Whats your 1v1 rating? It matters because I would like to use the data to get an idea of which brackets prefer which maps.
1v1 map pool - feedback
@whoever this may concern
Allow me to provide some background as to where this feedback is coming from (just skip if not interested).
Not at all pro, but at around noobish 700 currently (1v1 ladder that is).
New to FAF, since 2023 Feb 16th, so about 2 and a half months in.
333 Match Maker 1v1's in that time, so fair to say I'm using it a lot (and whish more people would do).
Not totally new to the SupCom / FA universe though. Played around 2007 to 2011 and probably 2.5 years in that time excessively.
Not having played any PC games the last ten years and not being gifted with a 13-year-old-Korean-Starcraft-player's klickspeed, I struggle a lot getting back into the game.
Also a lot has changed. But that's fine.
Most importantly I am happy to find a living FAF community around the best RTS ever created
Just bought me a PC on Feb 16, only to jump into this and I love it (certainly some nostalgia from the old days at work here, hehe).
Ok, I'm drifting off topic...
What was it again? Map Pool, right. Well, I'll feedback in a more general way.
There is no way to equally please everybody.
It goes without saying how valuable the feedback from the pro's is, given their deep understanding of the game (and it would be nice seeing them play more).
However, I want to contribute from the other end of the ladder. The last weeks experience showed there are more than a few guys around 400 to 800 rated, who enjoy (I assume) playing match maker a lot, and I would even say competitively, not at top but at their respective level.
So that tool need to satisfy and cover a lot of the player base. And there are diverse play styles and preferences around.
The mix of what maps are offered is trying to accomplish that; at least that is my impression so far.
As a "veteran" I do much appreciate that there are old official maps in the pool(s) - so I feel more at home and am not completey lost on foreign terrain.
(In terms of map design I also like the old maps not throwing 4 mexx and a hydro right on your ACU's head - but that's another story)
At the same time it is great to see new maps mixed in and I'll take the challenge to get acquainted to them.
Speaking of that, yes, I would find it perfectly normal (in a competitive environment) to prepare. To sandbox a game to look at the map; to play it vs AI or friends, to "train". Tweak the initial set-up for early advantage; find viable tactics that suit the map, get inspired by watching replays, etc...
Some people refer to that as BO whoring and don't want to bother with the effort. For others, that is totally part of the overall gaming experience and fun to develop a plan that may make up for limited APM. It's nice if the rating reflects "true skill". However, I do not mind (and actually support) that putting in effort would also be reflected in that number.
Example(s): if someone found a BO that works for him, say, like to Jester-snipe any uncautious ACU on Isis, to seek a quick and dirty end, rather than loosing a long exhausting eco game, it's a valid strategy (in a competitive environment). Admittedly not fun for the victim (but a lesson learned - more scouting!). Same goes for "bomber first" or what else "surprised" players complain about. And to pull off some cheesy tactics is at least risky play - if you're countered, what a good (better than you) player would, it fails and you'll loose. So still fair.
I'm also learning the hard way - my t1 spam fails, but I didn't eco and can't crush the turtler's fortified base who is sitting on his teched-up start mexx. Keep donating mass to him with countless fruitless attempts sending units at him... and the guy just out-ecoes me, tortures me like cat play mice for 45 minutes to finally nuke me on a 5x5 map... humiliating (and life time consuming). But well, could rant about it but actually I have to thank the guy to teach me: better adapt; better translate map control to eco advantage (I still believe the t1 phase was longer in the old days, but hey... "learn to play" as note to self).
Still it's also good to throw in the generated maps for variety and the guys like: "give me any map whatsoever, I am so great, I'll beat the sh_it out of you anywhere any time".
And yes, I (also) like 5v5 maps. Main reason being I appreciate the quick battle in a manageable environment while I need to get more routine to cope with the more APM intense bigger maps. Someone else, I think, said on another occasion, the noobs like the 5v5 as they don't know what they are doing. Well, your opinion - I do have some idea of what I would like to do, just cannot translate it onto the battlefield while I am still (re-)learning. Think that expresses somewhat the same idea, put in a more diplomatic way
+++++continue reading here if you skipped the first part+++++
-yes to (also) have 5x5 maps
-yes to MapGen (but not exclusively)
-yes to mix classic official and "new" maps
-no to streamline the concept to only a fraction of the player base - yes to diversity
-stop whining about 5x5 or 20x20 or getting sniped - learn to play (funny to say that as a noob - just had to, lol)
-and @ all play more ladder!!!!!
