Quick (Ranked) Match Map Pool Feedback

[FlyingMustache]

16 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

I'm with Frequency here.

Having things tinkered to random does not do well in a competitive environment.

Destroyable bridges being random is kind of silly and borderline useless. And when it is useful it is absolutely critical to the game usually (and I don't want my game determined by whether or not a silly setting was on or off).

No dog Engi eat is much more interesting of an option, but lends to problems with lamers (i.e. if dog can't eat engi, then my engi is super engi and I can engi walk 10x better, and engi rush 100x better). Having it set to random is borderline suicide. It's already bad enough as it is, there's just no reason to have this setting as random.

Multi-engineer is most likely the only option worth trying as it would be very harmful to lamers. I'm interested in this, but either have it ON or OFF. Not random.

Supers being random is debatable, has worked before, and I can see it working as random. I have no real problem personally with it -- I think the current set up of ALWAYS supers ON is bad for gameplay as CekaJ has discussed -- it puts allies in a very bad spot on most situations. I think some work here could be done.

 

So TLDR: Multi-engi? Maybe ON worth experimenting. SW OFF on all or certain situations is really worth exploring. Others? Bad idea.

At least there's some discussion here. Not just "fk nob. Shit setting. l000l"

[[CC] RaVaGe]

Is that what you expected?

[XXxPrePxX]

3 hours ago, FlyingMustache said:

At least there's some discussion here. Not just "fk nob. Shit setting. l000l"

Personally, I'd like to find stronger reasons then to just try it out :p. I mean no dog engi eat makes engi-rushing very strong, having random multi-engineer and random destroyable bridges seems totally counterproductive to a fun and competitive environment. Superweapons are, of course, the more important option here.

But all in all, PrezSpammer is the only one I've seen promoting these ideas as all random. It takes more than one here (and for these drastic changes, a large force). So, kind of moot points there and we should probably get back on to topic of QM ranked matches.

He did, however, mention some fun maps... although many of his maps are a bit broken (Lake Blitzen for instance).

[dkeeton]

9 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

I mean no dog engi eat makes engi-rushing very strong

Doesn't no dog eng work well  together with multi-engineer?

I'm curious why people don't like multi-eng.

[a1nthony]

2 hours ago, dkeeton said:

Doesn't no dog eng work well  together with multi-engineer?

I'm curious why people don't like multi-eng.

Multi engi Is a great setting, and I think it’s perfect to have on, however the yuri faction deserves to get engid.

with no dog eat on, I think people can still steal techs by “taking them last.” Also playing players who are above your skill level, sometimes the only option is to engi eat and  steal their derrick to level out the playing field!

[XXxPrePxX]

5 hours ago, dkeeton said:

Doesn't no dog eng work well  together with multi-engineer?

I'm curious why people don't like multi-eng.

I was thinking about this last night.

However, while there is inherent advantage against lamers if they are both on together, then I imagine scenarios that Anthony pointed out. What If I just send my engis to capture every derrick? The opponent can't kill my engis with dogs. That's a problem central to no dog eng and would really be annoying, I think.

I don't think the benefits outweigh the negatives for these settings. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[FlyingMustache]

17 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Personally, I'd like to find stronger reasons then to just try it out :p. I mean no dog engi eat makes engi-rushing very strong, having random multi-engineer and random destroyable bridges seems totally counterproductive to a fun and competitive environment. Superweapons are, of course, the more important option here.

But all in all, PrezSpammer is the only one I've seen promoting these ideas as all random. It takes more than one here (and for these drastic changes, a large force). So, kind of moot points there and we should probably get back on to topic of QM ranked matches.

He did, however, mention some fun maps... although many of his maps are a bit broken (Lake Blitzen for instance).

I wasn't agreeing with it all. I'm just looking for substance, some rebuttal. Some of these elitists dismiss everything that isn't their preference that they start to trap themselves in this bubble. They start believing their opinion is fact like cultists.

