Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread
-
@stormlantern said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
As you know, 1v1 ladder pools are cumulative, in the sense that you get all maps of your bracket and lower. Isis is put in the pool for the <200 bracket. This means that the <200 players have a 1 in 4 chance of playing their game on this map.
Why did that system get changed?? I clearly remember Yudi talking about the system that 1800+ players only get the maps from the 1200-1800 and 1800+ or whatever the next lower pool is. Giving 1800+ people the maps of <200 pool feels wrong on so many levels.
-
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2955/new-changes-to-the-2v2-tmm?_=1680449732538
okay it was 2v2 TMM, my fault. But then.. Why not implement this system? I'll create a tier list later on anyway to see whether it's just our / my opinion on those 5x5 maps but still.Also since the map pool just got updated.. Can you send me the one from last month? I'd like to especially implement those maps in the tierlist and don't remember all the names.
-
Because in 1v1 all maps still has a high skill ceiling whether or not they're made for beginners, not the same applies for 2v2/4v4 because the gameplay is much easier and one dimensional in general if high level players get low level maps.
-
@sladow-noob said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
Also since the map pool just got updated.. Can you send me the one from last month? I'd like to especially implement those maps in the tierlist and don't remember all the names.
The pools are announced on the forum.. So you can find it in the announcement post.
-
Humble feedback from a (bad) 750 rated player:
first, I only play 1v1, because 4v4 is too hard for me and you get sometimes insulted when you do mistakes - which happens a lot when you are around 700 - and I find that some maps are selected too often.
For instance, all the "classics" like isis, williamson bridge, crossfire canal, syrtis, eye of the storm, open palm... just to name a few, where guys who know meta have much more chance to win !
There are so many new maps to try... it would be nice that when one map is in the pool, it can't be selected for a certain period of time, for instance, just to make sure that we don't have it in pool 3 times a year !
More mapgen would be cool, it would level things maybe, so I'm glad to see it's back !Also, 20x20 are often enough naval maps, which are hard to play at my level... managing transports and navy is harder. I guess I have a 80% loss ratio there
From a general point of view, I really appreciate all the efforts and the time of people invested here, thanks again to them for allowing this great game to live on
-
This post is deleted! -
@redhotchilipeper If you want, I made a post a couple of minutes ago with a tierlist. Even though it's rather directed towards high ranks, knowing what other people think prob won't hurt
-
@sladow-noob ok thanks, I'll take a close look when I'm back from work
-
A Anachronism_ referenced this topic on
-
A Anachronism_ referenced this topic on
-
A Anachronism_ referenced this topic on
-
Can we have something else than only 20x20 maps in the 3v3 matchmaker? I'm so sick of these maps.
-
@plasma_wolf
There have been zero 20x20 maps in the 3v3 matchmaker. Thus far, the maps in it have all ranged from 10-15 km. You can look at the map pool here -
Ok let me rephrase. Can we have 3v3 maps where the t3 air rush is not mandatory? even the 12.5x12.5 maps have this 'fun' feature.
-
Mandatory t3 air rush residentsleeper
-
ABOLISH MAPGEN! ALL HAIL MAN MADE ASTRO!
-
What mapgen settings do you prefer?
-
I am concerned that most generated maps I played in the mode are 4v4 in nature. Thus there is an asymmetry that leads to 2v1 commander battles and short games as one commander dies and others don't have enough control anymore.
-
1v1 mapgen week is back, that is really cool, thanks
-
Asymmetry is usually appreciated in maps, because it makes the gameplay less stale. Depending on your rating, you play on maps with a set amount of "slots". They are usually 10+ in total..
-
I'm not happy how teams can preset themselves in a manner that allows "new" accounts to lock with a "high" account and go into team games. It brings the higher rated player into matches against players they normally wouldn't be setup against. Inevitably the "new" accounts DO NOT play at the level that they are supposedly at either. So it makes for a very one-sided match as the normal account/ranks just get steamrolled by the vastly superior high ranked player and the suspiciously good low ranked accounts.
It's not fair, it's not fun and it very much smacks of rank manipulation. This isn't just randoms doing it either- spikeynoob has done it repeatedly as well as a number of other high profile players. It makes it so that I don't want to play in the ladder because i know some ultra pro is going to just stomp my entire team without thinking while i'm barely able to perform basic functions in the game as it is.
-
Would be nice if you were capped, yes. Would also be nice if it actually applied to custom games too. Games with ridiculous rating disparity are just terrible data for the system and half the reason you have completely unintelligible ratings across the various “ecosystems” in custom games.
-
Classic SpikeyNoob
