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.
Whatâs funny, is that the unliminted ban system will actually fix the issue you are talking about for most of the time.
The âdisparityâ in ELO that you are talking about only happens when one of the players is matched on a map that he isnât good on/isnât 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 âdisparityâ you are talking about may show itself, is when a player removes the ban from a map he isnât used to play or didnât 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. 
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 shouldnât focus on a single map enough to have itâs 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 thatâs interested and do private games with them. I wouldnât 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 âplaying only one mapâ when itâs never part of the argument youâre 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 doesnât 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. Thatâs 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.
Hey,
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 donât 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 