Ok thanks for that, but I would still like to know what you would be happy with.
Obviously you’re not happy with 3/20, how many out of 20 would you be happy with? 10/20 15/20 20/20?
Personally I’d like to have 0% of my time wasted when I try to play a game, don’t you?
Why do you think it’s not reasonable to have a player allowed to pick his map 100% of the time if he wants to, when it has always been the historical way to play the game pre-DE, and even in the DE era, the overwhelming majority of games are played on Arabia, BF and Arena, despite a system that clearly does not favor it.
The queue time argument is a completely minor inconvenience compared to the massive downsides of forcing players against their will in lobbies they don’t want to play. Maybe the guy joins the queue thinking he will train his scout rush on Arabia, and he suddenly gets propelled on a Megarandom water map with 2 TCs and random civ.
2 Likes
There’s a huge difference between 1v1 and TG.
I had made a record out of my 50 TG games before.
And my favored map Arabia = 16% (8/50) only.
I am a player who play maps whatever the system assign, currently around 17+ in solo ranking.
however, I really found it’s kind of frustrated to study many different maps.
a. They keep changing the maps setting. (I remember they have removed some trees in gold rush)
b. Different maps even the BO is similar but the strategy and map settings could be difference. (ghost lake you need to get the sheeps in middle, and I never played market map before and I believe they way playing it is totally different than Arabia)
c. In the tournaments, those top players they need to study each map carefully, it’s really weird they make the rotation that oftenly with so many new maps in each rotations.
Finally, we really need to identify the comments from causal players…
1 Like
You brought up some really good points in this thread hopefully the Devs listen to you. Getting sick of the casual players arguing here when they don’t even know what they are talking about
Even of one my previous suggestions asking about adding a real map preview instead of just a small map thumbnail, people here still saying a big “No” to me.
It’s a suggestion which benefit everyone and I don’t really know why people are all so negative here.
maps keep updating, changing, rotating in every months.
Who expect right now the Arabia has removed water, tree lines in the middle by below simplified pic only?
There are lots of reason I can raise out as well but anyway, it’s off topic. Just want to point out people here are really weird that there is seems a culture to say No for everything and really like to have an online fights with others.
1 Like
it isnt fixed! In my experience i alt f4-ed a game and tryed to start it again(i play on steam) and noticed that the game didnt actually stop, it just didnt show the ui anymore so i went into steam, stopped it and than relaunched it again
I agree they should update the maps to accurately reflect the map being played (removing the water on Arabia is a good example)
Personally I don’t like the real map previews, they are in the Quickplay map screen and it takes me a while to actually figure out which map I’m looking at. That’ll be due to having seen the top down mini map style I’m used to it though. If I started with the real map versions I’m sure I’d have the opposite problem.
I do not consider it a waste of my time. I consider playing maps that are not my preference to be a fair system of getting more people to play the maps they want more of the time, which is a good thing.
I think it’s reasonable on a auto matchmaking system.
I believe that the historical way to play was via ranked lobbies and not auto matchmaking. I have no issue with their being ranked lobbies where you can pick your map 100% of the time.
I made my own thread with more of my thoughts, rather than hijack this thread anymore.
no, I am not suggesting a real map replacement, I am suggestion adding a function to click the thumbnail and pop up a real map jpg for people to know what it is.
2 Likes
The problem is not the automatic matchmaking at all, most people would agree it’s way more convenient to join a game nowadays. The issue is that the matchmaker does not allow you to input many settings, it’s kind of throwing you into a match with random settings and hopes you won’t Alt-F4. An automatic matchmaking that would allow to pick mode/maps/civs should be far superior to the Voobly system.
3 Likes
-
- Implement this Better Ranked Lobby.
-
- Get rid of quickplay (which was only invented for Battlefield or whatever that hot mess was).
-
- Add filters to unranked lobby so people who REALLY want team islands 4 v 4 or BF 4 v 4 can have good games. you cannot join the lobby if you don’t meet all criteria.
* Passed benchmark test? Y/N
* Has won at least ___ games total in ranked team games?
* Has beaten all art of war at (bronze/silver/gold) level
* Average EAPM between 20 and 50? 60 and 100? ((this should be a stat btw))
* Player profile is at least 1 month old?
