1v1 Arabia random Civ que

That’s wrong.

Are you and WoodsierCorn696 one and the same person ? :smile:
He was also talking about wasting 20 games going from BF to Arabia.

Seems to me both of you guys are the ones centered around yourselves.
You wish to get what’s best for you only, which is many different maps AND low waiting queue, while completely disregarding what the MAJORITY actually would prefer.

You want to play unpopular maps but you don’t want to wait, so you want to force people to play those maps as well so that you don’t have to wait long to find a game on them.
You want to learn a new map, but you don’t want to waste a bunch of games actually struggling to learn it. You want to be directly, right away, at the perfect ELO for you skill level on that map and already matched with the best player for you even though you are completely new to the map.

I mean come on… at some point you need to make some compromises.

You want unpopular map : then you compromise and wait a little longer in queue.
You want to learn a new map that you’ve never played before : then you compromise and accept the fact that you will have to struggle a bit in the learning process.

That’s perfectly logical.
Currently, you are requiring that the majority be forced to play on map they don’t want to play on, just so that you can have a shorter waiting time for your own enjoyment of less popular maps. If that’s not being centered around yourself, I dont know what is.

And you can tell me all you want about your life, being busy with work and with your kids, what difference does it make, ultimately? Everyone has different circumstances. We can’t design the game entirely around you and your situation and wished for the game while you are in the minority. Meanwhile, the majority doesn’t care much too play on Islands or Hillfort, and just asks for the permission to choose the maps they want to play on.
Imagine playing only a few games a week, and requiring the game to be designed around your wishes, as opposed to the wishes of the people who play several games per day.

By the way, I juste noticed : you say you are playing only Team Games? Aren’t you completely beside the point and out of topic then? The discussion we’re having from the start is about 1v1 Ranked queue.


Nataraja, do you understand the proposal we are putting forward here?
Have you actually read my entry #39 above? or are you guys carrying a discussion from other topics to here?

If we have 6 or 12 different ELOs for RM games, with the map pool of each queue including 100s of maps. You can set your MM maps to a single one that you like, and I can set it to 3000 maps since I like them all, and be entered into all 6 queues. If you are restrictive and the map is not popular, your wait time is long. If you are restrictive but the map is popular, you get your preferred map fast. If you are not picky, you get a random map quickly. But in all 3 cases, my ELO and the ELO of other players joining the game, will be more accurate than right now.
Moreover, we can talk about making all lobby games ranked as well, or having an option (check box) to make them ranked if the players agree, and still have the ELOs of the players in these games more representative of their level in that specific set of conditions. Thus, bringing more unranked players to the ranked pool.

What exactly in that system that you dislike? Why would you prefer the current system with just the flexibility to ban 8 out of 9 maps? what if next month the devs decide to remove Arabia from the pool?

or did I misunderstand your request?

So, are you discussing the 1v1 ranked queue here? Or still talking about Team queue. If that’s the latter, you’re outside of topic. Team ranked queue is another issue that should be treated separately, because it’s more complicated when there are more people involved for the map picks.

I am talking only for the 1v1 ranked queue here :

  1. Current system : 9 maps in the map pool, 4 bans, 5 maps “forced” to be picked (you need to select at least 5).

  2. The system the majority of people wish for, myself included : 9 maps in the pool (or more, doesn’t really matter) , 8 bans, only 1 “forced map” (you need to select at least 1). In this system you can choose the map(s) you want to play, and are not forced to play on the maps you do not wish to play on.

Multiple ELOs : as I said, as well as other people, multiple times, multiple ELOs isn’t necessary, as the skill level is transferable from one map to the other to some degree. You just have to do a small adaptation period when you try a new map for the first time, but this small adaptation period doesn’t justify having a separate ELO for that map. That being said, ultimately I’m not against having multiple ELOs, one for each map. I just feed it’s not necessary. What’s most important in my mind is that people should be able to choose the maps they want to play on in the matchmaking games.

That’s what the majority wishes for. If you’re not convinced, maybe they could make a poll with all players and see what they prefer : to be able to choose their maps or not. The chances that the former will win are very high. If the majority of people are fine with the current system and are ok to be forced on 5 different maps, then I will gladly accept the result and be fine with the current system.
Ultimately, I want the system to fit the needs of the majority. That’s kinda what a democracy is about, isn’t it?

Obviously, they will not remove Arabia from the pool. There’s a reason why they haven’t removed it once since the beginning : it’s the most popular map.
Every months they will remove the maps based on popularity. If we stick to a map pool of 9, every month they can change the 4 or 5 less played maps. Obviously Arabia won’t be among these, neither will Arena most likely.
Counter-arguments need to make sense to hold some weight. At least a little bit.

