Lately I've been approached by several mappers that were curious about the process utilized to review maps for the ladder. Since this process is going to be extended to team matchmaker maps as that feature gets closer and closer to reality, I figured I might as well as give people an insight into how maps are reviewed so they can both figure out how to get their maps on the matchmaker while also improving their own craft.
I'd also like to say that the process itself isn't some solidly ironed out way of approaching maps. Through the years we have adjusted how we calculate final scores, how we interpret various values in our criteria, and the weight we put on the various factors that we look at when reviewing maps. But overall, I think we've hit a nice groove and we're quite comfortable with what our system allows and what it doesn't allow into the map pools we make.
I will be breaking this post down into the 3 categories we use to look at maps: Aesthetics, Gameplay, and Variance.
A lot of people operate under the assumption that the look of a map is irrelevant. All that should matter is if it plays well, and if it looks like a piece of shit then who cares? Well, they're kind of right and kind of wrong in that dissection.
First, aesthetics is not simply the "look" of a map. While the artistic merit of your map is what determines say a 3.5/5 or a 4.5/5 map, it is not what causes a map to be a 1/5. Your map must meet the baseline criteria of having terrain that is both clear and concise. If a map lies to the player, by, for example, having things that look like plateaus that cannot actually be dropped, then it is a bad map aesthetically. These are the things that stay in the mind of a player and quickly make them dislike the map as it can easily cause a game loss through no real fault of the player. If your map cannot meet this bar, then your map could expect to be a 1.5 or a 2 out of 5 even if it makes me cry at the beauty of your decal work.
Beyond that area, we begin to enter the more subjective area we tend to define through the competency of your design and the effort put into it. How do we define both? Well, we have several people on the mapping team (biass, petric, farm, morax) who have made several solid maps aesthetically and have the eye to review whether the decal and strata work put into a map reflects serious effort. Generally when it comes to reviewing this side of aesthetics, we leave reviewing maps up to our circle of highly competent mappers.
So why did I say that the critique that map aesthetics don't matter is kind of right? Well, because we actually do agree with that. We weigh aesthetics to account for 25% of a map's overall score. This is below the expected proportion of 33% if we weighed it equal to gameplay and variance. Your map could look entirely generic and still be a 2/5 so long as it doesn't lie or frustrate the player. This shouldn't harm your overall score (and therefore entry into the ladder) assuming the gameplay and variance are still up to par. I mean, look at badlands. It looks terrible, but it's still a pretty common map in pools because it plays pretty well.
0 - Eye gouging; super badly scaled textures/decals, terrain makes no sense, color scheme makes the eyes bleed
1 - Quite ugly; maybe not actually painful on the eyes but extremely bland undetailed and wacky, badly indicated terrain
2 - So-so; a playable configuration even if uninspiring or amateurish. Perhaps not very obvious heightmap in some places. Nothing disgusting tho
3 - Fine; A solid average-looking map, won't win any prize for looks but can't find much fault with it
4 - Good; A very appealing map, maybe because of high detail, pleasant color scheme and lighting, maybe something else
5 - Great; One of the best looking maps in your opinion. Something just makes it stand out and above others
Now we enter the classic social science experience of redefining common terms so your explanation makes sense. Gameplay has a very specific meaning for us and it's critical to understand it before commenting on it. If you have a tough time with it don't worry, it had to be explained like a dozen times to select people on the ladder team itself.
Here is my go-to explanation for gameplay. Imagine I had some sort of hypothetical vault. If I went into said hypothetical map vault which has 2000 high level, competent games of purely your map and then proceeded to use a random number generator to pick one of these 2000 games, how high quality would that singular game be? So essentially, "gameplay" is a rating of the "meta quality" of your map.
Now of course we don't have 2000 high level, competent games on your map. There's maybe two dozen maps on FAF that could even think of approaching such a criteria. And that's precisely why the ladder team itself exists! It's a pool of 2k+ players that have the ability to determine how a map is likely to play out based on little data. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but since we lack the neural network AI that can play a map ten thousand times to show us the peak efficient play on it, it's the best we got.
Ultimately this part of maps is also graded on a curve. For example, we can't just call Theta Passage a garbage map because it results in t1 spam and a com battle in every game while Roanoke's Abyss let's you do frigate rush or air abuse. You very clearly need to judge every map size in its own category, and so while Theta might be a relatively "simple" map, it does what it does very well and so it is still a highly rated 5x5.
