I say all because at that point it won’t matter since there will be more than enough bans for all the insta ban maps/game modes and then some.
Doesn’t matter.
You’re not the chosen one.
You’re not special.
You don’t get to dictate what is and isn’t random map.
Especially when whst you want clearly conflicts with the playerbase at large
You dont wanr nomad and megarandom? Ban them
2 Likes
That also doesn’t matter because there would be more than enough bans.
And if I did remove non-standard start scripts from the queue? Well then the bans can be more focused on what players would rather not play rather than what they absolutely won’t.
The problem with the current ban system - they are wasted on insta ban maps and limited so you can’t ban the one’s you’d rather not play afterwards.
In team queues the problem is you only get one ban, be it either nomad or mega random you have a higher chance of getting one or the other unless you party up.
And from what I hear even if you ban a map you may still get stuck with it in team queues as a single player.
I’m not surprised some are calling for unlimited bans because of this - it would ruin the queue, but I can see where they come from, so I’m presenting the middle ground.
Except you literally screwed those who like those maps. And why? Because YOU don’t like it.
Well how would you feel if someone went in and edited map scripts so that castles had to be a certain distance from TCs and that went live in the Map pool. You probably wouldn’t enjoy that given your fortress style would you?
So don’t go taking what others enjoy.
But you have q different idea of insta-ban then other people
You introduce black forest and it becomes insta-ban for me.
So ask for another ban to be available. Not outright removal. Especially considering most team game fans enjoy those maps.
You’re not presenting a middle ground. You’re presenting a way to ruin things for team game fans. A middle ground would be increased number of bans
Which is why I suggest all maps be added to the queue instead of outright picking and choosing, I may express my opinion towards such, but with 49% of the pool being able to be banned and 30% starred, it’s more than enough bans for any insta-ban preference such as yours or mine while increasing the odds that one of the maps will be starred by both players which increases the odds that the map played will be one both like.
And even if it’s neither, at least the remaining maps will be something you didn’t insta-ban since there are more than enough bans that you will most certainly be able to ban most of the maps you’d rather not play as well on top of that.
Except thats not a middle ground. Adding all the maps means single player fans now have to waste bans on maps that should never be known to a 1v1 pool. Why even add black forest when it’ll just get vetoed by everyone
Since the amount of bans scales to 49% of the pool, regardless of how many maps there are it won’t matter however many such maps exist.
Not to mention the 30% map stars available to help narrow the map focus.
Also, don’t underestimate black forest.
Banning 50% of the pool is dumb too. You want a true middle ground
In 1v1 add popularly voted in maps (4 lakes and the like) to the guarantee pool.
Increase the total maps to 13/15
Increase bans to 4/5.
Do the same in team games.
If it were to be that than I would allow map stars to count one higher than possible map bans.
As for my opinion on removing separate game modes from the queue and standardizing it - it’s moreso intended for if the current system remains to reduce wasted bans.
I’m not going to touch on most of it, but do you realize how bad an idea it is to let people add their custom maps to the pool? It will turn into chaos. You complain about mega-random and nomad, yet endorse a system that will lead to the introduction of maps dozens of times worse. It’s just a bad idea all round if I’m being honest.
1 Like
Custom maps being added to the pool isn’t part of the conversation tho
I was referring to the devs adding more new maps they make or approve of.
Oh. The wording really sounds like each player is able to add their own custom map scripts to their personal map pool, which creates huge problems.
Worry not, that is not my intention
Added additional wording to the main post no.4
@TheConqueror753
- Was meant to be solely meant towards the devs, added(devs) at the front of it to hopefully account for that.
I also want nomad and mega random to be played, and placing them in a separate queue as well as adding them to the ranked lobby system alongside other game modes that would do well together in a party mode ranked queue alongside the custom lobby ranked system will ensure that they get played far more often than they are now.
This will also increase the popularity of the ranked lobby system as well as help towards popularizing a secondary ranked queue that replaces, or adds to, the empire wars queue(empire wars would be there as well)
The secondary queue retaining modes such as death match, regicide, empire wars, nomad, mega random(in its current state), king of the hill, diplomacy(any type), and many other popular modes that could very well be added and enjoyed by the populace. While individual elo would be counted towards the game-type played and emphasized further in the ranked custom lobby system.
(Added to main post under clause 5.)
However if preferred keeping nomad and mega random in the mainline queue is also an option alongside other maps, up to the devs in the end on that one.
(Added to bottom of main post)
Additional 6. Add in an unranked ranking visible in-game to allow for greater unranked lobby anti smurfing ability for custom lobby creators.
Having much more maps which can be banned will lead to even more complains from people who don’t get their most liked maps. So this suggestion is terrible. No one really want this solution. It is kind of picking the worst thing of the lobby and combine it with the worst thing of the current match making. You can’t really expect something good as result of these points.
Agreed. I would like to add a more practical concern: Does the average player even know all maps that are available for 1v1 in principle? Honestly, I don’t. And I would hate to get to play a map I have no clue about how it looks like.
Currently, it is totally feasible to look at the 1-2 exotic maps in the pool and prepare a bit just in case they turn up, perhaps even practice a build if the map has non-standard resources to start with (I did this, e.g., with Fortress from a recent rotation).
With all maps available all the time this is not feasible anymore.
It would be useful if we could see how many players are queuing up for each map in real time in each 1000 ELO range, e.g. 1100-1200 etc.
That way you could alter your map choices based on how many players you can see queuing for each map. Kind of like when you could see how many players were online in each lobby room on Voobly.
1 Like
It would be static, within 100 elo of your existing elo in both directions
It would certainly be a good change to have a little more map variation, and elo should be able to take into account a player’s overall ability to adapt to such maps.
I’d personally be banning non-standard start types and some I’d prefer not to, but I would also be open to play all kinds of maps rather than keep going with a stale single map practice that reduces overall player skill and focuses on a single practice. I want to be challenged, and with the odds increased of starring at least one map the enemy has starred, I believe more often than not a map will be one that both players agree on.
1 Like
Having much more stars increases the odds that you will both agree on a map to play, and there will be more than enough bans to remove both the insta-bans as well as most if not all of the ‘would rather not play this one’ maps.
For those that want a single map, we have an incoming ranked custom lobby system and we also have lobbies in general.