This is just not true at all. It is only true at high level. Not at lower levels, where the majority of the players play. At higher levels, players are much more focused on really practising BO, analysing there recs, … A large part of the community plays at lower level. They just want a fair game it they play a game. At this level you also see the largest gap between skill and maps.

And again: I am not against more control over the maps you played. Seems like you think i would be. I also heard about the scream for the people who just wanna enjoy playing one map (for most this will be Arabia). If i can pick my own map, i would pick Arabia also more often. I have really nothing against that general idea.

Only think i require a frameworks that works for all:

  • Current MM system is great for players who do like to play all maps, but not so good for players who just want to play one map.
  • Unlimited bans is great for players who do like to play one map, but not so good for players who just wanna play all maps.

My conclusion of above statements: Both systems arent perfect. Why not look for a solution that works for everyone? So it is enjoyable for and those who wanna play all maps and those who just wanna play 1 map? If there is such solution, it will be good for everyone. Why go for ‘What the majority wishes’ if you also can go for a solution what works for everyone? I like how you said i only want to best for me, because i am looking for a solution to make everyone happy (why is this only thinking about me?). In the meantime you think your opinion is the majority (i have seen no proof) and so your idea must be used.

Yeah, that is what the discussion is about. Seems like you are not the same person as MythicBubble after all, you understand the issue at stake here.

There are two things that are not right here.
The first one : you try to make it seem like there are only 2 types of people : those who want to play all maps, and those who want to play only one map. Which is definately wrong.
As expressed by several people in this topic already, there are those who would enjoy playing 2 or 3 maps, depending if they’re available in the current map pool or not. Myself, for exemple. In the current map pool, I would most likely keep Arabia and Serengeti unbanned. Every once in a while I would add Golden Swamp or Four lakes. I also want to be able to select only one map when I feel like it. This doesn’t even have to be Arabia. If sometimes I wish to play a game on Arena for example, I will only leave Arena open. I will wait a bit longer, but that’s ok : I make the delibarate choice to wait a bit longer so that I can play on Arena.

The second issue : you forget to take numbers into consideration.
People who like to play on all maps = a minority.
People who want to be able to select the maps they want to play (not necessarily just 1) = the majority

I said we should have a poll with all players to really see where the majority lies. But in all honesty, both you and I know that the majority would prefer to choose their maps rather than be forced to play on maps they do not like. So the result of the poll would be no big surprise. And of course, as I said as well, if it happens then I’m wrong and the poll suggests the majority prefers to be forced to play on at least 5 different maps instead of choosing their maps, as the current system works, then I will gladly accept the result and be fine with the current system.

Finding a solution that works for eveyone is a great idea. However, is it realistic when the 2 groups you have mentioned above have wishes that are opposed to each other?
One group wants people to be able to choose their maps. One group wants people to be forced to play on many different maps so that the waiting time for each map is minimal. Of course, you can’t please these 2 groups at the same time. In these cases, you go for the solution that fits the majority, and the minority has to make a compromise. That’s how democracy works.

And when you think about it, the solution of allowing people to choose their maps still works for the minority : they can still pick as many maps as they want and have map variety. The only difference is that they will have to wait a bit longer when they wish to tag on unpopular maps : that’s the compromise they have to make.

Nataraja, talking about majority/minority is a lose-lose futile debate. There is a total of less than 200,000 players that ever played an unranked DE game online. I am hoping for this game to gain 2-3 million players over the next few years. They enrich the game, and elevate its status. A poll in these forums is not a scientific way to conclude the demand for maps either, since we are the high-engagement croud.

I don’t want the game to be optimized only for pros and tournaments (chasing the esports dream that this game will never achieve) nor only for rooks (the ones bringing in money right now for the devs). I don’t want it optimized for younger folks, ignoring older folks that might prefer to play the game on slower speed for instance. I don’t want it to serve people attached to one or two civs, nor only for people who can switch civs with ease. I want all of them to find the perfect game they like, with opponents that will be challenging almost every game.

You’re offering a quick solution that still limits your options to the 9 maps, to standard speed, standard reveal map, standard win conditions, standard pop. It would also require you to waste the time of opponents and give them unbalanced games every time you try your hand at other maps (going from Arabia to islands, and then back from islands to Arabia). That limited imperfect solution for your needs ignores the needs of others, be them majority or minority.

