We should make a poll concerning the number of map bans people would like in 1v1 Ranked Games

Seriously the map pool this month is horrible. Cant believe they removed 4 lakes and Nomad to put Bog Islands and kept Hill Fort

1 Like

+1

Not to mention Kilimanjaro and Continental :sweat_smile:
Many people are already complaining about the map pool, including lots of top ELO streamers.

Another added example to the long list of why we need more bans and/or Arabia only queue. (if it still wasn’t obvious already)

Unlimited bans, if you ban many maps you probably should have to wait more time. Simple as that.
Let me play arabia.

1 Like

I think no TC starts must have the rule of no vill fighting before TC is up. On higher levels this is kinda an unwritten rule. For lower levels, it isnt. Vill fights also happens on Nomad.

I do like nomad, but i dont like the vill fighting.

I do not like it either, but unfortunately our TCs were in range of one another, I was Britons and he was Persians. I had to take the fight… RNG =/

-If there are 9 maps and 5/6 bans that means it is possible to never get a match.

Not if you do a little tweak to the matching algorithm.
To quote one of my above post on that particular issue :

" You can also change the matchmaking system and add a matching criteria based on map picks.
Currently the system matches players based on their ELO only. It could match players based on their ELO AND the chosen maps. In that system, if 2 given players do not have any maps in common, they can’t be matched against each other. But that’s a good thing : those two players just don’t enjoy playing on the same maps. If they are forced to play against each other, one of them is not gonna enjoy his time because he will be matched on a map he dislikes.
Edit : that being said, realistically most people will at least have Arabia in common so most people will be able to be matched against each other at least on Arabia. Those who ban Arabia will have less players to be matched against, but that’s just a consequence of not wanting to play what most people are fine with playing. "

1 Like

Heaven forbid they have a system where bans happen after players/teams are drawn. That would just make too much sense.

I know. Crazy talk. It’s not like games haven’t been able to do things like that ever before.

I really think this is overthinking the issue. Just change when bans are done with a back and forth between the players. Adds seconds to the pre-match and likely makes the queue time go down by more time than you have to add, as the game won’t have to sift through everyone’s individual bans like it’s a form-post and not a game.

That doesnt sound like a real solution. I even foresee more Alt+F4 in this time frame, because the enemy picked the maps you liked to play.

This increase waiting time. For most players who play the most popular maps nothing really changed. For the pros (they already seems to have longer waiting times, because the thin number of players) and for players who also want to play less popular maps, they waiting time will increase. I dont know if that is something we really want.

Maybe i have another solution: If we have a look at the current issue:

  1. Players want more control about the maps they want to play.
  2. Cysion (one of the devs) have said someone that they want to encourage the players to play on different maps (I have heard this somewhere, i dont have the source).
  3. We dont really want many more waiting time if possible.

I think i found some solution to this issue. For this solution we don’t have to change the current MM system at all. So there won’t be any changes for #3, which is good.
Before you enter the queue, you normally pick your bans. In the new situation you also can pick your favorite map(s). Your favorite maps dont have any impact on MM. It only affects the maps you played on. After making the match, the system picks a map from the available maps (non banned maps).

  1. If one of more maps are favorite for both players: they system can only pick out these maps. This means if both players pick Arabia as favorite map, the game will be played on Arabia, even if Arena isnt also not banned by both players.
  2. Normally a non banned map have the same probability of being picked. Selection maps as favorite will give the maps some weights. This means it is more likely to be playing on those maps. For example if Arabia, Arena, Hill Fort and Mountain Pass are the only non banned maps after the match, and both players pick Arabia as favorite map, the system will pick the maps based on the following %: 85% Arabia, 5% Arena, 5% Hill fort and 5% Mountain Pass. If for example Arabia is pick by 1 player and Arena by the other player, we could have: 45% Arabia, 45% Arena, 5% Hill Fort, 5% Mountain Pass. (given % are just examples).

I think the second option is more feasible for team games too. I dont think it will happens much in a 4v4 that every player has set the same maps as favorite.