[PrezSpammer]

Even if making an eventual determination that it's impractical for those options I listed to constantly be set at random 50/50, there's definitely scenarios where some of them should be on at all times, like disabling multi-engi in ALL vs Yuri matches or disabling NDEE in all matches that involve high-ranking players. Perhaps try changing the odds on some of them like for example adjust Mutli-Engi to 25% chance or adjust Destroyable Bridges to 60% and so on, depending on the map, faction matchup, player rankings, etc. It might be a time-consuming process computing the appropriate odds but I'm sure others would agree, if executed properly, would positively add a different dynamic that the XWIS version had lacked. As a way to prevent players from bailing or ducking out in certain situations, keep it classified as to what the odds are of each of those four options being enabled for different scenarios.

Edited November 16, 2017 by PrezSpammer

[[CC] RaVaGe]

2 hours ago, FlyingMustache said:

Some of these elitists dismiss everything that isn't their preference that they start to trap themselves in this bubble. They start believing their opinion is fact like cultists.

 

Some of these elitists still played mod maps with noobs and other pros to have some fun, so don't think that we don't see the possibilities or what this kind of changes would result in.
It's just the fact that competitive scene should be geared towards competition, sure we could have a "surprise me" mode in QM that mixes these things up, just for the sake of fun.
Of course separately from the 1v1 ranked.

 

1 hour ago, PrezSpammer said:

Even if making an eventual determination that it's impractical for those options I listed to constantly be set at random 50/50, there's definitely scenarios where some of them should be on at all times, like disabling multi-engi in ALL vs Yuri matches or disabling NDEE in all matches that involve high-ranking players. Perhaps try changing the odds on some of them like for example adjust Mutli-Engi to 25% chance or adjust Destroyable Bridges to 60% and so on, depending on the map, faction matchup, player rankings, etc. It might be a time-consuming process computing the appropriate odds but I'm sure others would agree, if executed properly, would positively add a different dynamic that the XWIS version had lacked. As a way to prevent players from bailing or ducking out in certain situations, keep it classified as to what the odds are of each of those four options being enabled for different scenarios.

The ranked scene should have concrete rules and settings, the only variable should be player skills and ability.
Which is why we have worked so hard over the recent month to try and balance the QM map pool and point system to reflect that, the hardest part was to make the map pool offer an interesting mix of maps that would provide a dynamic experience.
 

Edited November 17, 2017 by FReQuEnZy

[Gun_Man]

On 11/14/2017 at 3:55 PM, Lucifer said:

Urban Rush   
Dune Patrol  
Blood Feud  
 
Very noob-friendly, small strategy, little movement options, not much going on at all. 

 

Offense Defense   
Dustbowl  
Official Tournament Map B  
Dry Heat  

a step up but Pretty much the same thing:  noob-friendly, not much going on. 

 

 

Right off the bat, half the maps are a complete redundancy of cheesy, noob-infested rush maps with nothing going on. If you insist on having a map that n00bs will grin upon seeing for the sake of diversity, sure. But 7 of them breaks the shit-o-meter in half, especially when thinking about all the great maps u have available ..

 

 

Golden State Freeway 
another noob friendly rush map where the bottom spawns have easy access to 3 gems spots while the top spawns only 2.   Yikes. If i was a n00b and trying to get a lucky win vs some1 decent, this is THEE map i would pick.  If not this, than any of the maps listed above.

Montana DMZ 
another noobfriendly imbalanced rush map favored by the rightside spawns.  

Stormy Weather 
Dominated by the service depot in the center, which can be caputred by a an engi protected by dogs--dogs-- a 100% luck-based unit.  And... its hard to move around and attack on this map. Its good to have slow strategic maps like this but its a complete rudancy when almost ALL of them are like this. 

 

Tour of Egypt 
One of my personal fav maps, but in this pool its a redudancy of stand-off, hard to attack, noobfriendnlyness. The map list is so shitty, it makes one of my personal fav maps unattractive. 

