The map pool should have 7 maps, 2 open, 1 semi-open/hybrid, 2 closed, 1 water and 1 for other types, and you should have 4 bans

It seems after what we got for map pool voting the situation became way worse.

IMO it is for the better to make the map pool have a fixed number of types of maps, so if the voting on maps from the players didn’t match the general rule for the fixed map pool it will be declined.

Giving 7 maps and 4 bans, 2 of them open, 1 semi-open and 2 closed, 1 water and 1 for other will always bring the satisfaction for all players since you will be always able to ban the types that you don’t want.

Example: Let’s say I am open maps player, so I got this map pool, I will be able to ban 4 maps and have 2 open and 1 semi and I also still have the prefered map choice. This will always makes you get whatever you want.

As I said the main thing is voting on the maps should be controlled by the system to match this new design that I suggested to bring the same formation, 2 open, 1 semi, 2 closed, 1 water and 1 for other types (nomad, megarandom, etc).

What do you think?

Technically speaking, this won’t make everyone happy, when you consider that fact that some people (however rare), may only want to play full water maps, and absolutely nothing else.

Set # of maps = m
Set # of players = n
Set # of bans = b

Then we now have m >= bn+1.

This makes sure that there is at least one free map. Matching can be done on just the player base without added restrictions.

In you suggestion this isnt true anymore. As result waiting times will increase. I dont like that part of you suggestion.


Then I think at least we should have a control system for the voting by the devs, after the players voted, the devs should review the map pool then they should decide if it makes sense or no then they may declined and make new pool or accept.

Who cares? Everyone will be able to play the type of the maps that they like by this system.

1 Like

But my point is that they won’t necessarily, so I imagine that they care.

1 Like

Howcome? If you are open player will get what you want, if you are water you will get what you want, if you are closed you will get what you want, so everyone should be happy.

Whatever it is, it will be much better than the current voting system for the map pool.

If you want to play only water maps, lets say islands, you can’t ban the other 6 maps that you don’t want to play.

I dont really see the issue with the current set up, compared to your suggestion.

Only thing i would change is making the voting only for active ranked players. What counts as active can be discussed / needs to be defined. Aan result people who dont play ranked cant vote any more. So it will be a better reflection of the player base of ranked games.

Ranked is the competitive setting. It should not be an one trick pony place. You must be able to play all kind of maps. Some control about it, seems fine. So some bans and the favorite feature is OK to me. But ranked shouldnt be the place just only one type of map.

Based on your suggestion you makes sure to get 3 (semi) open maps, so you can enjoy the map pool, but someone who likes more closed maps is less happy about your suggested map pool. He still cant play only (semi) closed maps.

So this idea seems more like a way to push open maps on everyone, if you like it or not.

From where did you get this rule? Is this a rule for the game? People have the right to play whatever they want
Even the pros don’t play all kind of maps.

It is clear that the majority of the community like Arabia and semi Arabia maps so ofcourse I will support this direction, and who told you the closed players will not get their maps? They have 4 bans out of 7 maps. Everyone will be able to get what he wants.

As I said I don’t mind to keep the current system as it is, but imo the devs should have the final decision to approve the map pool or no after the vote done, so they have the right to change it even after the vote.

That is how i see the ranked ladder. And i feel like that is also the direction in which the devs are thinking.

Ranked is a special setting with a pre set rule set. If you do want to play whatever you want, then you can always play in the lobby. No one force you to play ranked. So you already have the right to play what you want.

It is clear from what? The map voting suggest something else. I was even amazed that amazon tunnel got voted in into the 1v1 map pool. Seems like there is enough request for playing these kind of maps as well. So for me it is not clear the majority wants open maps.

Why should the devs have a review? You seem to love using the majority as argument. If a map gets a lot of votes, why should the devs over rule that? If they majority wants open maps, then we will get more open maps in the map pool. If the majority wants more closed maps, then you get more closed maps.

You want what the majority wants and you want the devs to review the outcome of the voting to over rule some of the non open maps. I dont really get that. That seems to be a contradiction.

It seems your problem is that you really think the votes are correct or honest so depending on that you gave your judges.

It seems you don’t realize that many people give their votes and they don’t even play ranked.

If this is your concern with the voting, the fix will be easy: let only active ranked players vote. We only have to define active player. I will support that change. Then there is still no need for a review by the devs team.

I even have made this suggestion in the past, so i fully support this change.

Review and over ruling by the devs team only leads to confusing and non transparent. Just fixing who can vote is pretty clear and much more transparent.

And how do you decide whichs maps are “open” or “closed”? Some players would type arabia as “open” while others “closed” and anothers “semi-open”, there is even very probably one guy in hearth which would call it hybrid cause of the ponds 11 .
There is no such strict category in maps to me,
The only category which is easy to tell is Hybrid / land map and that’s all.

I think nomad deserves it’s own “category” that shouldn’t be shared with megarandom. I liked the categories Memb split the maps up into for warlords. Personally I think unique tournament maps should also be added occasionally to the 1v1 (and team games) pool.

And while we’re at it, can we get a special map category for team games as well?

What belongs to which map pool is pretty much debatable. I always thougth that maps like Oasis and yucatan are more closed maps. Pretty easy to wall and boom. I wont consider them semi open. I would put them in closed.

A map like HideOut is more aggressive then it sound. It is not just Arena, but with weaker walls and the forest in the middle instead of the outside. I think you may argue Hideout belongs more to Semi open then maps like Oasis and Yucatan.

I would call Baltic also a hybrid map, since you can easily go for land aggression. For something to be a water map, you need a transport to go to the enemy TC.

This already shows it isnt that easy to maps in a category and gets everyones agrement.

That is certainly true.
However, the question is whether the categorization is good enough for its intended purpose.

For instance, I would consider it great if every map pool would consist of a random selection of these 21 map so that every of the seven categories is represented exactly once in each pool.

That’s just a dream though, as it would imply having Arabia and Arena non-permanent. :wink:

2 open maps, 2 semi-open maps, 2 hybtrid mpas, 2 closed maps, 2 water maps, and 0 ban.


Full maps set, and 0 ban.

1 ban in team game is fair… 4 bans in team game will make impossible to find a game because all maps will be potentially banned.

But according to me Amazon tunnel should be totally ban from the ranked game… It’s a total waste of time this map and I cannot understand why people vote for this crap.