Forged Alliance Forever

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-06T10:24:08+02:00

Sad that ladder came to the state when "12+" maps counts as big pool. Zep's pool was 96 maps at some point. That's a big pool. Anything below 50 is somewhat medium.

Zep system was fine. And it worked fine. Its problem was the community. If you have 33% yours, 33% opponents and 33% most selected maps you end up with Ladder-main players having to play Winter duel, Balvery mountains, Isis, Frozen isis, Crazy rush, Four corners without having it selected because the majority of community selected these easy maps just to try ladder for couple games. 2k players on Winter duel produced more salt than i have snow in my city last winter.

I suggest to go back to old system. Change that 33% chance of most selected maps to dybnamic featured ladder map pool decided on forum. Make a 80 map pool that consists of good maps. There is enough good maps for that.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 06 Dec 2017, 10:24

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-06T09:12:18+02:00

ladder should be rotated with 5 newly made maps that are hidden for release until the day of the next cycle. No boring well know fixed metas and creates hype to see what the new maps are like every month.

ofc zock must have the last say on the maps chosen and not blackheart for obvious reasons hehe

Statistics: Posted by Feather — 06 Dec 2017, 09:12

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-06T01:36:49+02:00

Personally I prefer the small pool but would be ok with a larger pool if it allowed me to veto the huge maps. When I play ladder I like most 5-10k maps but always dread getting smacking with some giant water map. It makes it hard to know how long I'll be gaming for, a game of theta is like 10mins a game on roanoke takes an hour

Statistics: Posted by benikens — 06 Dec 2017, 01:36

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T23:50:24+02:00

well i've bring it up several times a similar idea across the forum/slack/dev conf. making 2 ladder map pool : little and big; and you can choose in which you search, or you can go for both.

Advantages : it would content most people, which will allow more player to play.
Drawbacks :
- it would split up the community even more, though i'm not that much afraid of that since people would be able to search in both if they want to. (ie i don't care till i play) while people that want to play only small pool or big pool are assured to get what they want. (and if searching last too long, they can go for the other pool if someone is searching there)
- big drawback : how to manage the ratings ? If there is 2 ladder ratings, it's going to make little sense, even if still doable. If there is 1 rating for both, well someone playing only small map pool would get crushed when going on big one (don't know the maps), and vice-versa (can't play at that high level on the small map pool maps)
- most annoying drawback : need coding

Econoob's idea would solve 1st and 2nd drawbacks (even if 1st isn't really one as i explained). Though i'm not sure only good player want big pool, and noob want small map pool. I might be wrong though.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 05 Dec 2017, 23:50

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T23:04:52+02:00

Hey, i think if youre gonna do something its either 4-6 or 60+, anything inbetween just magnifies problems of either system

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 05 Dec 2017, 23:04

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T22:58:52+02:00

EcoNoob wrote:
Soo a very wild idea here, how about 2 different map pools: A beginner (5-6 maps) and a normal (12-20) maps map pool, based on ladder rating.

Agreed. That or making some maps more likely to be chose when the player is a beginner. Or even doubling the chance they get the same map twice in a row.

I think making a small pool just so beginners can practice them is falling in the mistake of, in a way, making the game easier to fit them. What we should do, instead, is keeping it complex/interesting (wider pool) to motivate good and pro players and giving begginers the tools to get better (the ideas suggested above).

Statistics: Posted by angus000 — 05 Dec 2017, 22:58

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T22:26:23+02:00

Soo a very wild idea here, how about 2 different map pools: A beginner (5-6 maps) and a normal (12-20) maps map pool, based on ladder rating.

Statistics: Posted by EcoNoob — 05 Dec 2017, 22:26

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T22:18:11+02:00

Tokyto wrote:
By the way: huge map pool will widen the skill gap, so hard time for newcomers and below average players to become better.

And has the small pool been any better? Enough to offset all the good players you're hemorrhaging?

biass wrote:
We should be teaching newer players the mechanical skills behind the game rather then just telling them what to do at what minute, we've created a group of players who can only do a certain thing well or make their bo and completely collapse, even at the 1200 ladder mark.

