while we are at the 1v1 mm-maps, this would be a good time to have a poll about the teams-autohost-maps as well.
+2 / -1
|
The featured map pool is fairly huge, what is missing?
+0 / -0
|
I can tell you what is missing: good maps. Playing tangerine/supreme isles isn't fun in big teams. Having them come up constantly is annoying.
+3 / -2
|
|
|
Maps need more diversity. No good flanking maps with lots of Terrain variety as well as better interactions with the sea and land.
+0 / -0
|
Maybe the poll would be more about reducing the size of the pool. Otherwise here is a more specific gripe. Quicksilver and Mercurial are practically the same map, but can both appear in the same !map poll and have twice the chance of some version appearing in a !map poll. Similarly there are multiple versions of Folsom Dam and Small Supreme Battlefield and probably some others. It would be an improvement if each map only got one chance for some version to be in a !map poll. There are enough maps in the pool that we shouldn't be playing some incarnation of Folsom every other game.
+3 / -1
|
I see maps I don't recall playing in the polls frequently, but the're rarely picked. Either there is a large number of bad maps people automatically avoid that I will never know about therefore, or people really just prefer to always play the same 5-ish maps and don't give new maps a chance. In the later case there isn't much to do.
+1 / -0
|
Not many maps have strong ship-land interactions. Water ends a long way from any artillery targets :(
+0 / -0
|
FWIW I like the idea of Tangerine a lot more than I like playing it. Almost all of the metal spots are behind beaches and chokepoints. Goes in the same bin as the other 3-4 "lane" maps where it's difficult to actually operate as a team because you're sequestered into one theater by the terrain. These are anti-teamplay maps.
+3 / -0
|
I think Tangerine is OK (certainly a lot better than Supreme Battlefield). I don't mind the odd sea map, even if ships don't shine as well as they should. There is actually obvious scope for teamplay (e.g. sea supporting bridge pushes). I agree the metal distribution could be made more contestable though, there isn't really anything to fight for in the middle. Stormsiege though... I don't think any maps are particularly good at lobsterpot densities, especially the maxed out pots with a dozen spectators who'd rather watch a game than accept a proposebattle or go to another room we're getting lately but that's a lobsterpot problem, not a map problem.
+0 / -0
|
Sea needs a rebalance. Hover trades hp for speed and mobility. Amph trades speed for hp and cost for mobility and damage. Ships rade cost, speed, damage, "hp"(they not that tanky) for nothing.... Ships should dominate the open seas and provide great arty support to land.
+0 / -1
|
Just because it is popular, does not mean it is good. Supreme isles is just awful to play as it is 100% sea dominated. Tangerine is 2 sea lanes which play awfully. Supreme battlefields also suffers from tangerine problems as it is a two sea lane map.
+1 / -1
|
ships should trade mobility(they are stuck in water) speed, turnrate and cost for sheer hp and dps. siren needs either more splash or faster fire, maybe both. then balance the rest of the shipfac around that. hunter needs to have a slight splash siren bigger splash and lower reload corsair more shots but a bigger spread (more damage falloff but also more damage) mistral needs either more barrels (6?) or more range to contest with scalpel, maybe both. seawolf is fine. cutter is fine, maybe bigger alpha envoy needs to be able to compete with lance on a open battlefield (nothing to obstruct lance line-of-fire) mariner maybe more build range?
+0 / -0
|
A map being popular means it is a good map, it means people want to play it. How can an unpopular map be good when people don't to play it?
+0 / -1
|
People have different priorities, some people want to porcy, others don't. All those 3 maps are easy to porcy in due to thin land lanes and the difficulty of transitioning from sea to land. So the're popular with the porcy crowd.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Maps need more diversity. No good flanking maps with lots of Terrain variety as well as better interactions with the sea and land. |
quote:
Not many maps have strong ship-land interactions. Water ends a long way from any artillery targets :( |
Sounds like it's time to get that springboard out and start making those maps
+0 / -0
|
quote:
A map being popular means it is a good map, it means people want to play it. |
Popularity as far as map ELO is deceptive. When people are only presented with 4 maps and until very recently one of the maps could be unsupported, it does not at all represent a ranking of maps by popularity, only which of the choices is least bad in the most polls. When the map poll is happening there is no way to get to the map's forum page to see the comments or even basic information like its size, so most people just vote for whatever map they are familiar with. There is no option to vote for "none of the above." The purpose of this thread is asking for a poll to find out how popular these maps really are. All of our kibitzing about the details of this map or the other is just noise.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
A map being popular means it is a good map, it means people want to play it.
|
This assumes players have choice of all available options and are voting for their perceived primary utility choice. Problem with this assumption is that map polls aren't designed with this in mind. First off, define a map poll as 4 options of pseudo random nature. When the amount of total voters is low (say 3), there is more chance of a person's primary utility choice being selected due the vote weight being higher. As total voters go up, individual voting power is diminished, and group voting power is increased. It becomes harder as an individual to overpower the group for primary utility choice, so consolations may occur. However, this gets worse as more votes are coming in. Effectively, the number of choices diminishes as votes come in. Take an example poll: | Name | Voters | Initiative Cost | | Supreme Isles | 3 | 0 | | Titan Duel | 1 | 2 | | Vauban | 2 | 1 | | Redgreen | 0 | 3 | | Total votes | 6/10 | - |
Here, the real choices unless you have 2 extra votes lying around (eg: with voting blocks using clan members) are Supreme Isles or Vauban. Assuming that these votes are unwilling to vote otherwise, the force necessary to get Redgreen would be 100% of the remaining votes (which is likely to be perceived as impossible). So, secondary utility choices or even compromises may have to be made. Titanduel may be obtainable if you vote and hope to seed it, but it is less likely to be obtained than Vauban. So some people may vote for Vauban just to avoid Supreme Isles. Does this mean that Vauban is well designed or that people want to play Vauban? Does this mean that Titanduel is a bad map? No. You cannot make this assumption based on poll results. All maps must be available and players should not be able to obtain the voting statistics of any of the maps in order to know which maps are popular amongst all players. Otherwise, you may see compromise to avoid a perceived negative utility situation.
+0 / -1
|
Lets say your ideal voting mechanism is implemented, nobody has any idea what others are voting for, they can all select from all available maps. Why exactly are you expecting to see more variety in maps when all maps get equal opportunity to be picked? The only reason anything else is played but the top few most popular maps is because of the current limited random selection. You can see this in literally every single other game where players can choose which maps they play. Personally I would welcome your system since I enjoy playing the same few maps over and over to perfect strategies, I don't really care for map variety.
+0 / -0
|
This is not an ideal voting system suggestion or even a suggestion at all. This is a refute to your flawed assumption that popularity == good design. Please reread the following statement: quote:
All maps must be available and players should not be able to obtain the voting statistics of any of the maps in order to know which maps are popular amongst all players |
I DID NOT state this was a suggestion. This is a very obvious refute to your assumption that popularity = good design.
+0 / -0
|
