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.
Matchmaker Rotation/System Comments
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?
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.
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"
That’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.
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
I've tried reading that a couple of times and I still can't be sure what you're trying to say. Are you... posting just to say you agree that casuals aren't high rated...?
Yeah,i don't think there're a casual high rated players in ladder.
At least I haven't seen any,correct me if i am wrong.
@FtXCommando Before @Brutus5000 implements Ladder Pool 41 please get a fix for Emerald Cliffs, it is imbalanced due to one of the Hydros being unbuildable.
Would be nice if there was a requirement for maps to be playtested more than 0 times before they were put straight in the pool, not just for this kind of basic bugfixing but you would get less of it.
New pool is up, no games on Emerald Cliffs yet but the version in the vault and linked the Map List in 1v1 matchmaker is broken.
I'm happy about the decision and logic regarding map pools and division. As a low rated player I definitely don't want huge maps during the low rated divisions, especially since we already struggle on smaller maps.
Adjusting the 2v2 pool by removing 5x5 maps, let me know if this is better or worse (mainly if you're a newer player).
The map pool system is still not working. I've played a bermuda locket game while being under 1800.