Thanks for the headsup Amygdala. I can look at it tomorrow.
Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread
@stormlantern All you would need to do is send me a list of what maps got removed, what maps got added, and what new maps got added. With the "Final verdict" thing, I'd probably have access to whatever chat you moderators talk in, (without chatting perms if you want,) and I'd summarize all the opinions in one DM to the map author, reducing the hassle and frustration of explaining everything to them. This will also improve overall morale, as it appears that both sides get frustrated with each other easily. Basically I'd be a record-keeper and mediator, allowing you guys to focus on moderation, instead of getting frustrated over communication. There might be an initial shock load as I won't know much about the current lists, however, once I know more, all you'll end up telling me should be ~2 sentences, and with that I can handle the "wym my map is broken?!" people.
TLDR: I'd have a role that lets me read your mod chat, (nothing more,) and I'd summarize it and send it to the map author. This should save time and/or frustration. You'd only need to send me the reasons for a map's removal, and what brand new maps were added, and their author's discord username. Over time I shouldn't need to know what maps are brand new, as I could just see that it's new via it not being on the list.
Thanks for considering my suggestion 
-Crimson
To be clear, this would be like a "valid maps pool." If a mapper's map is removed, I'll tell the author why. I'd also deal with the 10 min conversation of them defending themselves. This also serves as a place for feedback before a map re-enters the main pool, improving user experience. (AKA if someone find a problem in one of the "valid maps" they can report it to me, and I can relay that info to the map author and you guys, [unless you want me to just bypass you guys until the end of the month where I can submit a report of all the unanswered notices.] Meaning less maps will have problems that affect player's ranks.)
You already have access to all our discussion on maps. Its all in the submissions channel. Also, we are not moderators.. Just people who look at maps ^^.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the added value of your suggestion. Thank you for offering to help though, that is appreciated. However, I think we already try to inform mappers as much as possible. And if we fail at this, we would also fail at informing you, I'd think. No need to put in a middleman and make the process more complex than it is.
@arma473 I disagree with that take. Maybe it's just my opinion but I'll post it anyway:
Even though the mex-count is similar, first of all badlands has 3 additional hydros. I honestly dunno if you're playing 1v1s but those hydros do indeed make quite some difference.
Besides that the main factor is the amount of spam and the earlygame. On Arcane you can protect your expansions easier earlier on (until drops etc. are a thing) by e.g. sending one tank to the right side when spawning bottom, same for your left expanding engis. While on badlands there are more possibilities to raid because you got that long pass in the back and generally your engis are spread out more since you expand somewhat equally to right/left side while you also have to defend your reclaiming engi giving more targets than on arcane.
Besides that from my experience you eco more heavily on badlands since you can defend your 3 passes easier, on arcane raids are more of a thing and you tend to build more units and especially more air to drop your opponent or just raid with t2 air, on badlands it's easier to defend. Also t2 PDs are way more effective on badlands.
so overall:
I do think badlands gives you the option to eco more and the games on it usually see heavy air and/or quite some t3 land while arcane is focused around t1/t2
Inactive.
@freemanitsnothe said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@erador mapgen dont give good maps for <200 map pool he will always very bad
Who are you exactly? There are no replays for this player name. Really makes it seem like you're just here to troll.
@redx said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@freemanitsnothe said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@erador mapgen dont give good maps for <200 map pool he will always very bad
Who are you exactly? There are no replays for this player name. Really makes it seem like you're just here to troll.
what sense 90% people in forum dont play faf like ftxcommando
@freemanitsnothe said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@redx said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@freemanitsnothe said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@erador mapgen dont give good maps for <200 map pool he will always very bad
Who are you exactly? There are no replays for this player name. Really makes it seem like you're just here to troll.
what sense 90% people in forum dont play faf like ftxcommando
Ok so you really are just here to troll then. ftx has more games last week than you do ever.
@redx said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@freemanitsnothe said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@redx said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@freemanitsnothe said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@erador mapgen dont give good maps for <200 map pool he will always very bad
Who are you exactly? There are no replays for this player name. Really makes it seem like you're just here to troll.
what sense 90% people in forum dont play faf like ftxcommando
Ok so you really are just here to troll then. ftx has more games last week than you do ever.
big brain playing mapgen
I am getting tired of having only map generator in the 3v3 map pool. Besides more interesting features, handmade maps are quite a bit more beautiful. I am sure there are enough options that would suitable for 3v3 games. For example, the original twin rivers is a 3v3 map.
No, there are not enough good 3v3 maps. Twin River for sure is not a good one because you literally have two separate 1v1s and an airplayer which is 0% interesting gameplay, also since it's basically just t1 spam and gun.
Inactive.
@sladow-noob said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
No, there are not enough good 3v3 maps. Twin River for sure is not a good one because you literally have two separate 1v1s and an airplayer which is 0% interesting gameplay, also since it's basically just t1 spam and gun.
I feel our perspective is quite a bit different. At the skill level where i am at, twin rivers does not feel too simple. Maybe let you pros have your all map gen ladder, a simplistic map is not a problem at the lower levels.
Another point: if there really are not enough 3v3 maps, when you include all the maps where you can leave a number of spots empty, this is an issue I feel our mapmakers can resolve, if we tell th
em about it.
We get quite a bit of feedback from lower ranks who are not happy getting thoise simple maps "cuz it gets boring".
Also what you're suggesting is to literally take the 4v4 pool and slap it into the 3v3 one meaning the pools would basically be equal.
The whole concept of 3v3 was to be MapGen due to the ongoing discussion about ppl who only want mapgen vs. the ppl who dislike it. See all the 1v1 ladder pool discussions for that or even my earlier forum posts. Having is this way let people play either the custom maps in 4v4 or the mapgen 3v3, taking one away isn't good.
And if you're wondering "why don't you swap the pools then", that's because mapgen 3v3 is simply better than 4v4. If you see enough maps you'll notice the difference, but I'm sure it was disgussed ealier either here or on the discord so I'll leave it with this.
Inactive.