Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?

Rather than splitting up the groups of players willing to play 1v1, I'd rather just have more mapgen maps added to the pools, especially at the lower ratings.
(When I was lower rating it bothered me that mapgen maps were so rare.)

I agree, increasing mapgen ratio in the pool sounds like an easy way out without needing to change much

There is no evidence that the majority wants more MapGens though

I think there is a logical fallacy here.

I'm suggesting AND logic not OR logic.

The faf client can queue multiple queues at the same time - no split just another queue "1v1 Random Map".

If there are not many players online just queue both. We just give the players more option.

@dgun The extra option splits the cue.
The 'and' vs 'or' can be read 2 ways;
Adding (and) an extra queue splits 1v1 players into those that want constructed maps, OR those that want mapgen maps.

So a new cue splits the (already small) playerbase, and forces 1v1 players to make a decision between mapgen OR pre-constructed.

My thought to add a few more mapgen maps to the current list tries to satisfy both (and), though as Sladow-Noob says there's no evidence that the majority wants it. (Personally I'd like to have seen a few more when I was in the lower levels, but certainly not more than 25%).
I assume a poll happened sometime (recently?) and apologise for not seeing it...

@sladow-noob said in Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?:

There is no evidence that the majority wants more MapGens though

When searching I found this quote from april: ""Especially seeing MapGen being in the top or at least in the upper half in nearly each tier list". From the topic it seemed as though you meant that most people like mapgen, but I might be misunderstanding, and apologise if I am.

Thanks, but why does it split if you can just queue both?

@dgun said in Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?:

Thanks, but why does it split if you can just queue both?

Because if 5 players want to 1v1, but 3 are queueing for generated and 2 are queueing for mapgen, then there are 2 queues (and no games!).
The 1 queue is split into 2.
5 players are split into 2 and 3.

Yes and that would be no problem when lots of people are queuing. But if there are just a few players online and the queues are low and the player wants a game the player will just queue in both. Generally people queue for 1v1s when there are not enough players online for 3s it seems currently.

Your assuming people will only queue in 1 of the queues, not both. I think people would just queue both if they don't mind either mode, especially when there are not many players online.

@dgun said in Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?:

Generally people queue for 1v1s when there are not enough players online for 3s it seems currently.

Speak for yourself!

@dgun said in Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?:

Your assuming people will only queue in 1 of the queues, not both. I think people would just queue both if they don't mind either mode, especially when there are not many players online.

I assumed you meant that because the other option didn't make sense - if you can describe how the suggestion of adding both queues and people always queueing for both is any different from just adding more mapgens to the 1v1 map pool, that would help me. (I'm sorry for needing it explained.)

(I don't think there are ever enough players to make queueing for choosing one or the other to be a good idea. Bear in mind that matches are selected to pair similarly-skilled players, and I don't think I've ever seen more than 7 players in queue.)

Speak for yourself!

I don't know where to access the stats but I think 3s since launch has been far and away the most popular queue.

I assumed you meant that because the other option didn't make sense - if you can describe how the suggestion of adding both queues and people always queueing for both is any different from just adding more mapgens to the 1v1 map pool, that would help me. (I'm sorry for needing it explained.)

Sure thanks I think the key point is when the servers are dead then people will just queue what ever they can to get a game if that is what they want (queue everything). And when the queues are pumping then expressing a preference (only queuing the game you want) will actually lead to more games played than currently. This is because there are players (me included) that are reluctant to play 1v1s that don't want to play pre-made maps. This has been my experience chatting in the 1v1s ive played recently.

Mangen is where the true skill is. Read the map and identify what to do when and where. To bad faf felt in to static map disease. Some games like AoE2 competitive play is only mapgen.

@karlhoffman 3v3 is pure map gen and very popular now.

@sladow-noob Time for a poll. Put it on the news tab, see if we can get some actual voting going on.

Why is a poll more relevant than the actual results of trying it out and looking at the player numbers?

Yea I don’t see any harm in trying it out for a month or something and then having some real data to make a decision on rather than speculating how people might behave. Mapgen week isn’t really comparable because everyone was forced to play mapgen only and some folks didn’t like that.

A seperate 1v1 mapgen que will definitely split up the playerpool. As we have seen before, one que will take players from another que. 3v3 mapgen just about killed 4v4. I noticed people tend to not que in empty ques, even if it doesn't really require them to click them.

From a gamedesign perspective, it also doesn't really make any sense to make a separate que. And trying out mapgen only for a single month is not really a reliable measurement either, since the novelty effect can skew the results.

In general, I think the player base is quite evenly split, where about as much people prefer mapgen as pre-made maps. Considering all this, I think a healthy mix of mapgen and pre-made maps combined in one pool makes the most sense. That being said, I would be fine with throwing in a few 1v1 mapgen only months, just to appeal to those who prefer that.

most online games make stuff like this as "events", so people that want to play a certain mode etc. know a specific time, when everyone else will play that mode.
You could for example a once/twice per week time window where 1v1 ladder will be mapgen only
Or if it's easier make mapgen week once a month.

@blackyps said in Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?:

Why is a poll more relevant than the actual results of trying it out and looking at the player numbers?

Earnest answer attempt:
Despite my liking mapgen maps enough to want a few more in the 1v1 que, adding mapgen maps, or an extra queue, wouldn't really make me play any more or less games per week. It would be more likely to effect how quickly I got tired of the game over the years, than how often I played per week. (tbh games per week depends far more on my jobs) while more data from a poll, if it's easy to make, sounds valuable.

(I know, players don't even always know what we really prefer! )

@stormlantern said in Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?:

In general, I think the player base is quite evenly split, where about as much people prefer mapgen as pre-made maps. Considering all this, I think a healthy mix of mapgen and pre-made maps combined in one pool makes the most sense. That being said, I would be fine with throwing in a few 1v1 mapgen only months, just to appeal to those who prefer that.

I generally agree with this. The exception, I think, is 1v1 lower ratings. I never got ANY mapgen games when I was at low rating, despite really wanting to play them. (I just checked to make sure, it still seems to be the case with the latest pool. I assume it's a trend by design.)

I can totally understand the 'reason' a map comittee probably decides on no random maps for newcomers / low ratings - keep it simple, give them just a small number of maps to learn etc...
The trouble is, I reckon; a genuine newcomer, (and many low-rated players), isn't trying to learn maps at all! They're not even building on the hydro! They're trying to get good at 1 or maybe 2 build orders, and get tanks on the battlefield.
Any map-specific 'tricks' feel like a hurdle thrown in when you're still learning to crawl; from reclaiming forests on ambush pass, to building up cliffs or pgens for transports on Auburn canyon, and don't even get me STARTED on reclaiming the entire middle city on Loki!!!

I just have a feeling that the idea of low-rating 1v1 being only a small number of maps might not actually feel 'fun' for newcomers, nor be particularly suited to players that should just be learning 'standard' play. And honestly, I felt completely cheated the first time I realised Loki buildings didn't give reclaim mass... Or that engineers could build up certain cliffs in certain spots etc. At least when it happens on a mapgen map, you feel like you got outplayed, rather than feeling like you're losing to knowledge-checks!

I could be totally wrong, of course!
(I understand the flip-side is getting out of low rating without that knowledge and then having to learn it in harder games!)