Ladder Rotation/System Comments

[FtXCommando]

Sorry to intrude on this very active thread but it’s finally time to begin public discussion on potential ladder system replacements!

Currently the ladder team and I have created a set of 4 potential pools that could replace the current system we have in place. Before finalizing any voting on what system we will use to replace the current one, I wanted to let people see what we came up with and whether they had any good ideas on how to improve the options on the table. I do not want to have a poll with 1000000 options so I won’t be adding additional pool sizes. The ladder team and I discussed the possibilitied and we determined these were the rough sizes that would lead to the best atmosphere for ladder. If you want to change the ratio between 5x5/10x10/20x20 I’m willing to change that, though.

So, before getting into the pools, let’s look at certain features that I’d like to include regardless of the system chosen.

ALL POOLS WILL HAVE:
- No repeat function that makes playing the same map 2 times in a row impossible.
- A veto system
- Rotations are done by the script that ladder team is currently utilizing to pick pools. Higher rated maps are more likely to get slots than lower rated ones.

I think most of this is self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. The goal is to improve the game variety on ladder while introducing a level of control for the individual player. Hopefully this means that people will be encouraged to play ladder rather than be intimidated or discouraged by some map choice.

So here are the systems we have decided to consider for the future:

The parenthesis are the maps from 5x5 to 20x20.

SMALL:
7 maps (2/4/1)
1 veto
Rotated every two weeks

MEDIUM:
15 maps (5/7/3)
2 vetos
Rotated every three weeks

LARGE:
25 maps (8/12/5)
3 vetos
Rotated every four weeks

SUPERSIZE:
45 maps (15/20/10)
4 vetos
Rotated every eight weeks

CHOICE:
70 map pool (25/30/15)
6 vetos
15 maps get rotated out every eight weeks

You pick 15 maps you want to play, opponent picks 15 maps they want to play. If maps overlap, they are given quadruple weight in being picked. Otherwise, if there is no overlap, the map pool is 80% a combination of your maps + your opponent’s with equal chance of getting any map you two selected that wasn’t veto’d. The other 20% chance would be the remaining maps that weren’t veto’d in the system. A map can also act as though it was “veto’d” by the fact it can be excluded if a person just played on that map.

Some math to help you digest the concept:

WEIGHTS:
total player pool (28-30) - (vetos that affect player pools + overlap maps) = pool size

(pool size) + (overlap*4) = total weight

1/(total weight) * .8 = real weight for unpicked maps

4/(total weight) * .8 = real weight for overlap

80% decided by choice

20% decided by pool:

40 - (leftover vetos) = total maps
20/(total maps) = weight of getting a map from the overall ladder pool

SCENARIO:
2 players (A and B) match up. They both have 15 map pools. Player B vetos 2 maps in Player A’s pool and Player A vetos 5 maps in Player B’s pool. They also have 5 maps that overlap with one another.

(A) 15 maps - 13 after veto - 8 after overlap

(B) 15 maps - 10 after veto - 5 after overlap

(C) 40 maps - 27 after veto

30 map pool - (7 + 2(5)) = 13

13 + 5*4 = 33

1/33 * .8 = (2.4%) chance of getting a picked map
4/33 * .8 = (9.7%) chance of getting an overlap map
20/27 = (.74%) chance of getting an unpicked map

Keep in mind that after we decide what system to use through the vote, we will have to wait for the system to be created by the devs. Until it is created, we will use the current 30 map pool system as a transition system.

Let me know any comments or concerns.

[TantrumDesire]

I'm not too fond of the current ratio between map sizes, particularly that the 5x5 category takes up a larger cut than the 20x20 category.
I personally think 5x5 maps tend to be a bit boring and make a last ditch draw too easy, while 20k maps offer much greater gameplay. (10x10 category is my favourite)
I can see why some people dislike 20k maps, as they are far more difficult to play properly. To that I say, try harder, git gud!

Out of a 30 maps pool, my ideal ratio would be: 5/19/6 (5k/10k/20k)
I'm fine with 5k & 20k maps having an equal share (or nearly equal, slightly in favour of 20k) of the pool, in case having more 20k is a bit too 'controversial'.