I would like to play competitive balanced games on each of the thousands of maps. I would like to play a high pop ranked game sometimes, I would like to play a ranked game against my kids sometimes, and with my kids sometimes. I would like to join the queue with random opponents, or go to a lobby with steam friends and clan members, and still get balanced games every time.

If you don’t care for multiple ELO, but it won’t ruin your game anyway (since according to your opinion, your ELO will be roughly the same across all maps and game options) then you’re not against our solution. It doesn’t hurt you or limit your options in any way. If that solution serves our needs (call us minority if you will) then why not adopt it and make both sides satisfied. My own ELO will vary a lot between these queues, and that’s a good thing to measure each of them more accurately.

Your solution might be faster to implement, but it is not a long-term solution. Again, I am not against unlimiting the number of bans in the next batch. I don’t mind it that much, but it is not a good solution. I am hoping this community will still be alive for decades to come, whether we play aoe2 Hyper Edition, or aoe4, or something similar, the ladder/ranked design needs to serve all purposes for this genre of game to florish. So please think with us.

I understand your points better now. Hope you understand mine as well.
I repeated myself a lot in this topic, so I’ll spare you further noise :slight_smile:

1 Like

I wasn’t really thinking about a poll on these forums. More like a poll inside the game. It could be on the main menu. You know, with each new patch, there are a bunch of stuff appearing there, for the events and stuff to unlock. You could very well place a poll there. You could also place the poll once you click on the multiplayer section, highlighted so that everyone can see it and answer before they launch their first game of the day. this way you can actually get an answer from all current active players who play online rated games.

And whatever the solution we get from this, of course it wouldn’t have to be definitive. The game’s edition is Definitive, the patches are not :smile: . They can always be reverted, just like the balance changes for civilisations.

If we try out the system of max number of bans (number of maps in the map pool minus 1), it could only be for 1 month. If after one month, it turns out to be a bad idea for some yet unknown reason, it could be reverted on the next patch the following month.

As I said earlier, I think the idea of Multiple ELOs is worth exploring and I’m down with it if it’s well done and actually works well, of course. It’s just that, in my opinion, it is not as urgent as the map pool/map ban issue. It’s more of a long term thing, as you say.


I guess the key point here for Woodsie is that the current system forces people to have an average ELO between maps they know how to play and maps they do not know (but end up learning as they play).

He seems to be afraid that if he (or his oponnent) plays one maps only it will somehow create a gap between that person skill in one map and on another, which means that the next time they queue up they fill face a oponnent that doesnt match his skills. I agree this is a consequence of banning all maps and then deciding not to ban one of them.

But as said many times, I think Woodsie is overestimating how much of a gap can be created here. 3-5 games should be enough to either make someone adapt his strategy/understand the map or lose enough points to place him against weaker oponnents (that not necessarely know how to play either).

On a second note, the current system ALSO allows what Woodsie seem to be concerned about to actually happen. Some people ban all water maps. Some ban all open maps and some ban all closed maps. Guess what, if they decide to play it one day, they wont have a clue how to play it. Should current system change?

Bit anedoctal, but I believe I have never played a BF game and I don’t plan on playing it anytime soon… But if I were to unban it I would be on the exactly same position as Woodsie condemns. I bet some people never played Nomad either. Most of the player base also never played the other 100 maps that didnt get into the rotations - should we have an ELO reset everytime the pool changes so we all have a chance to adapt our ELOs? Or is it going to organically happen?

Maybe Woodsie bad experience steams from the fact that he played a closed map and switched to open map, which is usually more demanding / fast. If he had moved the opposite direction, I believe he would in fact notice that a “1500 Arabia player” is actually better than a “1500 Black Forest player”. Booming under pressure is more difficult. Managing eco while getting raided is more difficult…

Therefore, I believe the suggestion to ban up to 8 maps is valid and what seems to be the main issue on the arguments here is actually already a problem. At least people would be able to choose what they play.

1 Like

Great post and great summary of the debate.

Indeed, in the current system, someone who’s always keeping Islands banned, will have the same issue that Woodsie talks about when he one day decides to unban Islands.
The only system that would go towards Woodsie’s ultimate wish is a system with an infinite map pool and zero bans. Which would be absurd and unplayable for most people.

That’s where the Multiple ELO idea may come in. The day you decide to unban Islands, you will start at 1000 ELO on that map? And this will be your ELO for the map Islands?
If you were at 1800 ELO on Arabia and other maps, 1000 ELO will probably be too low… Do we decide that there is a certain amount of ELO transferable to other maps, and this person will start on Islands at 1500, or will he just start on a clean plate (1000 ELO) for each new map.

