9 replies to this topic

[OliverTwisted]

"Moving forward all game modes will be treated as preference rather then exclusive options, vote for the modes you would like to increase the frequency for." This quote is from the most recent patch notes. Why not employ the same system for choosing maps. Most of the maps are great, but a few are just no fun at all, and who wants to play a game that isn't fun? I think this would go along way in reducing the amount of disconnects and improve game morale. I may even consider spending money here again if this were the case. What does the community think?

[OliverTwisted]

Besides evilcow, why can't I get any support for this, I thought I was onto something. I woudnt even care if I had to wait a minute or two to find a match. Are the devs that impressed with their own map creations that this won't even be considered. If I get trea therma 2,3,4, times in a row I'm pulling the plug, same with crimson, and manifold. I love this game but some of these maps are garbage. I'll disco right away if I hear another mordor reference. Damn (really I wont im just being dramatic) Really I love the devs but how about some more options when it comes to maps.

Edited by OliverTwisted, 08 October 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Tezcatli]

Well it would divide up the queue more. People don't agree on which maps they like. So there would be people who would be harder to place within the matchmaker because they don't like Terra or Forest Colony, while others in the same elo do want to play on them.

That seems like the more likely scenario. If the player pool was higher. It wouldn't be as much of a problem. There's also the fact that the content they spent time and money on is not used as much.

[Monkey Lover]

They will do it next patch then remove it the same day

[Pjwned]

I believe the game mode voting was considered to be a predecessor for some sort of map voting as well.

[Tarogato]

What I'm trying to make up my mind about is whether we should vote FOR maps, vote AGAINST maps, or BOTH.

In the case of an against vote, you get to choose one or two (depending on how community feels about this) maps that you'd rather not drop on. You get matched with a team and when matchmaker decides the map, it eliminates all the options that have been voted against. If no maps are available, it chooses the map with the least votes against it.

In the case of a for vote, matchmaker simply ups the percentage of choosing your selected map by some percent (maybe 5% or 10%, depending on how the community feels)

In the case of both voting, you simply vote one map up (example) 5% and vote down another map by (example) 10%. The chance of you getting the map you want is low, but you can definitely influence it. The chance of you getting the map you hate is noticeably lower because you have a bigger influence on that part of the decision.

[OliverTwisted]

Torogato I've been going back and forth in the same way for the most part. I thing those are some good fair ideas in my opinion.

[OliverTwisted]

I hope your right Pjwned.

[Sirius Drake]

Wooooot? Swamp? I am not going to fight there, Sir! .... Said no soldier ever.
At least in CW i am against a System that let you choose a Map.

[Ozric]

OliverTwisted, on 10 October 2014 - 01:30 AM, said:

I hope your right Pjwned.

You misunderstand. The deal Russ originally offered was to create a map priority system after a game mode priority system was in place to help group Elo. We are unlikely to get one without the other, and as one is out of the picture we wont get a map selection option until they come up with another plan.