Ladder Rotation/System Comments

[FtXCommando]

Ye I don't care how u do it kid, I'm sure the system in place is great. I just want results

You don’t care because you don’t play. Go host custom syrtis games buddy!

PS are people aware we have had this system “officially” for two pools? And one of
those pools was with a halfbaked sheet? We’ve only been able to review the actual map reviews for a couple weeks now.

[Louvegarde]

If I wanted to play only on the map I knew and liked, I would host global matches named "1v1" on the maps I know and like. Ladder is interesting to face a random opponent on a random map, wether we like it or not, wethere we're skilled on it or not.

Even though I would prefer a shorter map pool, so that I would get a chance to actually train and get good on that precise set of maps (like pools with 7 or 8 maps at most) before it changes, I think I value more the skill to be good whatever the map rather than to be great on a specific map - however "loved by the community" this map is. In my mind, good players are good whatever the map - so it's great actually.

Take it as gambling. I must also disagree with Blodir's "Imagine if people had to play a random character each time they play". It is an universal trait of skilled players, whatever the game, to be able to play with whatever faction/map/character/weapon/setup and still show skill. A system that allows to simulate that random match-up is very good to me.

Yeah, cause us 3 are the only ones upset by ladder.

More reason to justify you're a joke.

Now I must also note that some of you aren't of the most cordial - Morax in particular - and that would be very nice if you could, like, calm down for a bit. Calling each other stupid won't help the situation, I fear. Keep in mind what this topic has been made for.

[Blodir]

About "skill translates": I can just speak for myself in saying that I always have to play for a few weeks before reaching my old level with the new maps, because I haven't practiced the weird fringe stuff like mass reclime maps or maps with 100 mexes. They just play totally differently. In 15 mex (per player) map I have like max build queue of 3. Constantly looking at scouts to find enemy air position, fac amount etc. On mass reclime map I queue up like 20 pgens at once and 5 factories then micro engineers to reclaim spots etc dont really pay attention to air game because small leads are irrelevant etc. It's just so different. Skill translates to some extent for sure, but it's not like you don't have to go through extra effort to learn all different map types. Imo it's just so boring learning all the basics of the new maps instead of pushing the skill level forward on something that I can already play. Surely some variety is good, but we are looking at seriously gamechanging differences in maps, differences that force your entire mental checklist to be different.

[Mountain]

Sure, I dig. It's not like ladder team is hellbent on going in one direction. I only partially speak for what is a diverse group of players

[FtXCommando]

Yes, these would be the theoretical draws to a smaller pool. It’s why I’m fine having it as an option in the poll because the concept of it leading to good competitive gameplay is at least arguable. Personally, I view the experimental aspect of ladder to hold too much value for small pool to be sufficient but if it’s what people vote on I’ll implement what they desire.

[Morax]

Alright, so in a more calm voice:

When can the ladder team talk to M&M team to discuss needs and wants? For the eighth time or more, I would like to try and use some examples by your team to motivate people.

I know full and well the reputation has been ill of the M&M team, but now I got handed the keys to some roles. I have every intention to talk to biass about map procedures, but in my opinion the ladder pool is really quite poor - what you can pick from.

If it's not obvious, I have high intentions to make map by map by map and contribute more content to alleviate those issues. My work is pretty damn tedious and long, as is, so I can't really make a full evaluation of every member of the ladder team's thoughts.

A nice meeting would do well, rather this forum banter I suppose. Can we PLEASE arrange this?

[biass]

Unfortunately I think the Maps and Mods team needs a lot of internal work done fast before they're made even more redundant in the current setup.

My temporary charge as map vault is recently over and without anyone who has prior knowledge of content rights the bandaid over the "they still haven't made the documentation even after they got raked over the coals" issue has been metaphorically ripped off. The old map tracker thing that was used was also made redundant both by the ladder teams documentation and also from the simpler, faster setup we had going on.

It'll be up to you personally Morax to steer things back on track in my opinion but until then I don't think the two teams can add any value to one another currently.

[Morax]

It'll be up to you personally Morax to steer things back on track in my opinion but until then I don't think the two teams can add any value to one another currently.

This is pretty much correct.

I apologize to the ladder team as I did not intend for this to get so wild and out of control. Biass is right, and I will be working best I can to build a reputable team, or at least some standards for M&M so we can work in unison as desired.

The M&M and PC team needs to work together at some point, and frequently to improve matters.

[FtXCommando]

You can tell whether a map is at least decent or just batshit awful just by looking at it through a sandbox or to a certain degree even by the thumbnail.
To me it was obvious these aforementioned maps were going to be at the very least good before seeing any games on them. I'd consider them tournament worthy with minimal testing.

No, you can’t. We had zero idea how aperture would go about in ladder. Some thought it’d be ass, some thought it would lead to some interesting dyamics you rarely see. We decided to put it in a rotation to get a chance to determine where we should go with the map. Ultimately, we took what was an optimistic rating and put it down to where we feel it’s accurately place

Is it so hard to tell just by looking at the thumbnails that one of the maps is a bad joke and the other is at the very least decent? Or would you have to force people to play the former map on ladder before arriving to the conclusion that it's a bad map? Granted, this is an extreme example, but this is how I feel like you're going at it.
You don't have to force hundreds of ladder players who just want to have good games to play on shitmaps just to confirm they're bad. If you disagree with that, the least you could do is take out the bad maps as soon as it's realised and not keep them up until the next rotation.

