[Poll] Map Veto

General Discussion
Should you be able to veto 1-2 maps that you do NOT want to play and should there be a que restriction added to those vetoes?

Que restriction would be something like:

After 120 seconds of no match... 1 of ur maps is dropped off of your veto format at random.

At 240 seconds of no match your second map is dropped off of the veto you chose.

Ideas / complaints? Would love to hear from everyone!
I would not be opposed to this.
If they introduce a GoT update, then definitely.
This can also give a decent idea to which map is the most loved/hated among the playerbase
Only for ranked i would accept a map veto, and idealy it would be in the format where the game gives you a list of 4 randomly selected maps (out of the current pool). And then you both can ban a map of these 4. After that, the game selects a random map out of the least voted maps (this can be 1 or even all 4 maps if not all players decided to vote).
After all, as HGC is kinda the standard of competetive play, some features are not bad to be taken into the regular ranked game. So being able to ban your worst map in ranked is not a bad idea. But that has to be decided as team then.
The most important part remains that all maps can still be playable, even if you dont want it. But at least you can reduce the ammount of times your least favorite map shows up.

But for UR and QM, i would be against it. After all, if you never play a map, you will never get good at it. And knowing some people, they are very quick at banning a map even if the map is actualy good. Just because they had some 'horrible experience' (some maps require more teamwork and map awareness, which for some players is simply not possible). Forcing them to play a certain map is needed to keep their skills up for the map. Otherwise when such player ends up in ranked, he might have a hard time when he suddenly faces a map he doesnt like.

(also, if i would have a veto, mine would always go to BHB, even after the GoT rework, BHB will still be worse)
In QM or va AI why not as long as there is a prompt telling you you may wait for a long time.
As for HL or TL? No... people who can't play all the maps should be ranked lower.Then again Blizz caters to one tricks in ranked so i could see it happen.
09/19/2018 02:51 AMPosted by Alias
But for UR and QM, i would be against it. After all, if you never play a map, you will never get good at it.

09/19/2018 02:51 AMPosted by Alias
Otherwise when such player ends up in ranked, he might have a hard time when he suddenly faces a map he doesnt like.

You have a case for UR, but in QM this is already the case. I'd wager the majority of people stick to assassins if not one-trick perpetually. I see no harm in allowing one or two map vetoes, especially in such a large map pool.

Any QM -->UR--->HL/TL issues are the result of poor standards on blizz's end. I.E., bad tutorials, low ranked barrier,ect.
Don't bring more option, even at the moment Blizzard doesn't manage correctly his MM so if you add more constraint the game will become a nightmare.
09/19/2018 03:44 AMPosted by Xoxin
09/19/2018 02:51 AMPosted by Alias
But for UR and QM, i would be against it. After all, if you never play a map, you will never get good at it.

09/19/2018 02:51 AMPosted by Alias
Otherwise when such player ends up in ranked, he might have a hard time when he suddenly faces a map he doesnt like.

You have a case for UR, but in QM this is already the case. I'd wager the majority of people stick to assassins if not one-trick perpetually. I see no harm in allowing one or two map vetoes, especially in such a large map pool.

Any QM -->UR--->HL/TL issues are the result of poor standards on blizz's end. I.E., bad tutorials, low ranked barrier,ect.


I should have clarified that I liked the map veto system from WC3/TFT.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum