Considering a map pick phase for competitive GOIO

[Urz]

Given the long stagnation of the competitive GOIO scene, and lack of support from Muse in providing client functionality to help bolster the integrity of competitive matches: it seems like a good time to try some new stuff.

The maps in this game vary widely from each other and have properties which favor certain ships, playstyles, or teams. The completely random map roll can play a significant role in the outcome of a match, particularly in the "best of one" set format that's currently used.

In addition: there are specific maps which overwhelmingly produce boring matches, and we could certainly use less of those.


What I am proposing is for the first game of a set to start with a map pick phase based on a pool of five maps. Starting with the five maps deemed most suitable for competitive play, the team captains take turns removing maps from the pool until one is left. For subsequent games within a set, the loser of the previous game would get to choose whichever map they wanted from the full pool.

This leads to fewer matches being decided by the random rolls, more games being played on "neutral" maps, and making matches closer overall.


Thoughts?

[Urz]

To further illustrate the point, here is (roughly) how I see the maps from a balance perspective. Below, I've ordered the maps from the "most open" to "most closed", based on size and terrain composition.

---- open ----
Battle on the Dunes
Fight over Firnfeld
Water Hazard
Northern Fjords
--- neutral ---
Clash at Blackcliff
Paritan Rumble
--- neutral ---
Canyon Ambush
Duel at Dawn
---- closed ----

So using this list as an example: Dunes, Firnfeld, and Duel are the least neutral maps and would be removed from the starter map pool

[Squidslinger Gilder]

A competitive event without Dunes or Duel...

[GurasOguras]

To further illustrate the point, here is (roughly) how I see the maps from a balance perspective. Below, I've ordered the maps from the "most open" to "most closed", based on size and terrain composition.

---- open ----
Battle on the Dunes
Fight over Firnfeld
Water Hazard
Northern Fjords
--- neutral ---
Clash at Blackcliff
Paritan Rumble
--- neutral ---
Canyon Ambush
Duel at Dawn
---- closed ----

So using this list as an example: Dunes, Firnfeld, and Duel are the least neutral maps and would be removed from the starter map pool

I disagree a lot with the list you provided here. Canyons are the most balanced for both long and close range, while for every single Blackcliff match double mobula is the answer.
I may be biased a lot with my T.Pr style heavily focused on splitting and close engagements, but Blackcliff and Duel were our least favorite maps due to the difficulty for the performance of such actions. Every single time it's always better to 2 mobulas, which is something I hate current meta for.

Blackcliff is definitely not a neutral map - it's favoring galleons or mobulas a lot. Canyon has an open area to the south allowing the blue team to camp at their spawn and deny the opponent's approach. Red spawn is more clouded but has a similar utility if a team chooses to play like so. Dunes are more close range oriented as it is possible to split very wide and use a lot of clouds and terrain to shift your approach angle. Paritan has only one camping spot for mid-long range which is almost never used but the amount of buildings and terrain heavily favor close range combat almost exclusively. Duel provides two ribs at each spawn allowing for medium range ships to take a decent cover. As a close range brawling player, I hate Duel for some reason. Probably because I was being countered with mine and artemis based builds every single time playing there. The central area is also pretty open and it is difficult to sneak into your opponent's spawn without your approach being denied or at least noticed. Fjords are balanced for both close range and cancerous mobulas. On Water Hazard, my team was surprisingly successful with performing a lot of flanking maneuvers as long range ships don't have many good covers.

Map size is a very little factor.

My list would look more like:
---- open ----
Fight over Firnfeld
Clash at Blackcliff
Battle on the Dunes
--- neutral ---
Northern Fjords
Water Hazard
Canyon Ambush
--- neutral ---
Duel at Dawn
Paritan Rumble
---- closed ----

[Urz]

As much as I would love to debate the ordering of the example list I hastily threw together, I think it's prudent to first determine if a map picking phase is even wanted.

[Huskarr]

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin any case.

I would really like to experiment with a picking/banning system. We've disscused this in the scs skype chat, but we sadly never achieved an agreement. I might get into contact with a couple of teams to experiment with a picking banning system in the next couple of weeks. On a saturday probably, so that it does not clash with scs.

[Dementio]

I wouldn't mind joining the testing of a map pick system.

Teams with specific playstyles could really make use of a system like this, a brawling team would never have to deal with Dunes or Fjords and a passive long range team would never have to deal with Paritan and Dawn.

The probability of all map also only further favors teams with more playtime as they would know more maps better than a newcomer team and would have practised more playstyles to go with them, so map picking may help the SCS in reaching and keeping more new teams.

