Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Talk about general things concerning Forged Alliance Forever.

Moderators: FtXCommando, Ze Dogfather

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby Farmsletje » 06 Sep 2018, 18:49

TantrumDesire wrote:Why have any low scoring maps in the pool at all?

Currently all maps with a rating of less than 1.5 (iirc) are considered too bad to be put into the ladderpool. However, just because you don't like certain maps doesn't mean it is a shit map. For example, there are a few maps in your list that i like.

Also most "decent experimental maps" you listed aren't experimental at all. Just new maps with normal faf gameplay
TantrumDesire wrote: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.

You're literally complaining a 5km map is bad for aurora's
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Contributor
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 383 times
Been liked: 452 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby ThomasHiatt » 06 Sep 2018, 20:33

Make the ladder pool consist of the following list of maps and don't rotate any maps ever, they are all good maps and the pool is big enough to provide plenty of variety. The pool doesn't have to be small to have good maps, this pool is bigger than the pools from the last two years and has higher map quality than all of them. If you insist that some maps in the pool need to rotate out after some arbitrary amount of time, then use a smaller subset of this pool and rotate some of the maps with others in the list. But I don't think the pool needs to rotate at all. Some people might dislike a few of the maps so allowing a veto of 5 or so maps would be fine. On the rare occasion that a new 1v1 map is made that is actually good it can simply be added to the pool.

Spoiler: show
5x5:
2v2 Boogie-Woogie
Adaptive Theta Passage
Ambush Pass
Apchui
Canis River
Cobalt Valley
Desert Arena
Dry Canyon v3
Esgaroth's Ruins
Firelight
Jungle Valley v2
Vale of Isis
Williamson's Bridge

10x10:
8 - Badlands_v4
Abhor
Desert Planet II
Eye of the Storm
Fields of Isis
Forbidden Pass v4
Forgotten Facilities
Hollow
Loki
Niflheim - Final II v2
Open Palms
Red Rocks
Regor VI Highlands
Standing Stones
Stella Maris WM 1v1
Syrtis Major
The land wilderness V3
Twin Rivers
Vya-3 Protectorate
White fire v2
Z-D Rasty Lite

20x20:
Chiron
Crossfire Canal
Emerald Crater
Norfair
Osiris
Pelagial v2
Point of Reach v4
Roanoke Abyss
Seraphim Glaciers
Seton’s Clutch
The Bermuda Locket
ThomasHiatt
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 02 Feb 2017, 00:24
Has liked: 116 times
Been liked: 110 times
FAF User Name: ThomasHiatt

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby Morax » 06 Sep 2018, 21:16

I like Thomas idea. This whole, refined calculation and weights for chosen maps is a bit too much.
Maps and Modifications Councilor

M&M Discord Channel

Come join us and help create content with the artists of FAF.
User avatar
Morax
Councillor - Maps and Mods
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 25 Jul 2014, 18:00
Has liked: 1167 times
Been liked: 662 times
FAF User Name: Morax

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby FtXCommando » 06 Sep 2018, 23:08

It’s a good thing we learned Norfair, Osiris, and Abhor were good maps before they were put in ladder! Tell me why we decide the cutoff for accepting good maps is 2018 and not 2008? No, if you want a system that ignores the connection between ladder and mapmaking you’re better off electing a new PC.

We “can” do this system now with very little touchups. Don’t let any map into ladder with under 3/5 average rating and you’re down to roughly 70 maps. Can have different calculations for various parts (“new” “experimental”) as well. Ultimately what Thomas is suggesting is more for another poll rather than this coming one.

I also entirely disagree with what TantrumDesire considers experimental in this. Owly Cliffs for example, is a fairly high rated “common” 5x5 map for us. Experimental doesn’t mean “map with gameplay that differs from open palms” to us. It’s a list of controversial maps that never really got the community support to be considered consistent ladder maps. Snowy Triangle, Sludge, Paradise, Sleipnir, Zorg, etc.

WD, Balvery, Sentry Point, and Moonlight Mesas are not experimental. I feel like you’re conflating a low map rating with the experimental tag. Likewise, new maps are different from experimental maps in our pool creation.

