Not so random maps

[TheForgivenOne]

random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

[Woodruff]

random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

Again, my concern is that once the site starts tracking RANDOM maps as a "map rank" (please do this soon, by the way!), that these "exclusionary randoms" will be included in that tracking, and they should not be. As long as that doesn't happen, then I have no problem with it (though I must admit the idea of "random but not actually random" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, personally.

[TheForgivenOne]

random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

Again, my concern is that once the site starts tracking RANDOM maps as a "map rank" (please do this soon, by the way!), that these "exclusionary randoms" will be included in that tracking, and they should not be. As long as that doesn't happen, then I have no problem with it (though I must admit the idea of "random but not actually random" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, personally.

I thought it was already banged out if you removed maps, it would remove the "random map medal".

[Woodruff]

random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

Again, my concern is that once the site starts tracking RANDOM maps as a "map rank" (please do this soon, by the way!), that these "exclusionary randoms" will be included in that tracking, and they should not be. As long as that doesn't happen, then I have no problem with it (though I must admit the idea of "random but not actually random" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, personally.

I thought it was already banged out if you removed maps, it would remove the "random map medal".

Well...given that we don't yet HAVE the "random map medal" nor tracking of random maps, you'll forgive me if I'm not convinced that I trust it won't happen. <smile>

[drunkmonkey]

Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

[Woodruff]

Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

Then get it specifically added to the initial suggestion, and I'll be satisfied. <smile>

[drunkmonkey]

Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

Then get it specifically added to the initial suggestion, and I'll be satisfied. <smile>

Why would we add specifics for how a future unconfirmed suggestion would work with this? That doesn't make sense.

[Woodruff]

Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

Then get it specifically added to the initial suggestion, and I'll be satisfied. <smile>

Why would we add specifics for how a future unconfirmed suggestion would work with this? That doesn't make sense.

Because even though it may appear to be more of a matter for that separate suggestion, it is a legitimate concern for this suggestion as well, held by multiple people within this thread. Believe me, I have brought it up in the thread for that other suggestion, as well. <smile>

[JoshyBoy]

Blah blah blah... what a waste of time and space this topic is....

*All opinions expressed are personal and in no way reflect the views or position of the Suggestions Team, or indeed Team CC in general.*

[Master Fenrir]

I like this idea. Or just permanently exclude the Hive, Doodle, and Lux from random maps.

[mgourley]

We are making this too complicated.

How about three options to make everyone happy?

1. Random...Same as current.
2. Customized (Random with some exclusions)...Random with up to 10 maps excluded by game creator.
3. Variable...Map is randomly chosen from 10 possible maps chosen by game creator.

Using the format for showing maps excluded (or possible) created by jrh_cardinal shown below.

[mgourley]

Here it is

So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I made the suggestion mainly with tournaments in mind. In a tournament the exclusions can, and would have to be, easily noted.

I would think that for tournaments, the exclusions would be noted in the "tournament start post" at the beginning of that tournament's thread.

yes, it would be. This would just make it easy to implement something like this, random map tournaments without auto-stalemate maps.

So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I would say they would need to be noted, it's not fair to people joining games if their favorite map(s) aren't on there. Perhaps something like this:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------two separate pics


obviously it wouldn't be the same 5 maps twice, but you get the picture. Also, there would have to be some sort of limit, even if it was like 20. If there was not a limit, people would Exclude way too many maps for that to work.

My idea would be to have the "Exclusions" thing as a mouse-over kind of like the share button used to be. It could also be clickable, doesn't really matter

[oldrisky44]

I voted yes with unlimited exclusions because I think it would be a great way to create a themed random tournament. For instance, a "random cities of the world" tournament could be set up using only city-type maps.

Random is random, but even random.org offers the option to limit the number of randoms from which you choose. You don't have to pick from an infinite number of integers if you only need 36.

[wolfpack0530]

i voted for unlimited. let players choose which maps they would like to randomize. for instance, a quads game where you randomized the 15 maps with the highest tert count would be a benefitial option for some clan challenges.

1v1 games where only conquest maps were up for grabs to minimize the drop + go first advantage.

ect.

[TheForgivenOne]

Alright, we need a bit more support for one of the Yes votes before I can do anything with it. We need a clear path. Either
-Limited Exclusions
-Unlimited Exclusions

[SirSebstar]

why? I mean its like the option select all, unselect all. and then go from there...

[Woodruff]

Alright, we need a bit more support for one of the Yes votes before I can do anything with it. We need a clear path. Either
-Limited Exclusions
-Unlimited Exclusions

Is 58% really such an overwhelming majority to accept the implementation will take place?

[Blitzaholic]

I like this idea. Or just permanently exclude the Hive, Doodle, and Lux from random maps.

or cc could just send those 3 maps back to the map foundry to enhance them.

[TheForgivenOne]

Alright, we need a bit more support for one of the Yes votes before I can do anything with it. We need a clear path. Either
-Limited Exclusions
-Unlimited Exclusions

Is 58% really such an overwhelming majority to accept the implementation will take place?

Dunno, ask Queen_Herpes, she believes a 52-48 is a good enough majority to Submit something.

If this doesn't get going again, it's going to be dropping off of sticky.

[DoomYoshi]

If people have a problem typing long lists into the list randomizer, they can just copy the "browse maps" page. It gives two of every result, but that doesn't affect the randomization. List randomizer was brought up twice before, but never quoted so I figured I would bring it up again just in case.

Hive Sucks

[Queen_Herpes]

Allow the restrictions and move this to submitted suggestions.

[drunkmonkey]

I think it's ironic that "don't like it, don't use it" is the reason giving for being against this option.

[mgconstruction]

Love this idea. Not only being able to exclude Hive But I run tourneys where players have home maps & random as the neutral, so being able to exclude their home maps is a definite plus.

BTW I am not sure how some not wanting this in poll should matter as its an option so technically everyone can have their way with it being that way

[blakebowling]

Rather than "excluding" a list of maps. I'd rather see the option of choosing a list of maps, and one of them would be chosen randomly. The only issue I see with this is, How will it be displayed on a game listing that hasn't started yet.

[Victor Sullivan]

Rather than "excluding" a list of maps. I'd rather see the option of choosing a list of maps, and one of them would be chosen randomly. The only issue I see with this is, How will it be displayed on a game listing that hasn't started yet.

Maybe a link of sorts along with the game like: [show selected maps] and then it'll give you the list of included maps in a pseudo pop-up like when you click on a map icon to see the full map, or it could simply act like a spoiler.