Can we Pleaassee have 1 v1 random map only queue?

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!)

Those map tricks aren’t map tricks. They’re essential components for reading maps, they’re just “map tricks” because it’s the first exposure to them and the map often centers on that element of the game.

Loki is a map trick, though. Only one that was similar to me was the EotS stripper pole that was hard to notice and gave huge mass but these days ctrl+shift exposes that. Should always be looking at reclaim at game start so it fell out of that category for me. Ah, there is the og forbidden pass where you could walk over a mountain but that was made more obvious in the faf version iirc.

@ftxcommando I tried ctrl+shift in loki! Kindof annoyed me that the buildings didn't show their mass value!
Regarding the other things though - my point is simply that at the lowest level, players are focusing on a basic build order, and while an enemy figuring out a clever cliff-build on a mapgen map feels like 'wow, I got outplayed', having them do it on a pre-generated map feels more like 'I lost because I don't know maps yet'... And then after learning that lesson you have to figure out how this affects the build order that you're already struggling to get right, next time you get that map!
While low-rating players playing mapgen maps would see it as an opportunity to practice that build order without any 'funny stuff' messing it up!

I'm certainly not against pre-generated maps in low-rating 1v1 though! They're great, and teach good lessons... I just think mapgen might not be excluded in principle; if anything it feels more 'fair' to newbies, and can still present lessons while feeling that way.

I agree with Sylph. If you want people to learn to read maps, instead of just memorizing certain maps, mapgen is the way to go. In general I feel mapgen is better and more interesting for new players because they aren't starting off even further behind by lacking the knowledge of the map. Everybody's seeing the map for the first time together, and from there it comes down to how well they read the map.

Wow so much good conversation.

I think making 1v1 only map gen was a bad move as a lot of people love the maps in rotation, and enjoy perfecting a map. Just look at sentons. A certain type of player loves memorizing and refining a build. A certain type of player hates memorizing and wants a purely level playing field and reading a map on the fly.

When 1v1 was set to mapgen only we were excluding a type of players preference so it is understandable that the game count when down. This also supports my theory that game count will go up if there is a mapgen only queue that complements the standard 1v1 queue.

I think 3v3 ate into 4v4 because it is fresh and new and if people queue both 3v3 will match first. Less chance of a single lagger messing up the game also.

Could we just try a 1v1 mapgen queue for a month and see what happens?

Facilitating players to more accurately express the game that they would like to play through queuing cant be a bad thing?

Yeah previously we didnt include mapgen in the lower brackets for two reasons. First because we thought the newer player would want some predictability in gameplay by playing maps they are familiar with. And second we noticed that a lot of small size (5x5 and some 7.5x7.5) are often pretty low quality mpagens with weird gameplay elements. But given the feedback in this thread we can start by trying out some 7.5x7.5 mapgen in the 200-700 bracket (if the team agrees), starting 1 november. Lets see what kind of maps are generated and how they will be received.