Somewhere between now and when Jip has finished, is my best guess
Posts made by StormLantern
I don't like the idea. Having to manage your buildpower by microing your engies can be annoying at times, but it has also become a FAF staple. It forces you to work tidy in some sense and I like it for it.
That said, I also think it is a rather weird inclusion to make, when you make a repeat build for air experimentals, but not for any other experimental.
Also something to consider, is the fact that t2 arty is now an option to hold off a naval attack on your base. When the arc is higher and the shells have more difficulty in hitting the mobile ships, the arties get less utility in this scenario..
Especially for a faction like Cybran, who doesnt have hover, that can be especially bad.
Yeah previously we didnt include mapgen in the lower brackets for two reasons. First because we thought the newer player would want some predictability in gameplay by playing maps they are familiar with. And second we noticed that a lot of small size (5x5 and some 7.5x7.5) are often pretty low quality mpagens with weird gameplay elements. But given the feedback in this thread we can start by trying out some 7.5x7.5 mapgen in the 200-700 bracket (if the team agrees), starting 1 november. Lets see what kind of maps are generated and how they will be received.
A seperate 1v1 mapgen que will definitely split up the playerpool. As we have seen before, one que will take players from another que. 3v3 mapgen just about killed 4v4. I noticed people tend to not que in empty ques, even if it doesn't really require them to click them.
From a gamedesign perspective, it also doesn't really make any sense to make a separate que. And trying out mapgen only for a single month is not really a reliable measurement either, since the novelty effect can skew the results.
In general, I think the player base is quite evenly split, where about as much people prefer mapgen as pre-made maps. Considering all this, I think a healthy mix of mapgen and pre-made maps combined in one pool makes the most sense. That being said, I would be fine with throwing in a few 1v1 mapgen only months, just to appeal to those who prefer that.
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.
Hi Crimson. I have such a list for 1v1. But how exactly would you maintain this list? Do I need to send you an update after every iteration? How does that reduce the work I need to do? And do the members who make 2v2 and 4v4 pools send their lists as well after every iteration?
Also, when a map is submitted for a matchmaker you have a few guys from the team giving feedback. And while we often agree about a lot of stuff, there are also differences in opinion. So the idea of some "final verdict" or one concisive DM is not feasable. A mapper will receive feedback on his submission in the discord submission channel. Ideally there is a seperate thread created for that submission, so that the feedback is saved in a place that is easily found again. We dont need another list to store info that is already stored elsewhere..
If on the other hand you want an updated list of maps that are currently eligible for 1v1 matchmaker, I can provide that for you.
If you have upvotes, you need downvotes as well. Or else you just get wrong information. Either get rid of voting as a whole or have downvotes as well. Besides, we are not 3 year olds that need to hear that everyone won in the drawing competition.
You are interpreting the mappool wrong. With 1600 ladder rating you will have 13 maps in your mappool. The misinterpretation is not your fault, the announcement post of the new pool contains an error. It should have been mentioned that you get maps from your own bracket + the bracket below that.
Consequently that means ~30% of your maps will be 20x20 and the rest will be 10x10.
Bermuda Locket and Crossfire Canal are indeed somewhat on the high side in reclaim. The reason for their inclusion is that there are not many suitable alternatives that allow for navy play for 1v1. But I agree that it is not optimal, considering the parameters that were set for this new format. If you have suggestions for other navy play maps for 1v1, that are more suitable, let me know.
Last, I don't think it was ever the intention to exclude 20x20 maps completely from this 1v1 trial format, but I understand your confusion, now that I reread Arch's announcement.
I agree that 30% 20x20 maps might be a bit much. Perhaps we can remove one.
There is nothing secret about it, when it was announced on the forums.