 

 

River Rampage
nowhere to move, nowhere to attack, a common theme in this maplist. It could be a perfect complementary map in the right list, but in this case its yet more redundancy of not- much -going -on-ness.

 

Little Big Bay 
 if the map list was good, this could be ok (at best) for the curve-ball, but with the current list it equates to more shit due to the highly awkward location of the gems. 

 

 

Reconcile 
Coldest Peak 
Unrepentant   
Heck Freezes Over 
Snow Valley 
Jungle of vietnam 

 

nice maps 

Thanks for expanding on your opinion.  Too bad they'll still ignore it

[ZiGZaG]

On 11/16/2017 at 1:18 AM, XXxPrePxX said:

I'm with Frequency here.

Having things tinkered to random does not do well in a competitive environment.

Destroyable bridges being random is kind of silly and borderline useless. And when it is useful it is absolutely critical to the game usually (and I don't want my game determined by whether or not a silly setting was on or off).

No dog Engi eat is much more interesting of an option, but lends to problems with lamers (i.e. if dog can't eat engi, then my engi is super engi and I can engi walk 10x better, and engi rush 100x better). Having it set to random is borderline suicide. It's already bad enough as it is, there's just no reason to have this setting as random.

Multi-engineer is most likely the only option worth trying as it would be very harmful to lamers. I'm interested in this, but either have it ON or OFF. Not random.

Supers being random is debatable, has worked before, and I can see it working as random. I have no real problem personally with it -- I think the current set up of ALWAYS supers ON is bad for gameplay as CekaJ has discussed -- it puts allies in a very bad spot on most situations. I think some work here could be done.

 

So TLDR: Multi-engi? Maybe ON worth experimenting. SW OFF on all or certain situations is really worth exploring. Others? Bad idea.

I support Random supers(dependent on map/faction)Multi engi is imo a terrible idea if you cant deal with 1 engi go play custom match or ra1. Destroyable bridges bieng random seems pointless.

[XXxPrePxX]

14 hours ago, PrezSpammer said:

Even if making an eventual determination that it's impractical for those options I listed to constantly be set at random 50/50, there's definitely scenarios where some of them should be on at all times, like disabling multi-engi in ALL vs Yuri matches or disabling NDEE in all matches that involve high-ranking players. Perhaps try changing the odds on some of them like for example adjust Mutli-Engi to 25% chance or adjust Destroyable Bridges to 60% and so on, depending on the map, faction matchup, player rankings, etc. It might be a time-consuming process computing the appropriate odds but I'm sure others would agree, if executed properly, would positively add a different dynamic that the XWIS version had lacked. As a way to prevent players from bailing or ducking out in certain situations, keep it classified as to what the odds are of each of those four options being enabled for different scenarios.

It all seems completely pointless.

What are gaining by having certain options on "25%" of the time? It largely negatively affects competitive play. I just don't understand what you'd want out of this other than a chaotic QM environment. How are you sure others would agree? I'd think a LARGE majority consensus would not want these options on random. 

You've also stated in other topics that you want several (absurd) maps in QM.  I get your stance -- you want a more chaotic and random environment, but it's just so far away from having a balanced and competitive environment. 

 

 

[XXxPrePxX]

5 hours ago, Gun_Man said:

Thanks for expanding on your opinion.  Too bad they'll still ignore it

Care to explain? I don't deal with the maps currently other than offer my opinions on some of them, but I think the analysis from Luci (while having great points) is far too harsh.

We have to keep in mind that Yuri is in QM and can only be played on certain maps.  Offense Defense / Dry Heat/ Offici Map B while being simplistic in their nature are all highly enjoyable and competitive maps. They've been in QM since WOL times, and I think would be supported by the large majority of the community. Same with Dune. If you want to get technical, I don't particularly like having Dune + Blood + Urban all in QM, but that is subject to change as we go.

On all of the other maps he comments on, I think he is being too harsh still.

GSF/DMZ are in QM for Yuri games. Stormy Weather is a fun map and I disagree that it is all about getting the middle. ToE is one of the better AvS maps. I have np with other choices as well.

