the mappool for each round. Public polls would be nice but not even necessary if there were a system implemented. Because right now the mappool seems a bit random which may come from the way its being decided every round. I think it would also be easier for the guys making it if they would have a set system with which they could work.

[Hazza54321]

it allows for different MUs and civs which a like and u cant prepare the maps coming, which i also like, but some maps i highly dislike so sometimes it sucks the viewers choosing the map. Especially if they choose the map to fuck the players playing over xD

[Gichtenlord]

it allows for different MUs and civs which a like and u cant prepare the maps coming, which i also like, but some maps i highly dislike so sometimes it sucks the viewers choosing the map. Especially if they choose the map to fuck the players playing over xD

It would most likely favor the more popular player. Imagine you were playing vs kynesie and viewers would vote for a water map everytime

[Hazza54321]

it allows for different MUs and civs which a like and u cant prepare the maps coming, which i also like, but some maps i highly dislike so sometimes it sucks the viewers choosing the map. Especially if they choose the map to fuck the players playing over xD

It would most likely favor the more popular player. Imagine you were playing vs kynesie and viewers would vote for a water map everytime

Yeah exactly

[momuuu]

I definitely dislike it. Playing with a set mappool is much more fun and seeing other players have smart civ picks adjusted to the mappool is a lot of fun too. Randomness in the end doesnt make it more interesting because the ability to prepare a special strat is taken away.

[MCJim]

I wonder who you are talking about.

Hehe

[oxaloacetate]

I definitely dislike it. Playing with a set mappool is much more fun and seeing other players have smart civ picks adjusted to the mappool is a lot of fun too. Randomness in the end doesnt make it more interesting because the ability to prepare a special strat is taken away.

This is obviously a very important aspect of keeping the selection of maps prior to the games being played, but this does in no way actually contradict a modified version of the OP with an open selection of maps (prior to each round), perhaps in a setting alike to what proposed by Raphael, ensuring a diversified map pool.

I think this is a good example on how to involve major parts of the community, create a sense of connectivity and dependency, without actually sacrificing quality.

[momuuu]

But thats really different from the current version, basically not even close to what it was so thats why I voted no.