The current system as it is without any changes (1 ban amongst 9 maps)
The current system as it is, but with the number of bans increased to between 2-4
The current system as it is, but with the number of bans increased to between 5-7
Opt-in/Infinite ban system i.e. only play the map(s) you want (even if it is just one map e.g. Arabia, Arena, Black Forest etc.)
Separate ranked map pools based on map type e.g. Open maps, Closed Maps, Hybrid Maps, Water Maps, Clown Fiesta Maps etc., with a small limited number of bans per pool
A ranked lobby where players can come together and negotiate on maps before playing together
The devs have just released a small update which changes the ranked map pool again, and this time it does seem they have implemented maps which the community prefer. However, I still think that the majority of the community is dissatisfied with the current system which leads to players hitting Alt-F4 whenever they get a map they hate and would otherwise be forced to play it.
Therefore I think it’s really important for the devs to know what system players would actually prefer, since many people are obviuously not happy with the current system. I have put choices in based on what I have observed seem to be the most popular types of system people have been requesting here.
If anyone has suggestions/additions/improvements to text etc., please let me know, and I might edit .
In case there are people who don’t appreciate this, the thing about being able to ban less than half the number of maps is it means any 2 players will always have at least one map that neither of them has banned, and hence can play against each other. So I imagine the code is matching people at present without any regard for their list of banned maps, and after matching, randomly chooses a map from those that neither player has banned. As soon as you allow more bans, obviously matchmaking becomes more limited, and can potentially become quite a complex optimisation problem. E.g. suppose:
Players 1 and 2 can be matched against each other (both have allowed map A)
Players 3 and 4 can be matched against each other (both have allowed map B)
Players 2 and 3 can be matched against each other (both have allowed map C)
Players 1 and 4 cannot be matched against each other (1 has allowed only map A, 4 has only allowed map B)
So if the game first tried to match players 2 and 3 and succeeded, it would then be unable to match 1 and 4. It has to do a global optimisation to work out that all 4 can be matched if it matches 1 with 2, and 3 with 4. It’s a pretty major change to make it work like this.
Except it’s not a small minority who are alt+f4ing, it’s a lot of people. And if you are queueing team games but stopped alt-f4ing, you might still have long queues since those people could be unlikely to play at all if they can’t at least get out of not having to play their hated maps.
That’s absolutely not what matters, I’d much rather have 2 games cancelling at start immediatly rather than spending 5 minutes in a game just to discover that one guy is AFK. Not to mention, the maps that are dodged are clown maps that everyone in the lobby doesn’t mind skipping anyway. I’ll bet you 90% people would skip Black Forest, Megarandom and Wolf Hill any day if that was possible and coincidentally those are the only maps I see dodged.
Nice, that way they will crush lower ELOs when they finally get a map they like. So not only do you suggest forcing people to play maps that they hate, you want to screw the matchmaking as well.