1v1 Arabia random Civ que

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
62

At that point, I’m wondering if you’re either being dishonest and tweaking our arguments so that they fit your own, or just missing the point completely.

We repeated several times that we’re not trying to force anyone to play only one map. Your repeating of this as your main argument is making you whole argumentation wobbly.

If you can ban however many maps you like, you can also leave open as many maps you like and play on as many maps as you like.

There will be many people who will leave open other maps than Arabia. So you will be able to queue on those other maps against those people. What’s so hard to understand in this?

And if noone leave another map than Arabia open and everyone ban the maps other than Arabia, well, it means you are the only one who wants to play on other maps? But that’s very unlikely. And if that extreme scenario was the case, well, why would you force other people to play your maps when you’re the only one in the world who want to play them?

As long as there are other people who don’t ban Nomad and Islands, you will be able to play those maps against those people. You’re not forced to play Arabia. Is this too complicated?

That solution is good for both groups. It’s just that it implies that the minority has to make the compromise of waiting a bit longer, while the majority enjoys being not forced on maps they don’t like.

As was noted earlier, elo is transferable between maps, to some degree.

Macro/micro mechanics remain the same whatever the map you play. It’s just the strategical approach that varies between maps.

But the strategical approach of one particular map is much easier to learn than improving your general macro/micro mechanics is.

Therefore, if someone who’s high level on Arabia want to start practising another map, it won’t take him long to reach close to the same skill level on that map. That’s why pro players are able to reach pro-level on new maps they’ve never played before, quite quickly.

Did you watch the recent Red Bull Wololo cup ? It was played on Empire Wars, a mode most people had never played before, and on maps that were new or rarely played as well. The pro players adapted quickly to the new mode and the new maps. Their skills were transferable.

And when you were OTP on one map (say BF for example), and want to switch to another map to learn it (Arabia for example) : yes you will lose some points at first, but what’s the big deal? That’s perfectly normal and expected. Soon your ELO will adjust to meet your average skill level on BF+Arabia Combined. And soon your skill level on Arabia will start to match your skill level on BF, and your ELO will go back up again to what it used to be. That’s perfectly fine.

What’s the big deal about losing a few points during the learning process?

It’s the same process for those who are OTP one civilisation, and start learning a new civilisation. SKills are transferable from one civilisation to the next, but at first their average ELO might go down a bit, to rise back up later. No big deal.

I think having multiple ELOs depending on maps can be an interesting idea to think about. But ultimately, I’m not sure if it is really necessary.
As I pointed out above (and this is also the opinion of several people who’ve already posted here), skills ARE transferable, to some degree, from one map to the other. It just takes a small adaptation time when you WANT (and are not Forced) to learn a new map. In that sense, you ELO will fluctuate a bit at first, but it will soon stabilize and be representative of your general skill-level, both maps combined. Having a separate ELO for both maps may just hinder this process.

As we said, if you are 1800 ELO on one map, chances are you are not 1000 ELO on a new map (if you are, you were doing something wrong in the first place). After learning the strategical features of that new map, you will soon reach 1800 ELO skill-level on that map.

2 Likes
63

The emphasisis should be on the word ‘can’. Yes, on lower levels, particularly on HD when both 1v1 and TG are merged in one ladder the difference can be 200-300. But HD rating is a total mess anyway, and merging the ladders was something I didn’t suggest in the first place.

On Voobly the ladders are split in 1v1 and TG which is much more accurate. The difference between ara TG players and BF TG players is not that huge on average. Even the ‘top’ BF players with an inflated rating would still on average perform at most ~100 points worse than their rating would suggest on ara TG.

This is not enough to justify adding new ladders IMO

1 Like
64

This was my first post in this thread. Have a look at it. This was and is my main argument.

At Voobly and HD there are no limitations on the maps you can pick. In the end most players end up just playing 1 map. This is not just because of most players like to play one map, but because Elo system forced you into playing one map. Other option was to play many one sided games. To me this is no fun. In the end most players end up by just playing Arabia, because that gives us the best match on the system of Voobly / HD. If you want to get good match up (no big skill differences between players), you have to play just one map with such system. So indirectly the meta forced you to play one map. This has nothing to do with not wanna to learn / getting better or afraid to loose points. To be fair, value of my elo doesnt matter to me at all.

