Why arent all maps in ranked map rotation

[sharkas99]

The game is getting boring playing the same couple of maps repeatedly. Will ubisoft ever add all maps backt to ranked?

[-}Element{- SilentHiller]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Originally posted by -}Element{- Vae Victis:

Then it's on the player to improve and adapt to map, rather than the map just being poorly designed like Tower and OG Clubhouse

Just look at Clubhouse. Been in the rotation since day one and never taken out. Yet it is the first map to receive reworks. I doubt that would have been the case if they just removed it and gave up on it.

Besides there wasn't nearly as much hate voiced in the community towards that map compared to others that were added later. Propably because people adjusted to it over the very long time it has been around.

Considering Pro Players favor it, that's likely why, I imagine Ubi has no idea how to effectively rework Tower or House to be within a playable standard in proleague due to how one sided they are, whereas club house was a relatively easy fix that could've been done within a month or so

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by -}Element{- Vae Victis:

Considering Pro Players favor it, that's likely why, I imagine Ubi has no idea how to effectively rework Tower or House to be within a playable standard in proleague due to how one sided they are, whereas club house was a relatively easy fix that could've been done within a month or so

Well with House I can see why, as they at some point mentioned it was mostly built with Hostage mode in mind, so the now most popular ones don't work so well on it. But Tower? They knew all the things they "learned" for reworking Clubhouse and the like already I guess.

[TerrenceTheTurtle]

1. House
2. Theme park
3. Tower
4. Plane

Need I say more?

[-}Element{- SilentHiller]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Originally posted by -}Element{- Vae Victis:

Considering Pro Players favor it, that's likely why, I imagine Ubi has no idea how to effectively rework Tower or House to be within a playable standard in proleague due to how one sided they are, whereas club house was a relatively easy fix that could've been done within a month or so

Well with House I can see why, as they at some point mentioned it was mostly built with Hostage mode in mind, so the now most popular ones don't work so well on it. But Tower? They knew all the things they "learned" for reworking Clubhouse and the like already I guess.

The problem is that they'd have to completely scrap Tower because it's overly reliant on vertical play with minimal rotation options, 3 claymores and you can literally close off an entire floor after spending 2/3rds of the round droning it out to clear roamers

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by -}Element{- Vae Victis:

The problem is that they'd have to completely scrap Tower because it's overly reliant on vertical play with minimal rotation options, 3 claymores and you can literally close off an entire floor after spending 2/3rds of the round droning it out to clear roamers

Well other maps have quite a bit of vertical gameplay too. It's just that with Tower not really having a typical "outside area" it is not as restriced to certain locations.

Spots on that map also seem somewhat larger than on the older ones (propably because it was built more with bomb in mind). That kind of impacts the whole ancor, roam, rotation game too I guess.

[BastX2]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Originally posted by BastX2:

thats the problem you dont understand... If you are defending on a map that is hardly attack side, you cannot adapt your strats as much as a balance map. The game is about adapting his strategies but the maps doesnt offer that equaly so you CANNOT adapt your disadvantage, you are just disadvantage. (FINAL DOT)

If you believe that you can simply say a map is unbalanced or bad in equal measure for every kind of player, then you're the one that doesn't understand. What seems like a grave issue for low rank solo queue players might not even be considerable for capable teamplayers. Get that part?

Originally posted by BastX2:

And even if you are right, you wanna add maps to make it more fun for some 5 man squads that are nolstalgicbut destroy the gameplay of solo queue players?

Why should the games competitive mode be oriented on what people that are not really competitive about it want or need? Why does it have to be cut down on, because of complaints? Yeah what a very competitive mindset that is - if something gives you trouble, better remove it, than overcome it.

I do not understand the first thing for real. If a map is totally attack sided, isnt it unbalanced for every kind of players? I mean, it is way easier to attack so the defensers will have difficulties, thats it.

And how can you consider the solo queue players not competitive? they wanna win as much as the preset teams... It's just they don't have 4 known teammates to play with. What makes a 5 man squad more competitive than a team of solo players? A lot of times I have meet team of 5 no trying at all just having fun in competitive and not being competitive at all...

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by BastX2:

I do not understand the first thing for real. If a map is totally attack sided, isnt it unbalanced for every kind of players? I mean, it is way easier to attack so the defensers will have difficulties, thats it.

Think about it. Who says something is attack sided? Like is it really a fact and always true? Some teams prepare and play sites better than others. Some might experience issues. Others might run a strategy so well they never have trouble. People will rate this differently based on their experiences with the map.

