1v1: 2 game types required? A 'Map pool' side thread

[luckyNot]

Hi everyone,

Get some coffee.. this is a long thread, but hopefully a worthwhile one..

as many of you will know there is a very popular thread that aims to refine the map pool - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8661

In the early part of that thread I raised the point that FAF needs to be easily accessible to new players if it is to build on the great work being done by others to promote Forged Alliance. I was pleased to see this got some responses and proposals. By accessible I mean that someone new to FAF can join a game easily and will want to return to play more games - as a community we need these people. It was, and is, my view that 1v1 needs to support at least two types of players, players new to 1v1 and experienced players. This thread seeks to build a case for two leagues for 1v1..

Within the map pool thread several people comment on this general idea, but the thread primarily focuses on map pool so there is not continuity. I wanted to create this thread to work through the idea of two different 1v1 user groups (Visionik asked for thoughts on this topic), without talking about low level details like which maps to include. To this end I have copied parts of statements from that thread to this one. These are listed below. I have added the date the person joined to help highlight what is a different part of new vs experienced players view points (I appreciate that this may not be truly representative however)

Visionik 04 Aug 2014, 21:03
Clearly in the long run we need to do something in the client/server. I did think of something we could do which would might be a simple change:

have a group of 10 initial, simple maps for players with a score 0-499
add 20 maps for players with a score of 500-999
add 20 maps for players with a score of 1000-1499
add 20 maps for players with a score of 1500-1999
add a final 10 maps for players with a score above 2000

In other words if your score was 300 you'd have 10 potential maps you would play on. If it was 600, you'd have 30 maps. 1200, 50 maps. 1600, 70 maps. 2200, 80 maps.

Thoughts?

Aarhun 05/08/2014 Evolving map pool

Blodir 01/07/2013 For the record, I think 75% of the maps should be removed 

HopeAndWonder 24 Sep 2014, 16:24 we need to reduce to amount of maps in order to give new players the chance to improve. It really can not be denied that it would be much easier to learn the basics of gameplay on fewer more standard and classic maps.

Gorton 16/04/2013 "I do not agree at all. The current map pool and the numbers are not a problem …
You are not supposed to learn 70 maps.
You are supposed to learn how to play."

Vee 04 Dec 2013, 18:43 You learn how to play the game, not how to play a particular map. The number of different maps is the same for your enemy, so it's not like it's unfair or anything.

Hascins 28 Dec 2012, 21:07 "First of all: My experience is, that most of low ranked players tend to prefer small maps and a small map pool. Regardless if they want to learn the game or not.
Second: As a rule of thumb: The higher the rank the bigger/more complex the maps. And there is a demand of map diversity."

ZLO_RD 27 Oct 2011, 11:57 maybe make pool size dinamic. Lower rank = less maps, only top 100 or so have full map poll access, and you will have to achive rank and as reward you would be able to unlock new maps in any order you want, or in certain order (amount of likes),

Cerberus13 13 Sep 2011, 04:32 My Two Cents: I have always been a fan of 10-15 maps for a pool. No more, no less.

Swkoll  19 Aug 2012, 14:30 "So in choosing which ladder maps are in the pool we've come across two main problems. One, new players have difficulty learning the new maps and two, experienced players want a more diverse map pool.
In order to solve these issues I think we should use a modified version of starcraft 2's practice league. TL;DR A small new player map pool that you start out on but you leave after x games or you want to leave."

Taffy 02 Nov 2012, 23:12 I also like the suggestion of increasing the ladder map pool size through players ratings

Freshy_ "i really like the idea what swkoll was saying to have a kinda Practise League, if that is possible to create, this would really help new players and they are not playing vs great players within the first 5 games when they join FAF.
i really like Vor_Tex's map choices tbh..most of them really deserve to be in the mappool..."

Sir Prize 24 May 2014, 08:29 "Regarding a way to give noobs less maps if that's what they want or need, what about giving unknown or low ranked players automatic vetoes on all but XX number of specific maps, leaving them with a mini pool they can leave if they choose to remove their vetoes or they hit a ratings threshold? 
All that said, I am slightly in favour of trying this, if it sucks we can just put noobs back in a broader map pool"

So.... hopefully you are still reading this thread..

Whilst I agree with Gorton and Vee that ultimately you learn to play the game, as a starting point you learn BO and maps. Then you build on this with faction variations, or add map variations (or whatever suits your learning style), etc. The most accessible option for new players is a small map pool, ideally supported by training videos. Losing your first 10 games on 10 different maps, will not encourage many people to return (although some will be drawn back by this).

