i wonder if we could implement an que for rated gamnes that are only 1v1 Arabia random civ. There is a reason why this seeting was always by far the most played gamemmode for 1v1, and why arabia is considered the “Bread and Butter” of AoE 2.
This has been discussed from the day DE came out. So far, there aren’t any signs to implement a 1v1 arabia random civ queue as far as I know. I certainly would love it (more than any other feature for future patches). But I guess we just have to see what happens. There are some pro players publicly advocating for it, maybe they will have an impact at some point but idk.
Or they just liked Arabia because it’s open and not booming like BF.
I disagree. At least for higher levels if you’re good on one map you can still do decent on another. In your case, I can see why getting slaughtered every game is not fun at all. Surely after a few games however, you’d lose Elo and get some practice, meaning the games would be fairer.
Ok so what if there was a map pool and 1v1 Arabia random civ? That way the people who enjoy open maps and civ variety can get it, and those who like map variety can also get it. I think this solution would make almost everyone happy, so would be best for the game.
Just making a ranked lobby and i think nobody would be angry. I would love to play a lot 1v1 arabia. I have been playing that all my aoe 2 life 11.
But I personally don’t have a problem with the “pick civ” because thats why the devs should balance the game… So there are no op civs, so there is no problem by picking the civ you want to play, because is a game and you may have the right to play with whatever civ if you want to and who cares about the others, just have fun and play what you want.
I really like that idea. Someone will say that it will take longer to find a match but if you are worried about not finding a match, then don’t ban nothing. Give the people the freedom to ban all the maps they want, with the consequence of having to wait more, but thats much less of a problem than actually having to play maps you don’t like.
Exactly. I started the map rotation banning only 2 maps. Now I am up to 4… and I would actually like to ban 6 – and theres 20 days to go!
Maps that do not have standard resources / mechanics get stale very, very quickly… Civs are balanced around standard resources – changing map resources means that a few civs are always stronger and always get picked. Random civ would fix it but then if you are unlucky… gg.
At the moment, it doesn’t find you a match based on the maps you ban. Since 9-2x4=1, even if both players ban different maps there is always 1 map left. To ban up to 8 maps, they would have to rework how it finds you an opponent based on map bans. As a result of this, queue times would be longer if you banned 8 maps.
I think this would be good though, there would be a trade-off for map preference vs time waiting. If you wanted Arabia only you wouldn’t have to wait that long since it is very popular. This would find a middle ground between those who want map variety, and those who only want a certain map.
Those who complain that allowing people to pick only one map will reduce map variety, well, that should be up to everyone to choose whether they want map variety or not.
Those who want map variety can leave all maps open. Why force other people who don’t enjoy the maps to play them ? So that they can enjoy the map variety while their opponent is bored to death ? Seems egoistical to me.
Those who want to play only one map will just leave that one map open, and suffer the consequence of having to wait longer. If they don’t mind waiting to actually enjoy their gaming experience more, that is their problem.
AoE 2 rated games should still include the fun factor. Forcing people to play maps they don’t enjoy is not fun, that’s a “tryhard” factor. But who wants to play AoE 2 only for tryhard ?
So they are forced to test their skill on other maps too and hence have their elo be actually representant of their skill in the game, not just skill on one map. Cause elo main purpose is to show level of skill. And playing only 1 map all the time does not reflect that, so you might have an elo too high for your skill. And that’s not fair.
Well, that would be right if we considered that ELO is the end goal of people playing matchmaking games. But in truth, for most people ELO is just a means, not an end. The end is to have fun playing matchmaking games on the game you like, not to have a number flattening your ego about your “level of skill”.
Elo serves as a mean to match opponents of similar skills. If you only play one map (Arabia for example), your ELO will represent your skill level on Arabia. So as long as you only play that one map, your ELO will not be too high for your skill on that map, and the system will match you correctly as far as skill level is concerned.
What would prevent those people to continue doing so? Those who attach great importance to their ELO and want it to represent their actual skill level on all maps, can keep all maps open and keep on playing all maps. I don’t see how allowing other people who don’t really care that much about their ELO, to play only one map, will change their own quest for a great all-maps ELO.
Well, that would be another issue.
But to be frank, it’s mostly the top high elo players who actually mind their actual ladder rank. For most people, we only mind the ELO, not the actual rank. And even for top players, they value their gaming experience over the actual ladder rank, most likely. They value tournament achievements over ladder ranking. Ladder is to practice and enjoy the game, not to have a rank or a number flattering your ego (for most people).