Poll for map system in eFPS

Since there are so many different opinions I thought Id post a poll to see what the majority prefers.

Please Note: I am doing this to potentially help out the people running eFPS see what the preference is among the DM comp community. They are in no way obligated to use the results of this poll to set their map policy. Mainly I am interested in seeing what most people think. If it helps eFPS out then its a good thing.

i kinda liked the CAL set up because it forced you to learn newer maps.

Then that would be option 1: set rotation of 8 or so maps each season.

Just so we're clear - I like the idea of community input, but I'm reserving the right to make whatever decision I believe is best on this one. That said, I'm voting Option 3.

Blasphemy wrote:i kinda liked the CAL set up because it forced you to learn newer maps.

Like I said before I would be willing to do this and would like to except there arent any new maps around to really force you guys to play.

There might be old maps we never played before in leagues but we've all played them in scrims and found they suck. Keep in mind we'll likely be implementing a system where the clan has to tell you in advance what they will be playing.

Voted 2 because I don't like the idea of people finding out that I'm horrible on, lets say.. mileu, and forcing me to play it every week.

A set rotation is the most equitable and even handed way. The maps are the same and rotation cannot play to any one teams advantage. I is to be expected that teams would want to play maps that give them an advantage. That is not the purpose of a competition, where the play field is level.

I don't think that 2 or 3 will give a team an "advantage" because of the map they pick like you seem to think Argumentalizer. Yes teams will probably pick the map they're strongest on, but both teams know which maps the opposing team is going to pick before the match is played, so it let's the other team practice whatever map. But there is also this, if everyone knows team "x" is really good on cavs then what tells you team "x" won't choose a map that no one has seen them play on or that no one is expecting them to pick to surprise the other team? This is why I think 3 is the best way to go, there won't be that much of an "advantage" on maps since both teams know which map the other will pick, and also beacuse 3 can bring "strategy" in the map pick and I think that can make really good matches if the right maps are picked.

@ the_big_cheese, I think it's a great idea if people force you to play maps you're not good in, and that goes for everyone, so everyone gets good/better at all the maps therefore provides the community with nice matches to watch every week.

The Argumentalizer wrote:A set rotation is the most equitable and even handed way. The maps are the same and rotation cannot play to any one teams advantage. I is to be expected that teams would want to play maps that give them an advantage. That is not the purpose of a competition, where the play field is level.

Actually I went through our CU archived matches and the the summer tourney matches. We've been having the closest matches in years, I think your making a intuitive judgment and not a empirical, factual judgment. The greatest deficits I've seen in all these matches havent gone above 10-20 in all of our recent tourney/league matches in this format.

Look through Da1's STA records or ninoj's archived text match recordings and you will see the deficits and "even level" scores arent even close to the even-ness we're seeing today under the new format.

20 maps is too many. I know this because I do not know of any game with professional players or high end leagues that run through this many maps and allow people to pick 1 right before a match. And even in CAL when ever a new map was introduced even though people had plenty of ahead of time warning there still was alot of blowout games due to the lack of map knowledge.

KNOWING a map is so subjective. It's not like I do not know any maps or my opponents have never played on them. But there is a huge difference between the competition I get on maps like zeta and amplitude the first time I ran them in CAL and now. Obviously it took most players at least 8 weeks to know and then they knew what maps would be picked ahead of time and were still unprepared.

What ever the case is if you want teams to have good matches and have a chance at being ready to play a map well they need to know ahead of time. There are many ways you can do that. Even if you force a team to announce the map 2 weeks ahead of time.

Fearsome* wrote:20 maps is too many. I know this because I do not know of any game with professional players or high end leagues that run through this many maps and allow people to pick 1 right before a match. And even in CAL when ever a new map was introduced even though people had plenty of ahead of time warning there still was alot of blowout games due to the lack of map knowledge.

We won't be. Ninoj's suggestion of a NFL style of scheduling of 8 matches per season, all prescheduled, all have to have the maps chosen in advance once they see their opponents will be the way its gonna be likely done. Teams will have adequate time to prepare.