Ability to Veto some maps?

[ElPared]

the idea in the original discussion was for it to be an editable list of 3 maps that can you don't want to play on. The idea being that you could set the maps your team does the worst on on your veto list and your 3 favorite maps on your preferred list.

I added the idea to have preffered maps as well because then there's still a chance you'll be forced to play on a map you don't like.

however I'm not suggesting you have the ability to see a map you don't like, go "I don't like this map" and then skip over it. This would be a thing you can set up so that the game jsut doesn't put you on these maps as often.

[Szei]

Judging from the comments this thread should be better explained (I'm typing from my phone so I can't do that now, but maybe I'll write up a brief overview tomorrow). It appears some people are misinterpreting the goal or simply not understanding it. It is not about people not playing maps just because they "don't like them". It is about maps that are imbalanced. I never would suggest that people should be able to avoid maps because they are personally bad at them, but rather because the maps are actually unfair for their team. The veto system is about promoting competition and skill under balanced conditions while removing the lucky and/or unfair elements of the game.

Also, for this reason I am also against the idea of a paid veto system. I'm all for supporting OML as I think most of you are aware, but not at the expense of the integrity of the game. Paid vetos would be a form of pay to win even if it is only minor.

[(Rone)]

Thereby voting for "no, all maps are balanced for every team*" I eat my words.

Wonder why it was worded this way.

[=) Random Task (=]

(06-11-2013 01:24 PM)Doodat Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:22 PM)TheGoldenGriffin Wrote:  I think vetoing maps isn't fair, your supposed to learn how to use the team you have to play well on those maps and improve your strategies and wits, not avoid those maps to make it easier to get higher in the rankings.

I agree.

I couldn't agree more. Even if it will never be possible to make all maps perfectly balanced for all races. The game design deals with this by randomly assigning maps in league play and this is the best solution in my opinion.

[Szei]

I guess I have different tastes than you. I enjoy competition where the tools and environment allow for even competition and who wins comes predominantly down to the skill of the player. On some maps for some matchups this is not the case. It can be fun to try playing on an unfavored map as a challenge in a non ranked game, but ladder is about skill and should be made as fair as possible.

I enjoy fair, competitive games reliant on skill, not handicaps and luck.

Again, a player much better than another can win on an unfavorable map, but if too players of equal skill meet, some maps provide a sorely imbalanced experience.

One of the major complaints is that it takes less skill if you don't need to play on 3 of the ELEVEN maps. I partly address this above in that I actually think the game is more focused on player skill with the veto system (instead of players just abusing a map they are strong on over and over). The other point is that the veto system still encourages players to strive for mastery on ALL maps. With the veto system nothing is set in stone. A player like game taker may think TG is unfair for F in FvS. If this is really true, then great, game taker vetoes the map and gets rid of an imbalanced part of the game. However, maybe it turns out that another player discovers a way to counter S with F on TG. This player then has the luxury of leaving TG not vetoed and frees up another veto slot for a different map.

It is always advantageous to be good at as many maps as possible even with the veto system so you have more flexibility. The veto system simply helps to remove the artificial handicaps and unfair aspects of the game and promote purely skill based play.

---

On a side note I have played Feedback, Scallywags, and Adorables at the ST level so I have a decent understanding of how the teams play at a high level on each map and a decent understanding of most of the matchups as a result. In other words, I'm not just proposing this because I have trouble against a particular team. I simply settled on Adorables after trying all the teams and am happy with my choice as I only really have trouble on Peekaboo now days (against S). However, my hope is that the veto system will promote play with all teams at the high level instead of shuffling everyone onto the Adorables bandwagon. By allowing players of other teams to veto a few maps it would help the team balance and promote a healthier team distribution at the high level.

Oh, and I do agree that the "no" poll option should be rephrased as OutwittersFan suggested.

[Mag!cGuy]

I voted no, even if the sentence in the poll really should be changed.

[(Rone)]

(06-12-2013 01:47 AM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  I voted no, even if the sentence in the poll really should be changed.

Same as my last post with no sarcasm.

[ElPared]

I can't change it now but I don't see why it needs to be changed. If you vote no you're saying all maps are balanced for all matchups. What's up there is pretty much the same thing

I can change the OP though.

I like the idea of a Veto system. It would make all the teams balanced by proxy simply because people who play those teams would play on the maps that are unfavorable to their team less, causing them to play on the advantageous/neutral maps more and making the game, as Szei said, more about skill than the dumb luck of getting a favorable/unfavorable map and winning/losing mostly because of that.

The game is called "Outwitters." You should win by outwitting your opponent, not by being luckier than them

[Mag!cGuy]

Luckier? If there is a game where luck has nothing to do with win, it's outwitters.

[=) Random Task (=]

(06-12-2013 12:24 PM)ElPared Wrote:  I can't change it now but I don't see why it needs to be changed. If you vote no you're saying all maps are balanced for all matchups. What's up there is pretty much the same thing

I think you are missing the point of the argument. The maps may not be totally balanced, but they don't have to. Since maps are randomly assigned for league games the effect is equalled out over a larger number of games.

So I am against the proposed voting system while I am not claiming that all maps are totally balanced. (They never will be as such a thing as perfect balance for all races is an ideal which will not be reached in practice whatever effort you put into it.)