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.
Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread
@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.
Matter of taste I guess then. I did not know though that the mag gen only was intentionally done to please map gen lovers. I could not even imagine someone would like it that much. I will have to settle for getting the occasional 4v4 game, then. Sadly, they are more difficult to get than 3v3 games.
Why we again have high-reclaim maps in the 1v1 mappool? Bermuda, daroza, etc
Everything was so good when we had "consistent" mappool with ok maps without extreme differences in amount of reclaim, why it was changed back? :C
Give StormLantern next lots prizepool for removing 5x5 from my ladder pool.
The embodiment of depression...
@thomashiatt tbh yes
I dont understand why we have daroza but dont have 5x5 then
If we really wanna do a bit of "diversity" in map playstyles, 5x5 shouldn't be an exception
The changes were made because there were good indications that this is the general preference. Also we voted on it as a team, it was not solely my decision. The current system is a sort of hybrid version of the old and the new. No 5x5's in higher pools but a bit more variance added back in again.
Whatever is being used to decide the size of the 1v1 ladder pool and the maps that are deemed acceptable currently is killing alot of peoples desire to actually play. Soul sucking experinece and has been for probably 2/3 years now, smaller pool with more familiar maps that arent complete cancer. Love you all.
Your ladder mappool is about twice as small as it was three years ago Xerxes. Also, learn how to play some maps that are post 2018 old man.
5-9 map pools per rotation so people who have hobbies and a job can have a chance of learning new maps. Im counting 20 per pool including gen cancer. Unless Im willing to sit for 10 hours a day to MAYBE get ten games, its all a bit OTT, trying to fix what wasnt broken has broken ladder, noone who comes in from work wants to sit down and play sweat fests like stella marris and lost wisdom cancer 1v1s, need a balance. Instead of endless 'wtf do i do here maps' that ultimately just ends with me playing another game that knows what it wants to be.
Ok jokes aside. The client does not show the correct mappool for you. Your mappool consists of 13 maps. See the announcement on the forum for an accurate description.
Still, it is true that ladder maps in your bracket have some macro heavier maps and I get your frustration by that, if that is not your thing. Feedback is always welcome. Do you think most players in your rating bracket share that view? If so, which players do you have in mind? I try to assess what the general preferences are within each rating bracket and adept the pools to that. It is not at all obvious to me that your view on this is representative of the general opinion within the higher rating brackets. Although I do know that you are definitely not alone in this. We (the matchmaker team) recently did a trial in which we had 4 months of ladder pools without any macro heavy maps. There was no clear indication that players of the higher brackets enjoyed this more or less than the format before that included more of these maps.
Also about your last question, there is work being done on a veto system. It would be really nice if the developers get that to work.
would loosening the rating required to match people in ranked games also be something willing to be considered as the time spent queing depending on your timezone etc can be alot, or even an unranked version of ladder and TMM where u can queue?
I don't know if this thread is really a good place for this discussion, I think a github repository with the list of maps or something would be better, but I would like to raise the issue of the matchmaking generating 4/5 player maps for 3v3 games. It doesn't ever really result in balanced games, especially in point symmetry. One player mostly get way less mexes than the others, and when matched with an opponent barely has any chance to win, because they simply have twice their mexes/hydros. It would make a lot more sense to increase the mex count on the map instead, but a 3 player game should be played on a 3 player map or at most a 6 player map, so that each player gets about the same number of mexes.