Divide Ladder by map size

2

I think the idea has merit, but it also means that you can have 3K ladder rating because you are really good at 5x5 maps, but if you take it on with someone on a 20x20 map you maybe couldn't beat a 1k ladder player that is really good at those (but don't get to play that often - apparently)

In a similar situation: custom games have true skill rating too. Someone can be 2K at setons, but if they play on any other map then they'd be 1.4K or lower instead. But they still have 2k rating because they only play setons. This entails that because of having the choice on what you want to play, the rating doesn't actually mean that much anymore and you need to 'know the person'. This is why there are game names with 'unless you're a known setoner' - or similar for any other common map.

That is why ladder is ladder - you take a random distribution of the pool and players (that are roughly equal) and by doing so it averages out: therefore the true skill rating means a lot more. Introducing this concept would negate that, which you acknowledge in your post at the end 🙂 .

2

One option to implement something like this would be via a map-veto system.

Essentially, you get to veto ~3 maps out of the entire pool you are eligible to play and your opponent does the same. Once a match is found, it compares votes and then randomly chooses a map out of the non-vetoed ones.

A big advantage to doing that is that you don't split up the already small player base, while being able to accommodate peoples preferences.

Discussions are of course to be had about how many maps one can veto and if it's a soft or hard veto (making maps less likely, or outright impossible to be chosen). Regardless of the details, Starcraft II implemented something like that years ago and it is working well.

6

I have a dev interested in helping me out implement a point-based veto system that can work not only in 1v1 but across matchmakers. Hopefully that gets going.

0

I dont play ladder much for precisely this reason. Also almost every time i see a 1v1 hosted as a custom game its for a small map (which arent catered for well by matchmaker), suggesting i may not be the only one.
Basically maps larger than a 5x5 for me are mostly too much energy or work instead of fun.

What about having a map preference system coupled with a map veto system and a smaller pool? I.e. say you have 3 or 4 5km, 10km and 20+km maps each in the pool, with 3 or 4 vetoes and 3 preferences. You get matched with someone ignoring this (so no change from normal) then when it looks for a map it looks for common preferences and either chooses these or makes them far more likely to be chosen, while vetoes cant be chosen.
Depending if you do 3 or 4 you allow people to remove an entire type of map size without impacting on how easy it is to get a match

0

Generally speaking, I do not want players to remove a whole map size (at least independently). A pool of 15 maps might have 4 or 6 vetos total across players.

The rest of the post is fine, problem is just no one around to implement it and so I’d rather just stick with the baby step of a veto system first before building upon it.

I’m also not sure what rating level we’re taking about. Where are you that you feel maps are too big?

2

I don't understand why you wouldn't host custom games, if you're not interested in the whole pool but just some of the maps.

1

@jip As i wrote, we can have 3 separate rating for each map size
Just more detailed info about the player, tho
Here and now i (we) actually play not equal on different map size, with that change we just will know more precisely, how big is the gap

And when you will host global lobby you can check the player skill on hosted map size, isnt that cool? (well, only if he's playing ladder, but stilll)

@Auricocorico i dont want to choose the map, i wanna play random
i dont want to host the lobby
i dont want to play with the same dude each time
i dont want to wait too much
global rating is bad for describing 1x1 skill, so in global i have no guarantee for decent battle even if our ratings will be the same

i just wanna press the fkn button and play the equal match on random map, that's what the ladder system do

@ftxcommando veto system is a good start anyways
about "what rating level we’re taking about." - map preferences can be different for person on the same rating level

i am 1300 ladder now (formed 1450 but inactive for a long time)
love 5x5 10x10, dont like 20x20
but i got a friends with 1200 and 1800, that hates 5x5 and loves 20x20, for example
actually, i know 1 more dude with ~1300-1500 ladder (demonstreamer), who is also hates 5x5

and here people writes that 5x5 is good tho
so - different people loves different size, i think
map preferences are not depends only on rating

but for the noobie 5x5 maps can be more preferred, they're just simpler
that's my opinion, to know exactly we need to ask a lot of people or test it in practice

0

@ETFreeman I like this idea - it is pretty clear some people don't like some small maps.
I disagree that the ratings should be unique though.

Would it be wise to have the player count be flexible?

  • 5 km: 1v1
  • 10 km: 1v1 or 2v2
  • 20 km: 1v1 up to 4v4
  • 40 km: 1v1 up to 6v6
1

@auricocorico said in Divide Ladder by map size:

I don't understand why you wouldn't host custom games, if you're not interested in the whole pool but just some of the maps.

Lobby's are sooo 2000

Even here on Discord I sometimes read "Lobby Simulator"

I also like to point to how Dungeon Finder in World of Warcraft absorbed 95+% of all dungeon party formation. People just like clicking to join a game and be done.

3

Make 15km the official 4th category.

0

Im about 800 ladder rank; sometimes the maps are ok but often i feel like i end up with a map ive seen played as a 3v3+ outside matchmaker (and the majority of maps ive found too large).

I do periodically host 1v1s on smaller maps but the main problems with this are:
-poor matchups as global rating is a poor guide to 1v1 skill (eg I’m around 1500 global)
-often fighting the same person multiple times (although it works out ok when you’re similar in skill)

A veto system while not solving the issue would at least increase the % of maps that are fun to play on, hence making matchmaker more attractive as an option

0

No love for my favorite map size 1.25 x 1.25

0

@thewheelie Yes there is:

On topic: a veto system would be quite interesting!

1

I definitely like the idea of the veto system, there is usually at least a map or two in each pool that I'd rather not play, but a rating per map size feels excessive and I am not sure it's a good idea to let people blanket veto entire map sizes.

0

Would some kind of a pick system not be more inviting or rewarding? Each player can pick 1 map that is their "map pick". Every 5th game you play, your "map pick" is played unless your opponent is also due in which case coin flip. There is a counter on your screen "2 more games to play your map pick".

This also allows players to help out individual map makers by picking their maps and thus helping people experience it.

On average, 2 out of 5 games will be player picks, 3 map pool.

Some basic limitations should apply like the map should have 3 unique reviews for example. Also, picking a cheat map and showing knowledge off and using the cheat is bannable.

3

I would really like a 5x5 only matchmaking queue, both for quicker games and just because it would be fun. Sadly most of the people around my rating would probably not queue for it though.

0

i mostly like 20x20 maps, but i think if we will make different queues, nobody will join 20x20 or maybe even 10x10 matchmaking, so its like... meh

ladder idea - show your skill on different battlefields, so different queues will kill it in my opinion

0

100% agree with this need seperate ladder for map sizes

sometimes i dont want to sweat for 30-40 minutes on a 20x20 and just fancy a quick game for 10-15 mins

but you dont need a seperate rating system for each map size just an average rating over all, so if your really good at 5x5 but hate 20x20 it should even itself out and incentivize mixing it up a bit