So how do we decide between a low, middle, and high gameplay score? Well this is quite subjective, as you might imagine, but we attempt to balance it out by synthesizing a general score out of the opinions of everyone on the team. In general a map is considered to have a high quality meta if it involves gameplay that requires some level of thought and interaction with the opponent. Maps can be all t1 spam and still be fairly decent on gameplay so long as the t1 spam meta still requires you to maneuver around your enemy and wins you strategic control of various contested areas. If the map is just a flat, boring map where you have a mex every 500 pixels in every direction and so spam can go anywhere and be efficient, well that's just boring and tedious to play.
As you might imagine, gameplay is the most important factor for us and we weigh it as 45% of a map's overall score. The gameplay is the foundation that everything else is built upon.
0 - Gameplay makes you pull your hair out
1 - Gameplay is uninspiring and boring or highly annoying
2 - You can live with the gameplay but you still rather avoid this map
3 - Average game experience for your taste
4 - You find gameplay to be interesting and stand above the majority of other maps
5 - This might as well be your favorite map, you love the way it plays, you wouldn't mind to host custom 1v1s on it whole day
Finally, the Siamese twin of gameplay. People often have a hard time figuring out where one begins and the other ends, and I sometimes wonder about it myself too.
Ultimately variance is your reaction to gameplay. Basically, it is the measure of how viable and interesting the "rogue" or "off-meta" tactics on your map will be. Maps that have a strictly dominate meta will be able to manage a strong gameplay score while having a terrible variance score (Theta for example). Likewise, some maps are able to have anything and everything as an option but all those options are terrible and not fun to play with because it results in a minute 2 rock, paper, scissors match (Voi Vittu for example).
The best maps are those that have a strong general meta that is consistent and able to lead to long games where a large variety of potential seams could be found. In return, those seams are often the off-meta tactics that allow you to throw your opponent off balance and reward innovation in player gameplay.
We currently give this category a weight of 30%. It used to be higher, but ultimately we weren't fans of the kinds of maps it was putting into pools and so we adjusted the ratio.
0 - One viable com path, one viable build, one viable win plan
1 - Very confined gameplay but maybe can squeeze a suprise build or cheese
2 - Some strategy is probably safer and easier than others but can make a different approach work, likely can send com in a few different directions
3 - Generic middle of the line. Has multiple builds, acu paths and strategies to pick from.
4 - A versatile map, various builds, strategies and ideas are all usable. Can win with something completely unexpected.
5 - A map where imagination is the limit. Land focus, air focus, naval focus, 1st land or 1st bomber. Acu or no acu, eco or no eco, anything is viable.
Welcome to perhaps the most anticipated FAF event of the year! This year's LotS will mostly work similar to the way last year's operated. However, there will be a few minor changes to the way that map selection/faction selection operate and there will also be more of a coordinated media coverage attempt of the event both in streams as well as in casts.
The Event will be getting covered through a new FAF streaming channel called FAFLive.
One of the biggest problems we've had for LotS is that everyone that could cast the event is, well, a participant in the event. On the otherhand, those that aren't playing such as Gyle often do not have the ability to actually stream any of the games due to real life concerns. Therefore, me and Morax will be working together in order to cover the events. We wanted to create a channel that can cover the event and hopefully include things like player interviews to give the event more color than it has in the past. We want to move beyond simply identifying players in the game as "red vs blue" or "cybran 1 vs cybran 2."
I'm going to be working with both English and Russian casters in order to ideally give more interconnection between the variety of channels covering FAF. I got this idea after looking at the Russian side of FAF and seeing how they'd often shout out one another and quickly build up interest across casters, creating a more active casting community in general. The caster gets more views and incentive, and the audience gets more games to watch.
So essentially I'm collecting a list of people interested in covering the event and I'll be curating lists of games for them to cover. I hope to give everyone a unique, good game so that people have an incentive to watch some of the smaller casting channels.
Currently we have
If you're interested in covering the event, PM me about your channel and I'll add you to the list.
Contact me on the Forums/Discord/FAF Client.
Basically, the basis of the tournament structure hasn’t changed. It will, as always, feature the best 16 FAF players with those 16 players being decided through various qualifiers. There will be 4 qualifiers to decide the players and the winners of each qualifier will get the LotS Champion avatar for the coming year as well as a potential cash prize (currently in discussion).
