Caster(s) Map-Skroo Game Rehosting

[zoom]

Casters of tournament games have, in my opinion, thus far failed in their obligation to in a fair and satisfactory manner rehost games on the basis of unfair resource distribution aka "map-skroos". The main problem is that there are far too few rehosts overall. I have even seen several cases where rehosting an unfair map-spawn has been dismissed because of what civilization players are using, or absolutely awful – but mostly symmetric – map-spawns.

What really prompted me to make this thread however is what happened at the start of game three (Pampas Sierras) in tonight's ASC Winter: 2k15/2k16 RO32 match between dyddyd91 (Indians) and Garja (French). Almost immediately after the map has loaded, _H2O comments on how heavily in favor of Garja the distribution of mines is. To my astonishment no further discussion on the topic followed and the game was not rehosted. This decision not to rehost is highly unfair towards dyddyd91.

ESOC must take action to make sure that rehosting games actually takes place as intended – fairly and as frequently as necessary! Please establish meaningful guidelines and ensure that all casters adhere by them without exception.

[KINGofOsmane]

well garja is part of eso-c good reason to not rehost

[zoom]

I don't think there is any intentional bias. I just think a wrong decision was made that ended up being unfair to one of the players.

[purplesquid]

Better yet code the maps better so that there are even fewer map screws. I always wondered why maps could not be made so that they were perfectly symetrical along one axis so that it would be perfectly fair every time

[britishmusketeer]

or absolutely awful – but mostly symmetric – map-spawns.

This is what I agree with most. Some civs benefit alot more from having a 'bad map for both' so its not fair at all. I feel however that as long as you have a decent first couple of mines/hunts that it is ok to play.

[Garja]

That map spawn was 90% perfect honestly. No need to make drama when there isn't any. Also I'd like to point out that the map in question was on purpose changed (quite some time ago actually) to not be symmetric everytime but allow for such small imbalances.

[zoom]

I disagree. It was unfair. I'm not making drama; I'm pointing out a serious general issue. That particular game is just one example, to my point.

Another prominent example just took place in game two (Hudson Bay) between LordRaphael (Germans) and El_Pistolero_ (Chinese). Honestly that map should not even be able to ever miss an entire secondary mine, but when it does the caster should rehost it instead of saying that "it's fine".

[Garja]

It was not unfair because there was literally only 1 extra mine that was a bit more on my side rather than perfectly in the middle (cirumstance not supposed to be nor even desired btw). That mine didn't even come into play in fact. In 99% of cases such imbalance doesn't make a difference in the outcome of the game. Basically it is not a serious point at all but rather arguing for the sake of it.

As for the other game that you mention, Umeu explained it pretty well in the stream. LR missed the extra mine on top (because 2nd mine kicked it off) but had more middle mines toward his side, with the bottom one actually giving him 3 accessible mines. That is considered totally fine.
By the way Umeu cannot even make the rehost call btw because he's not official caster nor tourney admin.

[mnogud]

btw how can h2o tell the players in game for a rehost? aren't the obs players out making it impossible to communicate ?

[mnogud]

atleast thats what happened when they were testing for lag on the pampas game

[Garja]

Thr casters are not supposed to be out with the current UI maps so they can communicate with players.

[Kaiserklein]

Casters of tournament games have, in my opinion, thus far failed in their obligation to in a fair and satisfactory manner rehost games on the basis of unfair resource distribution aka "map-skroos". The main problem is that there are far too few rehosts overall. I have even seen several cases where rehosting an unfair map-spawn has been dismissed because of what civilization players are using, or absolutely awful – but mostly symmetric – map-spawns.

What really prompted me to make this thread however is what happened at the start of game three (Pampas Sierras) in tonight's ASC Winter: 2k15/2k16 RO32 match between dyddyd91 (Indians) and Garja (French). Almost immediately after the map has loaded, _H2O comments on how heavily in favor of Garja the distribution of mines is. To my astonishment no further discussion on the topic followed and the game was not rehosted. This decision not to rehost is highly unfair towards dyddyd91.

ESOC must take action to make sure that rehosting games actually takes place as intended – fairly and as frequently as necessary! Please establish meaningful guidelines and ensure that all casters adhere by them without exception.

For those games in particular idk because I didn't watch them, but overall I agree with you. I've never been sure whether I like symetric maps or not : on the one hand they are the fairest maps you can get, but on the other hand they are boring and really give a huge edge to the player who knows it best (while it wouldn't matter that much on some random map). I mean, on high plains I don't need to scout the gold mines, I can just send my vils exactly where the gold mines are supposed to be...

So imo this is the problem : if we play on symetric maps, we really can't have them mapscrewed with a mine or a hunt missing for example. Or then, all the point of having symetric maps is spoiled... Or then we can decide that, to some extent, we can tolerate unfair maps (for example both players have 3 mines and 3 hunts equally fair, and then the other resources spawn more or less randomly), which mean that maps can be a bit more unfair but at least we keep a bit of uniqueness for every map spawn, which means you need to adapt to the map every game, and not blindly fb always at the same spot (for example), because you know that's where you have to, because there always is that 5k gold mine, or these 2 hunts, every game, at that spot.

[Kaiserklein]

btw how can h2o tell the players in game for a rehost? aren't the obs players out making it impossible to communicate ?

On all the recent UI maps, observers aren't out, they can always talk to the players using a star

[mnogud]

btw how can h2o tell the players in game for a rehost? aren't the obs players out making it impossible to communicate ?