Lets face the options for the example:

  1. I go play Arabia and need to deliberately loose 20 games in a row before i can get good games. To me this isnt fun.
  2. I can continu playing BF. Matches are fair, but i just want to play also other maps, so again not fair.
  3. I can continu change between Arabia and BF. I end up steam rolling on BF and gettin steam rolled of Arabia. This is also no fun to me.

In the end you choice to just continu playing the same map over and over again.

I dont want to go back to this situation. Yes, i know you can still can play other maps. The match ups are just not good. 1500 Elo isnt the same for someone who only play Arabai compared to someone who only play BF. And 1500 Elo will means again some other skill level for someone who play just everything.

What i like the most at MM is that is gives much better match ups, no matter the map. The skill level between players at the same Elo isnt that big. I like getting a quick match against someone of equal skill. If you allow unlimited bans, you go back to the situation of Voobly and HD. If you want good match ups, everyone end up playing the same map, because only in that situation you will get good match up. Yes, i can play other maps too, but those will result in onesided games most likely. I dont want to go back to that situation.

I dont think adapting is an issue for pros. They know the game, they know every little detail. Adapting for them is much easier than for most other players. For pros the difference between maps is pretty small, for noobs it is pretty huge. Pros are just a smal percentage of the total community. It is just something for the noobs, a large part of the players. So i dont really know why you just look at only the pros. For pros nothing will change, lower rated players will just get a worse experience if you we just add unlimited bans to me. Voobly and HD just proved this.

I also said i do agree that the new system is also not perfect. I do know many players just want to play Arabia. Or maybe mostly Arabia. I also said there needs to be some solution but just unlimited bans dont do it for me. It felt a step backwards, not forwards to me. Unlimited bans makes MM much less reiable. Let’s be clear: I am not against player Arabia only (or mostly). At this moment it is a map i do enjoy and it will be fine if i play more on Arabia. So nothing against that idea. Having more influence on the maps to play seems to be a great idea. I really see the issue in the current match making system. Dont take me wrong. I just dont see just ‘unlimited bans’ as the solution. Unlitimed bans + more details rankings seems to me a much better solution.

I also do agree there is some correlation between the ratings. It is not like you are 22k on Arabia and 8xx on Black forest. 1200 BF and 900 Arabia is pretty much possible as example, So there can be some correlation between the ladders, but they really dont need to be the same value (like what we have now).

65

First of all, you are comparing the lobby system of Voobly, with a matchmaking system of DE. Which is a flawed comparison to begin with.

Second of all, the player base of Voobly is not the same as the player base of DE. DE not only has a bigger player base, but also many new players who’ve started when DE came out, or who came back for DE. Voobly also had more OTPs who had been playing the same map for 10+ years.

In a matchmaking system with a bigger player base, you will be matched quite often on different maps, as long as you’re leaving them unbanned. Comparing it with Voobly is beside the point and far from accurate.

Now, with this in mind, let’s still take into consideration your own Voobly story. You were OTP on Black Forest, right? Then you wanted to play Arabia?
So this already tells me there were not only one map to play… and you were not forced to play only one map. You MADE THE CHOICE of playing only BF and being a BF One trick, while you could have played both BF and Arabia from the start. So that’s on you, not on the system. See what I mean?

If you made the delibarate choice from the start to be a BF one trick, then you have to suffer the consequences of having to face an adaptation time and a learning process time when you switch to another map. That’s normal and expected, and that’s the consequence of your own choices initially, not because the system forced you in that situation.

If you want your skill level on ARABIA to match your skill level on BF, then you have to go through the transitional adaptatiob phase. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Again, as noted several times, unless you are doing something wrong in your gameplay, skill is transferable from one map to the other, provided you go through that adaptation phase.
So you’ll just have to endure that transition phase in the relatively small time it takes to transfer your skills, when you make the deliberate choice (meaning, no being forced) to learn a new map.

If you are unable to transfer your skills from one map to the other in a reasonable amount of adaptation phase time, know that you are part of a minority. Most people are able to transfer their skills from one map to the other realtively fast.