The person responsible for directing this tournament will be me. I will be hosting and dealing with issues that pop up during the tournaments and handle the transaction issues and more meta concerns about the tournament. Please do not use this thread to sign up for the various segments of the tournament, those segments will have their own threads for that. This thread will be for pointing out specific concerns as well as for information related to the Official Tournament.
Each qualifier will have a signup system based on their ladder rating in which a maximum of 16 players can play per qualifier. If more people sign up, they can act as a substitute for players that failed to show up on time but they will not be guaranteed a slot in the bracket itself. The players will be seeded by their ladder rating within the bracket itself. The bracket will also be a Single Elimination Bracket in which every matchup plays a BO3 to determine who will be knocked out and who will progress to the next stage.
Each qualifier will also consist of a map pool of 15 maps. It will be 4 5x5 km maps, 6 10x10 km maps, and 5 20x20 km maps. In order to select the maps played for each BO3, the two participants in each bracket stage will discuss amongst themselves which maps they would like to veto. Each player will be given the right to 3 vetoes and the bottom player in the bracket will be given the first veto. Each player will also submit vetoes sequentially. Once the list is down to 9 maps, the players will be given the right to pick which of the nine they wish to play. The bottom seed will be given the right to pick the first map and the top seed will pick the second. The players will then report the list of maps alongside the two they pick to the Tournament Director. The Tournament Director will pick the third map from the list of potential maps in the case of a tie. Do note if a segment of the tournament is lagging behind the rest of the tournament, the Tournament Director reserves the right to require the players to play different maps from their chosen maps in order to speed their section up.
Both players will also message the Tournament Director the 2 factions they pick to potentially play in their first game alongside the faction they wish to veto in that first game once they have decided on the first map. They will repeat this as their games go on in their BO3. A veto only applies to their opponent, so it is perfectly viable to pick a faction and veto it. If players deviate from their given factions, then they will forfeit the round on that map. A faction selection is final once given to the Tournament Director and cannot be edited later on. If a map was picked by a player in a preceding round and then picked again in another round, they are able to pick a different faction if they so wish.
So for instance, player A and player B went through their vetos and picks. They report the 9 maps available as well as the two they pick to play. Then player A reports that he will be banning aeon on the first map while picking to play 1. aeon 2. cybran. Player B bans aeon and picks 1. cybran 2. uef. The match is then cybran v cybran on the first map.
The qualifier threads and their map pools will be disclosed two weeks before the intended date of play in order to give proper planning time as well as to encourage prep between players.The actual announcement for the tournament that discloses the dates of the tournament and how it will operate will be released in late September.
Each qualifier will end with the players first to fourth qualifying for the official tournament. The position in the qualifier and the qualifier that a person qualified in will be utilized to seed players in the group stage of the official tournament. There will also be a substitute tournament in the case of absences.
December 12th (Part 1) of the Official Tournament:
Similar to the qualifiers, Part I of the Tournament will have the rounds done in a BO3 format. It will follow the same rules of the qualifiers specified above. However, each group stage will be done through Round Robin format. Only the top 2 in each group will move on to the next day of the tournament. The map pools for each group will be announced at the conclusion of the fourth qualifier. They will still consist of 15 maps, but the maps themselves may differ between each group. The games in the group stage will also be seeded by placement as shown in the chart above. Once the group stage begins, the veto and pick process will work as it did in the qualifiers.
December 19th (Part 2) of the Official Tournament:
With the group stage completed, the tournament will now be down to 8 players that will progress into the final bracket of the tournament. These players will be playing a Single Elimination Bracket with some minor changes to the way the qualifiers operated. The map pool will once again consist of 15 maps given out at the end of the group stage section. This day of the tournament will have 2 BO5s in which once again players will have 3 vetoes bringing them down to 9 maps to pick from for the BO5. They will follow the faction submission rule of Part I of the Official Tournament and then proceed to pick two maps each. They will pick in the order of Bottom Seed -> Top Seed -> Bottom Seed -> Top Seed and play in that order. If a tie happens, the Tournament Director will pick the final map from the selection of maps still left.
