Improving ladder through veto powers

[Quant]

Hello everyone,
I have a simple suggestion that would make laddering much more enjoyable. Everyone has some maps they absolutely hate playing on so....why not let players veto a few maps, and these vetoed maps never get selected when you queue. Each player would get like say 4-5 vetos. The possibility of having to play on a map I hate stops me from queuing sometimes, and I'm sure other players feel this too. I've heard "shit maps" as a reason for people not laddering. Vetoes would help with all of this.

Since there are 16 maps in the pool currently this means that even if each player chooses completely different maps to veto there would still be 8 maps left for the matchmaker to choose from. Both players would be happy because none of the maps they hate were selected.

"but skill is learning to play on different maps" - well maybe, but it certainly isn't fun, and you can't veto the whole pool except for 1 map you have an epic try-hard BO for. With 5 vetos you still have to deal with 70% of the map pool.

Thanks for reading,
~Quant

[BushMaster]

Both players would be happy because none of the maps they hate were selected.

Yet at the same time its possible that a map they absolutely love is never selected because majority of their ladder opponents don't like it. This creates the same disincentive for playing ladder games as playing on maps they hate. Honestly, 1-3 map pool on a 1-3 day rotation (1-3 maps rotated per rotation) solves all problems...

[Lieutenant Lich]

Excluding really bad and imbalanced maps from the ladder is the better choice. Say Haven Reef. I do not know about being imbalanced but it looks like shit. Same goes for EOTS, with a strange thing sticking out of the ground near each spawnpoint that is free 300 mass.

[AdmiralZeech]

Someone else already posted the idea that the lesser-rated player gets priority in their preferred map choices. I think it was a good idea - it lets newer players learn a few maps to start with, and gives better players an incentive to learn more maps.

[Lieutenant Lich]

Over-complicated idea, Admiral. Knowing developers (or shortage thereof) and the command, it will most likely never be passed. Either this idea with vetoing maps (but no more than 2-3), or MooseFabricator's idea of changing map rotation every day. Vetoing seems more feasible to do because it will not require an admin/mod to wake up and start their day by choosing several random maps. But I like both ideas if the two maps above are never chosen.

[biass]

op's suggest is what it used to be

i wish it still was

[KeyBlue]

Over-complicated idea, Admiral. Knowing developers (or shortage thereof) and the command, it will most likely never be passed. Either this idea with vetoing maps (but no more than 2-3), or MooseFabricator's idea of changing map rotation every day. Vetoing seems more feasible to do because it will not require an admin/mod to wake up and start their day by choosing several random maps.

You do realise that changing maps each 1-3 days is probably easily done automatically or can be atleast scheduled for several weeks ahead of time. So the whole admin/mod choosing maps isn't an issue.

But just having 3 maps on a single day just isn't ideal for people that want to spam ladder. We already don't like getting the same map each time. So making sure you only can get 3 isn't a solution. Not to mention if one of those 3 is one you don't like. Not everyone wants to/has the time to just wait 3 days for the next rotation to spam ladder either. (think weekends).

[Hawkei]

With 4-5 vetos you might potentially exclude a huge chunk of the map pool. Considering that both players veto are taking into account that is perhaps 8 or 10 maps which might be excluded. Another problem you must recognise is that maps are selected across a range of map size and playstyle categories. With 5x5, 10x10, and 20x20 maps - and predominance for land, sea, and air combat. Because the map pool during any rotation cycle needs to be kept fairly small there are only a few of each type. Take for instance 20x20 maps. Only 3 of which are in any rotation. Now if the majority of player veto those maps, this means that the players who actually enjoy 20x20 will almost never be able to play on them.

I hold to the idea that the map pool itself is a variable in determining what rank is - and that ladder rank can only truly be representative when players are forced to play the full variety of map types. If we introduce veto then we are allowing players to play only those maps which they like. This changes everything.

[RealityCheck]

Take for instance 20x20 maps. Only 3 of which are in any rotation. Now if the majority of player veto those maps, this means that the players who actually enjoy 20x20 will almost never be able to play on them.

This will probably mean that the majority of players don't like these maps? But are currently forced to play them? All in the name of some abstract "fairness"?
I hold to the view that the game should be most of all fun, not most of all fair. Of course, we should strive to find good compromise between these two things, but fun is more important, because FAF community is small. You have competitiveness when you have a large playerbase.

[Mel_Gibson]

There is already a solution to this in the form of a 1 map pool. No need to try and learn 100 rainman build orders for 30 different maps.

Setons is your salvation. All day, every day. Absolution awaits you.

Ctrl kmen.