So, to sum up, unless he can suggest better maps for YvS/YvA warfare, we are left with things like DMZ/GSF in QM. From what I know, this QM map list was not meant to please just the competitive players as well, it was meant to please the whole -- so maps like Offic map B / Dry Heat / Offense Defense are likely not going anywhere.

Quite frankly, I would be sick of QM if all it consisted of was copies of Reconcile / Jungle of Vietnam / Snow Valley / Unrepentant styles where it's based on a super competitive long game BO. I like the mixture of maps styles. 

note: I'm not suggesting that Dry Heat/ Offense Def / Dune / Offic Map B are uncompetitive. However, I do agree with Luci in that these are more simple maps... but they are competitive (just not AS super competitive as the latter). I wanted to take this note to distinguish when I talk about creating a competitive and balanced QM field (my previous post) and having maps that offer a wide variety of scenarios. 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[[CC] RaVaGe]

5 hours ago, Gun_Man said:

Thanks for expanding on your opinion.  Too bad they'll still ignore it

Too bad Luci clearly can't read the list properly and figure out that he won't be playing all those maps unless he's random.

 

[Gun_Man]

5 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Care to explain? I don't deal with the maps currently other than offer my opinions on some of them, but I think the analysis from Luci (while having great points) is far too harsh.

Just that everyone seemed to reply when he left an idiotic comment and that nobody replied when he actually explained himself.  Not saying I totally agree with his opinion - I don't care what maps are on there as long as it's not 3 versions of dune patrol and blood feud each.  Just taking the time to thank him for explaining and pointing out that his post seemed to have just been swept under the rug, despite a few good points.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

There are no multiple versions of the same map, it's the way the system works to set up maps per side.
At the moment dune patrol is set to be available in ...

• Soviet vs Soviet
• Soviet vs Yuri
• Yuri vs Yuri 
• Allied vs Allied

[Gun_Man]

8 minutes ago, FReQuEnZy said:

There are no multiple versions of the same map, it's the way the system works to set up maps per side

I get that...my concern is that I don't want to play dune patrol at all.  Shouldn't need to waste multiple rejections on one map.

[FlyingMustache]

On 11/16/2017 at 5:58 PM, FReQuEnZy said:

Some of these elitists still played mod maps with noobs and other pros to have some fun, so don't think that we don't see the possibilities or what this kind of changes would result in.
It's just the fact that competitive scene should be geared towards competition, sure we could have a "surprise me" mode in QM that mixes these things up, just for the sake of fun.
Of course separately from the 1v1 ranked.

Then show it in discussion. Prep does a good job of it, rather than simply dismissing. That's how things should be.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

2 hours ago, Gun_Man said:

I get that...my concern is that I don't want to play dune patrol at all.  Shouldn't need to waste multiple rejections on one map.

There are only 2 maps that appear twice on the list.

• Coldest peak, when playing as Allied.
• Unrepentant, when playing as Yuri.

Which will hopefully be fixed in future versions by displaying multiple scenarios on the same map as a single map on client side. @dkeeton

 

@Gun_Man I know you play mostly Soviet so you don't see any map twice. Which makes me wonder where you're getting your multiple rejections on the same map from.

 

7 minutes ago, FlyingMustache said:

Then show it in discussion. Prep does a good job of it, rather than simply dismissing. That's how things should be.

No offence but I've got better things to do with my time rather than think of a way to explain something that should be clear as day to any logical individual. 
Would take me 10 minutes to explain everything only to have 2-3 people actually reading it properly and replying to the points.

I already spent more hours than I wanted to discuss the map pool and point system. If you can post something well thought out as a reason as to why we should do something then you will get an appropriate reply, until then keep suggesting without reasonable logical explanations and complaining about our conversation etiquette.

[FlyingMustache]

10 minutes ago, FReQuEnZy said:

No offence but I've got better things to do with my time rather than think of a way to explain something that should be clear as day to any logical individual. 
Would take me 10 minutes to explain everything only to have 2-3 people actually reading it properly and replying to the points.