December 20th (Part 3) of the Official Tournament:
The final day of the Official Tournament will have 4 players left. These 4 players will be playing a single BO7 each to decide placements. The two competing for first will be the victors of Part II. Both of these rounds will consist of the same 15 map pool and each player will be given 4 vetoes. There will be no pick process and the maps will be played alphabetically while following this sequence: 10x10 -> 20x20 -> 5x5 -> 10x10 -> 20x20 -> 5x5 -> 10x10. If there are not enough maps of a given size in the remaining pool of maps, it will be replaced by the map category in which there are the most maps left. The bottom seed will still veto the first map.
Will try to consist of a fusion of both good, classic maps as well as more experimental maps that are not commonly played. Each pool should have a combination of gameplay while also consisting of maps both well known as well as unknown. It is up to the players to decide which maps they hate and which maps they want to play through the veto/pick system. The map pool selection is merely there to provide the optimal variety.
LegendOfTheStars Qualifier Tournament #1 - 10.10.2020 at 14:00 GMT
LegendOfTheStars Qualifier Tournament #2 - 24.10.2020 at 14:00 GMT
LegendOfTheStars Qualifier Tournament #3 - 7.11.2020 at 14:00 GMT
LegendOfTheStars Qualifier Tournament #4 - 21.11.2020 at 14:00 GMT
Substitution Qualifiers - 28.11.2020 at 14:00 GMT
Official Tournament: 12.12.2020 & 19-20.12.2020 at 14:00 GMT
This tournament will also follow standard FAF tournament rules. Any comments or concerns about the procedures or structure of the tournament? Please post them here.
Note: A "player" is defined as a person that plays at least a single game during said month using the client's services. Every data point is a month during that year.
ok go code better pathfinding for us
We've decided to update the reward avatars for FAF donators as the design hasn't been touched for like, over half a decade at this point. I also never really was a fan of the cookie avatar and wanted to get something more tied to the game as a reward for people that help keep the ship running.
We're going to have two separate avatars for the main sources of revenue for FAF: Tournament and Patreon donations. Thanks to Swkoll for creating the designs for me!
In order to claim the Patreon Donator reward, PM me (FtXCommando) on FAF/Forums/Discord with your Patreon information so I can verify you.
In order to claim the Tournament Donator avatar, you must donate a minimum of $20 to any sort of official tournament hosted on FAF. To claim the reward, simply PM me and inform me of the tournament that you put funds into.
I'll be willing to give out the avatar to people that donated funds to a tournament in 2020 and beyond.
Hopefully as time goes on we'll be able to add additional incentives to larger donators, but consider this as a first perk among a potential many.
I move to a different location like 3 times a year and have had zero problems with logging into my FAF account. I don't know what information or assistance you expect to be given off of the description "I can't do anything" and then a bunch of baseless complaining.
Show me a replay of novax being the deciding factor in a game.
I'm going to use this thread as a way for potential TDs and current TDs to get a look at the avatars available for FAF and some potential ideas on how to utilize them so that they actually are not just filling up space in our avatar vault. If you guys want more avatars for people in the community, feel free to use some of the ideas I post here and pm me that you're interested in hosting. If you see an avatar that sounds interesting but you have a different idea, that's cool too. Anything that leads to an increase in tournaments or competitions at ALL levels of play is good in my eyes.
I can also edit names for avatars, so if you like the icon but want to change the wording, let me know.
Avatar 1: BlackOps Tournament Winner
Pretty basic, just host a tournament of any rating restriction using the BlackOps mod. Good way for people that are lower rated but more experienced in the mod to gain an advantage over traditionally strong players.
Avatar 2: Eco Emperor
The basic idea would be to host a tournament on juicy mass maps like Ditch or Seton's. Another idea is to hold a competition like "Who can build a paragon the fastest on [crazyrush/ditch/setons/wonder/flat] or any map really. A competition for someone to reach 1k mass income the fastest maybe.
~Used~ Avatar(s) 3: Prince/King of UEF/Phim/Aeon/Cybran
Avatar 4: I'm a special snowflake!
This is one I'd like to change the wording of, really. It can be a good avatar for some winter tournament of any type/rating.
Avatar 5: Ultimate Assimilator
This was originally an avatar for winning a 3v3 tournament. It can function as a supplementary avatar similar to Winner of Hearts that could be given to someone that manages to steal their opponent's tech during a match. It can also be used in some tournament that spawns people with the faction tech of multiple players or anything else on that line.
