Guild Wars 2

It would be very nice to have an option to opt out of specific maps in SPvP so that those maps don’t even show up as an option when the 3 maps you are given to vote on pop up.

It;s exceptionally frustrating in SPvP when you get courtyard because one, and only one person voted for it. And this situation causes a lot of players to simply go AFK or just log out when they are forced to play maps they hate, such as Courtyard, Spirit Watch, or Skyhammer. But instead of removing these maps like you did with the map that had an underwater section, because some people do enjoy these maps, just give us an option to leave up to 3 maps out when we are given the chance to vote. You would make this selection before even queing up, that way you don’t get paired with people who still have maps on their option which you have opted out of.

Another way to fix this, would be an option that allowes us to select which SPvP mode we want to que for. We would hit “que for unranked” or “que for ranked.” Then, those buttons fade away just like they currently do, but instead of the “you are in que” message that pops up, you instead see another 3 options: Conquest, Team deathmatch (aka Courtyard), and Stronghold. Then, at least you wouldn’t be forced to play courtyard when you were hoping to do some conquest. And, the people who really want to just do some team-deathmatch games wouldn’t have to que up hoping that not only courtyard comes up as an option, but it also wins the vote.

I think if we were given more choice in the maps we play, it would go a long way to fixing a lot of the toxicity and generally distasteful behavior that we encounter in SPvP.

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Deleted my first post. My reading comprehension failed me.

At any rate I disagree with this idea because it would make queue times for anyone who actually wants to play Courtyard or Skyhammer off the charts. I do agree that Courtyard should have it’s own queue with other deathmatch maps, though.

I gotta agree with Ronpierce about the current system. It’s fine. The majority get their way the majority of the time while the minority still gets to play the maps they enjoy on occasion. The fact that a minority of the majority are little brats who throw a tantrum when they don’t get their way shouldn’t be a reason to change the system. If anything these people should be appropriately punished.

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Except that its effectively a votemap.

The RNG that is present only servers to be more a hindrance than helpful.

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Except that its effectively a votemap.

The RNG that is present only servers to be more a hindrance than helpful.

No, it adds fairness to people who don’t want to be stuck doing the same map. 90% of the time the masses get to be boring, every once in a while the person with unique tastes gets to enjoy the game. That’s fair. It’s essentially no different than going around the room and letting each person pick a map, except it’s handled through RNG because it’s not always the same people playing together.

Do you serously enjoy playing these maps with people who just go AFK because they hate the map? Wouldn’t you rather play the maps you love exclusively with and against players who also want to play that map? Even if they added “appropriate punishment” for AFK’ers, all that would do is cause them to do the bare minimum to keep from being punished. Which wouldn’t fix the problem.

I think it is a gross exaggeration to say that the que times for Courtyard would be really high if such a change was implemented. Every time anyone says they hate courtyard, you always see several people responding with how much they love courtyard. If courtyard is so unpopular that the que times for it would be astronomical, then it should be deleted like the old underwater map was. Because to continue to force so many people to play a map they hate, just so an extreme minority can enjoy it, would be pretty asinine.

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Except that its effectively a votemap.

The RNG that is present only servers to be more a hindrance than helpful.

No, it adds fairness to people who don’t want to be stuck doing the same map. 90% of the time the masses get to be boring, every once in a while the person with unique tastes gets to enjoy the game. That’s fair. It’s essentially no different than going around the room and letting each person pick a map, except it’s handled through RNG because it’s not always the same people playing together.

Explain how 1 person’s vote is more valuable than 9 others, or how that is “fairness”.

IMO it’s not fair. But maybe we have different definitions of “fair”.

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Except that its effectively a votemap.

The RNG that is present only servers to be more a hindrance than helpful.

No, it adds fairness to people who don’t want to be stuck doing the same map. 90% of the time the masses get to be boring, every once in a while the person with unique tastes gets to enjoy the game. That’s fair. It’s essentially no different than going around the room and letting each person pick a map, except it’s handled through RNG because it’s not always the same people playing together.

Explain how 1 person’s vote is more valuable than 9 others, or how that is “fairness”.

IMO it’s not fair. But maybe we have different definitions of “fair”.

Because 9 times out of 10 the 9 get their way. Explain to me how 10% should NEVER get their way because everyone else just wants to do the same map over and over. “Fairness” is taking turns. And when 10% of the people have a net 10% chance to get their way that’s called fairness.

It’s not “fair” for that one match, it’s net fairness. And frankly, doing something other than Foefire once every 10 maps isn’t going to kill anyone.

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Except that its effectively a votemap.

The RNG that is present only servers to be more a hindrance than helpful.

No, it adds fairness to people who don’t want to be stuck doing the same map. 90% of the time the masses get to be boring, every once in a while the person with unique tastes gets to enjoy the game. That’s fair. It’s essentially no different than going around the room and letting each person pick a map, except it’s handled through RNG because it’s not always the same people playing together.

Explain how 1 person’s vote is more valuable than 9 others, or how that is “fairness”.

IMO it’s not fair. But maybe we have different definitions of “fair”.

Every vote counts. They all have the same value. That is fair….. its not majority rule. Its not majority rule because team size varies the larger 5-man teams will always have choice if put against a group of 4 and 1 pug for example. Now to an Opt-out option I don’t really have an opinion.