1 Like

This will not increase waiting time for pros and top elo players as long as they have some maps in common. And as was said be fore, realistically this will be the case 99% of the time, they will have at least one map in common. More often than not, multiple maps in common (especially pros who do like to have map variety). So the waiting time will remain exactly the same as it is now. Except those top elo/pro players won’t be forced to play on maps they judge to be un-interesting or just flat out bad maps.
I would suggest you watch Hera and TheViper’s youtube videos on the last patch. Those 2 are probably the most prominent top elo streamers/players on the scene. They are clearly unhappy with the map pool, as are many other people. Unlimited bans would allow them to better narrow the map pool they want to play on. There are actually 4 bans available, but the amount of “bad” maps is more than 4.

And I will repeat again, waiting time doesn’t change as long as you have maps in common with other people which will be the case most of the time even with unlimited bans.

The extreme cases that fit what you describe (longer waiting times) are those who ban the popular maps and who only want to play unpopular maps. Well guess what, that’s actually fair that those people have to wait longer to find a game. More fair than forcing of the rest of the player base (which accounts for more than 90%) to play their maps even though they utterly dislike them.

Edit : if they want to reduce their waiting time to what it used to be, they just have to un-ban the 1 or 2 most popular maps. The system could display a list of the maps in the pool, ranked by popularity, the top of said list would be the map that is banned the least. If you un-ban that map, you will be assured to have minimal waiting time. /end Edit

That system of favorite maps has some good potential if done correctly.
Edit : One issue that can possibly arise with the system you describe is that for 2 given players, it may always pick the same map, even if they have multiple maps in common. /end edit
Therefore, what I would suggest is that, instead of picking just 1 favorite map, you actually rank your chosen maps from 1 to 9 . (or 1 to 5 if you have banned 4 maps).

When the systems match 2 players together, it will select all the common maps of those 2 players, which is already the case with the current system. But this time, it will give higher picking rates to the maps with the highest average favorite rank.

Example :

Player 1 :

  1. Arabia
  2. Arena
  3. MegaRandom
  4. Golden pit
  5. Bog Islands

Player 2 :

  1. Arena
  2. Kilimandjaro
  3. Arabia
  4. Hillfort
  5. Bog islands

Common maps between those 2 are : Arabia, Arena, and Bog Islands

Arena : [rank 1 + rank 2 = 3] is the highest choice
Arabia : [1+3 = 4] comes at 2nd place
Bog Islands : [5+5 = 10] comes at 3rd place

When choosing the map to be played between those 2 players, the system will give higher pick rate
to Arena, then to Arabia, then to Bog Islands. Example : 50% chance for Arena, 35% chance for Arabia, 15% chance for Bog Islands.

This seems complicated at first, but it’s simple mathematics, and once an algorithm is coded for it it’s actually simple.

1 Like

Hardly. That’s why bans should alternate between the two players until both run out of bans. It’s a far more reasonable system than a blind map pick is and if players have the same number of maps banned as we currently have.

Your justification for players Alt-F4ing is flimsy at best. It would be no more than currently.

The benefits of shorter wait time and active input far outweigh sticking to the current one, which is creating wait time lag and leading to players to see the same maps back to back often.

The current system is one that would have been acceptable in 2002, not 2020.

1 Like

That idea has some good potential as well.
We can give each player a maximum of 5 seconds to ban one map. Once those 5 seconds are spent and the player still hasn’t banned any maps, the ban is blank/no ban.
Then the total time spent for the ban phase will be maximum 8 bans x 5 seconds = 40 seconds

That’s a significant added time for the queue, but it’s still reasonable and that’s the worst case scenario. If both players are fast at banning their maps, the phase will be quick.

One issue that players might find with that is that they can’t really go afk while in queue because they have to be there for the map bans. This could be resolved by allowing players to select pre-bans before the queue.

Also, when compared to a system with “favorites” that we described above, that system wouldn’t allow you to rank your chosen maps in order of preference so that they have higher picking rates. It would still be a good improvement compared to the current system though.