[Spud Nick]

Is it the maps or the ship builds that create boring matches?

[Solidusbucket]

Is it the maps or the ship builds that create boring matches?

Its people stacking matches that make them boring.

[Guagadu]

Map picking is an important part of every esport I have watched that has different map options, and Guns of Icarus is no different. Every single player I have played with has their map preferences, maps they like more, and maps they are better at. A map pick/ban adds another level of skill to a competitive game, and at the same time gives players more control of the match, removing a large amount of luck.
Teams have the opportunity to pick maps that benefit their own playing style, while banning maps that benefit their opponents, or they themselves are not very comfortable with. With the current randomizer system, maps could be chosen that give one team a distinct advantage over the other.
A team that knows how to use the picking and banning well will have an advantage over their opponents, using a different level of their game knowledge to gain an advantage.

Though picking and banning is possible for any variety of set sizes, it would work best in tournaments with sets of multiple matches. Though best-of-one matches like in a standard SCS could take advantage from a pick/ban phase, the tournaments that work the best will be those sets of 3 or more matches, such as the Big Brass Revival.

A problem we run into with the picking and banning is the fact that the current amount of 2v2 deathmatch maps is an even number ( 8 ) - meaning that if each team is given an equal amount of picks and bans, there will be an even amount of maps remaining. The possible solutions to this would be to either give one team an extra ban compared to the other team, or to have a randomizer choose between the final two maps.

What I do not understand at all, however, is the need to classify the maps on a scale of openness to closedness. To me, teams should be able to pick from the entire list of maps, without any restrictions. It should be up to the teams to choose which maps are played, not from a list restricting anything. This does leave the problem of an even-numbered map pool, but that is something we will have to deal with until then. (Maybe Santa Muse could adapt Battle for the Ball to Graveyeard DM, or one of the alliance maps?)

[Solidusbucket]

(Maybe Santa Muse could adapt Battle for the Ball to Graveyeard DM, or one of the alliance maps?)

Muse should release DLC map packs for money.

[Dementio]

Muse should release DLC map packs for money.

It's called Alliance mode.

[Urz]

Map picking is an important part of every esport I have watched that has different map options

What I do not understand at all, however, is the need to classify the maps on a scale of openness to closedness. To me, teams should be able to pick from the entire list of maps, without any restrictions. It should be up to the teams to choose which maps are played, not from a list restricting anything.

Another important aspect of esports with "different map options" is determining which maps are suitable for competitive play, and creating a balanced map pool. I cite as examples Smash Bros and StarCraft II.

• You determine which maps favor which styles of play and try to balance them. If you have 4 maps that favor long-range defensive play and 2 maps that favor aggressive close-range play, then certain teams and play styles will be disadvantaged.
• Maps that create repetitive gameplay scenarios by only allowing a small number of viable strategies and positions (Dunes, for example) are a negative for the community.
• Expanding on what Daniel said earlier: the larger the map pool, the less time teams are going to have to practice on or develop new strategies for specific maps.
• We've already restricted the competitive map pool by excluding all non-deathmatch maps.

A more curated map pool will foster a higher level of competition and less boring matches.

[Solidusbucket]

This is my favorite map pool.

http://imgur.com/PGnc3er

[Lysanya]

I think the idea of classifying maps is unnecessary.  Instead, group maps into pods.  Maybe pod A has Duel at Dawn, Water Hazard, and Northern Fjords.  Or maybe it has five maps.  Or whatever.  Place certain maps in more pods than others.  Cycle through map pods over the period of 4 to 8 weeks.

Option 1:
- Pre-tournament, announcement thread: One map pod is selected.  These are the only maps that may be selected in that specific SCS tournament.
- Tournament, pre-lobby: Referee contacts the PoC and asks for their map ban.  Red has first map ban.  Blue has second map ban.  If 5 maps are in the pool, then it should red-blue-red-blue.
- Tournament, lobby: Referee forms the lobby and announces the map to both teams' PoC prior to inviting both teams in.  Match plays out as normal.

+ More dynamic picks/bans based on opponent
- Increased amount of organization required from refs



Option 2:
- Pre-tournament, announcement thread: One map pod is selected.  These are the only maps that may be selected in that specific SCS tournament.
- Pre-tournament, signups: Teams announce maps in order of what they want versus what they don't want.  If five maps are available, bottom two are always banned.  If three maps are available, bottom map is always banned.  Top map is never banned if available.
- Pre-tournament, day of the tournament: Brackets announced.  Maps announced based on map bans.  Tournament plays out as it normally would.

+ Minimum organization added
- Teams can't pick/ban based on opponent, only their own preferences