On all the recent UI maps, observers aren't out, they can always talk to the players using a star

yeah but i am saying on this version of pampas, the obsers were out

[Garja]

because they resigned since it was lagtest

[Garja]

So imo this is the problem : if we play on symetric maps, we really can't have them mapscrewed with a mine or a hunt missing for example. Or then, all the point of having symetric maps is spoiled... Or then we can decide that, to some extent, we can tolerate unfair maps (for example both players have 3 mines and 3 hunts equally fair, and then the other resources spawn more or less randomly), which mean that maps can be a bit more unfair but at least we keep a bit of uniqueness for every map spawn, which means you need to adapt to the map every game, and not blindly fb always at the same spot (for example), because you know that's where you have to, because there always is that 5k gold mine, or these 2 hunts, every game, at that spot.

Maps are not supposed to be symmetrical so yes mild imbalances are tollerated and actually desired to have players adapt to what they scout.
It goes by common sense anyway. A high profile mirror match, for example, may require the map to be perfectly symmetric. That's where the discretion of tourney caster comes into play.

[Kaiserklein]

So imo this is the problem : if we play on symetric maps, we really can't have them mapscrewed with a mine or a hunt missing for example. Or then, all the point of having symetric maps is spoiled... Or then we can decide that, to some extent, we can tolerate unfair maps (for example both players have 3 mines and 3 hunts equally fair, and then the other resources spawn more or less randomly), which mean that maps can be a bit more unfair but at least we keep a bit of uniqueness for every map spawn, which means you need to adapt to the map every game, and not blindly fb always at the same spot (for example), because you know that's where you have to, because there always is that 5k gold mine, or these 2 hunts, every game, at that spot.

Maps are not supposed to be symmetrical so yes mild imbalances are tollerated and actually desired to have players adapt to what they scout.
It goes by common sense anyway. A high profile mirror match, for example, may require the map to be perfectly symmetric. That's where the discretion of tourney caster comes into play.

Maybe they're not supposed to, but some clearly are, at least in terms of goldmines like high plains. So if a gold mine doesn't spawn for one player, while they are usually supposed to be perfectly symmetrical, it's obviously a mapscrew. If mines spawn more or less randomly except a few ones, then we shouldn't complain about small unfairness because here it's part of the game, it's the price to pay to have a bit of randomness.

[Garja]

HP is one of those maps that is not supposed to spawn symmetrically.

If mines spawn more or less randomly except a few ones, then we shouldn't complain about small unfairness because here it's part of the game, it's the price to pay to have a bit of randomness.

This is exactly how it is supposed to be. Basically starting resources are given. Then other resources are supposed to be placed in a accessible way. There is no guarantee of having perfectly symmetrical spawn.

[Kaiserklein]

So again, I agree with that, but that's not how it happens. Gold mines spawn symmetrically on a lot of esoc maps, like arkansas, high plains, hudson bay (except maybe the very middle)...

[Garja]

Ye because the constraints are set so that the mines place more or less evenly. But there is no set rule that say they have to always spawn simmetrically.

[lordraphael]

i absolutly agree with zoi here. Players count on the casters to watch out for imbalances and if they dont call the map imba no one is going to force a rehost on their own. Garja vs dyddy91 was one example. Me vs pisto was another one where i just missed a mine at the top on hudson bay. Even the pampa spawn in the h2o vs prince game was kinda imba for h2o becasue the mine spawned to the side, pretty far away from the tc and the second mine spawned in front of his tc half way into the middle of the map, with a better mine spawn H2o might have won that game.
I think Casters should Always look at the map in detail and shouldnt be so hesitant with rehositng games.

[lordraphael]

It was not unfair because there was literally only 1 extra mine that was a bit more on my side rather than perfectly in the middle (cirumstance not supposed to be nor even desired btw). That mine didn't even come into play in fact. In 99% of cases such imbalance doesn't make a difference in the outcome of the game. Basically it is not a serious point at all but rather arguing for the sake of it.

As for the other game that you mention, Umeu explained it pretty well in the stream. LR missed the extra mine on top (because 2nd mine kicked it off) but had more middle mines toward his side, with the bottom one actually giving him 3 accessible mines. That is considered totally fine.
By the way Umeu cannot even make the rehost call btw because he's not official caster nor tourney admin.

honestly if i had lost this game I would have been really mad about this ,because that pocket mine is just a lot safer than any mine towards the middle regardless whether the mine spawned more closely to me. In this game it didnt really matter becasue pisto was rusty and the matchup and the way he played allowed me to take the map savely but in a mirror or another mu thats a game deciding factor

[Garja]

Just a reminder then. That map spawn that way as well so take it into consideration with your civ/strategy pick.
The consideration extends to the other games you mention. h2o had 3 relatively safe mines. One was denied because of Prince strategy and h2o building everything close to TC.

[lordraphael]

Just a reminder then. That map spawn that way as well so take it into consideration with your civ/strategy pick.
The consideration extends to the other games you mention. h2o had 3 relatively safe mines. One was denied because of Prince strategy and h2o building everything close to TC.

im sorry but I think you are to biased to be relevant in this topic. You made the maps so you obiously going to defend them which i can completly understand. Nonetheless i stand to my points they could have been game deciding in my case and had an impact on the h2o vs prince game for sure. Its hard to judge tho if the impact was big enought to say that h2o would have won the game with a better minespawn. Prince played that game very well after all.

[Garja]

The point is that those spawns are totally fine. You're given basically perfect hunts and nearly perfect 2 mines. You can't complain because of that. What are you gonna say, "my 3rd mine is 10 tiles farther than his one"?