Should Scramblers get a buff?

[Szei]

(06-11-2013 04:52 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  I think banning maps would be a bad idea. In theory I understand what you are trying to achieve but in practice not only do i not think that it would work but I also think it just isnt a good door to open. Should Federer be able to avoid playing Nadal on Clay?

That analogy does not work. You are comparing teams to players when in reality the analogy is Outwitters teams to tennis equipment. A more applicable analogy would be stating that a particular set of equipment is too much of an advantage (OP) for players to use in tennis on a particular surface (map), and that it should be banned on that surface. Not that a player is too "OP" on a surface (which is the idea which your analogy regarding Federer and Nadal conveys). No one is trying to say that poweewee or Alvendor are too good on certain maps (surfaces in your analogy) so they should be banned... We're saying that certain teams (tennis gear) may be too advantageous on certain maps (surfaces).

Quote:Essentially what would happen is that people would simply ban maps that they werent as successful on. I entirely understand that certain maps are "less fun" due to the differences between races and in particular race vs race battles on certain maps (SvS on P).

There is potential for that, but with 11 maps I don't see this as a problem. So what if people are allowed to ban 3 or 4 of the maps they find make for boring or imbalanced games? They still need to play on and master the other 7 or 8. I suppose there may be a slight downside if I try to view it from your eyes, but I feel that the pros far outweigh the cons. The game is well enough balanced (perhaps with the exception of Veggienauts), that most of the problems now come down to certain maps. Allowing the players to self correct for this instead of having all the burden fall onto OML creating 11 equally, well balanced maps would help a lot.

Quote:I am about 1000 games into an experiment I am doing and the numbers clearly show that each race has maps that they preform far above the average rate on than they do on others. So if I look at my numbers and decide ok Im going to go on a run with Feedback for example I look at my list. I see which maps Feedback perform poorly on and I simply eliminate those with my vetoes. Then when I switch to Scally I switch my vetoes accordingly.

This sounds perfect!

Quote:ts an artificial way to prop up win % no different than P1 quitting when a certain map pops up.

It's entirely different.

Veto System
Basically, some maps are favored for particular teams to great enough an extent that they can be considered imbalanced. Vetoing allows you to decide which maps you think are unfair and ban them. However, you can only do this with 3 maps. This means that you still need to master 8 maps. It is still in your best interest to try to master the vetoed maps if possible so that you can replace one of those vetoed maps with another map you dislike (if one exists). There's always an incentive to be comfortable on as many maps as possible so that you have more flexibility regarding about which of the 3 maps you wish to veto (if any, vetoing isn't a requirement).

P1 Quitting
P1 quitting is broken and should be removed. It allows players to pick and only master 1 or 2 maps instead of the 8 maps that need to be mastered under the veto system. Furthermore, there is no incentive to get better at any maps other than the 1 or 2 you already are good at with P1 quitting whereas with the veto system it is always beneficial to master as many maps as possible. Finally, P1 quitting gives you an unfair advantage over players that don't use the exploit whereas the veto system doesn't involve abuse of a glitch and instead puts all players on equal footing.

---

(06-11-2013 05:03 AM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  And I also disagree to the veto. I already find it quite unfair on starcraft (again), cuz if you are a no-skilled cheeser you just veto the 4 spawns map and make a cannon rush being sure where your opponent is, if you aren't comfortable on a map you veto it

Two points.

1. I don't agree with your assessment regarding the veto system and Starcraft. Sure, there are a small percentage of players who cheese all the time and do this (more prevalent in lower leagues), but they ultimately will hit a roadblock when they reach higher levels. As you say, these players don't improve themselves and will suffer for it. The point is, the benefits of the veto system outweigh the potential cons. Map imbalance is always going to exist. It is impossible to have all maps be well balanced in all matchups. The veto system simply helps achieve balance by allowing players to correct for the worst offenders when it comes to imbalanced maps. I address this in more in my response to OutwittersFan above.

2. Starcraft is also different in how it is managed. It's a game constantly in development with balancing patches always in mind. Honestly Blizzard could probably afford to remove the veto system. However, in Outwitters where OML have made it clear they have moved on, having a way for players to self balance by vetoing a few broken maps in certain matchups would be a good compromise. OML just needs to implement this system once and let the players do the rest of the work for as long as Outwitters remains online. The veto system is flexible so OML wouldn't have to intervene like Blizzard does with balance patches, the players can just determine which maps they find are imbalanced instead. Another great aspect of the veto system is that everyone doesn't have to agree. This is a huge pro. When it comes to balance I think we've all seen how many different opinions there are in any game. By allowing players to "self balance", it avoids the kind of backlash that arises from overarching balance patches which will please some players while simultaneously upsetting others.