I already spent more hours than I wanted to discuss the map pool and point system. If you can post something well thought out as a reason as to why we should do something then you will get an appropriate reply, until then keep suggesting without reasonable logical explanations and complaining about our conversation etiquette.

What are you talking about? Logical to any individual? The arrogance of that statement is palpable lol. This post could be summed up as "I'm not going to waste more time debating because I think I know I'm right already." The initial post was me saying that we should have more varied maps. Your rebuttal: it intimidates new players. Where is your evidence for this claim? I refuted with (anecdotal though) my conversations with newbies on discord. A variety of maps in my experience is good for new players because some of them like to see their favorite map on the list. The current list reflects the same maps that only the elitists like. Where is the line drawn to differentiate from your preference/opinion vs others' preferences/opinions? This is what you're trying to dismiss with your arrogance.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

1 hour ago, FlyingMustache said:

What are you talking about? Logical to any individual? The arrogance of that statement is palpable lol. This post could be summed up as "I'm not going to waste more time debating because I think I know I'm right already." 

 

Ok, here we go with your drama bs again.
 

The initial post was me saying that we should have more varied maps. 

1

Then suggest what kind of maps are more varied, your 'suggestion' is not very clear.
If you meant that we should have a larger map pool then we've had plenty of discussions regarding that number in the testers forums.

 

 Where is your evidence for this claim? 

1

Sorry, I forgot to screenshot all the oldskoolers and casual players who wanted to QM on xwis again, but were put down by the insane amount of maps in QM.
It's evident in the way Blizzard sets up SC2's QM, if you want to take a look.

What evidence supports your suggestion?

 

A variety of maps in my experience is good for new players because some of them like to see their favorite map on the list. 

1

Seeing their favourite map on the list won't help them endure losing and learning on 20+ others.
Besides we got the most popular map, Tour of Egypt in QM...

 

The current list reflects the same maps that only the elitists like. 

1

Really? Elitists don't normally like Urban Rush, Little Big Bay, Golden State Fwy, Dustbowl.
Haven't seen many hosted games on them before QM.

Maps were chosen on balance, seeing as you're a tester you can easily read the whole discussion in the tester's section, stating what you are, here now, is kinda weird...
This thread was made mainly to get the opinion of players who don't have tester status, so if you felt so strongly about this, why didn't you voice your opinions sooner?
Not saying you can't do it now, but I'm just curious why you didn't take part in the process before when were laying the groundwork for future map pool updates.

 

1 hour ago, FlyingMustache said:

 Where is the line drawn to differentiate from your preference/opinion vs others' preferences/opinions? This is what you're trying to dismiss with your arrogance.

 

https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/7512-map-list/?page=1

Go read the thread, it's full of useful discussion and how we're all finding common ground on developing the map pool further.


(by not wanting to waste my time was that I really can't be bothered to type these kinds of explanatory posts to people who can't even read the original thread before posting, let alone take part in giving feedback as a tester, half of the people have already gone way off topic.)

[FlyingMustache]

This is definitely more like it. You're right, I should be posting on the testers forum more. I just haven't had time to dig through it all. I don't want to start drama, so I apologize if I came on a little rude.

[Gun_Man]

4 hours ago, FReQuEnZy said:

I know you play mostly Soviet so you don't see any map twice. Which makes me wonder where you're getting your multiple rejections on the same map from.

It's changing every day.  A few days ago I had to use multiple rejections for the same map.  You seem to check the map pool as it's changing, so i feel like you do in fact know where i'm getting that from...

Currently, I'm waiting for things to settle down with all this before I get into playing 1 v 1s.  Just figured I'd mention the thing that bothered me when I saw it.  Don't need you acting past edits to the map pool never existed.  You're looking like a guard poodle on here

[[CC] RaVaGe]

I haven't changed the maps in the last 4 days, so you must be deluded.

Edited November 18, 2017 by FReQuEnZy