Hello there, since we all need that and it’s asked over and over please Dev listen to Community, and don’t be Conconed, it’s simple, Ban will not work ( it’s need Math and Probability to explain), we have 45 civ There is a lot of option to make it work ex:

10 civ randomize/week if it’s pick then will not be in pool until next month.

10 collection then we vote for collection/week or 2, month etc.
every community topic about this has it’s point it’s all cool we begging you Microsoft do it.

I am pretty sure at least 75% of the playerbase would hate any of them, and at most 5% would welcome any of them.

I believe bans would work, it wont necessarily be a popular idea, but much more popular than your ideas.

If you want to use maths/probas to explain why it wouldnt work, please go ahead. I am sure at least 5 members if the forum would love to hear it and discuss it.

If I understand this suggestion correctly, it’s not something I want and I fail to see the benefit for anyone. However:

I would really like to know the explanation! Actually, I’d like clarification of the claim as well – bans will not work in order to achieve what, exactly?

“Normal distribution” there always high average and low level of student for example you can’t make “Normal distribution” flat ever you input some variable and make “Deviations” this what happen to Rainbow Six Siege they trying to avoid Operators form getting ban, every week month or season, nerf buff Operators , they make over power Operators as they claim less powerful so player no longer want ban this ops or make player picking this operator less because it’s OP , it’s like making this graph flat and never ever happen.
that’s why in CUP they use another system to avoid this problem pick one civ you can’t pick it next rounds of 6 rounds it’s like crop “Normal distribution”, my expectation are civilizations tier in specific map or 1v1, team is OP it’s will getting bans every single time, however check any tier list for civilizations you can see that worst civs is less than average and same or close, every tier list looks like “Normal distribution” isn’t?
ELO system is depends on “Normal distribution” as well.
I think we could added as mode for ranked to testing then see, not necessarily core mode, such as wololol redbull.
My English is not first, I study mathematics in arabic I have hard time to translate so I make it’s simple,
John J. Schiller, R. Alu Srinivasan, Murray R. Spiegel, Schaum’s Outline of Probability and Statistics.

Normal distributions have an upper tail (with high values) and a lower tail (with low values), which we cannot remove only by changing the “mean” and “variance” parameters.

There is a video game called “Rainbow Six Siege” where the players select an “operator” from a pool, and the devs failed to implement a system that “satisfy” them, namely where not always the same “operator” gets ban.

Every aoe2 civ tier list look like a normal distribution.

The Elo system induces a normal distribution for the Elo of the ranked players.

So:

Yes, but I dont see why it matters

It is not a problem for me if the players were to always ban the same civs. In aoe2, the Mongols/Franks/Persian/Spanish/Turcs main will complain but settle down for other civs (or leave if they are really hardcore)

The tier lists kind of look like croped normal distributions, it is because the devs are trying to balance civs, so most civs will end up as “average” and very few as outliers.

Yes, but I dont see why it matters

Is the main argument that for each map the ban will always target the same civs and that it is a bad thing ?

I think whether or not tier lists are normally distributed is not really that important. In fact, I’m not even sure how important tier lists are here – but if they are important, the whole distribution doesn’t matter, just the top end.

It seems to me that the important thing is how frequently each civ gets banned. If a civ gets banned very frequently, then a player who picks that civ will find it very difficult to find a game. If a civ is almost always banned, then a player who picks that civ will almost never find a game.

If I understand the link to tier lists correctly, then @BOXy is assuming that players will typically ban the civs they think are the most powerful (on a certain map), and that there will be widespread agreement about which civs that is. I don’t know how reasonable an assumption that is, but tier lists will influence the level of agreement.

I think the elo distribution would matter at the top end – the upper tail of the elo distribution is very tiny. Thus at very high ranks, it wouldn’t take many players banning a civ to make that civ essentially unplayable at that level.

This could have devastating drawbacks. It could cause many players to leave because they can’t get to play their favorite civ. Not only that, but the civ pool could have very low-winrate civs, or even civs that some people struggle with.

I agree with everything you wrote above. At the very least, player A could select 5 civilisations for the ban and the system randomly selects 3. Trying to give a pseudo-random solution.
Someone said that is the Dota 2 system, but I personally don’t know it.