Avatar 6: Stack Wizard
Make a tournament specifically focused on getting a high rated dude to partner with some lower rated player. Of course, you should make it so that the low rated player should have some quantity of games to prevent some smurf team and not really provide funds for such a tourney as it could induce bad behavior.
Avatar 7: Holy Trinity Winner
It's an avatar that can be given out for anything really so long as it follows a theme of involving 3 people.
Avatar(s) 8: A lot of LotR Stuff
Avatar(s) 9: Fixed in Equilibrium
Literally anything to do with equilibrium. I think it isn't really being actively maintained now(?), so if someone wants to become a new maintainer I'd even be willing to give them the avatar for it.
Avatar 10: Average Joe Champion
Pretty self-explanatory, just host some tournament focused on the <1500 rating group. Ideally a 1v1 tournament.
Avatar 11: Survival Champion
Could have a few interesting concepts. You could host a tournament on some max difficulty survival map and whoever gets the longest time alive wins the avatar. You could do something where low rated players have to survive against a high rated player(s) (1v1, teamgames) and whoever survives the longest gets the avatar. You could also do the reverse and have a high rated player face low rated players on some certain map and whoever can survive against the most low rated players gets the avatar. Just some sort of fun concept like this, doesn't need to be SUPER SERIOUS balanced.
~Used~ Avatar(s) 12: Prime Commander Avatars
Some sort of 1v1 tournament?
Avatar 13: Master of Cake
No idea boss. Maybe host a tournament on maps that look like food?
Avatar(s) 14: WWPC
WWPC Avatars for 2v2, the tournament thread for this already exist essentially. What we need are TDs that are willing to stick to the concept and host it. Maybe we can do something where if a team that has the avatar is challenged, they have a week to play the team that challenged them or they forfeit the avatar? They could have a max amount of challenges. Feel free to ask if you're interested in keeping track of this stuff.
Avatar 15: Winner of Procyon
Avatar 16: Anarchy
Avatar 17: Galaxy Cup Champion
Avatar 18: Phoenixes
Avatar 19: Rebalance Tournament Champion
Avatar 20: Faction Tournament Champion
(None for Sera/Aeon)
Avatar 21: Heart of Black Champion
Avatar 22: 3v3 Trident of Power
Avatar 23: 3v3 Summer Champion
Avatar 24: Minions and Legends
Avatar 25: 3v3 Spring Champion
Avatar 26: I'm Special
Avatar 27: Air Supremacist
Imba Cup 3rd:
Imba Cup 2nd:
Imba Cup 1st:
KING/PRINCE OF MAPS:
I don't need to provide a pic, it's the damn map on gold/silver bars. I might just give out the avatars to random people (king for 1800+, prince for <1800) and whoever beats that person at that specific map receives the avatar, provided they give me a valid replay of the game. Of course, if you challenge someone and they fail to play, they would also forfeit the avatar. If you are interested in keeping track of this, let me know.
Otherwise, just a basic >host a tournament with this map and whoever wins gets the ava.
Also might as well as post this idea I was throwing around a month ago
Otherwise yeah, just
Bronze -> Silver -> Gold -> Platinum -> Master -> Supreme Commander
The wait argument is fundamentally flawed regardless. You do not have a set price of time that is paid at every repeated host. If I spent 40 minutes waiting for a game to fill and the game is dead in 10 minutes, it takes me mere minutes to get the game going again. The fact this is NOT a major factor is evidenced by the popularity of both maps like wonder and maps like badlands in custom games.
Real humans have an allotted quantity of freetime they wish to spend. If they were already entrapped into playing FAF, then more likely than not they will continue wanting to play FAF.
The rest of this just reads like you took a couple econ courses and think the world operates on pure rational efficiency with no influence from cultural or systemic forces. FAF map choice, like the real big boy world, also has tertiary forces that influence player behavior. If you think global rating isn't one, you just have no understanding of anything going on here. It isn't even a map thing, it's an incentive thing.
By the way, about 1 in every 10 FAF players will play a ladder game. It most certainly has no reason to dominate the teamgame atmosphere. Most of the popular casts (easily seen by sorting through Gyle or Yuri's channels) will be maps like astro or sentons. There is a literal straight line from Yuri promoting astro to astro being played at an astronomical rate. BRS_Astro himself made it as a test map and it didn't catch on for a good year until it was promoted. Sentons is sentons. It is THE sup com map and even gets ported into other RTS games.
