1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March

Why are there so many 4+ player maps in the 1v1 pool, and 8+ player maps in the 2v2 pool?
Just looking at <300 and 300-800 as that concerns me...

2v2

• 2 out of 8 maps are actually 2v2 or at least 4 player maps
• average player count is 7.25
• on average 81% more player slots than needed
• Is "Monument Valley" really a 12 player map in 2v2 pool?

1v1

• 2 out of 8 maps are actually 1v1
• average player count is 4.25
• on average 113% more player slots than needed

Especially in 1v1 it happens often that my opponent leaves immediately when we start out on Badlands. I want to do that too but I am too honest.

1v1 and 2v2 should not be seen as training for teamgames and include the big 4v4 maps for that reason. I play exclusively 1v1 and 2v2 and I want a good ladder experience and there are others, don't know %'s. In my opinion the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders should have much more, at least 75%, 1v1 and 2v2 maps.

Just because an expansion has a spawn in it doesnt suddenly make it a 2v2 map. This would imply that Regor (or sweepwing, which is in this pool and made by me) is not designed for 1v1 when it clearly was. Adding a spawn into an area where a couple of mexes are gathered is a quick way to add some versatility to the map. It doesnt make it anything outside of what it was designed to be.

@biass I can definitely admit that I was surprised to see Sweepwing was a 4 player map when I just checked, during gameplay it indeed felt like 1v1.

Sweepwing is 100% a 1v1 map. Archsimkat and I designed it to be that way.

If other people want to mess around on the map without it being a ladder game. I can chuck down another spawn or two with a button press. I already have 3 mexes (in sweepwing's case) in a group, so why not put it there? It expands the use FAF can have with my map with no extra commitment.

@biass However, this does not seem to apply to Open Palms, Badlands and Turtle Rocks, so my concern still stands.

Let alone some of the massive maps in 2v2.

In Wonder also, the spawns seem bad for 2v2. Players spawn in slot 1 through 4, but that puts players 3 and 4 in back positions and player 1 left and player 2 right, so not opposing. Making a deliberate Wonder 2v2 (or 2v2-friendly) or replacing it seems like a better experience to me.

@Valki
I think we need to do a better job with putting appropriate maps for the different skill brackets. In the higher rating ranges I think most people prefere bigger maps for 2v2. Especially because they don't want their lane to be as wide as their acu gunrange, like it is the case with most large teamgames hosted. Unfortunately many maps "designed" for 2v2 have this kind of gameplay, because I assume the author didn't know any better: 2 spawns -> 2 acus -> 2 lanes -> good.
When you play one of the standard 4v4 maps in 2v2 the workload for each player is probably even less than playing ladder on one of the larger 10x10 1v1 maps.

@Valki said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

Especially in 1v1 it happens often that my opponent leaves immediately when we start out on Badlands. I want to do that too but I am too honest.

1v1 and 2v2 should not be seen as training for teamgames and include the big 4v4 maps for that reason.

After reading this I had to go find the replays that made you post this, because what you're saying doesn't actually make sense. 1v1s on multispawn maps play completely differently to games where those slots are full for a team game. It's not "dishonest" to move out and take mexes, it's what you should do in any game regardless of the spawn count.

Variety is nice, but it's easier to learn the very basic, fundamental principle of the game that you HAVE to expand ASAP if you play on a map where the vast majority of the mexes are clearly on your side and you're supposed to have them. The same is true for 2v2s on 6/8 player maps, you need to learn how to expand no matter what, and the greater percentage of the mass you can realistically defend the easier it is to learn. I think maps like Sweepwing and Regor belong more in the 1300+ pools as they're harder to learn, the mass is far more contestable and you are far more dead if you drop under 50% map control for any period of time.

I personally think having a good chunk of maps with an obvious split of mexes leads to better games, here you can read Petric and Blodir explaining why that's the case better than I could without just paraphrasing them.

@harzer99 said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

@Valki
I think we need to do a better job with putting appropriate maps for the different skill brackets. In the higher rating ranges I think most people prefere bigger

I see a distinction between big and many-player. I'd love to see a good 20 km map purpose built for 1v1 or 2v2.

@Sir-Prize

1. Games that quit instantly often do not generate replays.
2. Moving out and claiming isn't the problem or dishonest. However, a 2v2 map might have a "minor" expansion in terms of resources instead of a full worth start position with its own minor expansions. I think that on Wonder in particular, there is too much gain and lose for a start position being conquered.

I had included several very simple 2v2 maps ie forbidden pass, open palms, 5x5 maps in the first pool. I had received quite a lot of complaints about it, so I increased the complexity of maps until I started seeing the opposite side complain.

In any case, quantity of players doesn’t really impact anything for me. Badlands is an 8 player map but it’s literally astro-tier beyond 2v2 with a strictly dominate strategy and even an autolose condition if you get bad random faction luck and roll several Cybran.

But it’s decent for 1v1 and 2v2, regardless of what the map author thought he was making.

Don’t see the problem with Wonder. It’s possible to delay the enemy expansion but actually taking it over is extremely hard due to the fact reinforcement is much harder from the side attacking and the side defending has a wide open plain that can put 2x eco into helping secure that side.

Also another point:
Adaptive Monument Valley is a 12 player map
but Adaptive maps adjust mexes based on player count, so the player count of the map is irrelevant and rather the competency of author mex placement is what matters.

@Valki said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

1v1 and 2v2 should not be seen as training for teamgames and include the big 4v4 maps for that reason. I play exclusively 1v1 and 2v2 and I want a good ladder experience and there are others, don't know %'s. In my opinion the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders should have much more, at least 75%, 1v1 and 2v2 maps.

