Jump to content


Photo

RA2 Quick-Match Renovation - 2011 December


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

Poll: RA2 Quick-Match Renovation - 2011 December

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

Add a veto/map disinclusion system?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Veto/map disinclusion system settings?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#26 Olaf

Olaf

    Commander

  • XWIS Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13496 posts
  • XWIS Name: XTF

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:20 AM

What next, an anti-fodder mod? ;)

That'd be good!

If all 'top' players agree certain maps are unbalanced, they should just disable that map in their CP.

#27 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:33 AM

DC uprising is much more unbalanced then Pinch. Pinch has to played a certain way to win.

@ playertwo. The balance changes for QM have been debated for years. So the right changes are debated and being made.

@ Dylan. We'll take a look at it. Can you upload the full map preview of the latest version?

@ Olaf. Disabling them doesn't really switch them off as preferred. How about a proper Quota system that let's players totally dis-include maps from their QM map pool?

#28 Olaf

Olaf

    Commander

  • XWIS Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13496 posts
  • XWIS Name: XTF

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:51 AM

@ Olaf. Disabling them doesn't really switch them off as preferred. How about a proper Quota system that let's players totally dis-include maps from their QM map pool?

In that case, both players apparently don't agree.
We've discussed this before, but... Why would the preference of a player to disable a map be more important than the preference of the other player to not disable it?

#29 playertwo

playertwo

    Corporal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:05 PM

That'd be good!

>_<

If all 'top' players agree certain maps are unbalanced, they should just disable that map in their CP.

Precisely.

#30 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:54 PM

Why should the player that has disabled a map be forced to play on that map even after a preference has been made?

Your system makes no sense.
If a player picks some maps to disable then he shouldn't get matched on them and the server would just use the rest of the map pool to replace the disabled ones.

In that case, both players apparently don't agree.


Wrong! One of the players agrees and has games on that map vs players who haven't disabled that map, while the player who disabled the map won't.
Instead of going into QM under the false pretence that those maps have been disabled.


By the way read the first post before posting, please.
Aimed at some posters mentioning changes that were already revised.

Edited by FReQuEnZy, 29 December 2011 - 01:00 PM.


#31 Olaf

Olaf

    Commander

  • XWIS Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13496 posts
  • XWIS Name: XTF

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:00 PM

Why should the player that has disabled a map be forced to play on that map even after a preference has been made?

The original QM picked a map at random without any preferences. The current QM allows you to disable/enable maps if both parties agree. You're requesting one step further: veto power.

Your system makes no sense.
If a player picks some maps to disable then he shouldn't get matched on them and the server would just use the rest of the map pool to replace the disabled ones.

Wrong! One of the players agrees

What do you mean by agrees? If only one of the two players wants to disable a map, there's no agreement (in my view).

Instead of going into QM under the false pretence that those maps have been disabled.

What false pretence?
That page is quite clear: "When both players disable a standard map, the map gets excluded. When both players enable a non-standard map, the map gets included."

#32 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:16 PM

What do you mean by agrees? If only one of the two players wants to disable a map, there's no agreement (in my view).

What false pretence?
That page is quite clear: "When both players disable a standard map, the map gets excluded. When both players enable a non-standard map, the map gets included."


That player agrees to include the map in their QM map pool! :p Thus he will get matched on that map while the other one who disabled it doesn't. :)
It's quite simple to understand IMO.


The CP page is not descriptive enough on what's a Standard map or not. :p

#33 playertwo

playertwo

    Corporal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:03 PM

I think the point to understand is that 'veto' means you can just say no. 'Agreement' means that the other player has to, well, agree with you!

Would you rather you could effectively exclude certain maps from your monthly ladder matches because they don't favour your particular faction/playing style?

I'm not in any way saying that you haven't attempted and achieved a great deal of quality work here. The Berlin wall was very well built too ;)

#34 PostNextOlaf

PostNextOlaf

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1680 posts
  • XWIS Name: yid

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:10 PM

This has been over thought to much imo. all qm needed was the addition of new maps and maybe 1/2 removed/made mirror matches.

