@moses_the_red said in Understanding team maps:
Look, with the 1v1 ladder system, 1v1 ladder maps should dominate the team map space. Everyone plays at least a little 1v1 right? Its massive free advertising for any map that gets chosen in the ladder rotation.
No. 1v1 and team games are very different.
Your assumptions are way off the mark...
@moses_the_red said in Tips for team map design:
Its also worth noting that people quit pretty often in team games if they seem to be going badly.
I don't think that is the case at all.
Larger team games, the lobby can take a tiny bit of time to fill so the incentive to play it out is there. Rarely do I find people leaving during the game, even when doing badly. If it actually does happen, it is very easy to not have them in your game anymore (the community isn't THAT large).
@FtXCommando said in League System Development: Division Icons Wanted:
Have you guys looked at how many people are at rating ranges before throwing out ideas?
Do you have the breakdown of the rating ranges?
I thought the target can change without right click? So targeting the acu for example, then right click to move, the target may change on it's own?
I am not a good player, but I do use the Harbs reclaim ability all the time.
I honestly have the same opinion. Take Target Priorities for example, where you can set target as the ACU so they don't target random pgens, engi etc. Gives you a huge advantage over someone that does not have that installed.
The way it was explained to me though... the targeting should be able to controlled by the player and just a downfall of how the game was designed originally.
Is it really an obstacle?
Tournaments that are run should follow the guidelines anyway. Wouldn't it be easy to show the structure to FTX (or anyone for that matter) and then post?
If the community was large, tournaments had a lot of money at stake, then the risk might be mitigated.
You have not given ANY evidence that cheating is wide spread and a problem. Give proper examples? Maybe come up with rulebook yourself?
@biass said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
As is with all art, there is still objective qualities that can be judged.
the quality and consistency of your terrain
the application of your textures and how believable they are in creating a setting
the quality and application of your decals to improve the appearance of the map
the application of your props (reclaim) and how they’re tied into your world
the lighting of your scene and how it conveys your setting
the placement of your mex points, which despite being a game mechanic are still natural ore deposits.
This right here is exactly what should be considered.
I think the rating system was being discussed as a metric for how it is searched in the vault.
I hope no one is saying Astro should be in a matchmaker... Jesus! Having good, decent maps included in matchmaking and tournaments would be a good enough incentive for creators.
There is a place to report cheating. The report would get reviewed and then a decision made as to a course of action.
You would have a hard time trying to define what is cheating and what is not. Unless there are multiple reports coming in for cheating, why would anything be done about a non existent issue?
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Maybe it would be better to have a rating system, where if a game is filled, and played for X time then the map gets 1 point or somesuch. This score then decays overtime with decay increasing with age of map.
Your rating solution does not fix the problem you have stated. Larger maps and team maps would most likely last longer than 1v1.
You might be confused with player count vs play count. Play count is a great metric, the more a map is played, the more popular it is. Obviously have a minimum requirement it to be counted - at least player v player, more than 5 minutes etc etc.
That would be awesome if implemented. If not a checkbox, a filter perhaps for maps/number of players etc.
I am not entirely sure why this whole thing is complicated. Have a minimum standard for maps - textures, naming, balanced etc. and that is it.
Improve the search feature and there you go. Players will play a map they enjoy more than once, ones they do not enjoy, they will not play.
@Morax said in 2020 M&M Election:
We can use this thread as a panel to ask questions for candidates.
If that is the case, then this thread needs a clean up.
Wouldn't it have been better to have two different threads for discussion about each proposal?
This thread is already hard to follow and half of it, not that constructive. Maybe keep the discussion about the actual election to discord...
I assume that this will be postponed to next week?
I had the same question yesterday. You can find the Report function here, after you login:
I would try and check the settings in FAF to make sure the game directory is linked.
It wasn't him. Not really a helpful comment though...
I swear I saw the same thing on the Discord...
What would be involved? Something that could be financially supported by donations from the Oceanic community?