I think I will like this month's pool but am just getting started on it - may give more qualified feedback later.
I saw suggestions on map veto, which I believe would be a great thing to introduce and would avoid some frustration. Could be extended by favorites, that would also be considered in match making. If by any means that is technically feasible - implement it.
Maybe this fits better into the "why you don't play ladder" topic (or "write your story down" - lol), but anyway... wrote it, needed to get it out of my mind... sending it (hope it is more than "stating the obvious" and thank you if you read the whole text ;P)
c u on the battlefield, gl hf
me 1600 ladder
Im agree with jusbeginning.
Small maps are easier for low ranked players. And personally, I like small maps, so I'm not always ready to play 30min+. Sometimes I want to have a fast game.
Sorry for my English. I use translator
I keep telling the matchmaker team to STOP PUTTING MY MAP, DESOLATION, IN THE POOLS, IT IS JUST OLD AND BAD but I guess they really needed something to fill the C tier this month
Also Adaptive Alpine Valley does not deserve a revival in its current state. I am considering making a version without the invincible civilians; instead they will just give less reclaim, let me know if this is a good idea
Are we really getting enough responses in these tier lists to justify any kind of action? So far I have seen maybe 20 total each posting (looking at the 4v4 pool with most replies) and with hundreds of people playing I seriously doubt it is a true representation of feedback.
It is also really blind, baseless information when people do not give a detailed feedback to the team.
For example: is the map disliked and in the lower tiers simply because someone does not like it or are there fundamental issues with the map? Can we fix the map to better appeal?
And for the record, I do not believe in the history of FAF that there has not been a divided like/dislike of most map pools. The way to fix this is to get more content-creators, so nixing certain maps because of these tier lists is just going to further reduce the amount of content available to use. I would advise against this as eventually you will drive the matchmaker team to putting out the same maps over and over and over...
Feel free to check the Discord conversation from yesterday or two days ago - I explain a bit more why I'm doing this.
I am indeed fully aware there is a good chance the feedback it gives is useless to optimise the pool. But how do you want to know? e.g. literally everyone I've spoken to so far shared the opinion the pool during March was BS. Only reason I'm not focusing on that one is because I don't want to be the guy with "reee look at this specific shitty map pool! I don't care about the other months, this specific one is so bad!".
This is primary for me to see if I'm just in a bubble where the ppl I know dislike 5x5 maps or if they're generally rather disliked. Especially seeing MapGen being in the top or at least in the upper half in nearly each tier list and in general player feedback and yet we have exactly 2 MapGens in the entire pool and on top of that MapGen only week isn't a thing anymore for whatever reason. That reason alone resulted in me even asking which lead to this thread. For me it sounds like the map pool team literally was like "Oh the mapgen only week got a positive feedback and most players like it? - Guess we won't do that week anymore and only put 1-3 mapgens into the pool then."
On top of that players here give reasons for their tier list which I was hoping for and highly appreciate.
I also want to add that I'm definitely not in the high ranked bubble. I'm hanging around with rather low ranks on Discord and had quite a lot of trainees during the past which also talked about the pool and what maps they liked / disliked.
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
some feedback is better than no feedback and those tierlists are probably one of the best way of getting a generic view of what different ratings wish to see in the mm tho
queuing with a newbie to show him the beauty of tmm and meeting tagada be like:
Diff ratings? Eh, the forums are heavily skewed to 1500+ players. The tier lists tend to be good data on what high level preferences are but you can’t just state theta is a bad map because the majority of the 1500+ players put it in the bottom half of the distribution.
Harder to conform much to the data because the 1v1 pool is still cumulative rather than segmented.
I severely dislike 20x20 maps because I just and simply lack the multitasking ability required for playing these.
@Sladow-Noob what discord conversation? I don’t see a link or time stamps in this post to what you are referring to.
@morax Yes cuz the conversation happened after I wrote the post. It's only a rough explanation why I did it, followed by a more general discussion about both 5x5 maps and then about t1 tanks. I pinged you in the Discord. Depending on how the quality of the feedback goes, I'll either add the explanation in detail or it's not gonna be relevant
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
I prefer the option of Mapgen option like Sladow said. I feel that people will have a better chance at adapting on a map both people haven't played, rather than study for the ones they have or exploit certain things that other factions can't.
Mapgen all the way