#35 DylHole

DylHole

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4864 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:36 PM

@Martin Hey, can you look at this one too? I think it would be nice for QM

#36 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:48 PM

The Berlin wall was very well built too ;)


Eh? You're losing respect from me. :wheelchair:

I don't see how the current suggestions stop or change anything besides balance and perhaps add a reasonable way for a player to make their own map preference.

The 'veto' system would only allow a player to remove 5-7 maps.


Is anyone up for play testing some settings?

Edited by FReQuEnZy, 29 December 2011 - 06:54 PM.


#37 Seke

Seke

    C&C Tournament Organizer

  • Help Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6692 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 09:41 PM

veto system would be bad, maybe a combination of what it is now + your veto system, but i think although that might be overcomplicated, it would be better (imo) but i would limit the "veto" to like 2 or 3 maps...

i dont see the poll?

i'm pretty happy with the way this is being handled as Martin is pretty good at understanding what favors what-map balancing

#38 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:18 AM

Poll was useless. I will make a serious poll at the end of the week, once more discussion has been done.

Now tell me. Why is the veto system bad? Blizzard uses a similar system in many of it's games. You can pick like 3-5 maps to remove from the QM pool, by your preference.
This is the best approach IMO, everyone gets what they want. :)

Thanks, Mason. I would still prefer a lot more comments, explanations and reasons for peoples preferences and suggestions. That's why I closed the current poll. People are just voting without reading the discussion and the changes. If this get's finished at the end of this week or the next and they start crying after that they have themselves to blame for not 'keeping it real'. :p

#39 YelIowish

YelIowish

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:22 PM

New idea! (you won't like it, but... ;) )
Add new qm maps, some overpowered for allies, some for soviets, some fair... Don't think about it, just add 20-30 maps. It will be a challenge for both sides. It won't make every single game fair, but in general, statistically qm will be just because of the fortuity.
Like at real war (it's war game, isn't it?), some battlegrounds favour 1 side of the conflict.
Discussing about maps isn't bad, but adding new maps is the mostest importantest part of this renovation IMO.

With love <3

PS.

This has been over thought to much imo. all qm needed was the addition of new maps and maybe 1/2 removed/made mirror matches.


PS2. So maybe my idea isn't new?... :p

Edited by Yellowwish, 30 December 2011 - 02:25 PM.


#40 playertwo

playertwo

    Corporal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:05 PM

Poll was useless. I will make a serious poll at the end of the week, once more discussion has been done.

Presumably a whole heap of 'yes' votes (no detailed reasoning required for those of course) would have been more useful.

Now tell me. Why is the veto system bad?

1. Because you're dividing an already small playerbase into smaller pieces.
2. Because veto by its nature proceeds to effect change without mutual consent.
3. The current system allows players who AGREE not to play a map to get what they BOTH want.
4. Because you're allowing players to effectively 'bail' maps they dont like.
5. Because there is not enough demand from the PLAYERS. (The 'community' and the players are different groups of people.)

Blizzard uses a similar system in many of it's games. You can pick like 3-5 maps to remove from the QM pool, by your preference.

This has never been one of those games. Nor is Call of Duty MW... nor are many other games.

This is the best approach IMO, everyone gets what they want. :)

I appreciate it is what some people want. If it was what everyone wanted, you'd be surfing a tidal wave of support for it right now, instead of closing polls.

I would still prefer a lot more comments, explanations and reasons for peoples preferences and suggestions. That's why I closed the current poll. People are just voting without reading the discussion and the changes. If this get's finished at the end of this week or the next and they start crying after that they have themselves to blame for not 'keeping it real'. :p


You see, that's where I take exception, really. I don't want ot be jumping on your case here fella but take yourself a deep breath there for a minute and read that again..

If this get's finished at the end of this week or the next and they start crying after that they have themselves to blame for not 'keeping it real'.

You are proposing changes to a game without really consulting even a significant minority of the players.

There is no requirement for players to use ST for this purpose, and many do not. There are many reasons for this, which are irrelevant - but read your last post to me. (thats my way of saying that your respect is not important to me ;) ).

There is, presumably, no announcement on the game server about the potential rewrite of this and that, balancing of the other, oh by-the-way it's supers always on for these maps because a few people get all upset about camping.. with a view to letting people go through the hoops of forum registration just to tell you to leave their game alone.

You're doing that in the week between xmas and new year., when many people will not be paying attention.

I think if people look back and say that consultation was inadequate, that will NOT be their fault.

Finally, I think your poll could start out by ascertaining if the players want changes at all.

I'd like to point out that I don't disagree with SOME of the points made about balance. I'd like to remind all players that since the imbalances are the same for everyone... fairness is inherent in the end.

Merry Xmas all :D

Edited by playertwo, 30 December 2011 - 05:06 PM.


#41 DylHole

DylHole

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4864 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:10 PM

isn't the map selected after the players meet, kinda proving your whole argument wrong ^ ?

#42 playertwo

playertwo

    Corporal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:39 PM

I don't really have a whole argument to be honest

Just think forcing supers/mirror matches is a step away from what RA2 is, and perhaps I'm wrong about that too. I dunno for sure, and there are many many others who make massive use of QM whose wants and needs could and should outweigh mine anyway.

In the end, my only concrete assertion is that the biggest inbalance in the game is the shroud. Always has been and always will be. If you've played all these maps for all these years and fogged - then yes, you do know the maps extremely well by now.

And to be honest, if you wanted to attract new players you'd be better off removing shroud from all games. Of course, that would offend me as a player hugely.

But if the aim is to regenerate activity on the server - which I can see here that it isn't - you have to deal with the shroud once and for all.

Second best is to enforce the shroud for all players by making the autoss feature compulsory.

If you want a whole argument then - I'll give you one:

"End cheating by removing all shroud from CM games, and compelling autoSS use on QM. Refill server by reversing all map hack bans through the ages" - that'll do :p

#43 DylHole

DylHole

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4864 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:53 PM

And to be honest, if you wanted to attract new players you'd be better off removing shroud from all games.

Posted Image

#44 DrVanNostrand

DrVanNostrand

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5114 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:59 PM

i dont understand how mirror is bad in some cases`? u honestly think its fun when for example in map like hammer and sickle allied puts tanya on both bridges with waypoints , so there will be only 2 possible ways for soviet to attack : kirov = easily destroyed by allied player, or dread = also super easy to destroy.

its not super fun when in the beginning of the game u already know its 50-50 chance for atleast a stalemate for the allied player.

couldnt rly read the rest after "remove the shroud"

also how shroud can be "imbalance" to my understanding imbalance is something that 1 faction has better than the other faction. not something that is same for everyone.

Edited by DrVanNostrand, 30 December 2011 - 05:59 PM.


#45 uncledrew

uncledrew

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:11 PM

YES. Everyone download a trainer instead of the auto ss uploader patch. Sounds to me like the right thing to do!

NEXT STEP, bring back siralex as an ADMIN. He can give trainers to everyone and make the game fair !!!!!111

#46 NeoGrant

NeoGrant

    Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14917 posts
  • XWIS Name: neo

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:14 PM

Veto essentially imo is a bad idea. Initially I thought it was a good plan, but it wouldn't work too well with our current situation with ra2. It would increase the amount of time to get a game because players would end up favouring maps, and veto'ing the ones they don't like.

Instead why don't you ask players to "veto" a map they don't like (one choice only) in the CP. Tally them up, remove most veto'd map next month. Add a new map, repeat.

#47 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5085 posts
  • Location:Scotland, Glasgow
  • XWIS Name: Freedom

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:54 PM

Veto essentially imo is a bad idea. Initially I thought it was a good plan, but it wouldn't work too well with our current situation with ra2. It would increase the amount of time to get a game because players would end up favouring maps, and veto'ing the ones they don't like.

Instead why don't you ask players to "veto" a map they don't like (one choice only) in the CP. Tally them up, remove most veto'd map next month. Add a new map, repeat.


