1v1 uber rank battlebear vs foerest replay / thoughts on 1v1`s after playing 100 of them

Problem is Maps are way way way under-developed compared to the rest of the game. But im not going to talk about it here. You'll get to know my opinion about balance and stuff soon.

These 2 maps are really boring me now. Both have 2 good spawns and 2 really crap spawns so its a friggin lottery as to whether you get a good game or are on the back foot from the moment you start.

Plus they are too small

It doesn't help that the pastats map pool has been taken down so i can't even pick those maps for a custom game - can someone who has the specs for them (team genesis I'm looking at you ) please put them on system sharing or something!

Everyone playing 1v1 ranked is cool as there are a lot more people playing but I struggle now to get a random 1v1 unless I pm someone.

I think the mappool really makes 1v1s very boring. Also because i am not the only one thinking that and it seems it gets harder to find a match every day.

Correlation != Cause

While that may be true, it seems reasonable to assume the maps have a large part in it. I personally certainly don't play much ranked because of the maps.

Poor assumptions always seem reasonable, it's why we make them.

I think nobody can point out a reason why this map pool would be better then the map pool from PA stats we used to have. Except if you don't like variety or if you want 1 spawn to be obviously better then the others.

So you say the mappool does not matter for how many people consider playing automatches fun?

....FFFlippin' genius!!!

No.

Well wouldn't you rather balance the game around balanced and/or complete biomes?

please, are you saying that that's more than 80% of the cause of imbalance?

I don't remember saying that, I said that if rather balance the game around maps, and not change the maps based on the balance.

Edit: Not to mention the game isn't imbalanced considering all players are the same, failing to use the meta is not the same as an imbalanced game. Now, maybe the meta isn't fun or our preference, but it isn't tefhnically imbalanced.

Gaf.
The only stock system that can cause a interplanetary stalemate in 1v1's. As I explained/predicted here:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/lets-talk-system-design-or-how-to-avoid-stalemates.65331/

Back to the topic:
I agree that getting to the intended mapsizes is a good idea. Orbital invasions would be soooo much easier if you had a 2.5k Radius planet to defened with airforce, rather then a 300 radius rock.
But first the engine must be able to properly handle it. Wich includes a multithreaded sim (currently single) and improoving the pathfinding that had to be totally reworked 6 months ago.

Not so sure about adding more planets to 1v1 matchpool maps. The one thing a single player has the least of is the attention resource. Adding more planets would only make the game less interesting/manageable.
3 Landable planetoids are good. Maybe 4+ 1 gas giant as tie breaker. But more then that would not really add anything to the game.

Agreed. If you do not have identified the real issue, you can only fix the symptoms. We want to cure the disease, not produce "a acceptable living" with it.
The real issue is planets not being able to be as big as planned. Once that is done, the balance will be different.

@squishypon3 what? I don't really care about maps is what I'm saying. balance is more of a pressing issue and maps are not the factor offseting balance.

I agree on many points but 1. If you play a 1v1 and you have 3 starting planets, and both players start on a seperate planet + the planets are big. Makes games boring as hell to watch on stream or youtube because the first 10 to 15 minutes is actionless. Always keep in mind what viewers want to see. They are the once that attract sponsors and new players. They are the ones that will bring money to the game. The game "maybe" more fun with ridiculously large maps and multiple planets. But thats just so boring to watch.

I quite like that the current ranked games are useally quick. And would be put off by long games, which i don't alway have time for. Maybe there should be different laders for different size(~lenght) games.

And I and @squishypon3 keep saying that you are wrong in that assesment. The maps and in particular planet sizes make a HUGE impact on balance. It's like having only 10km maps in SupCom/FA and saying "the mavor is overpriced/useless, because every other T2-T3 arty can reach the enemy base".
It was never intended for 10km maps, but for 20-80 km maps.

In general I agree. The biggest thing holding back more interesting gameplay right now is the maps. Even small additions make it far more interesting. For example Team Burning has a nice map with a large size main planet and a small metal planet that has a huge gashing making it so you can only go in one direction across the equator. Just that small addition puts your back to a wall in 3D space and makes things much more interesting. It has been said a million times but a map editor with better 3D features and symmetry control will take this game to a whole new level.

If balance fails in a bunch of scenarios (IE when maps are small, or when players spawn near each other) then the game isn't balanced... >.<