I think a good thing to do in rank team matches is to allow participants to lose as little elo as possible randomly, I would like to see a timer that starts if at the beginning of the first 2m a player of the team leaves, a message appears which allows the team to vote to surrender within 2m without losing elo, or if a player goes out in the first 2m or more, but maybe more could be abused for example if a player loses sheep in the city center of an enemy, he goes out , without letting anyone lose points, so it would become a habit for players not good at scout control, tell me what you think, I hope it will be added in the future
No, you can’t do this, or people will just leave if the game seems unfavourable for them in any way, having looked at the details of all the players in the game. The way ELO-style systems work makes it massively more favourable to win against weaker opponents than to lose to stronger opponents, people would be able to hugely boost their rating by leaving games where it looks like their team will be weaker.
TG ranked will be massive failure. I got lot of experience in 2v2 and I can tell rn and was able to tell months ago if things don’t change then the ranked is just joke.
First issue is that lobbies are made based on average rating and not personal rating. So if A team has 2x 1k elo players and B team has 1.5k and 500 elo players then matchmaking considers this balanced. Top ranked players use this to manipulate their ratings and get more points than they should by teaming up with account that has low elo. Someone with 2k rating if they played similar elo teammate would almost always get 0-10 points, but because they pair with account that holds considerable amount less elo they can manipulate how easy it is to climb up and get elo and usually they can end up with 10-20 points. This is commonly used.
Also another notice is that account that has low elo might have player playing whose elo on main account is 2k so they’re effectively boosting 1 account to higher elo and manipulating the system.
Second issue is that premades are not considered in any way during matchmaking. Solo players end up facing premades and if you play with premade and got decent skill then its automatically +200-500 rating which essentially means that getting higher in rankings is nearly impossible for solo players.
I did some research and in top 100 2v2 there is max 4 players who might be pure solo. I say max because I found 4 players who had lot of solo games played and out of those 4 there is only 2 who are above 1800 elo. This proves that its possible to reach above 1800 elo, but nearly impossible. Meanwhile all the remaining 96% are premades.
Third issue is that there is absolutely 0 punishment for ppl who leave or afk and this is one of the biggest contributions to why its so damn hard to climb up alongside with the premade barrier. For example I went 9-3 one day with my games but ended up with -50 elo even tho I had massive winrate so why is that? 2 out of 3 losses I had person who left within first few minutes or was afk and each loss gave me -20-25 while I get 5-10 from wins.
Fourth issue is civ comps and certain strategies. Many may have faced English / French early aggression which is really strong especially in 2v2 because both civs when put together makes them even stronger which is not issue in 1v1 or not to same extend in 3v3 or 4v4 due larger map size and harder to rush, but what if I told you dear reader that there is even stronger strategies that are basically unwinnable if certain conditions are not met? For example one such strategy is Mongol + HRE. Mongol goes early horsemen while HRE techs into FC and takes all the relics with burgrave. If HRE is not stopped there will be endless train of MAA or fast imperial. If you deal with mongol and early horsemen / horses then you will let HRE get away with everything. If you make army to counter MAA then HRE still has all the relics and Mongol keeps running around being nuisance. I have seen this strategy to work in 2v2 and 3v3 and what I know it has like 95% winrate. So essence balance in TG’s is massive joke. Its fine to balance things around 1v1, but TG’s need some own rules to make it more balanced that don’t affect 1v1, like the landmark victory condition.
Fifth reason will be how every TG player starts demanding balances based on the mode they play without considering how it impacts 1v1. AOE4 is 1v1 game like it or not and major tournaments are played with 1v1 setting and there is absolutely 0 way to balance different modes without applying specific rules to them first.
There is many strategies if not known before the match start or picking exactly right civs against it will automatically mean you lose the game no matter what you do because they’re so damn strong and ppl use this to gain easy elo. Some of the strategies are such joke to execute it gives instantly free elo especially when facing 2 solo players.
Devs have not made single effort to solve these problems. While it can be hard to solve some, but there is many things that can be tried, but no effort is made. This is another great example of devs just listening but not thinking anything. Ppl asked ranked TG’s and devs “sure” the end. No 2nd thought how it impacts anything or how it will play out.
I understand what you mean, but I am talking about the first moments of the game, I hope that playing the games in team rank, is not like playing the normal quick games, because if so, every now and then it happens that someone comes out even before the game load is completed, or due to the connection, I do not think it is right to play in a team a game where maybe you were in 4v4 and then end up in 3v4, so you are forced to surrender unfairly at the first moments of the game, I do not think what you say is right , also because we are not talking about 1v1 games, then if that were the case as you say, even if one always comes out, his degree of professionalism in playing remains the same, sooner or later if the two teams increase in elo, they will find themselves playing against anyway , I would like that at least if in the first 30s of the game, someone goes out, you can surrender, without having results in the game, I don’t play with a team team, so it would be impossible for me to organize a quit, then if someone goes out in this way, just give penalties, so that if you re-enter the game, you cannot search for the game for a certain amount of minutes, then if it is abused as a thing, on age of empire you can report the players, if a player does it all the time, he is reported en masse
I fully agree on everything, I have more than 2000 hours of play, but I have started playing much less than before, only because of the problems in the team game, I almost always play alone in a team and it is not so rare to run into people unpleasant, which as mentioned before are afk or immediately leave the game, not to mention some strategies, which are made by people who do not play alone and in teams, currently age of empire 4 in team matches is quite immature, fun to play, but it almost limits itself to being an arcade game
I remember that the expressions written in this forum are just to try to improve the game, I have always spoken very highly of age of emprie and will continue to do so
a few times when i was playing in 2v2 games, i also happened to lose elo at random, we were winning the game, but all the server error appeared, error sinc, we went to see in AoE4 World, to check the elo and by chance we had lost it, when for similar games, in which the same thing had happened, it had not changed, or we had even gained it
This is easy to fix, make a solo queue and premade queue, as in some games. In heroes of the storm, when I played, teams were built with same numbers of premades.
For example, in a 5v5 game, if there was a premade of 2 in a team, then a premade of 2 should be also in the other team.
But for this game is more simple, just do a solo queue and a premade queue, then if you want to play 2v2 ranked, you will play against not premades.
Said that, I would never play 2v2 without friends.
Those first moments are enough for people to look at the stats of the other players in the game, and opt out of an unfavourable matchup. For an ELO-style system to work properly, the game MUST exchange rating as soon as players can tell who else will be in the game.
An example of where this exploit was possible was Forza Horizon 4, where it was possible to tell which players would be in a ranked lobby while you could still opt out without loss of rating, and I know of at least one player who achieved the highest rank possible in that game by simply opting out of every lobby that contained someone who would beat them.
In broader terms, it is absolutely essential for the developers to conduct an adversarial analysis of any ranked system prior to its release, imagining every possible way that a malicious actor can exploit it, because people WILL find any available exploits and exploit them.
It depends heavily on person. I loved 2v2 in WC3 and while SC2 I focused 1v1 and in AOE4 I want to play 2v2 and see how far I can go as solo, but I have hit my limit. Highest I have gotten is 1780elo and never since been close to it.
Matchmaking also has weird way of matching. For 3-4 days there is decent amount of good games and no leavers then all of suddenly I get 1-2 days all the leavers on my team. I also have monitored how often opponent has afk or insta leaver vs how often I got and I can tell rn its around 8-9 out of 10 times I get the leaver and its always during when Im getting higher in elo.
While this is good suggestion on paper and I personally thought this too, but the issue is the playerbase. We got very small playerbase which is split into 4 different modes and if we gonna start splitting them premade vs premade and solo vs solo situations it gets even more split and matches become more and more unbalanced in terms of skill.
I already have played with someone who had 200 elo while Im around 1500-1700 range and this was on my team. Needless to say these things will get worse if playerbase is split even more.
At first I was thinking that premades should get less points and lose more to make it more fair, but now I have been thinking maybe the solution is literally pre made teams. If player wants to play with someone they have to create a team and team gets the elo so you cant have low elo accounts boosting elo of high level accounts. Ofc there would be penalty of leaving the team so you cant just constantly jump from team to team.
Then there needs to be serious look at how matchmaking works. It cant match ppl based on average elo of team. If Im 1500 elo player and got 500 elo player on my team which is 2000 elo in total its not balanced if both my opponents are 1000 elo. Team is as strong as its weakest link and this is fact. Ofc stronger player can carry and compensate allies lack of skill, but there is just fundamentally so many random elements when matchmaking works like this.
For example its more likely that 500 elo player leaves the game once they lose their first scout with 3 sheep to TC. Yes this has happened to me few times. Then there is the factor that this 500elo is at 500 for reason because they’re bad at game and that player is not good for anything else than distraction meaning that opponent focuses on that player instead the stronger. This way stronger can make something happen and carry the game. So even in situation like this where the more skilled player is favored due difference in skill, but so many factors can just turn it 1v2 and as long as opponent isn’t throwing there is no way to win especially if game has not gone long enough. Its easier to win 1v2 game when games been going for 30mins than 5mins.
How about they let you write down a number in the search button, before you can click search.
The number you are supoost to write down:
the ELO difference from yourself you are happy to play with.
(Say you are 1500, write down 250. You will only match with a teammate in the 1250-1750 ELO range, if you fall in his criteria of the gap difference )
That would solve small part of problem, but it won’t solve the problem where opposing team is capable of manipulating the match ups and it wouldn’t remove the factor where someone who might join your team been playing with premade and gained much higher elo than they actually are due the premades are getting massive boost to their elo by just being in premade.
I personally would welcome this change. It might give me higher chance of getting decent allies, but in overall it wouldn’t fix the matchmaking in TG’s
The only way to make serious ranked TG is to allow you to control your allies units if they leave.
Wait we have team rank now??? Or we always did? I am scared to play rank.
Solves one problem, but won’t solve others.
Controlling allies is still putting one team in huge advantageous position, but its still better than 3v2 or 2v1 etc scenarios.
But there is still bunch of issues that make the modes complete joke even if leavers are dealt with
Another option I’ve thought of in the past is to give the remaining players the pop space of the player that left, e.g. if it’s 3v3 and one player leaves, the remaining 2 players on their team get 300 pop space each.
While would help in certain scenarios but it won’t in others. Even if you got more pop it won’t translate to benefit unless your economy is capable of supporting that pop increase. So if you’re not already at late game with 100-150 vills this suggestion would help but if you’re not there yet then it would do nothing
I think it helps even if you aren’t already in the late game, because at the moment, if you end up in a game where someone on your team has left, you pretty much only have one option which is try to kill off an opponent before pop space becomes a factor. If you know that you will have a fair fight in the late game, you can allow the game to reach that stage, which is less risky than being forced into a major early attack on an opponent and leaving your base open to counterattack.
Your scenario sounds very much like you’re sitting at 200pop and not doing anything with army. If your economy is not capable of supporting constant production of units from 15-30 production buildings then pop cap isn’t as relevant as you think.
Even if you hit 250 or 300 pop and attack whats the point if you got handful of production that you can barely support and opponent is out producing you?
Not at all, it’s just that if your opponents aren’t doing anything crazy bad in terms of composition, you can’t win if they have 50% more military than you. But if you had the leaver’s pop space, then when the game reaches the stage where pop space is the limiter, you at least have a chance.