Originally posted by BastX2:

And how can you consider the solo queue players not competitive? they wanna win as much as the preset teams... It's just they don't have 4 known teammates to play with. What makes a 5 man squad more competitive than a team of solo players? A lot of times I have meet team of 5 no trying at all just having fun in competitive and not being competitive at all...

It's a teamplay based game. Having a team increases your chances to win and your options to go about doing so for example because you have better communication and coordination routines.

I never wanted to imply that every 5 man squad is competitive. Just that if you REALLY mean it when you say you play to win, then a full team is a requirement. The reason is that random people just can never have the advantage of knowing their team and keeping their teamplay experience.

[BastX2]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Originally posted by BastX2:

I do not understand the first thing for real. If a map is totally attack sided, isnt it unbalanced for every kind of players? I mean, it is way easier to attack so the defensers will have difficulties, thats it.

Think about it. Who says something is attack sided? Like is it really a fact and always true? Some teams prepare and play sites better than others. Some might experience issues. Others might run a strategy so well they never have trouble. People will rate this differently based on their experiences with the map.

Originally posted by BastX2:

And how can you consider the solo queue players not competitive? they wanna win as much as the preset teams... It's just they don't have 4 known teammates to play with. What makes a 5 man squad more competitive than a team of solo players? A lot of times I have meet team of 5 no trying at all just having fun in competitive and not being competitive at all...

It's a teamplay based game. Having a team increases your chances to win and your options to go about doing so for example because you have better communication and coordination routines.

I never wanted to imply that every 5 man squad is competitive. Just that if you REALLY mean it when you say you play to win, then a full team is a requirement. The reason is that random people just can never have the advantage of knowing their team and keeping their teamplay experience.

A map is attack sided if the strats are small in defense or if the attackers have many ways to counter them. And other stuff like that. In low mr, it wont really change something, cause they don't have big strats and always just go for the kills. But in high elo, you can clearly see if a map is attack sided or not. If you know cs go, you know that some maps are clearly T sided or ct sided. You can lose 10-5 from ct side and you would consider it like if you was winning...

And again, yes, it helps to win to have a team, but it isnt a requirement to be competitive. We don't talk about pro league, we talk about a competitive game. You are always with 4 other players and even if your team isnt premade, you all seek for the win. The only difference is that you don't know them and you can't make complex strategies, but you still can use the basic ones. Yes, it is an advantage to have a full squad, but you CANNOT say it is a requirement to be competitive it makes 0 sense

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by BastX2:

A map is attack sided if the strats are small in defense or if the attackers have many ways to counter them. And other stuff like that. In low mr, it wont really change something, cause they don't have big strats and always just go for the kills. But in high elo, you can clearly see if a map is attack sided or not. If you know cs go, you know that some maps are clearly T sided or ct sided. You can lose 10-5 from ct side and you would consider it like if you was winning...

That changes nothing about the point. Different skill levels will perceive this differently. Low MMR will complain nonetheless. Or you want to honestly tell me that you believe the bulk of the hate on Tower came from high Elo level only? What strats are available and work is also dependend on the players involved. Unless you only want to count copying pro league meta, which is only possible for their mappool.

Originally posted by BastX2:

And again, yes, it helps to win to have a team, but it isnt a requirement to be competitive. We don't talk about pro league, we talk about a competitive game. You are always with 4 other players and even if your team isnt premade, you all seek for the win. The only difference is that you don't know them and you can't make complex strategies, but you still can use the basic ones. Yes, it is an advantage to have a full squad, but you CANNOT say it is a requirement to be competitive it makes 0 sense

I think your definition of "being competitive" is a bit strange. Just going in with the intent to win doesn't really cut it now does it? How you go about it is also a big part of being competitive. I mean it's right there in the word - you compete with others. If you willingly enter the competition at a massive disadvantage, then how competitive can you be?

If there was a split between random and arranged maybe. Because then you at least only compete with people at the same disadvantage.

[BastX2]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Originally posted by BastX2:

A map is attack sided if the strats are small in defense or if the attackers have many ways to counter them. And other stuff like that. In low mr, it wont really change something, cause they don't have big strats and always just go for the kills. But in high elo, you can clearly see if a map is attack sided or not. If you know cs go, you know that some maps are clearly T sided or ct sided. You can lose 10-5 from ct side and you would consider it like if you was winning...

That changes nothing about the point. Different skill levels will perceive this differently. Low MMR will complain nonetheless. Or you want to honestly tell me that you believe the bulk of the hate on Tower came from high Elo level only? What strats are available and work is also dependend on the players involved. Unless you only want to count copying pro league meta, which is only possible for their mappool.

