I think what Mats says is not that weird. In Dutch we would say that ill explain it in 'Jip en Janneke'-language (easy language so everyone gets it)!
we can split the player base in 3 groups (obviously not true, but just for the explanation):
1. Tryharders - these players want to get as many wins as possible
2. Enjoyers - these players play the game to enjoy: the map doesn't matter OR they will join their favourite maps
3. The 'I don't care' group - these players just wanna play, they don't care about winning, losing, 11 enemies or 23. Game is game, that's their motto
Now for each group you have different interests:
1. Small maps give big wins - the less enemies on a map, the better, so they can win faster and more overall
2. Big maps are the big wins - as long as they can enjoy the game optimally, they wont be bothered. For example, they could absolutely love Skywars' 'Bones' because there are many islands really close to eachother, so lots of fights, or they could potentially like Eggwars' 'Golf' because of the beautiful designs. These people probably know the entire map just by their names
3. Map is map - these people probably just random click the NPC for a game. why would you be bothered with choosing a map if you can also just randomly play any? As long as the game fills as fast as possible, these people are happy
I voted
on this suggestion, here's why:
This whole addition would be only useful for the players that own a rank. If we are looking at the leaderboards of the games which this suggestion is about (also you forgot about Solo Survival Games), we see that it contains at least 95% ranked people. This is an indication of group 1. Group 2 is a mix of non-rankers and rankers, and group 3 contains more non-rankers than rankers.
As we love democracy, the biggest group (non-rankers + rankers in group 3) would stay unaffected by this suggestion if it would be implemented. A relatively small group (group 1) would benefit from this suggestion. Only the rankers in group 2, probably the smallest group, would have a little disadvantage from it: other rankers from group 1 will probably stay away from the maps they love the most if those are unfavourable for farming wins. lets say 80+ per cent is probably unranked, so I don't think this is much of an issue for the ranked part of group 2 as well. (Current CubeCraft system: players will join open maps which already contain players before moving on to the next map). So Ranked Group 2 probably has to wait 60 seconds longer to play their favourite maps, which is not that shocking for what it adds: Key information for group 1 and players that are completely new with their ranks and the option of choosing maps.
so again, for me, however I dont know how necessary it is overall, but I see more pros than cons
we can split the player base in 3 groups (obviously not true, but just for the explanation):
1. Tryharders - these players want to get as many wins as possible
2. Enjoyers - these players play the game to enjoy: the map doesn't matter OR they will join their favourite maps
3. The 'I don't care' group - these players just wanna play, they don't care about winning, losing, 11 enemies or 23. Game is game, that's their motto
Now for each group you have different interests:
1. Small maps give big wins - the less enemies on a map, the better, so they can win faster and more overall
2. Big maps are the big wins - as long as they can enjoy the game optimally, they wont be bothered. For example, they could absolutely love Skywars' 'Bones' because there are many islands really close to eachother, so lots of fights, or they could potentially like Eggwars' 'Golf' because of the beautiful designs. These people probably know the entire map just by their names
3. Map is map - these people probably just random click the NPC for a game. why would you be bothered with choosing a map if you can also just randomly play any? As long as the game fills as fast as possible, these people are happy
I voted
on this suggestion, here's why:This whole addition would be only useful for the players that own a rank. If we are looking at the leaderboards of the games which this suggestion is about (also you forgot about Solo Survival Games), we see that it contains at least 95% ranked people. This is an indication of group 1. Group 2 is a mix of non-rankers and rankers, and group 3 contains more non-rankers than rankers.
As we love democracy, the biggest group (non-rankers + rankers in group 3) would stay unaffected by this suggestion if it would be implemented. A relatively small group (group 1) would benefit from this suggestion. Only the rankers in group 2, probably the smallest group, would have a little disadvantage from it: other rankers from group 1 will probably stay away from the maps they love the most if those are unfavourable for farming wins. lets say 80+ per cent is probably unranked, so I don't think this is much of an issue for the ranked part of group 2 as well. (Current CubeCraft system: players will join open maps which already contain players before moving on to the next map). So Ranked Group 2 probably has to wait 60 seconds longer to play their favourite maps, which is not that shocking for what it adds: Key information for group 1 and players that are completely new with their ranks and the option of choosing maps.
so again,
for me, however I dont know how necessary it is overall, but I see more pros than cons