1 Like
66

Something I forgot to mention also. Let’s be realistic : when you’ve been OTP on one map for a while and have you stabilised your ELO on that map, nothing prevents you from creating another account when you want to start fresh on a new map. Then your ELO will start from fresh, and you can learn that new map alonside your new ELO raising on that map, if you are afraid that your main ELO on your main account will suffer the adaptation time. It’s not like many people are not using multiple accounts already. When you’ve transfered your skills to the new map, you can go back to your main account and play both maps at your main ELO.

And the placement games of a matchmaking system, will make it so that it won’t take many games for your new ELO to reach you transferable skill potential on the new map. So you won’t be faced against weaker players for more than a few games, provided you win your first games.

So that fact alone solves your whole concern about the ELO of one trick poneys.
Meanwhile the whole system becomes healthier for people who are not OTPs but still prefer to choose what maps they want to play on and not be forced on maps they don’t like.

67

Or you could practise build orders vs the AI, watch some videos etc. beforehand and actually try your best instead of deliberately losing. When you’ve got build orders down and strategies prepared for different maps, then I think Elo is much more transferable.

If you switched between them, then surely you would improve and it would even out?

1 Like
68

Seems like not many of you understand my point…

My point isnt that you cant get other maps. My point is Elo will be less reiable. So your match up will be worse (bigger skill gap between players). It is not about getting no games, but the quality of the games will decrease. Less quality = less fun for me.

Every starts somewhere with this game. The game has so many options. So you just pick some starting point. When you first start the game, rushes can be really imposing, so you decide to start with closed maps. Closed maps feel save for starters. Can you really call this a deliberate choice? I dont really think so.

It is laughable you say: Just make another account to fix the issue. Why should you have multiple accounts to be able to play the game?! That seems just weird to me…

AI plays completely different than a human. Ofcourse i just try my best to learn about the strategies. Watching some videos is just something else as trying them in practise.

69

Creating a new account requires making a new steam account and purchasing the game again.

Everyone here seems like they’re stuck in 1999.

70

And when you were OTP on one map (say BF for example), and want to switch to another map to learn it (Arabia for example) : yes you will lose some points at first, but what’s the big deal? That’s perfectly normal and expected.

Somehow you are completely centered around yourself, and noone else. Not only am I losing 20 games in a row wasting my time, but since I only play team RM games exclusively, I am ruining the game and wasting time for a few other players, 20 games in a row.

I am a 44 year old professional, with 2 teenage boys. I only have time for a few games a week. Imagine me waiting in queue for 5-7 minutes hoping for a good game, with the wife fuming in the back because I am spending my precious time on my favorite game. Then I join the 4v4 game, and my team mate is a complete noob who thinks he is playing SimCity. The game is completely unbalanced, we lose badly and very quickly, because HE was a BF player with a high ELO that is trying his hand at Arabia with his 15xx ELO.

Do you see this as fair and normal? Is this a game I want to keep playing, or should I quit and move to another RTS?

Similarly for making multiple accounts, even if that was possible. Do you find that a good solution to suggest to a friend who wants to buy the game? The only end result is that the big wave of new players we’re seeing right now will evaporate very quickly, and the game will die very quickly since it is not making money any more, and you guys will go back to private servers anyway to continue playing Arabia as before.

No. This is a NEW game, with developers behind it for the near future. We should demand a good solution, and suggest good solutions, and tweak them with the devs till they work for all of us. I don’t have time for Work-Arounds and band-aids. The game is good, or to ■■■■ with it. Giving you unlimited bans out of the 9-map pool allowed each month is not a good solution. There are thousands and thousands of maps that we should all get to enjoy, without worrying about ELO, and without worrying about most games being imbalanced.
I haven’t played a single scenario in single player mode since 2001. What keeps me coming back to this game is the multiplayer online, and the clan system. If this system is sub-par, then games will be imbalanced most of the time, then the game will fail.

And yes, ELO is not very transferable between maps, nor between PickCiv/RandomCiv, for the majority of the bottom 70% of players. I know you pros can adapt easily, but not so for my level.

1 Like
71

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.

2 Likes
72

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?

73

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.

74

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.

75

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.

76

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
77

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.

2 Likes
78

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
79

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
80

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.

81

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?’