The data shows that even if there is statistical clustering, which there isnt, the data is very solid. I work in aerospace engineering and if I saw statistical data like this and I was looking for a signal outside of the noise none of this would qualify. In other words its consistent and SiphonX is correct that there is no signal suggesting that maps are preferred in any way.
Which makes perfect sense, there is no reason to be selecting any map more than another, except when people veto a map more, which means statistically its played less.
Given that reality this kind of data should be used to remove maps as players vote with their vetos. It could also be used other ways, but first it should be used to remove maps from ladder to make room for newcomers that could improve the pool.
I'm sure you, as a professional in statistics, will agree that there is a logical error in your statement. Everybody here seems to assume that there exists a strong correlation between the number of players vetoing a map and the quality of that map. In fact I would say there is high probability that such correlation doesn't exist.
First of all, it is pretty hard to define a good map. But it is not the main problem here. The main problem is that, as far as I can tell, most players veto the maps they expect to lose on. I'm not saying there are no other reasons to veto a map, but this one appears to be so common that ignoring it will induce high error.
Lets think about the reasons why player expects to lose on some map:
1. Individual problems - a player might not understand the idea behind maps layout, or might not know how to play against some feature of a map, like garrisons or hedges. In some edge cases, this might mean a map is somewhat hard to grasp, but usually the problem will be on the player site and should not affect the rating of a map.
2. Faction favoured - some maps are considered better suited for some factions than others. While this is a solid argument for map rework or removal, it is important to note that some factions offer underused units to deal with such problem (e.g. pgrens) and that it might change with future ballance changes.
3. Outlier maps - many maps of current map pool play in very similar fashion. The same strategies seem to work on all of maps in such group well, and as long as you don't get a stray map you don't need to look for new strategies. This creates a "comfort zone" many players lie in. These players will veto all the maps that try to force them to alter their build or commander choice. In effect, the maps that could work against boring metas and that are interesting to play on, often get high veto counts. These are often maps of high quality in every possible scale. Their only fault is being outlier from the rest of map pool in the playstyle space. I belive these are the most valuable maps in a map pool. And these maps are also among the high vetoed ones.
As shown above high veto count might be coused by reasons connected to the quality of a map in both positive and negative ways. Caution should be used when trying to use this, or some other data to decide fate of some map.
Poland
Romeo put it in most of his tourneys. Or do we only talk community made maps?
Read your statement again and you will know how.
Rudon
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
Relic Entertainment
