maps veto for ladder

0

Hello,
today i was thinking that players should be allowed to veto ban at least 1 or 2 maps before playing ladder.. that's because somethimes at the idea that I have to play for example open palms for the 1000th time I'm just "ok also today I will play ladder tomorrow"

This could incentivate a lot the increase of ladder players.. at least in my case! but I'm sure there are a lot of you that are like "at the idea that i could have to play that map.. naah i'll just play teamgames.."

4

This has been discussed extensively and what it comes down to is mostly a lack of developers:

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1725/divide-ladder-by-map-size/5

As FAF is a volunteer project what our devs work on is up to them and it relies finding someone willing (and with the free time) to create the code to implement it.

0

@angelofd347h I'd be happy to contribute with donation for the free time.. just introduce me some devs. I was already planning to donate to faf, i'd be even more happy to do it with a purpouse!

0

I mean money $$$

1

You can try on Issue Hunt: https://issuehunt.io/r/FAForever/downlords-faf-client?tab=idle
Not sure if there's one for a map veto already, if there isn't you'd have to open one on github first.

1

at the moment alot of Dev time is beeing spent getting the new Divisions system up and running so i dont see somthing like this happing any time soon + its a Open sorce project so 90% of the time devs will only work on what they are intrested in.

7

New divisions, 3v3+ matchmaker, match confirmation, token based login, getting rid of all the shitty legacy design decisions in our lobby protocol, even some galactic war stuff...

Map veto is really not on anyone’s radar at the moment because there are so many much higher priority things to work on.

0

ah ok so it's just politics

0

It's not politics, it's all the others things he mentioned

1

If some new dev came along and implemented it (well) it might get merged in, but current devs have a lot of stuff to work on already including the stuff I mentioned above (I’m sure there’s more).

1

@askaholic I'm just wondering if there is a reason for the ranking of those priorities? I know many people have been complaining about the ladder pool [since time immemorial] and therefore implicitly [AND explicitly] have been requesting some sort of map veto, so it seems very important to many people. So is there any chance of maybe pushing this further up the priority list? Perhaps I just don't understand how critical new divisions, galactic war stuff and token based login are...

So if you could provide some explanation for why map veto is less important would be much appreciated.
Thanks

0

Just remember that in terms of the actual user base and what people use FAF for those who play ladder are a pretty small percentage of the user base. They are often the most vocal so it can be easy to forget how small they actually are. The other priorities largely benefit and affect the entire player base.

5

There isn’t really a priority list like that, we aren’t that organized, but for me it’s mostly that I want to finish the big projects like matchmaker that I’ve been working on for years. Also I tend to work on the things that bother me when I’m playing (like random bugs and stuff) and a lack of map veto hasn’t ever been one of those things.

0

@askaholic said in maps veto for ladder:

There isn’t really a priority list like that, we aren’t that organized, but for me it’s mostly that I want to finish the big projects like matchmaker that I’ve been working on for years. Also I tend to work on the things that bother me when I’m playing (like random bugs and stuff) and a lack of map veto hasn’t ever been one of those things.

So yeah, it's not "politics" so much as only caring about your own preferences and ignoring the issues that are extremely important to many others. No surprise there.

0

@sheikah said in maps veto for ladder:

Just remember that in terms of the actual user base and what people use FAF for those who play ladder are a pretty small percentage of the user base. They are often the most vocal so it can be easy to forget how small they actually are. The other priorities largely benefit and affect the entire player base.

Did you ever consider WHY many people don't play ladder? Given how frequently complaints about the map pool and veto option comes up, you might take the hint that it's driving away a lot of people and CAUSING the small percentage of the user base.

3

@corvathranoob said in maps veto for ladder:

@askaholic said in maps veto for ladder:

There isn’t really a priority list like that, we aren’t that organized, but for me it’s mostly that I want to finish the big projects like matchmaker that I’ve been working on for years. Also I tend to work on the things that bother me when I’m playing (like random bugs and stuff) and a lack of map veto hasn’t ever been one of those things.

So yeah, it's not "politics" so much as only caring about your own preferences and ignoring the issues that are extremely important to many others. No surprise there.

I'm sorry, but we're not being paid.

2

It's not politics. Just because you want something, doesn't mean thats what the majority of people want.
But more specifically: Developers appear because they want to implement something they want. Rarely what other people want.

There was an open poll about what is desired the most a few years ago. https://feedback.userreport.com/7a3715db-9cd2-49ec-bebd-b5cfd752647b/#ideas/popular

Number 1 by far was fix connectivity issues. We did that as good as possible with the ICE adapter which took 2-3 years.
Number 2 was TMM which also took like forever was finally finished end of last year.
Number 3 (following 2 very close) was Galactic War which is still waaay ahead from being even beta.

Ladder Map Veto didn't even make it into the list back then even though it existed at some point and was removed (long before I started as a developer here).

0

@jip Of course, but it doesn't make any sense for someone to say "Map veto is really not on anyone’s radar at the moment because there are so many much higher priority things to work on." I was pointing out how it is clearly on the radar. Why can't people just be honest and say "I don't care about that, nor do any of the other developers."
Instead, we get an attitude of "hey you need to be more gracious for all the work I'm doing for you," when the truth is, as Askaholic has conceded, it isn't really focused on the benefit of others. Maybe we just get lucky. Let's dispense with this notion that the developers are sacrosanct and cannot be criticized for any reason simply because they are contributing without pay, especially if their contributions aren't what other people really care about. The implication of "there are so many much higher priority things to work on" makes it sound like it's not their own personal choice of what to work on and is based on what the community wants, which is clearly disingenuous.

@Brutus5000 Let's not claim that no one cares about or has suggested a map veto, simply because it wasn't in the feedback forum. What's the point of, LITERALLY THIS FORUM?! "Oh, doesn't count because it's wasn't on, ok it was, but for some reason was removed from the feedback forum poll a few years ago."
So the question is how many people would like to have a map veto option? Do we have any relatively recent survey data?

I know I mentioned map veto at least twice just on the new forum alone, back in about April and again maybe 1.5 months ago (which is pretty recent so of course I wouldn't expect much to have started since then if it was the only instance of this request) but it's my impression this has been talked about for a long time. In any case, the point about prioritization is that you change the order that you complete different tasks based on how important they are, which is why I asked if it was possible to consider bumping this up the priority list (which would be possible if a developer cares about doing work which benefits the community generally rather than just what they want). How long a task has been in the works is irrelevant.

2

@corvathranoob I don't think it is a matter of not caring, it is a matter of "I've invested months (or years - adapter took three years!) into this project at the moment and I want to see it through".