They actually have a term for this in Supreme Commander lore which I am quite fond of, Machine Complex. A psychological condition mainly in Cybrans brought on by the AI twinning process where they would begin relying more and more on their robotic side which in turn would focus on some pursuit of efficiency. The end result was these commanders became predictable and not long after they were kill in the line of duty.
I can't imagine the Cybrans would've lasted long if they were pumping out commanders like that en masse

Spoiler: show

Statistics: Posted by moonbearonmeth — 05 Dec 2017, 22:18

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T20:12:18+02:00

PhilipJFry wrote:
if i'm not mistaken the spawns are always player one (whoever starts searching) is on slot n1 and player two is on slot n2
so we either have a different code for selecting the spawns (will run into issues as soon as maps with cancer slots come into play)

yeah but just don't include those I mean common!!! whoever makes maps with non odd-even spots is err... well don't wanna be offensive so you get it.

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 05 Dec 2017, 20:12

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T18:54:53+02:00

what's wrong with BO whoring ?
In petric post, he just explained we shouldn't stop bashing try hard, and again, for the sake of low skill player we should make it bigger map pool because they can't just get a proper BO set up.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 05 Dec 2017, 18:54

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T17:56:42+02:00

I mean, good luck getting it together and all. I'd offer to help but in the past my wwpc map list for ladder pool was denied and too many personal grudges.

Hope you guys yield a resulting list the gets attention cause I def would like at least a bit of an increase in ladder pool size.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 05 Dec 2017, 17:56

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T17:47:02+02:00

Morax wrote:
Tokyto wrote: Also there isnt that many good 1v1 maps to begin with, so it might lead to a lot of ,shit maps in ladder

Could not be more true. The mapping process is so exhausting we would need at least 6 really good creators to make a large, enjoyable experience.

I'd rather not have maps like x6, flooded niflheim, etc etc but Tokyto really doesn't have much to go on.

If people could prove that they will take the time to make content like Lionhardt so he has reason to make sure large pool then we can talk.

Until then a small pool is best.

I'm pretty sure there is enough maps for a big map pool, it is just that many good maps made by creators didnt get promoted at all ( Farms 1v1 maps) or got lost after being in the map pool once( like that skull map by biass).

Besides, I think X6 even though i dont like it that much is still a better map than flooded agron ...

Playing the same maps over and over again is just incredibly dull. i lost most of my motivation for ladder back in april and barely played since then. Also it heavyly promotes bo whoring since whoring bos for only 7 maps is quite easy to do even with limited time.

also you can artifically increase your rating with skipping entire rotations. most players know when a map pool favors them and can decide based on that if they play in that rotation *keyser cough cough*.

is there any kind of evidence that suggest that this small map pool has done anything good? all the stats i have seen are beyond depressing; ladder is even in a worse state than your normal team game culture.

why did the small map pool idea get a test periode, whereas the big map pool gets the same right denied? can someone please explain this to me? wouldnt it have been better if both concepts had been tried so players could compare them?

Statistics: Posted by uteten — 05 Dec 2017, 17:47

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T17:45:39+02:00

Hollow
Forgotten Facilities
Pelegial
Tabula Rasa (kinda controversial but I remember playing vs Joly here and it was pretty fun)
Flooded Tabula
Daroza's?
The Ditch?
Chiron
Regicide?

I put question marks on the little bit """"questionable""" maps but I think their gameplay works well and has a place on ladder

Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 05 Dec 2017, 17:45

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T17:38:06+02:00

Morax wrote:
Well, I'm glad someone finally looked the list that Kalvirox and I made...
What other maps are you referring to that are not on the list? Pelagial could be one as it's actually kind of interesting alternative to point of reach.

It's used more then you think, we drew from it in the recent tournament.

Maps are released all the time for both tg and 1v1, but it's up to the mappers to bring them forwards, we never had a laid out submission process, so they're suggested anywhere from pm to forum posts.

Statistics: Posted by biass — 05 Dec 2017, 17:38

Re: ITT we argue for a larger pool size

2017-12-05T17:34:54+02:00

TheKoopa wrote:
I disagree. We have a solid list of 1v1 maps in the form of the wwpc map pool and at least 10 other maps that have popped up again recently. And not to mention potential maps that can be used for 1v1

Well, I'm glad someone finally liked the list that Kalvirox and I made...

What other maps are you referring to that are not on the list? Pelagial could be one as it's actually kind of interesting alternative to point of reach.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 05 Dec 2017, 17:34