In the current system, there is some sort of transfer of ELO between Team Games and 1v1s. People who’ve never played 1v1 rated games but are at 1800 ELO in TGs, seem to have a temporary ELO of 1800 for the 1v1s at the start of their 10 “placement” games. Such a system could be used in a Multiple ELO system where you get 1 ELO per map.

EDIT : come to think of it, it could even only be a temporary map ELO. Meaning, when you start on a new map for the first time, your first 10 games on that map will receive a temporary ELO of << Your main ELO - 100 or -200 or -300>>. And this temporary ELO will only stay for the first 10 games on a new map (around the time you need to adapt and transfer your skills to that map?). After that, you will be matched on this map at your main ELO, as per usual.

To get back to the main topic discussed : the 8 map bans idea. Well, my final take on this is that the best way to go is to make a poll in-game to receive the feedback of all current active players, and reflect on the results.

Poll could be like :

How many bans would you prefer to have on Rated games matchmaking :

  1. Current system is fine. Pool of 9 maps. 4 Bans. At least 5 maps to play.
  2. Pool of 9 maps. 6 Bans. At least 3 maps to play.
  3. Pool of 9 maps. 8 Bans. At least 1 map to play. You choose exactly the maps you want to play on.
1 Like

There are many algorithms that can used to initialize your starting ELO, by inferring from other ELOs you played before. I am sure devs can tune such algos with data over time.

For your suggestion, why have a limited list of 9 maps to start with? why not have 100s of formal revised non-buggy maps, and players can either:

  1. ban all maps except marked (allow only)
  2. allow all maps except marked (ban only)

World maps, custom maps… can be added to the list as long as their scripts are revised.

You underestimate the gap. I thing above 1600 the gap is pretty small, how lower the level, how bigger the gap. 3-5 is clearly not enough at lower levels. Note that at lower levels players wont always play that frequently. 3 games can probably take a week or even more. It is not like you play 3 games every day. 10-20 games to get fair games is really no bad estimate at that level.

With the current system players are learning the game more allround. That makes this less of an issue. Ofcourse it also happens now too. The issue will grow if we add unlimited bans. It is most likely a issue if you go from closed maps to open maps (not the other way around). And i think it will be also more an issue for team games than for 1v1, since BF is much more played in team games than in 1v1.

Currently there seems to be some issues with team game rating. Yes, i know this idea is focused on 1v1, but if you give unlimited bans to 1v1, i think you have to do it also for team games. I think for team games the request is more like they wanna play Arabia or BF mostly, depending on the person. So i do understand why @MythicBubble289 is talking about team games too.

So in the end, i think having more ladders and maybe just 1 overalll ladder for RM 1v1 and RM team games will have my preference. This whole idea came up in one of the threads (i dont know if it was this one), where some other guy even said that in SC2 there is a rating for EVERY duo/trio. So for 2v2 games you have just a general 2v2 rating and a 2v2 rating if you team up with player A and a 2v2 rating if you team up with player B, … That shows us how specific the ratings can be. He also said SC2 matches are always great, which i will believe. (note i dont say we also need that many ratings for this game, it is just an example of how multiple ratings work).

I think MM can be improved by multiple other ways too. I dont think this is the place to share all my ideas. Maybe i will my own thread to just share all my thoughts, because it will be really offtopic.

More freedom is better and will win. I can tell you that too without a pool. In the end my vote will go to 3, but with the side note they need to have a look at the Elo, so match making will still generate good games.

Again: I am not against more influence for players who play against their map. For me the question is not ‘Do we want more freedom over the maps we play in ranked?’ but ‘How do we improve the match making system and give players more freedom over the maps we play in ranked?’

This is not true, come on. I just prefer arabia, but I am not scared of playing arena or islands because i might loose some points, its just because arabia is funnier to me.

And if you get bored when you practice vs AI, well I guess nobody actually enjoys playing vs AI, but if you really want to learn build orders without losing points (your case I guess) , then thats what you should do. Easy.


You are mistaken: Not everyone takes the game that seriously that they wanna practise against the AI. This will only happen at the top. Lower rated played just want to have a quick game which they can enjoy. They just need to have a fair chance of winning a game and dont really care about getting better. So it is not about losing the points. Like i said: To me ratings can be hidden. I dont care about the value. Elo is just a value to have MM to work properly. It much generate games so every side have around 50% of winning each match. If it is 90/10% something is wrong. If Elo suggest both players has a 50/50% chance of winning, but the reality is 90/10%, something is wrong with your Elo for the purpose of matchmaking.