You don’t need to worry about offending me, I appreciate the feedback as I never really get much of it beyond map salt.
Are you upset? Are you happy? Are you a FAF Player? Come to the PC Discord and share your thoughts and build the community!

https://discord.gg/Y2dGU8X
User avatar
FtXCommando
Councillor - Players
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 234 times
Been liked: 583 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby nine2 » 07 Sep 2018, 01:07

I like the idea of having different positions on the same map.
nine2
Councillor - Promotion
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 10:10
Has liked: 285 times
Been liked: 515 times
FAF User Name: Anihilnine

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby Apofenas » 07 Sep 2018, 03:16

I count the amount of red maps in Thomas' pool. Can't veto them all = shit map pool as i can't see red reclaim, red icons and red units on red terrain(it would be nice if we could select colours in ladder...). I see Red rocks, Stella maris WM that give decent advantage to factions with hover t1. May just put some High noon, Wilderness or land version of it (oh wait!) there and call THAT a "good" map pool. Or we could learn on experience from ZeP's ladder and not put these maps in there.

We can go all out discussing every map. But i'm sure it has been done for weeks in PC's discord. Everybody has their own taste in maps and it is impossible to satisfy everyone. "Supersize" map pool provides enough flexebility for everyone to play maps that they really like.

If that system makes it, i'd look fool for voting against him.
BalanceVictim wrote:I tried it out, and yes, the anti-torpedo is a useful tool now. Sadly, the rest of the unit is still extremely weak compared to any other frig
Apofenas
Contributor
 
Posts: 747
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 179 times
Been liked: 180 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby nine2 » 07 Sep 2018, 04:58

hmm shouldnt being top of ladder mean you are the best overall player? which means u shouldnt be able to choose maps at all
nine2
Councillor - Promotion
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 10:10
Has liked: 285 times
Been liked: 515 times
FAF User Name: Anihilnine

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby ThomasHiatt » 07 Sep 2018, 06:30

ThomasHiatt wrote:On the rare occasion that a new 1v1 map is made that is actually good it can simply be added to the pool.

FtXCommando wrote:It’s a good thing we learned Norfair, Osiris, and Abhor were good maps before they were put in ladder! Tell me why we decide the cutoff for accepting good maps is 2018 and not 2008? No, if you want a system that ignores the connection between ladder and mapmaking you’re better off electing a new PC.

u wot m8?

I wrote a few paragraphs but then gave up and just decided to say that you are all dumb, especially Apofenas.
ThomasHiatt
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 02 Feb 2017, 00:24
Has liked: 116 times
Been liked: 110 times
FAF User Name: ThomasHiatt

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby FtXCommando » 07 Sep 2018, 06:36

You think so little of me that you think I skipped over that or something?

Ladder team isn’t gonna plan on testing every map to ultimately determine if it is at the capability to be seen as a highly competitive map. The definition of that also changes and requires more and more tests the less and less maps you end up putting into your default pool. Do you even have any idea the endless degree of discussions it’s going to take to determine why a perfectly acceptable map like Festea isn’t on the list?

If you plan on responding with “ok just include those maps I forgot” well then congratulations; you reached the point of the map sheet we made and all you’re arguing for is to heighten our rating minimum for ladder inclusion.

If you don’t realize that reality after a few paragraphs, better check your IQ 4head.
Are you upset? Are you happy? Are you a FAF Player? Come to the PC Discord and share your thoughts and build the community!

https://discord.gg/Y2dGU8X
User avatar
FtXCommando
Councillor - Players
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 234 times
Been liked: 583 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Re: Ladder Rotation/System Comments

Postby TantrumDesire » 07 Sep 2018, 12:41

Apologies in advance for an obese rant

FtXCommando wrote:It’s a good thing we learned Norfair, Osiris, and Abhor were good maps before they were put in ladder!

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.

Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (69.66 KiB) Viewed 4941 times

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.

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).
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.

FtXCommando wrote:It’s a list of controversial maps that never really got the community support to be considered consistent ladder maps.

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.

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.

FtXCommando wrote:WD, Balvery, Sentry Point, and Moonlight Mesas are not experimental.

I never claimed these to be experimental. I may repeat: "Utter shitmaps which may or may not be experimental in nature:", meaning whether they're experimental or not isn't the premise of the list.

FtXCommando wrote:I feel like you’re conflating a low map rating with the experimental tag.

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.
TantrumDesire
Crusader
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Mar 2018, 21:37
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 10 times
FAF User Name: Utterly_Pathetic

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest