160 replies to this topic

[Seke]

martin i agree with neogrant on this one (sortof) because of the same reasons.

I think after this rebalance and editing of the map pool should make it so wanting to veto a map should sort of go away

i HIGHLY support new maps being made, HIGHLY. i would prefer if qm map pool was 500+ maps, and yes i said 500, i did not mean 50.

[ZiGZaG]

WHY someone please explain why and who's decision it was to put anytown america in ra2 qm, this is the most unbalanced and unfair map in both games apart from dc uprising..

[YelIowish]

i HIGHLY support new maps being made, HIGHLY. i would prefer if qm map pool was 500+ maps, and yes i said 500, i did not mean 50.

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.

Good idea in general.
BUT
We have more soviet players in the ladder, so there's a risk that they will remove allied maps and make qms even less balanced.

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.

pretty stupid to quote myself, but you ignored me

PS. IMO 500 is better than +20 or 30, but that's unreal...

[rumblesom]

veto system is essential imo, and it should have no impact whatsoever on activity or the length of time in getting a match.

consider that without a veto system players are forced to choose between accepting all the new maps and settings, or refusing them altogether. If I had that option and felt strongly (as I do) about not playing some maps, I would likely elect to forgo the ss taker completely. There is no reason to force players into such an "all or nothing" choice.

the small number of vetoed maps bear no difference on the ability of two players to get matched. In the worst case scenario, 14 map choices may be defeated, meaning these 2 players would still be matched on any of the remaining 38 possibilities.

Meanwhile, rarely do 2 players have exactly the same map preferences. If anything, the veto system should increase activity (decreasing wait times) by not deterring players less with maps they personally dislike. I myself sure as hell favor the thought of the QM without Isle of war

[Seke]

but the whole idea of the renovation is make the maps generally even anyway.... you shouldnt want to veto any maps after this renovation

[rumblesom]

lol why? I should agree with ALL the changes ?

thats unrealistic. This veto is the only way to address players personal preferences. The proposed veto count is small enough to offer players this option without disrupting general consistency.

[Seke]

ok how many maps? or a % of the map pool? 10% as opposed to 3-4 maps or what?

[rumblesom]

also "making maps generally even" is not the only objective of this renovation and as we've already seen, players dont agree on the balance between what is "fun" and what is "fair". Both are a concern.

The renovation is similar to updates on the old map patch: bring new maps and in this case, refresh some long-sought settings changes to the QM

ok how many maps? or a % of the map pool? 10% as opposed to 3-4 maps or what?

a percentage is what I propose. Martin and I had tentatively discussed 5-7 maps of the current total of 52. Meaning an upper limit of 13%

[Seke]

if the majority of players want this in the QM and the majority want to implement it for next month i would support it, but only if it was a strong majority 66%+

[playertwo]

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.
I don't think there are specific, descriptive reasons for, say, mirroring one map but not another... therefore, what? your whole preposal becomes invalid because in my eyes it lacks detail? No.

Perhaps reading the nature of your responses in this thread may have put some off from posting, I dunno. I'm kinda bummed that you're all upset over my opinion and so on, but I'll reply to your post, this being a forum and all:

Even you with your intelligence
What intelligence?
are incapable of analysing the finer details of the game play and different match ups in QM.
I'm very sure that isn't true. I don't have the time these days, admittedly, to analyse the map pool, but preoccupied and incapable are different things.
I'm quite disappointed in you.
Disappointed based on your expectations which are based on what? I'm sorry if you feel I led you on?

The most annoying thing is that most of you here don't even seem the grasp the slightest idea behind the 'veto' system.
What a silly thing to say. Particularly when you drone on to describe, in a needlessly patronising manner, something which is not a veto system.

Lets say player will be able to select 5-7 maps from control panel to not include in JUST THEIR map pool. If I match that player, and I am happy to play those maps, do we play the map that they chose to exclude, or not?

If the answer is that the map is excluded, what you have is veto power.

I think you're right to offer detail, because you're not being particularly clear and constructive about the changes you propose at the moment.

I hope that I have described it clearly enough for you this time around.
Your (not you're, but your) sarcasm is uneccesary. You're presumably happy to accept that my intelligence is sufficint to take part in the forum. Therefore please avoid:
You just went down from a genius to a utter retard with that post.
You could moderate your posting style, I think. You could also give me some spcific detail to back up your opinion.

The supers and mirror settings are to deal with certain stalemate conditions and camp games that could stretch on to infinity.
Many people enjoy a good stand off once in a while. Maybe they aren't top players, but does that mean you should legislate against their ongoing enjoyment of the game on behalf of an elite few?
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.
So line them up - how many active QM players last month?> What % do you think agree with you on each and every map? Or are these guys counted in the number that will get what they are given because in your eyes they weren't participating when they should have been in your (now closed) poll.

I've no issue if the support is there, but you're talking about mirroring maps and forcing SW's like it only affects active ST members, and that is not the case. You need a proper poll, on the gameserver, in my view, but as I said before - this is just my view, PLEASE don't get upset about it.
Learn to scout.
I learned to scout right before I learned to mammoth rush. You need to stop being so rude please.
I have played all these years and learned the maps to the point where I would have close to a mental map hack
Good for you.
There are many others who have played that much and more too.
Yes there are. (Hi.) But as a % of the current playerbase?
I can rally point dogs and engis from my barracks to any tech building or straight to your mcv if I wanted to.
What % of players on xwis tonight could do that?

If you could be a little less flamy in future I'd appreciate it. We're a small enough group of interested parties without making peoples views unwelcome.

(Is there a quote tag limit?)

[ZiGZaG]

also "making maps generally even" is not the only objective of this renovation and as we've already seen, players dont agree on the balance between what is "fun" and what is "fair". Both are a concern.

The renovation is similar to updates on the old map patch: bring new maps and in this case, refresh some long-sought settings changes to the QM



a percentage is what I propose. Martin and I had tentatively discussed 5-7 maps of the current total of 52. Meaning an upper limit of 13%

Problem is different players have different opinions for example martin thinks dc shud be removed but pinch shud stay id rather make dc br vs tl instead of removing it and just remove pinch..

[FReQuEnZy]

I think after this rebalance and editing of the map pool should make it so wanting to veto a map should sort of go away

i HIGHLY support new maps being made, HIGHLY. i would prefer if qm map pool was 500+ maps, and yes i said 500, i did not mean 50.

I'm sure if we had 500 maps in the QM map pool you would want to vote some of them out of your pool while other would want to play them.

WHY someone please explain why and who's decision it was to put anytown america in ra2 qm, this is the most unbalanced and unfair map in both games apart from dc uprising..

Olaf's. I think...

Good idea in general.
BUT
We have more soviet players in the ladder, so there's a risk that they will remove allied maps and make qms even less balanced.

pretty stupid to quote myself, but you ignored me
PS. IMO 500 is better than +20 or 30, but that's unreal...

I ignored you, because you were being stupid. Logical well though out answers and points are preferred for this topic.
This renovation will be the backbone for the next map patch updates.

BTW we can control how many maps they can remove by limiting the amount of maps they can veto.
Also the settings that will be added to certain maps will make Allied vs Soviet more even.
So they won't be able to abuse the system to their advantage.

but the whole idea of the renovation is make the maps generally even anyway.... you shouldnt want to veto any maps after this renovation

That's correct, you shouldn't, but there always players who's opinions differ to what ever reasons they have.
This gives them a good balance between personalization and having a challenging, fair and fun QM experience.

I predict each player vetoing roughly around 2-3 maps each.

[ZiGZaG]

I'm sure if we had 500 maps in the QM map pool you would want to vote some of them out of your pool while other would want to play them.




Olaf's. I think...




I ignored you, because you were being stupid. Logical well though out answers and points are preferred for this topic.
This renovation will be the backbone for the next map patch updates.

BTW we can control how many maps they can remove by limiting the amount of maps they can veto.
Also the settings that will be added to certain maps will make Allied vs Soviet more even.
So they won't be able to abuse the system to their advantage.




That's correct, you shouldn't, but there always players who's opinions differ to what ever reasons they have.
This gives them a good balance between personalization and having a challenging, fair and fun QM experience.

I predict each player vetoing roughly around 2-3 maps each.

i hope he explains this just makes no sense to me at all out of all the YR maps its the worst possible choice, for all you mapmakers and editors i think hail mary would make an epic map for ra2 qm

[Seke]

I'm sure if we had 500 maps in the QM map pool you would want to vote some of them out of your pool while other would want to play them.

no, i have all the maps checked on atm and i would in the future too. no matter how retarded they are, because i rather play all the maps available to me, even if they offer me unfair situations.

i think DC uprising is 3-4x worse than pinch.

someone make a poll right now about whether or not they would be INTERESTED in a veto system and we should go from there.

[FReQuEnZy]

Problem is different players have different opinions for example martin thinks dc shud be removed but pinch shud stay id rather make dc br vs tl instead of removing it and just remove pinch..

Then you can disable the map(s) in your Control panel and enjoy your preferences if the new system is passed.

If you could be a little less flamy in future I'd appreciate it. We're a small enough group of interested parties without making peoples views unwelcome.

(Is there a quote tag limit?)

Intelligence, from your other posts around the forum.

Falmy? Most of you guys are rather frustrating to discuss things with in a logical manner.
This is what I've learned first hand now and been told in advanced of this renovation.

BTW I'm pretty sure I stated most answers pretty clearly.
So I seriously can't be bothered to draw a diagram for you to explain something.

If I would have just passed these ideas on privately you could have all received a stealth update to QM with no voting right or discussing of the subject what so ever.
At least have some gratitude that some one is putting in the effort to discuss the changes first.

Also what I meant by descriptive posts and discussion is ''help me help you''.

i think hail mary would make an epic map for ra2 qm

That arena like map? I think it was already in QM once and it proved to be an epic fail. It's like a balanced version of LBL, but worse.

no, i have all the maps checked on atm and i would in the future too. no matter how retarded they are, because i rather play all the maps available to me, even if they offer me unfair situations.

i think DC uprising is 3-4x worse than pinch.

someone make a poll right now about whether or not they would be INTERESTED in a veto system and we should go from there.

I have most of the maps enabled.

[dsector]

Haven't read the whole topic but...

Veto system would be great! Since there are so many maps in QM now, I don't see anything wrong with each player having the possibility (not mandatory) to exclude 4-5 maps which they don't consider fair. I play this game for entertainment. I never enjoy my matches on Pinch Point, Defcon, Official A (SvA), DC Uprising and Urban (SvA).

I'm sure we all have a few maps which we don't particularly like. There is NOTHING wrong with the veto system. It only makes QM more fun for all of us.

[Edd]

I have an Idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, so i've read alot but not all of it, too much nonsense arguments

here's my idea.... How about we make 3 ladders, yep, 3 ladders! 1 ladder will be nothing but Allies. 2nd ladder nothing but sovs and 3rd what we got now, anything.

Now if you're an allied player and you're "scared" to play a sov on tourney A or GSF or whatever gets you scared, stick to AvA ladder. Likewise with Sovs and their Arctic Circle and Hammer fear against allies. Or you can have balls and just play what we have now WITHOUT making any changes, just adding new maps! so stick with 3rd ladder.


Also, I think Neo's idea of the Veto system is perfect.

[ZiGZaG]

I have an Idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, so i've read alot but not all of it, too much nonsense arguments

here's my idea.... How about we make 3 ladders, yep, 3 ladders! 1 ladder will be nothing but Allies. 2nd ladder nothing but sovs and 3rd what we got now, anything.

Now if you're an allied player and you're "scared" to play a sov on tourney A or GSF or whatever gets you scared, stick to AvA ladder. Likewise with Sovs and their Arctic Circle and Hammer fear against allies. Or you can have balls and just play what we have now WITHOUT making any changes, just adding new maps! so stick with 3rd ladder.


Also, I think Neo's idea of the Veto system is perfect.

lol 3 ladders shud impliment this on YR simply so theres no hope of getting a game

[rumblesom]

3 ladders would fragment the already low numbers even further-

if players matched under one set of criteria, but the stats were then divided into 3 individual ladders it could work, but even then some players would unduly influence the general ladder by quitting matches that didnt apply to their specialized ladder.

I believe there is no reason to assume a majority of players have such disimilar preferences as to require individual ladders. With the feedback of this topic and the implementation of a veto quota, the qm should be generally agreeable to virtually all current players.

[ZiGZaG]

Then you can disable the map(s) in your Control panel and enjoy your preferences if the new system is passed.




Intelligence, from your other posts around the forum.

Falmy? Most of you guys are rather frustrating to discuss things with in a logical manner.
This is what I've learned first hand now and been told in advanced of this renovation.

BTW I'm pretty sure I stated most answers pretty clearly.
So I seriously can't be bothered to draw a diagram for you to explain something.

If I would have just passed these ideas on privately you could have all received a stealth update to QM with no voting right or discussing of the subject what so ever.
At least have some gratitude that some one is putting in the effort to discuss the changes first.

Also what I meant by descriptive posts and discussion is ''help me help you''.



That arena like map? I think it was already in QM once and it proved to be an epic fail. It's like a balanced version of LBL, but worse.




I have most of the maps enabled.

yea thats the one i cant imagine how it would be a fail ore behind ur mcv and gems at mid to fight between both allies and sov have have a great fight here, it will more than likelly be a short game but not every map has to be unit spam

[FReQuEnZy]

Maps that are based on sentry/pillbox wars and infantry spam with a few tanks are not fun.


First post has been updated by a full description of the 'map settings/veto' system with an added poll.

[rumblesom]

for those of you voting against a veto system, you realise you thereby force players into a decision: ALL new maps or NONE. Your choice may in fact generate a smaller chance of being matched on the maps you seek to keep active.

Edited by rumblesom, 30 December 2011 - 10:22 PM.

[ZiGZaG]

Maps that are based on sentry/pillbox wars and infantry spam with a few tanks are not fun.


First post has been updated by a full description of the 'map settings/veto' system with an added poll.

why not?

not every game has to come down to tanks face down on yr is somtimes decided like this and its one of the most fun maps ever..

Edited by ZigZag, 30 December 2011 - 10:29 PM.

[Seke]

why not?

not every game has to come down to tanks face down on yr is somtimes decided like this and its one of the most fun maps ever..

worst map EVER.

[rumblesom]

this is why there should a be veto !