I would say there is a gigantic difference in how you play a map as a 1v1 vs a teamgame on that same map. Basically every map that has more than a single channel for an acu to fight in will play significantly differently compared to a teamgame.

@Valki Open Palms is not a team map, far from it, as it is one of the most classic 1v1 maps that exists on faf. Biass is absolutely correct in that a map having additional spawns doesn't mean the map isn't made for 1v1 or 2v2. In any case though, could you elaborate on what you think the issues on Badlands are? If your opponents are just straight up leaving the game when they see the map (and you say you'd like to leave as well), that is definitely a problem that should be addressed.

@harzer99 I agree with you that putting appropriate maps for the different skill brackets are very important. I'm trying to ensure that lower rated brackets have a decent pool of "standard" maps that aren't too difficult to play. For the last two map pools, I've tried to put "easy" 20x20s for the 300-800 map pools (Mentor for the month of Jan and Strife of Titan for the map of Feb - both of which are relatively straightforward 15x15 land maps), and I thought Turtle Rocks would fall into that category to play, at least when compared with a lot of the other options for 1v1s on 20x20s.

I was gonna post a separate feedback thread for 1v1 ladder pools, but it seems this thread is turning into that. If anyone has any feedback or thoughts on the 1v1 ladder pool feel free to post them!

@archsimkat said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

@Valki In any case though, could you elaborate on what you think the issues on Badlands are? If your opponents are just straight up leaving the game when they see the map (and you say you'd like to leave as well), that is definitely a problem that should be addressed.

Next time someone leaves I will PM and relay the information here.

For me it is the daunting and vulnerable massive expansion phase, the problems with such a massive expansion phase are:

1. Claiming and defending all start position mexes quickly is a terrible chore.
2. Short rush distance and open nature makes defending these plentiful mexes difficult.
3. At my level (650), it is very difficult to scale up your game to use so much (early) eco. So you will lose to a player who through luck or skill can use so much eco even if you have 50% more. - at least it feels that way

I had multiple games with players leaving 20x20 maps immediately or asking for an instant draw and then leave (ladder rating < 800).

Well people do that at all ratings, with all sort of maps. i've seen people hating on 5x5 cause it's "a stupid micro war" or "map for BO whoring"'. Complaining about the map pool is our community sport, everybody has something to say about it, even tho a lot of efforts have been made to gather and analyze the preferences of everybody to accomodate all tastes ...

Maybe gather some data ? Get ladder 1v1 replays and see which maps have >3 min abandons per rating bracket ?
I personally would leave 20x20 cause it's usually a chore to play and can't be won quickly. 10x10 maps is something like ~5 minutes of walking for acu from your spawn to enemy's, 20x20 map - 20-25 minutes, so not even worth bothering.
By the time you get to the opponent he pretty much has prepared a counter/firebase whatever, so it's a huge waste of time playing those.

@HLPstpBROimSTUCK said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

Maybe gather some data ? Get ladder 1v1 replays and see which maps have >3 min abandons per rating bracket ?
I personally would leave 20x20 cause it's usually a chore to play and can't be won quickly. 10x10 maps is something like ~5 minutes of walking for acu from your spawn to enemy's, 20x20 map - 20-25 minutes, so not even worth bothering.
By the time you get to the opponent he pretty much has prepared a counter/firebase whatever, so it's a huge waste of time playing those.

This is kind of why I would like to see a 20 km purpose built 1v1 map. It probably needs a really low eco density especially at start position. The expansion will need to be placed quite deliberately to make sure that when you can mount a good offensive it is not completely fortified yet. Maybe the richest expansions also need zero buildable area so it must be defended by units...

Sorry, dreaming, I have been wanting to 1v1 and have fun on 20 km forever - never happened yet.

I've also had the experience of opponents asking for draw on maps they don't like or just prefer not to play, but if this is consistently happening for specific maps at a ladder rating that is indicative of a problem with that map for the rating bracket.

I'll endeavour to get the stats on the % of games per map that end within 3 minutes, sorted by rating bracket, to better help make map pools specifically for the lower rated ladder brackets.

Have you even been looking ?

• mentor
• X6
• norfair
• emerald crater
  ... all those are maps that satisfy your criterias, and were in previous pools.

It's not a new information that people don't like certain maps, usually lower rated guys don't like bigger maps because they feel overwhelmed, because of that the current ladder pool system takes those trends (there was a lot of polling data that was used, you can look that up on the old forum if you want) and makes sure that the most amount of people are satisfied while maintaining consistency between rating groups. What it means in practice is that you get more, bigger and more complex maps the higher your rating (and according rating group) is.
Just because the map has x amount of slots it doesn't mean it's meant for X amount of people, it just means that up to X amount of people can in theory play. A lot of maps are made with 1vs1 in mind but can be also played with more people. Eg. Forbidden Pass, The Ditch, Crossfire Canal, Regor Highlands etc.
I understand that you may not like certain maps or group of maps but the point of playing ladder is competing with players on a variety of maps. If you wouldn't get any 20x20 maps you will never learn how to play them. When I was lower rated I used to love 5x5's and hate 20x20's but with time I learned how to play the bigger maps and I started appreciating their complexity and different strategies that were available to me.

@Tagada Not sure if that was directed to me, but it would be good to know the communities problems. I like all sizes from 5x5 to 20x20 (I think), however, I do not like high eco maps. With bigger maps generally featuring more starting positions which often means close and bountiful expansions, I statistically dislike big maps, but not because of their size.