- Add filters to unranked lobby so people who REALLY want team islands 4 v 4 or BF 4 v 4 can have good games. you cannot join the lobby if you don’t meet all criteria.
just saying, that would be nice.
I agree with you. As far as the specifics and why it is good:
allows you to pick mode:
yes. this one does. you can pick EW or RM.
Allows you to pick maps
Yes for some.
* if you want arabia you can. if you want arena you can. if you want a different type, you have about a 50% chance of getting what you wanted. (which is a fair compromise. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if the vast majority of islands players wouldn’t be willing to play ANY map in ranked if they could be GUARANTEED an equal proportion of islands with 3 minute queue times; they’d probably be thrilled)
Allows you to pick civs
That’s a funny one. Luckily they have the “Willing to go random” so both teams can pick Britons/Franks/Poles/Mayan or whatever they feel is OP. That way if both teams vote willing random everyone is random. if one team is SET on picking OP civs, then at least the other team gets to have good civs too. It’s one of those… “freedom to allow one guy to ruin it all scenarios” that the devs handled extremely well in my opinion.
2 Likes
i already have to wait matches to min 5 to resign bc someone went afk to dont play black forest. So yeah, longer queues are better than the actual system.
2 Likes
dont resign then, just play.
2 Likes
The discourse that the infinite bans are going to distort the machtmaking due to the inflation of elo makes me tired, the elo is useless and is inflated by a bad system distorted by so many smurf, being 15+ in 1v1 they touch me tg against 18 19 + and accounts that have 0 games in 1v1 and 80 90% win rate in tg, obviously wasting my time.
So we need the infinite bans to at least not play maps that we do not want, and then solve the smurfs issue
2 Likes
or they should fight smurfs.
reasons vs consequences && consequences vs reasons.
u are confused.
Infinite bans dont solve smurfs issues.
i never told infinits bans solves the smurf problem, must be the english traslate, its solves the alt f4 problem
People need to stop suggesting infinite bans. Imagine trying to find 8 players of similar ELO who all left the same map open.
First the matchmaking is skill based not map based. So matchmaking would find you a team and opponents of similar skill. Then if no un-banned map is available the system would have to start over. This would be a complete nightmare. Then as a player you would learn you have to leave more maps open so you can find a match BUT you are leaving maps open you don’t want to play… Which is the same as the system that creates alt-f4, meaning people have to leave maps open they don’t actually want so they Alt-f4.
I firmly believe my system. Proposed here or something similar is the only way forward. Perhaps you add a “Nomad”, “Black forest”, and “Islands” queue to the options I proposed above. The point is its up to the player how many queues they join for what sort of games they are willing to play.
As a community we need to stop with “infinite bans”. It prevents people from coming up with ideas that would actually work.
You need to deconstruct “infinite bans”, most people don’t mean ban everything, but instead just choose which maps they are willing to play, so to get that the MM would need to be changed to match people according to map preferences.
It has been said before, this is a must for team games, for 1x1 they could keep the actual system, but for team games it can’t be the same anymore.
Current system was suggested by zeroempires and it makes sense for 1x1, the devs copied or accepted his idea but they should have known that it was not going to work cause it is not relatively close to choose a middle ground map for 2 humans than finding a map in between of 8 possible players, specially cause the map pool have 3-4 different skillset, the only alternatives to get games going in current system are making that you players end up playing their less desired map due the lack of bans, which resulted in incentivize stacking and playing with friends to have more bans, ergo more control over the map pool, then they forgot to add some tool to prevent noob bashing or an elo range, cause then again the system was designed to find a match below 8 mins, the outcome of both things is the mess we have been living, awful maps with 0 democracy and unfair matches, like the worst combination possible and yet they want to enforce it, instead of being reasonable humans.
infinite map bans is the best solution. people will know that the more they ban maps the longer their que times will be. people will much prefer your “nighmare” scenerio of long que times to playing maps they dont want to play. i see no decernable difference between different ques and infinite map bans. now that the que has the ability to spit you back into the same que when someone altf4’s it seems the game has the ability to handle such a scenerio. i think both ideas work and the only differnece would be elo rankings being map specific