Originally posted by BastX2:

And again, yes, it helps to win to have a team, but it isnt a requirement to be competitive. We don't talk about pro league, we talk about a competitive game. You are always with 4 other players and even if your team isnt premade, you all seek for the win. The only difference is that you don't know them and you can't make complex strategies, but you still can use the basic ones. Yes, it is an advantage to have a full squad, but you CANNOT say it is a requirement to be competitive it makes 0 sense

I think your definition of "being competitive" is a bit strange. Just going in with the intent to win doesn't really cut it now does it? How you go about it is also a big part of being competitive. I mean it's right there in the word - you compete with others. If you willingly enter the competition at a massive disadvantage, then how competitive can you be?

If there was a split between random and arranged maybe. Because then you at least only compete with people at the same disadvantage.

Even if the skill levels perceive it differently, a lot of times, the maps that arent used for ranks are always unbalancing on 1 side only (attack or defense) and the skill lvl will only affect how huge is the disadvantage, so whatever the rank you are, you will have the unbalancement.

Again, not everyone can have a full squad. You already have a team on your side, being in their squad or not. But you still compete for victory. If you soloqueue, you will see the rank you can reach with that disadvantage, but you can still compete and get the rank you deserve.

[BastX2]

Anyway the subject of this thread is the small number of maps. If we take them all, it will make the ranks less balancing, so less competiting. If they let it like it is right now, some persons find that boring and regret to not be able to play on maps like plane.

I think that there is a lot of strategies that you can use each times, so it isnt THAT boring. For sure, if you always stay in the room, barricade it all and hide behind a shield in a corner waiting for the ennemies, you will get bored... but hiding behind a shield in plane or in House wont make a difference.

DarTH SHodaN you take the competitive aspect so seriously, you think that you HAVE TO be in a full squad to be considerate as a competitor (does that word exist? im not english :/ ) so I don't think that you would like the unfair advantage you can get from having an extra attack round on a certain map.

You keep saying that this advantage just exist in our minds and that we can easely turn these hard maps to defend/attack in our advantage by using different strategies if i understood you. But these advantages exists, it's a fact. It is a fact too that some of the maps arent balanced and would make the rank games unfair

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by BastX2:

Even if the skill levels perceive it differently, a lot of times, the maps that arent used for ranks are always unbalancing on 1 side only (attack or defense) and the skill lvl will only affect how huge is the disadvantage, so whatever the rank you are, you will have the unbalancement.

Exactly. It will affect how big the impact of any imbalance is. Minor imbalances are to be expected in a game without mirrored, perfectly crafted maps. So what shouldn't be done is taking the lower skill levels as an indicator for what is still ok and what isn't.

Originally posted by BastX2:

Again, not everyone can have a full squad. You already have a team on your side, being in their squad or not. But you still compete for victory. If you soloqueue, you will see the rank you can reach with that disadvantage, but you can still compete and get the rank you deserve.

Yeah not everyone can do that, so not everyone is really being competitve. You wouldn't consider 11 random dudes that have never seen eachother before showing up to a football tournament as a very serious entry into the competition either. No reason to treat it as such either.

[BastX2]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Originally posted by BastX2:

Even if the skill levels perceive it differently, a lot of times, the maps that arent used for ranks are always unbalancing on 1 side only (attack or defense) and the skill lvl will only affect how huge is the disadvantage, so whatever the rank you are, you will have the unbalancement.

Exactly. It will affect how big the impact of any imbalance is. Minor imbalances are to be expected in a game without mirrored, perfectly crafted maps. So what shouldn't be done is taking the lower skill levels as an indicator for what is still ok and what isn't.

Originally posted by BastX2:

Again, not everyone can have a full squad. You already have a team on your side, being in their squad or not. But you still compete for victory. If you soloqueue, you will see the rank you can reach with that disadvantage, but you can still compete and get the rank you deserve.

Yeah not everyone can do that, so not everyone is really being competitve. You wouldn't consider 11 random dudes that have never seen eachother before showing up to a football tournament as a very serious entry into the competition either. No reason to treat it as such either.

It isnt pro league, It isnt a tournament. I would expect 22 guys making 2 teams of football and play as good as they can. And the winners would be the better.

[ShodaN]

Different question: Do you believe the current rank map pool is perfectly balanced?

[BastX2]

Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:

Different question: Do you believe the current rank map pool is perfectly balanced?

I think adding the otehr maps would make it less balanced but I dont think it is perfectly balanced for sure.