You can't reset account ratings.
your post is a bunch of whinging saying the game is dying because t3 is no longer broken and you cant hide shit eco management by dumping 600 mass per second into t4 with 8 t3 engies; im telling you it had no impact on high level games or faf playerbase in general
canis hilly open maps nice meme
game has never been healthier, both in player metrics and in balance
They have more aa, they have less hp
A ui mod (or really a macro) that reclaims at the same efficiency as manual reclaim (say it does the equivalent of 500 apm in rock clicking) at the touch of a single action is a bannable offense because it necessitates mandatory usage. There is no tradeoff in such a mechanic and it results in this not being some optional ui mod but rather a mandatory modification at any competent level in the game.
Therefore, it either is integrated into base FAF to not give an unfair competitive advantage or it is blanket banned. It is essentially going to be an arms race to make what automates the game as much, and as efficiently, as possible.
You don't really have "spare APM" to go around clicking tiny rocks in 1v1s or 2v2s on larger maps. There are vastly more important things to be putting your attention to at any point in the game, really. The only time this "spare APM" tradeoff exists is in teamgames where there is a ton of dead air because you have a singular role, a singular lane, and a singular way to play on most maps. There is no management other than getting the most eco out of the map as quickly as possible so you can continuously scale.
Teamgame players will watch top ladder (which are really top teamgame players anyway) play teamgames and see them whore reclaim and assume this is what makes them good ladder players. It isn't. Spend 300 apm at the start clicking rocks for some 300 mass advantage over the enemy. Makes sense, there is no engagement going on, nothing to really watch on the map. Spend 300 apm at min 15 for the same advantage when losing 2 pillars will give the enemy 400 mass? Yeah, no good.
Aircraft carriers are useful; they are beefier AA that can't be quickly sniped like cruisers can. The utility only comes into play on maps like sentons where you have an air player with 40 air factories but also a ton of space for major t3 navy buildup.
Se7ven will be helping me manage the RO16 and the RO8 so that I'll be able to focus more on casting the tournament rather than managing pms. If someone else is interested in helping out, let me know. I'll like to be able to split the RO16 and RO8 between two people to make it easier to administrate.
Don't even understand the point of this. A t1 air factory is 200 mass.
Land being irrelevant at late t2/early t3 stage isn't even a problem I see in game. If it was, this wouldn't even be the solution to make it relevant. All it would make relevant (if you let every t2 factory do it) is chipping away the value of air control as you cant stop say 3 different slices of crossfire canal from building their own transport for arty drops everywhere. But then again, you just need to invest 200 mass and 10-40 seconds to do this with an air factory anyway.
No, was intended to be Mentor.
Tournament Director: FtXCommando
Time: 24th of October, 14:00 GMT
Watch at: https://www.twitch.tv/faflive
This Tournament is part of the LegendOfTheStars End-of-the-Year 2020 Championship
Nexus Thread: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/283/legendofthestars-end-of-the-year-2020-championship
IRC channel: #LotS_Tourney
This is a 1v1 tournament with no rating limit. To sign up, post your name below. If you do not have a forum account, you're lying. Everyone with a FAF Account can log into these forums.
DIRECT ALL CONCERNS TO THE MAIN TOURNAMENT THREAD, THIS IS SOLELY FOR PARTICIPANTS, RESULTS, AND REPLAYS.
1st place: Winner of the LotS Qualifier Champion Avatar
2nd place: Faction Face Avatar
3rd place: Faction Face Avatar
4th place: Faction Logo Avatar
The four finalists in the tourney will earn a spot in the End-of-the-Year 2020 Championship Tournament!
Single Elimination (BO3) with a BO5 Final.
See the Official FAF Tournament Rules.
In order to select the maps played for each BO3, the two participants in each bracket stage will discuss amongst themselves which maps they would like to veto. Each player will be given the right to 3 vetoes and the bottom player in the bracket will be given the first veto. Each player will also submit vetoes sequentially.
Once the list is down to 9 maps, the players will be given the right to pick which of the nine they wish to play. The bottom seed will be given the right to pick the first map and the top seed will pick the second. The players will then report the list of maps alongside the two they pick to the Tournament Director. The Tournament Director will pick the third map from the list of potential maps in the case of a tie. Do note if a segment of the tournament is lagging behind the rest of the tournament, the Tournament Director reserves the right to require the players to play different maps from their chosen maps in order to speed their section up.