Whether you call this Practice League, Static Map League or something else I do not know. HopeAndWonder has made efforts to start a small pool voting thread, but this may have been interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as being 'the only way to run a league'. My view is this - we have 2 leagues:

1. We have a Static (with map rotation) map league and Dynamic map league. The latter being the subject of other lengthy threads

2. There are no restrictions on who can play in either league - this reduces programming complexity and avoids troublesome debates around what rating plays where - it is the players choice

3. The static map pool consists of 10 maps, 8 5x5, 2 10x10. This avoids complexity regarding how many maps are given at what stage/rating. 20x20 are excluded

4. The static league runs on a season basis, with new maps rotated in every X months - the community will vote for the new maps - those of you who have been on FAF for a while will know we used to operate something similar to this - perhaps there is opportunity here for code re-use

My hope? That pro players play both leagues and our casters cover both leagues. It is great to watch two pro-players playing a map that you know and then going online to try it. Will people copy their BOs and tactics? Of course, but this part of learning and is a positive feedback loop both in terms of driving cast viewings but also increasing the skill of players on the community.

If you doubt the accessibility or viability of a static seasonal map pool then look at the StarCraft2 community - casts, accessibility and massive player base (I do not claim this is the only reason why, but Blizzard know something about making games accessible).

We could start with a simple two league system and if this works, then consider evolving in to a combined 'increasing map pool' type experience as described by a number of players - but for 'Release 1' we can keep it simple, both for users and programmers, and see how it goes..

I have avoided the topic of rating or winners, I am simply focusing on getting to a solution that is highly accessible and will encourage a very active 1v1 player base - across all skill levels

So, assuming someone reads this far what do you all think?

[ALL_Sys_Nominal]

this seems really legit to me

[Vee]

It's a nice idea. I see two potential problems: since we have a small community, if you split it along 2 ladders then it will take even longer to find a game, and second this increases the complexity by having 2 ladders (new players might be confused, and it has to be developed by somebody which is a lot of work). I don't know if that outweighs the benefits or not, it's just something to keep in mind.

It seems that there are actually 3 different concerns, and not just 2:

1. People who want to play ladder in a big pool.
2. People who want to play ladder in a small rotating pool.
3. People who want to learn 1v1.

I wonder what other things we can do for #3. I feel like a small ladder pool helps them, but maybe we could help them even more? In my experience the best way to learn is to play the same map multiple times. If you play a map and then some other maps, and then again the first map, then you already forgot most of what you learned. If you play the same map multiple times in a row you learn much more quickly because you can immediately see the effect of the things you do differently. A small ladder pool increases the chances to get the same map twice in a row, but the chances are still very low (maybe 10% chance instead of 5%). So: how can we help people who want to learn how to play 1v1? I'm not talking just about matchmaking, but also tutorials, replays, etc. For example maybe we could select a small collection of classic maps (theta, twin rivers, etc), and for each map the community makes a guide, selects good replays on that map, and makes a video on how to play that map. Then we would have a practice ladder / classics ladder where you only get that small collection of maps, and where your rating isn't displayed anywhere to remove the stress & pressure to win for new players. This wouldn't work with a small rotating ladder, because we can't make new guides & videos for each new map every month. The practice ladder would have a rematch function that lets you play the same map multiple times in a row (maybe that would be cool for the main ladder too actually).

TL;DR:

A practice ladder with:

1. A small number of classic maps
2. A tutorial & video describing how to play each map & good replays for each map
3. No visible rating
4. A rematch function to let you practice the same map multiple times in a row

[Hascins]

From my experience I can tell that it is key to always have a challenge.

At first it was to build habits and learn units. So I prefered playing the same maps and factions.
Then it was like learning the standard bo's. So I prefered playing on a small map pool with equal starting positions.
Then I started to improve eco management and micro in a familiar environment.
Then I started playing on bigger maps and get a gerneral idea of the meta game on big maps (still working on it )
And now im challeging myself to transfer all that on the BIG ladder pool to actually improve my improv skills....and all that stuff.....

So I don't know if most of you learned the game the same way...but it seems to be a logical way...I often had the feeling if i changed maps a lot, most of my training habits got lost because of "overwhelming and confusion".

Its just the way I stick to....and I think I'm on a good way (for my skill level )

[SunTzu]

Hi all

Im playing 1v1 ladder since gpg time, and i must say this game have so much potential.
I think when we had a 1v1 ladder with only 2 player maps it would be great.
Because as i know, many people dont like to play big maps in 1v1 because of the time factor.

Why dont make a 2 player mapool with the posibility to put own maps from map-editorin, as long they was symetric, balanced and bugfree.
and instead of put that many maps in pool better change it from time to time or make a poll where peoples can vote for the best maps.

And if we can realise this i think even new player had much more fun to play this game in ladder, custom and making theyr own maps.

Another idea to balance teamgames:
-remove global ladder rating first
-show the 1v1 ladder score in teamgames (because it was a fact that 1v1 rating says more about the skill of a player instead of a global rating where teamwork was the key)

P.S: im not a top 10 player but u dont need to be under the best to know that

then i would like to see a 2v2 3v3 4v4 and maybe a ffa laddder,why not??
maybe with quik play button for fast action and no waiting time.

pls let me know what u guys think about that...

greetings from Swiss
Zbinden alias SunTzu