One more thing, regarding the veto system, I fear that seeing as many people dislike 20x20 maps, they would just veto all the 20k maps from the pool and as such I'd have a harder time getting them. (Same applies to any other category or type of map).
Hence I would suggest that the veto option is dispersed between the size categories, so that players won't use all their veto on one category, essentially eliminating it from the ladder. (e.g, out of 7 vetos, 2 go to the 5k category, 3 to the 10k, and 2 to the 20k, ratio may be tweaked better)

[Apofenas]

I can see why some people dislike 20k maps, as they are far more difficult to play properly. To that I say, try harder, git gud!

You may lose 1v1 on 20x20 map at min 4 with failed transport rush, but it will take you 20 minutes to die. That's probably the biggest problem of these maps.

Back to the topic. I like last 2 variants. I wouldn't call them "Large" and "Supersize" as ZeP's system had 96 maps, but whatever, it is pointless to argue about pool sizes now. However i disagree with lenght of rotations. It should be 1 week for small, 2 weeks for medium, 4 weeks for large and 8 weeks for Supersize with more rotated maps.

With small pool you might get 2 different veto maps and 2 different previous maps for both players so effective pool cuts down to 3 maps. Imagine playing with 2-3 active players in your time zone same 3-4 maps for 2 weeks.

It would be nice if you could add different versions of same maps for ladder. For example playing Seton's 1v1 from different locations would make same map look different. Add or remove some mexes/hydros/reclaim based on adaptive settings works too.

Rotations are done by the script that ladder team is currently utilizing to pick pools. Higher rated maps are more likely to get slots than lower rated ones.

This makes me worried too. Does that mean some high rated Loki or Open palms would be ethernal in pools? Especially in Supersize variant where you replace only 15 maps every 8 weeks?

[Turinturambar]

the point of the big pool is that you chose the maps you want from a big pool of decent maps. Considering there arent many really good maps to begin with I dont see a reason to swap big parts of the pool and essentially adding trash (since you also want to avoid repetition that means you have to fall back to shitmaps if you swap out many on a regular basis) for some more semi variety.

3-4 maps for 2 weeks.

obv its 5-6 maps since the last map, which is excluded by no repeat will change each game.

[Apofenas]

obv its 5-6 maps since the last map, which is excluded by no repeat will change each game.

Ladder pool - your veto - your opponent's veto - your previous map - opponent's previous map; If all of those are different than it is 3 maps for you, isn't it?

[FtXCommando]

However i disagree with lenght of rotations. It should be 1 week for small, 2 weeks for medium, 4 weeks for large and 8 weeks for Supersize with more rotated maps.

With small pool you might get 2 different veto maps and 2 different previous maps for both players so effective pool cuts down to 3 maps. Imagine playing with 2-3 active players in your time zone same 3-4 maps for 2 weeks.

It would be nice if you could add different versions of same maps for ladder. For example playing Seton's 1v1 from different locations would make same map look different. Add or remove some mexes/hydros/reclaim based on adaptive settings works too.

Rotations are done by the script that ladder team is currently utilizing to pick pools. Higher rated maps are more likely to get slots than lower rated ones.

This makes me worried too. Does that mean some high rated Loki or Open palms would be ethernal in pools? Especially in Supersize variant where you replace only 15 maps every 8 weeks?

A 1 week rotation isn’t gonna be really feasible because of the lack of a margin for error from my side of things. I go out and blackout one Sunday and suddenly the next pool has already lost a seventh of its playtime. I feel like these timelengths are generally too short because I still have people with the current 30 map/4 week rotation telling me they didn’t get to play some maps. A secondary point of ladder (especially as pools get larger and larger) is to provide a testing ground for new potential maps. It’s meant to encourage map makers by giving them a place where their maps will see the light of day as 1v1 custom hosts on new maps are rare.

I don’t get the argument about the small pool and vetos. If you get sick of a certain map, you can veto that instead of what you were vetoing before. The “no repeat” map changes so you also won’t be getting “the same” small group of maps.

Ladder can only work with slot 1/2 so different slots aren’t feasible without alternate map versions.

Yes, a 70 map pool will probably always see the top 10-15 maps on FAF (that we consider top) always present. Just the reality of a larger pool.

[FtXCommando]

I'm not too fond of the current ratio between map sizes, particularly that the 5x5 category takes up a larger cut than the 20x20 category.
I personally think 5x5 maps tend to be a bit boring and make a last ditch draw too easy, while 20k maps offer much greater gameplay. (10x10 category is my favourite)
I can see why some people dislike 20k maps, as they are far more difficult to play properly. To that I say, try harder, git gud!

