Idea A new form of map picking.

if this is implemented im gonna kms.

I think the idea is interesting but won't work out. Which maps would be there to choose from then? All CTF maps ever? What if we forget to ban a bad one? Or just those in rotation - will Pagodas original ever be played again then?
Also I think it's kind of hard to code it. Maps are loaded via map IDs atm afaik and how would you specify which map is a CTF map and which map isn't? Probably talking bull**** here though, ask the staff

 

I agree. In CoD competitive the teams that go against each other actually decide which guns are banned during the match among other variables. Having a pool of maps (that only can be decided by the team committee) sounds like a good idea, it can only speed up the process of having a match scheduled which I see no downfall in

 

Don't really get what you mean by teams get to ban maps. Explain simpler pl0x im slow in everything that's not like math or science.

 

Good idea 5ive.

 

It means if the map is "banned" from the match, then it is not to be played on during the duration of the match

 

Well, the examples with LoL and CoD you guys give are similar to class bans in CTF, not map bans.

@5ivechang I know you do! Does that change anything? :3

 

The easiest way of explaining this is having each team allow a set number of Map Strikes for teams to ban maps not wanted in the match. The wording on this was pretty odd.

 

Oh, it's not random - the refs are choosing? That's going to cause a large amount of conflicts ("you favored that team with this pick!"), don't you think?

 

but Slums is the best map ?!????!?!??!!!??

 

5ive is just saying that if you don't want a team to play a map, you can ban it. So maybe, each team gets to ban 1 map. Smart ppl would ban the maps other teams r good on. The refs aren't picking.

 

+1

Basically he means a Rep can ban a few maps that the other Rep can't pick for a match. The person who bans the least amount of maps gets to decide agreed.

 

Y'know, it's interesting that you and @Quarrelt would come up with very similar ideas at the same time, js. For those wondering why this particular topic came up now, a team picked the map 'Atlantis,' which was removed from the rotation a while back, in an unofficial match. This ended up being problematic, as the map caused major FPS lag for players on both sides. With that said, there's a slightly different way of fixing the issue at hand.

Right off the bat, this is a terrible idea. Giving teams the power to ban whichever map they think another team is good at will result in maps that aren't particularly bad / problematic being unavailable, and is pretty sure to cause arguments.

We have an existing grouping for maps that we consider too problematic to play seriously: Vault maps. These maps never entered rotation, but as they were made when CTF had a very limited selection of maps, the configs were kept around for matches. However, due to the many, many failings of these maps, we currently only allow them to be played in unofficial matches with the consent of both teams. Thus, what we could do instead of allowing teams to ban whichever maps don't suit them is to extend the "Vault" category to maps with major flaws. These would primarily be those with major FPS (Atlantis, Metro) or gameplay (Chunez, Slums) issues. We're not sure what the exact list of maps given that status would look like right now, and we would consult team representatives before making this change. Thoughts?

 

@5ivechang I like the idea, but pretty much everything Bos said. It'd also be just plain not fun for teams to never get to play their favorite maps that they're good at because the other team knows how strong they are in said maps.