Should Scramblers get a buff?

[OutwittersFan422]

I think banning maps would be a bad idea. In theory I understand what you are trying to achieve but in practice not only do i not think that it would work but I also think it just isnt a good door to open. Should Federer be able to avoid playing Nadal on Clay?

Essentially what would happen is that people would simply ban maps that they werent as successful on. I entirely understand that certain maps are "less fun" due to the differences between races and in particular race vs race battles on certain maps (SvS on P).

I am about 1000 games into an experiment I am doing and the numbers clearly show that each race has maps that they preform far above the average rate on than they do on others. So if I look at my numbers and decide ok Im going to go on a run with Feedback for example I look at my list. I see which maps Feedback perform poorly on and I simply eliminate those with my vetoes. Then when I switch to Scally I switch my vetoes accordingly. Its an artificial way to prop up win % no different than P1 quitting when a certain map pops up.

What should happen is this:

League play is only available to players who own all races. When selecting a league game you are randomly assigned a map and a race and the opponent is randomly assigned a race as well. Then use whatever the current formula for points based on the ranking systems for W/L and skew them slightly to reflect what the OML statistics say each race's performance against another on a given map.

So for example, P1 starts 3 league games and P1 is currently #10 and gets randomly matched with 3 P2s.

Random Game Assignments:
Game 1: P1F(#10) v P2S(#5) on P
Game 2: P1S(#10) v P2V(#15) on G
Game 3: P1F(#10) v P2A(#1) on R

Game 1 P1 beats P2 so the current OML formula for ranking points is assigned to P1 for the win and P2 for the loss BUT OML then looks at its records and sees that Scallywags vs Feedback on Peakaboo favors Scallywags 72% of the time then the ranking points awarded should be skewed to reflect that. In this case a Feedback beat a Scally on P so the points the get should be bumped up to reflect that.

Similar with Games 2 and 3. In game 3 for example if OML records show that A outperforms F at a rate of 85% on this map then if Feedback wins as #10 and beats #1 in a matchup that should favor P2 85% of the time then the ranking points awarded should be magnified to reflect that.

Ultimately this would make the rankings more accurately reflect who truly is the best player (probably many if not all of the same people). This would also essentially make the minutia of balancing teams have a significantly smaller impact on the game. The goal would still be to balance but as players would both benefit and fall victim to whatever imbalances do exist no matter how small it really wouldn't matter. What would really take shape in the rankings is true skill would trump racial inequalities and imbalances.

Then for all else let people who want to play specific stuff do friendlies, where they can pick and choose as they like.