Preface: Please read this carefully as there are quite a few “sections”
I have seen a ton of complaints about the new system for ranking not being allowed in the Lobby browser. I completely back the devs on not allowing ranked matches in the browser. The biggest reason is people being so picky in finding a match that it can take hours to find a game. I know this from first hand experience when there were only 10-20 games open on the browser. Half the time it was not even worth trying to get a ranked game and ending up playing a completely different game. I completely agree that the Ranked should be only available in the Quick search. Not only does this make the Quick search a useful tool but also gives everyone a chance to get a game going.
However that is not saying I’m against ranks in the lobbies. I think there should be two ranking systems. An official rank with ladders like what is currently up. However I think they should also add another Community rank for lobby games. This will allow lobby users to gauge their opponents abilities. The community rank would also be able to be seen when entering and setting up the games in lobbies. I would also like to see the community rank allow for your opponents to rate your character. Say someone that constantly rage quits or disconnects because they were not happy would get a bad community score.
Finally I’m also not saying that the Ranking system used by quicks search is perfects as well. I would love to see changes implemented in how that system is used. Below I would explain one example of a system that could be used.
First a single player or team enters the quick search que.
Once a game is chosen and the teams are setup you would enter a pre-game civ assignment phase.
This phase would consists of allowing teams to ban certain civs and to systematically choose there Civs. ( I will go in detail about this below)
Finally the Teams would then be taken out of the pregame civ assignment phase into the game.
Here is an example of the pre game civ assignment phase.
I will be doing a 2v2 to make things simple but the math will be adjusted for say a 4v4 vs a 1v1 The number associated with the bans etc would be calibrated mathematically to create a gaming experience worth playing.
The first phase is a banning phase. Each player gets to choose a Civilization that they would like to ban. The top 2 civs (in a 2v2) would be banned. In an example where their is a tie the computer would randomly ban a civ to break the tie.
Next would be the picking phase. 1 member from each team would be able to pick a civ from the pool that has not been banned. Once selected both players civs would be displayed to both teams. This would allow the last teammate to choose to counter the enemy or choose a civ that would mesh well with their teammate. Finally the second players on both teams would have there civs displayed for both teams and the game would begin.
Finally i would want to see a revised system for players leaving games or rage quitting. This would of course need a redesign of being able to connect to games from the main menu.
The system would be in place to punish players that rage quit especially in multiple player teams where the loss of one teammate can mean almost certain loss for that team. Also I believe that teammates should agree that a game is lost and have a concession on conceding/resigning.
I believe this system would be on par with the games of 2020 and would be a great way for a Definitive Edition to work. As of right now the Ranking system, and reconnect systems still feel like a game from 2005.
Finally a little about the Community score. I think the community score should have two parts. I think it should consist of a rank for how well you play and another rank that rates how well you work with your team. Example would be if you get mad and throw a game your teammates can reduce your playability rank so that future player that try to set up a lobby can see that this person may not be a good teammate .