Matchmaker Rotation/System Comments
-
Actually I decreased the 20x20 maps in the 1800+ pool because I had several people want less 20x20s in that bracket. I also do not plan on making it more accessible as I have no reason to adjust the current rating brackets (already stretching the ability of top players in 1800+ being able to interact with those just barely in their group) and I also do not want 1300s to be playing maps like Seton's Clutch or Kusoge.
-
Looks like I have to rush to 1800 then xDD
-
Me 2. Someone here who wants to boost me to 1.8k+ so I can enjoy a bit more 20x20 gameplay against the 5 active players in that range?
-
I can boost u
-
Is it possibel to downtick and uptick maps in your client so you have more chance of getting your favourite maps and less chance of getting the maps you don't enjoy playing?
-
No that is not something that is implemented.
-
Would you be interested in someone implementing it...? Do you thkn it would be a good thing?
-
Sure but I’d rather have a veto system instead. Would require code both server side and more importantly, code client side. If someone is interested in doing it they can pm me and I’ll work out a general plan with them and then point them towards devs that can hep them learn the infrastructure.
-
I think a single veto or two can be a nice addition to the Matchmaker. Same can be found in sc2 and wc3. Besides: how does the map pooling work? Do both players need to be 1800+at the time of clicking the find game button to have access to the 1800+ pool? Like im currently 1750 or something but really enjoy the bigger maps so maybe i should gain some rating?
-
Pool bracket is decided by the player with the lowest rating.
-
So there were like 10 games last week on the big ladder pool?
-
If only 10 involved 1800+ players sure.
-
I was sort of volunteering myself for the task. I would be more keen if given a general plan and some devs to bounce off.
-
@nemir
Take a look at this: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/706/new-map-veto-system-for-tournaments-help-needed -
@FtXCommando said in Ladder Rotation/System Comments:
Pool bracket is decided by the player with the lowest rating.
I watch the majority of 1800+ ladder replays and this isn't how it's coded. Example from 11 hours ago (that won't launch for me): https://replay.faforever.com/13324989
Edit: use this search code and you'll find a bunch of them. Including games where neither player is over 1800 and the 1800 pool has activated, eg: https://replay.faforever.com/13325076
(mapVersion.map.displayName=="*z-d rasty*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*desert planet*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*arcane*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*seraphim glaciers*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*emerald crater*");featuredMod.technicalName=="*1*";playerStats.player.ladder1v1Rating.rating=lt="1800" -
@FemtoZetta said in Ladder Rotation/System Comments:
@nemir
Take a look at this: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/706/new-map-veto-system-for-tournaments-help-neededThat’s not really related to the FAF client/ladder itself. That’s a function for tourney players and casters themselves. Since tournaments don’t operate with varied pools by rating range, it doesn’t need to take it into account.
For nemir, if you’re interested pm me next week about it, I’m busy with exams now.
And if the rating brackets are working differently, then there’s a bug. That is how they’re intended to function. I’ll look into it some point in the future.
-
Well yeah that's obviously what I'm saying, the code is bugged.
-
I hate the idea of a veto for anything except the top 1-2 brackets. For lower-rated and middle-rated players, part of the point of ladder is to push your comfort zone so you can learn about different kinds of maps.
For higher-rated players, if they prefer to have a veto, we should respect that. If adding a veto means there will be more high-rated ladder matches, then it's probably a good thing.
Also, or in the alternative, I think it would make sense to give 1300+ players the ability to "opt-in" to the 1800+ pool. It would be bad if we threw them all in to the 1800+ pool because not everyone wants to learn build orders for 6 new maps every time the ladder pool changes, and we don't want to chase away 1500s. Some people only want to play 5-10 matches per month. But if some of them are especially active and would prefer the larger pool, allowing them to opt-in would be good.
Another way to do it: get rid of the 1300+ pool, those players would all be forced to use the 1800+ pool. BUT they get at least 5 vetoes. By default, 5 of the vetoes are applied to the 5 "1800-only" maps. The 1300s could go into the veto menu and change it up. So if they never bother to meddle with the veto menu, they get the vanilla 1300+ pool because of vetoes. BUT they can easily move the vetoes around (or just veto nothing at all) if they take the time to open the menu.
-
This conversation is probably irrelevant, people have been asking for a veto or a return to the Zep pool for years and apparently the dev time and interest for working on it don't exist. But I really don't understand how you figure the top of the ladder, where the pros and tryhards are, should be designed to support participation while the rest of ladder, where the casuals are, should be about forcing people to push themself and having less fun for the purpose of getting better at a niche game in a niche gaming genre. Matchmaker should be just that - a way to get a match - and if vetoes help* and are technically possible then they should be applied for everyone.
*While I would personally like vetoes, it's not a deal maker/breaker for my ladder participation and I'm not sure it would actually help much, especially at high levels where people have mastered game mechanics and are looking for a fresh challenge through map variety. So I can understand why devs don't wanna spend a lot of time on it, would be happy to be proven wrong though.
-
the casual level is the rating itself as to me,can't really assume that ZLO is a casual or any other high rated ladder boi.
might just be the amount of people that aren't comfortable with the ladder basics