I already feel there is a growing disparity of Elo based on the bans. If you add unlimited bans, the disparity will grow even faster. My guess it can be already around 100-150 Elo for some maps. So even if they dont add unlimited bans to the MM system, they need to have a look in the growing disparity and come up with a fix. But i think we need to make another thread for this issue, so we dont go that offtopic.

What’s funny, is that the unliminted ban system will actually fix the issue you are talking about for most of the time.

The “disparity” in ELO that you are talking about only happens when one of the players is matched on a map that he isn’t good on/isn’t used to play. If you allow players to choose their maps, then this problem will be fixed for most of the time. Precisely because players will be matched on the map(s) they like/are used to play/are good at.
The only time the “disparity” you are talking about may show itself, is when a player removes the ban from a map he isn’t used to play or didn’t like in the first place. And that will be a rare occasion, Not what happens for most of the time. And as was noted earlier, this issue already exists with the current system of limited bans.

So if anything, unlimited bans actually fixes the issue you are trying to suggest it will create. :smile:


Doing this will take players away from the current queue. Might end up with a situation where the wait time for other queue is high. I rather just have people ban the maps that dont like and play 4 different maps. Age of empires shouldn’t focus on a single map enough to have it’s own queue. Great aoe skill requires playing in variety of situations. Arena, hill fort teach how to do FC builds. Arabia and serengeti teach aggression and map control. Four lakes and nomad teach how to manage a hybrid eco and military. Island teaches water play.

If you really want to play arabia random with skilled players, maybe just look for a small community that’s interested and do private games with them. I wouldn’t want that to be part of the game.

If everyone just play 1 map with unlimited bans, than the issue will be fixed. That is just what happened at Voobly and HD: The system forced players to just play one map, because otherwise rating are not reiable. That is just what i mean with indirectly being forced to play one map, by the ranking system. I dont enjoy just playing one map all the time. My preferred maps will change over time and dont necessary match my qualities. You call this rare, but i think it is pretty common.

This small community is much greater than you think. Before random civ was the standard setting for most games ad Arabia 1v1 was the most played map.

You always insist on talking about “playing only one map” when it’s never part of the argument you’re trying to debunk.

What I talked about works as well when you play 2 maps or 3 maps or 4 maps. As long as you always play the same maps that you have chosen and like, you will know how to play them, and there will be no ELO disparity. It can be just Arabia, it can be Arabia + Arena, it can be Arabia+Arena+Islands.

The only time we can see the ELO disparity you talk about, is when someone decides to learn a new map, so unbans one map. This is actually a rare thing when everyone is already choosing their favorite maps. And it happens the same no matter the number of bans. It happens already in the current system of 9 maps + 4 bans. Unlimited bans doesn’t change that. It doesnt make it more common either. It actually fixes it for most of the time, because in the current system, some people are strong on Arabia but their skill level diminished greatly when they tag on Islands for example, even if they have it not banned.

So if you are a master of the map Islands, there will be an ELO disparity when you are faced against someone of the same ELO as you but who got there thanks to Arabia and Arena rather than Islands. (maybe he has 60% winrate on Arabia and 40% winrate on Islands).
When you switch to a system of unlimited bans, you fix the issue, because that guy will ban Islands, and will not be matched against him on Islands.

You say your preferred map will change on a regular basis. Sure. That’s not the case for the majority of people though. Most people will stick to the 2-3 maps they enjoy and are better on. And for most people, when they want to try a completely new map, they will be fine with going through the transisional learning process. That means watching some tutorials for the map, some streams, learning some BOs vs IA, and then trying them out on ladder and being ok to lose a few games at first till they learn the map.

In conclusion, unlimited bans actually fixes the issue you are concerned about, 95% of the time. While the current system makes it more impactful and more frequent.


The answer to more accurate elo is seperate ladders for closed maps/Open Maps/hybrid maps. Not forcing everyone to play random maps!

You can seemlessly combine these 2 systems.


I think this has been brought up by many, but I want to just add another voice hoping for a change!
Why are we not allowed to play the maps we want to choose in rank? If I queue only Arabia and it would take a lot of time, I would invest it, just so I can play the map I choose. Maybe there is a possibility to display which maps are queued for by how many or something like this, so you can join their queue manually. I don’t mind how it is implemented exactly, but I just want to play Arabia like in the good old days… Will there be a way?


The idea of having more control over the maps you play on the ranked ladder (for you it is Arabia, for some other maybe nomad) is already discussed in multiple threads. Two examples are shown above. I would say: Post your opinion in those threads :slight_smile: