Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread
-
@spikeynoob you guys did a sweaty t2 air all in vs 1ks smh xD
good evidence for ftx though
-
I was very excided about "New 1v1 Ladder Map Selections", where was said about the intention of matchmaker team to eliminate very small or large maps and extremely high reclaim maps, and focus on more consistent ladder experience
I was thinking about "no 5x5 (sad), no 20x20 (good), more 10x10 (15x15, maybe?) open palm-ish (gold standard for me) type of maps, no reclaim mountains etcAnd now i am extremely disappointed
They indeed removed 5x5 for 1200+ (sad, but doable)
But now from 8 maps i got 3 20x20, so if press a btn i got large map in 37.5% cases
More over, i have no idea how Bermuda Locket (20x20 map with reclaim mountains) can be in the pool where supposed to not be large maps and maps with reclaim mountains
Crossfire canal also, it is again large map, and you can say anything, but you cannot say about any "consistency" in ladder gameplay when this map in a pool. The land paths to enemy bases are non-existing there, so you cannot push with land spam directly, which is maybe fine alone, but not with the fact that navy also fights in thin water tunnels. The crossfire canal gameplay differs from average ladder map very drastically. And this is only the cherry on the cake, it shouldnt be there just because its 20x20.
I cannot say anything bad about point of reach except its size tho (yes, direct land push is impossible, but atleast navy gameplay is "as always"). As with all 20x20, the game length there can be very different than 10x10. Cannot see any sense being 20x20 in a pool where is no 5x5 for "game length should be consistent" reason.Additional feedback data:
Im 1600 1v1 ladder
here is the tier-list of current mappool:
as you see, the pool overall is not so bad
Bad is the fact that i got 100% of S-tier maps and 62% of A-tier maps deleted just because im in 1200+ bracket
With 37.5% of 20x20 maps in my pool i surelly will press the btn less, will probably just switch to 3v3 where you have no 20x20 in the pool at all (also the pool full of neroxis is very tasty) (lol, why we have 20x20 in 1v1 and dont have it in 3v3)
You gain rating, you get more of shitty maps, i think this is not how it should be working
Veto system would be help, if i could atleast ban bermuda and crossfire it would be good enough (except the map pool of only 6 maps is kinda small). Also in this case you can add couple of 5x5, so 20x20 lovers ban 5x5, and 5x5 lovers ban 20x20, everyone is happy
Without veto system, i think the max map size should be capped at 15x15, otherwise i doubt about any consistency in game length / gameplay.
the link to make ur tier list: https://tiermaker.com/create/faf-1v1-ladder-mappool-0923-16127913 -
You are interpreting the mappool wrong. With 1600 ladder rating you will have 13 maps in your mappool. The misinterpretation is not your fault, the announcement post of the new pool contains an error. It should have been mentioned that you get maps from your own bracket + the bracket below that.
Consequently that means ~30% of your maps will be 20x20 and the rest will be 10x10.
Bermuda Locket and Crossfire Canal are indeed somewhat on the high side in reclaim. The reason for their inclusion is that there are not many suitable alternatives that allow for navy play for 1v1. But I agree that it is not optimal, considering the parameters that were set for this new format. If you have suggestions for other navy play maps for 1v1, that are more suitable, let me know.
Last, I don't think it was ever the intention to exclude 20x20 maps completely from this 1v1 trial format, but I understand your confusion, now that I reread Arch's announcement.
I agree that 30% 20x20 maps might be a bit much. Perhaps we can remove one.
-
Yeah we'll go for max 3 20x20's instead of 4 for the upcoming pools of the trial.
-
@etfreeman said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
...
Hey apologies for not communicating the change properly. The 1v1 map pool now considers your current rating bracket and the one below it, like the other matchmaker queues. This means that the ratio of 20km maps is approx. 30% (4/13) for the highest bracket. I'll get someone with moderator rights to add that to the map pool post. Regardless, we'll consider decreasing the amount of 20km maps for the next pool.
As for Bermuda and Crossfire, I do agree that they are outliers. However, there's an unfortunate lack of navy maps suitable for 1v1. I'm not sure if we can get rid of maps such as those entirely. We'll take your feedback into consideration though. For what it's worth, note that there's no Ditch, Daroza, Painted Desert, or such maps.
Thanks for the feedback!
(damn storm replying while I was writing!)
-
Crossfire and Bermuda aren't real 20x20s. I don't even think the used area of Bermuda qualifies as 15x15. They absolutely compare to the settings of 3v3 maps in terms of playable area.
-
Hiya all,
Not sure if this it the right thread but...
I've been indulging in some FAF map making. Trying to make good 1v1 maps. Worthy of the ladder.
My FAF username is comdek.
I've got 2 maps that I would like to submit for review for possble ladder maps.(Da Fearless Assassin) - 5k - Fun map, stragticly simple, great for newer players, encourages Com fight in mid.
(Hoizons) - 10k - Strategic map, good for higher rated players, lots of work to make this a good strategic map, needs 2k players to review.I'd love any feedback,
-comdek -
I thought the intentions of the mappool changes were to decrease rng based games. I think 20km mapgen (or 15km+ land mapgen) with tons of mex on them were the most brutal offenders of inconsistent games. They'd come down to whoever gets away with the greediest proxies and slowly grind down a win, or have the game end to some random t2 air cheese or by someone getting t3 air a bit sooner (impossible to scout cuz u got 60 mex and 12 different armies to manage). Crossfire canal and PoR are kinda eh in the early game for the same proxy reasons but are nice to play once expansions are settled. Bermuda has no issues at all. It's high mass but it's impossible to lose both sides unless you're a clown
frick snoops!
-
@comdek said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
Hiya all,
Not sure if this it the right thread but...
I've been indulging in some FAF map making. Trying to make good 1v1 maps. Worthy of the ladder.
My FAF username is comdek.
I've got 2 maps that I would like to submit for review for possble ladder maps.(Da Fearless Assassin) - 5k - Fun map, stragticly simple, great for newer players, encourages Com fight in mid.
(Hoizons) - 10k - Strategic map, good for higher rated players, lots of work to make this a good strategic map, needs 2k players to review.I'd love any feedback,
-comdekYou can find the #matchmaker-submission channel on the FAF-Discord. Just create a thread there, post your maps and you'll get some feedback from us
Doing it there is way easier than the forum and keeps things organised -
Who controls the coding of the map generator?
I wonder whether it might be worth putting a cap on the amount of reclaim it can create? -
@sylph_ said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
Who controls the coding of the map generator?
I wonder whether it might be worth putting a cap on the amount of reclaim it can create?Sheikah
-
Now the pool is nice, thanks everyone, keep it like that for the whole year B)
-
As a map maker who's had a couple maps in rotation, I'd like to ask on behalf of mappers for some kind of documentation on why certain maps aren't in rotation. Currently, It's very difficult to figure out if one's own map is not in the pool due to problems with the map, or the pool was just mixing things up, as it should.
I'd like a spreadsheet or something of all the maps eligible for pool selection, and maps recently deemed ineligible, why they're ineligible, and the discord name of who made the map.
NOTE TO MAP POOL MODERATORS: Yes, I know. You guys already have a lot on your plate, that's why I'd like to volunteer to maintain the project. I firmly believe that this addition would greatly benefit map pool mappers, as they can receive one clear, concise DM, with the final verdict on what in the map needs fixing. No DM should = No problem, and if there is a problem with a mapper's map, they can expect a ping to let them know. This will greatly streamline their repairing process, as they won't need to ask every map pool mod to tell them what's wrong with the map, and why it needs to be fixed. Hopefully will end up also reducing a load from your backs.
Thanks!
-Crimson -
@thecrimsonknight said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
I firmly believe that this addition would greatly benefit map pool mappers
This is a fantastic post, worthy of reading.
I firmly believe that this addition would greatly benefit players, as well!
If you're willing to query people and maintain such a list, massive kudos to you!(I don't make maps, I just play games!)
-
just got a 2v2 (yea those do happen from time to time) on The Requisite and the spawns were wrong. @Blodir
#20923193 -
Hi Crimson. I have such a list for 1v1. But how exactly would you maintain this list? Do I need to send you an update after every iteration? How does that reduce the work I need to do? And do the members who make 2v2 and 4v4 pools send their lists as well after every iteration?
Also, when a map is submitted for a matchmaker you have a few guys from the team giving feedback. And while we often agree about a lot of stuff, there are also differences in opinion. So the idea of some "final verdict" or one concisive DM is not feasable. A mapper will receive feedback on his submission in the discord submission channel. Ideally there is a seperate thread created for that submission, so that the feedback is saved in a place that is easily found again. We dont need another list to store info that is already stored elsewhere..
If on the other hand you want an updated list of maps that are currently eligible for 1v1 matchmaker, I can provide that for you.
-
Thanks for the headsup Amygdala. I can look at it tomorrow.
-
@stormlantern All you would need to do is send me a list of what maps got removed, what maps got added, and what new maps got added. With the "Final verdict" thing, I'd probably have access to whatever chat you moderators talk in, (without chatting perms if you want,) and I'd summarize all the opinions in one DM to the map author, reducing the hassle and frustration of explaining everything to them. This will also improve overall morale, as it appears that both sides get frustrated with each other easily. Basically I'd be a record-keeper and mediator, allowing you guys to focus on moderation, instead of getting frustrated over communication. There might be an initial shock load as I won't know much about the current lists, however, once I know more, all you'll end up telling me should be ~2 sentences, and with that I can handle the "wym my map is broken?!" people.
TLDR: I'd have a role that lets me read your mod chat, (nothing more,) and I'd summarize it and send it to the map author. This should save time and/or frustration. You'd only need to send me the reasons for a map's removal, and what brand new maps were added, and their author's discord username. Over time I shouldn't need to know what maps are brand new, as I could just see that it's new via it not being on the list.
Thanks for considering my suggestion
-Crimson -
To be clear, this would be like a "valid maps pool." If a mapper's map is removed, I'll tell the author why. I'd also deal with the 10 min conversation of them defending themselves. This also serves as a place for feedback before a map re-enters the main pool, improving user experience. (AKA if someone find a problem in one of the "valid maps" they can report it to me, and I can relay that info to the map author and you guys, [unless you want me to just bypass you guys until the end of the month where I can submit a report of all the unanswered notices.] Meaning less maps will have problems that affect player's ranks.)
-
You already have access to all our discussion on maps. Its all in the submissions channel. Also, we are not moderators.. Just people who look at maps ^^.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the added value of your suggestion. Thank you for offering to help though, that is appreciated. However, I think we already try to inform mappers as much as possible. And if we fail at this, we would also fail at informing you, I'd think. No need to put in a middleman and make the process more complex than it is.