Allow me to retort with farce in tha forest and devils landing ladder.

I'm paraphrasing here, but I recall you saying something along the lines of "I believe ladder should be a testing ground for maps, and that pools comprising of 100% classic proven maps should be reserved for tourneys", correct me if I'm wrong.
I disagree with the former statement. For me and many other players, ladder is in fact a tournament, and it should be taken with the upmost seriousness. There simply aren't enough tourneys around to offer a competitive scene for players other than ladder. Not to mention that in almost all the handful of tourneys we do have, you'd have to be 2k ladder to even think about placing. The more mediocre players get knocked out after a couple rounds and that's all the tourney experience they get. The only competitive scene I can participate in at the moment is the ladder, don't ruin that for me with zorg maps. (sidenote: we need more tourneys with divisions).

Kind of moving the goalpost here. I’ve asked several times in several places for more TDs because the current ones are not all that interested in hosting lower rated tournaments (rowey and moon only ones to ever really express much interest). I’m sitting on cash that can easily go towards those tournaments but no one wants to do it. It’s one of the easiest ways to contribute to he FAF community. The concept of divisions is practically already done and is more of a dev backlog issue than anything else.

If ladder doesn’t get experimental maps, there will be no new maps. Trial periods are inevitable to see a map’s potential and custom 1v1s are extremely inefficient at gathering data.

When I play ladder I'm in a competitive mood and I don't feel like playing a map such as Aperture Laboratories because someone wants it be tested. If you want to test a map, play it yourself. Don't force others. If not enough people are interested in voluntarily testing weird maps, well, tough titties, that's the nature of it. If you can convince people to test weird things out voluntarily I salute you, but don't force it.

The tough titties line seems like it should be coming from my position? Anyway, I was quite up front about including experimental
maps all the way back to my PC application. No one on the team has had any issues with the general implementation and while we argue about what the minimum rating of a map should be, no one has any issue with experimental maps. As far as I can see it, I have the mandate of the masses here.

I dunno, have you considered they might have never gotten the community support for a reason? Maybe because they're bad? Surely, some are simply unknown and that's the reasoning, but it's important to make the distinction between simply unknown maps that are potentially good and maps that have no support because they're proven to be bad or unknown and likely bad, as inferred from a simple sandbox test.

Sometimes we make mistakes. We have a lot of maps to look through and a rating was inaccurate so we have to revise it after getting a shitstorm on ladder. Again, the sheet hasn’t even been around as an idea for the whole summer and the fuly reviewed sheet has been around for a few weeks.

Also I couldn't help but notice you listed the map Sludge in your examples.
Please don't tell me you are seriously considering this map for ladder. It's a well known map, and it's proven to be a meme, no need to test it. Heck, you don't even need for it to be a provenly bad map to tell it sports bad gameplay and is a shitmap. Just looking at the thumbnail is enough.

Yeah, we’re considering it. Turns out the point of the sheet is to collect every map that could potentially be considered for ladder. I kinda find it odd you don’t understand this because you’re the one that gave me a list (or your clanmate gave it to me in your name at least) that started my sheet. And that list included aperture and was the first time the majority of us heard of it/some suddenly remembered it.

Funny, this is exactly how I feel about your position. Clearly we have different definitions of what is what.
I'd like to believe I have explained my definitions well enough in my previous comment. I don't like repeating myself but I still feel as if I should repeat some of the key points.
The definition of 'experimental' is less of my concern, my issue is with bad maps. Here's a pretty objective thing that makes a map bad: Technical hindrances, maps that are badly made, terrain that causes immense pathfinding problems, extensive difficulty to place structures, causes projectiles to prematurely collide with the ground, and is visually represented in an inaccurate manner (little bumps that can't be seen from above, visually identical passable & impassible terrain, ridiculously tall and sharp mountains that mess with air units, etc..).
The other part of what makes a map bad is gameplay, and that is a bit more subjective, but I'd like to meet a serious person who thinks Sludge is worthy of being in the same pool with maps such as Loki.

We take all of that into account and even have guidelines for what a map should generally qualify as to meet a certain rating.

If you want to meet one, go DM petric for his address. I’ve been dying to find it out too :/

[Mad`Mozart]

I know full and well the reputation has been ill of the M&M team, but now I got handed the keys to some roles. I have every intention to talk to biass about map procedures, but in my opinion the ladder pool is really quite poor - what you can pick from.

Ok, hook me up some time on discord and i'll talk with you on behalf of ladder team specifically about them map procedures.
Honestly, you are bugging the wrong guy for that. Im sure biass knows a lot of technical stuff and such, but he's not really a 1v1 guy?

And you should have realized by now that ladder team are not map makers and they just dont think about stuff like what makes a good 1v1 map in general. They are there only to judge existing maps and to build a ladder system, and maaaaybe to discuss how given map can be improved. Stop with your unreasonable demands already