Thats a good idea but as long as you cant veto as many as you like.

#48 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:02 PM

Presumably a whole heap of 'yes' votes (no detailed reasoning required for those of course) would have been more useful.

I appreciate it is what some people want. If it was what everyone wanted, you'd be surfing a tidal wave of support for it right now, instead of closing polls.


You are proposing changes to a game without really consulting even a significant minority of the players.


There is, presumably, no announcement on the game server about the potential rewrite of this and that, balancing of the other, oh by-the-way it's supers always on for these maps because a few people get all upset about camping.. with a view to letting people go through the hoops of forum registration just to tell you to leave their game alone.


Actually, the main reason that led me to delete the poll was, because there were too many no answers WITHOUT SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTIVE POSTS on those voters opinions.
Even you with your intelligence are incapable of analysing the finer details of the game play and different match ups in QM. I'm quite disappointed in you. :(

The most annoying thing is that most of you here don't even seem the grasp the slightest idea behind the 'veto' system.
So I will give you a small summary of it's working theory.


A player will be able to select 5-7 maps from control panel to not include in JUST THEIR map pool.
When that player gets matched with another player that has not selected to include these maps. The server will automatically pick another map randomly.
Which means you will not lose any games over it or have to wait any longer to get a match.

This just gives each player their own preference over the map pool that actually works. The system is quite similar to the one that Blizzard uses on Warcraft 3, The Frozen Throne and Star Craft 2.
Yes it does mean that if you match the same player 3 times in a row. Your map pool will be slightly smaller temporarily, but that can be dealt with by either picking a smaller vote amount or adding more maps into QM, which is being done continuously and this necessitates for the need of the veto system. With the next patch update we can add another 6-10 quality maps. Which will just make the veto system even more beneficial by increasing the user friendliness of Quick match and the map patch simultaneously.

I hope that I have described it clearly enough for you this time around.



Just think forcing supers/mirror matches is a step away from what RA2 is, and perhaps I'm wrong about that too. I dunno for sure, and there are many many others who make massive use of QM whose wants and needs could and should outweigh mine anyway.

In the end, my only concrete assertion is that the biggest inbalance in the game is the shroud. Always has been and always will be. If you've played all these maps for all these years and fogged - then yes, you do know the maps extremely well by now.

And to be honest, if you wanted to attract new players you'd be better off removing shroud from all games. Of course, that would offend me as a player hugely.

But if the aim is to regenerate activity on the server - which I can see here that it isn't - you have to deal with the shroud once and for all.

Second best is to enforce the shroud for all players by making the autoss feature compulsory.


You just went down from a genius to a utter retard with that post.

The supers and mirror settings are to deal with certain stalemate conditions and camp games that could stretch on to infinity.
I want to play a good game of RA2 not to have a ****in war of attrition. I'm sure many experienced QM players agree.

Learn to scout. I have played all these years and learned the maps to the point where I would have close to a mental map hack.
There are many others who have played that much and more too. I can rally point dogs and engis from my barracks to any tech building or straight to your mcv if I wanted to.



Veto essentially imo is a bad idea. Initially I thought it was a good plan, but it wouldn't work too well with our current situation with ra2. It would increase the amount of time to get a game because players would end up favouring maps, and veto'ing the ones they don't like.


Read my first replay to clarify the idea behind the veto system.

#49 playertwo

playertwo

    Corporal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:04 PM

Instead why don't you ask players to "veto" a map they don't like (one choice only) in the CP. Tally them up, remove most veto'd map next month. Add a new map, repeat.

That's a great idea. It would be very interesting as well. Obviously you could make the vote result public on xwis each month. How will you choose a map to add? With the right server messages you could perhaps stimulate some extra forum activity too ;)

**Edit, Posted at the same time as Mr Attitude, I'll get back on that when I'm done eating but in the meantime you could drop the attitude.

Edited by playertwo, 30 December 2011 - 07:07 PM.


#50 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:07 PM

Some players will still want to play that 'removed map' which might actually be balanced for play.
My method allows them to still play that map while the people who don't want it don't have to play it.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users