Out of a 30 maps pool, my ideal ratio would be: 5/19/6 (5k/10k/20k)
I'm fine with 5k & 20k maps having an equal share (or nearly equal, slightly in favour of 20k) of the pool, in case having more 20k is a bit too 'controversial'.

One more thing, regarding the veto system, I fear that seeing as many people dislike 20x20 maps, they would just veto all the 20k maps from the pool and as such I'd have a harder time getting them. (Same applies to any other category or type of map).
Hence I would suggest that the veto option is dispersed between the size categories, so that players won't use all their veto on one category, essentially eliminating it from the ladder. (e.g, out of 7 vetos, 2 go to the 5k category, 3 to the 10k, and 2 to the 20k, ratio may be tweaked better)

I made it specifically so that you can’t veto all of a type of map category (exception being small pool). While I don’t mind switching the ratio of 5x5/20x20, I’m not going to do pools that consist of 70% 10x10. That destroys the variety necessary for ladder to actually improve players in my eyes.

[Bullydozer]

tbh I think the current system is fine, 30 maps. Veto is welcome ofc, but what mainly needs to be worked on is the maps selected for the pool. I know Zorg's gonna be removed, but if it was so low rated why was it ever considered for the pool? Are good maps that replace this kind of garbage really this scarce in faf?

[FtXCommando]

Ladder having experimental maps is a feature, not a bug. If you want a ladder of only good maps you’re gonna want to vote for small pool.

[TantrumDesire]

There is a distinct difference between experimental maps and just utter shitmaps which I frankly feel you're not getting.
An experimental map, in my book, is a map which has not been played much, doesn't have an established meta, and is built upon a unique concept of gameplay which is not featured in many popular maps.

Whereas a shitmap, may have all the features above, however it would sport one critical feature which differentiates it from a (decent) experimental map, and that is the shit, which may appear the the form of crappy heightmap terrain, which is either not visually represented in an accurate manner (e.g the Zorg maps, where passable terrain has the exact same colour/texture as impassible mountains; not distinguishable from above) or just simply causes terrible pathfinding issues, projectile blocking, and such unnecessarily painful technical hindrances which do not at all contribute to gameplay.
The shit in shitmaps may just as well appear in awful gameplay styles it offers (for example, Winter Duel, no further explanations needed).

Maps for example, to further illustrate my position:

Spoiler: show

Decent Experimental maps:
Dragon River 1v1 - fairly unknown, has an interesting navy option, otherwise pretty standard.
Hammada - new map, has a unique layout for a 5x5 map.
Asteria - new map, unique 20x20 land gameplay with Roanoke style expansions and a possibility for missile cruisers.
Virimire - new map, not so unique in layout, but still experimental.
Owly Cliffs - a bit controversial, but technically a well made map with unique gameplay. textbook experimental (while still being decent).
Haven Reef - same as above
The Ganges Chasma - new map, unique layout.
Durfait Isles - new and unique map.
Polar Depression - new and unique map... I have more maps in mind but I think you get the point.

Utter shitmaps which may or may not be experimental in nature:
All the Zorg maps - terrible terrain.
Aperture Laboratories - completely breaks what makes supcom what it is, and not in a good way. Radar means nothing when 20 tanks can just teleport behind your back at any moment.
Crazyrush - completely removes mass as a resource, no terrain features at all, expansion matters f*** all. vastly limits the strategic potential of the game.
Moonlight Mesas - far too dark, can get hard to see things, terrain makes it hard to place buildings in many places, gameplay isn't too exceptional.
Winter Duel - the astro crater of 1v1 maps, a bad meme.
Sentry Point - if it weren't for the open 1 km between the spawns and the anti-aurora hills it'd be a decent map.
Devils Landings - boring map, hard to deal efficient damage and raid your opponent, barely any expansions, travel times are nuts, each game is guaranteed to take at least 30 minutes unless of course a player quits of boredom before that.
Fractal Cancer - literally has cancer in the title... if frigs could actually hit anything on the islands the map might be playable.
Balvery Mountains - its just crap alright?

I do definitely agree that there should be some experimental maps in each pool, however there is absolutely no need to have complete shitmaps in it.
Would you put astro craters in ladder just because it's different and unique in contrast to classic ladder maps?
A map that is experimental is not necessarily bad, a map that is bad is not necessarily experimental. A map with a low rating score is a bad map.
Why have any low scoring maps in the pool at all?

P.S Despite the negative tone, I mean no offense. Other than a couple shitmaps that get snuck into each pool, you're doing a nice job