The weighted roll is ok i think but if it’s really only one person who voted for a map while a huge majority voted for another map, then the system should not even consider that map.

serenke.4806:

The weighted roll is ok i think but if it’s really only one person who voted for a map while a huge majority voted for another map, then the system should not even consider that map.

Like I said, that’s statistically fair if they have a 1/10 change to get their way. In net that means that person would get to do their map 10% of the time while the “majority” would get the 90% vote ~90% of the time. Theres no reason to single our a person’s wishes entirely because it’s not a popular choice. 90% of the time people get their map, 10% of the time let someone else have a turn. It’s literally about as fair as it can get…

Then remove the voting and let the game decide like it was before. That was actually fair. You are talking about probability but if you see the 1 voter making 9 others play a map that they didn’t want to play on… the first thing that comes to mind is not “how nice and fair a system we’re having” but more like “kitten that one idiot making us play this when there were 9 votes for something else”.

serenke.4806:

Then remove the voting and let the game decide like it was before. That was actually fair. You are talking about probability but if you see the 1 voter making 9 others play a map that they didn’t want to play on… the first thing that comes to mind is not “how nice and fair a system we’re having” but more like “kitten that one idiot making us play this when there were 9 votes for something else”.

100% random is “fair” but not favorable. Would you prefer 100% random, like 8% of the time get the map you want, or 90% of the time and 10% of the time let someone else have a turn? This whole argument is really selfish. o.O

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

ronpierce.2760:

TexZero.7910:

I think the weight system should just be fixed

if an overwhelming majority votes for something, there’s no reason 1 vote should outweigh 9 others.

Actually, if RNG is perfect it should, in the long run, mean that 10% of the time 1 person (10% of the population) gets their way, while 90% of the time the rest do. There’s nothing wrong with that… Why should 1 person get screwed ALL the time because 90% only want to do 1 map? That would be more flawed. People need to just suck it up and get good!

Except that its effectively a votemap.

The RNG that is present only servers to be more a hindrance than helpful.

No, it adds fairness to people who don’t want to be stuck doing the same map. 90% of the time the masses get to be boring, every once in a while the person with unique tastes gets to enjoy the game. That’s fair. It’s essentially no different than going around the room and letting each person pick a map, except it’s handled through RNG because it’s not always the same people playing together.

Explain how 1 person’s vote is more valuable than 9 others, or how that is “fairness”.

IMO it’s not fair. But maybe we have different definitions of “fair”.

Because 9 times out of 10 the 9 get their way. Explain to me how 10% should NEVER get their way because everyone else just wants to do the same map over and over. “Fairness” is taking turns. And when 10% of the people have a net 10% chance to get their way that’s called fairness.

It’s not “fair” for that one match, it’s net fairness. And frankly, doing something other than Foefire once every 10 maps isn’t going to kill anyone.

Frankly, it doesn’t appear fair for surface value. Yes i get every vote is “equal” but there’s “equal” and then there’s just plain feels wrong.

if 9/10 people vote a map, don’t you find that a giant kick in the gut that 1 man can ruin the match for 9 others ?

I get it some people like more casual maps, like Courtyard, Sky Hammer, and Spirit Watch. Fine great, those deserve their own pool in their own Queue. Seperate from both Ranked and Un-ranked.

It would simply solve the entire issue of people wanting to gather as much experience between learning the core maps before jumping into ranked play.

To put it in even simpler terms, there’s this really stupidly popular moba out there that has multiple queues and some would seem redundant at first, but what they do is allow for similar atmospheres to exist without the aspect of a leaderboard. This lets people grow at their pace until they are ready to make the jump to “Ranked” play.

It’s a system that works and works well, for every other game mode there is a separate queue. The same system should be applied here.

Seeing as there’s an entire queue where you can go to avoid the “casual” maps I really don’t see what the problem is. And no one is going to be hurt by being forced to play a “casual” map once in a while.

Even if the “casual” maps did get a new queue just for them it’d only be a matter of time before people started demanding they get removed from that as well. “Why can’t I play super unranked without getting Skyhammer?!”

Ehecatl.9172:

Seeing as there’s an entire queue where you can go to avoid the “casual” maps I really don’t see what the problem is. And no one is going to be hurt by being forced to play a “casual” map once in a while.

Even if the “casual” maps did get a new queue just for them it’d only be a matter of time before people started demanding they get removed from that as well. “Why can’t I play super unranked without getting Skyhammer?!”

What? The map selection is the same for Ranked and unranked. I am suggesting that selection process gets changed for both of these modes.

I like this idea. I might even queue unranked occasionally if I could opt out of courtyard.

Yes, I understand the argument that with the current system, that 1 guy will get to play his preferred map 1 time out of ten. But that is also why I propose this. That one person doesn’t get to play the map he/she want’s very often, and when they do, they are forced to play it with 9 other people who really don’t wan’t to play that map, sometimes so badly that they just go AFK or put out the least amount of effort which ruins the experience of that minority who enjoys the map. If all A-net does is increase the penalties for going AFK, that won’t fix the problem. All those people would do is put out the bare minimum amount of effort in the map so they won’t incur any penalties.

By seperating the que, or providing an ‘opt out’ option, they would ensure that only people who enjoy the map play the map. Which improves the experience of everyone in SPvP, not just the majority who dislike a particular map, or the minority who enjoy it.