Man, you are the one spamming dozens of threads on this forum and attempting to pressure people into agreeing with you, even in unrelated/vaguely related threads. Since that didn’t really work, now you turn to accusations. I haven’t asked anyone to like my post here, and I don’t even recognize most of the people who did.
Wanting to have rated lobbies is a valid opinion of course, but this is actually getting kind of ridiculous and it might be time for the moderators to take action.
Why censor what could be true ?
Indeed it looks like, that some old school pro player want to force us to play their favorable style and they succeeded lobbying against rated lobbies. Or why devs removed ranked lobbies ?Would be interestng to know.
Man, you are the one spamming dozens of threads
Bruh I got one old thread and one new thread up? That’s all I’ve got posted.
I haven’t asked anyone to like my post here
They all came from ESOC Discord, why even pretend that isn’t the case? lul
Indeed it looks like, that some old school pro player want to force us to play their favorable style and they succeeded lobbying against rated lobbies. Or why devs removed ranked lobbies ?Would be interestng to know.
My thoughts exactly, ESOC is a VERY close knit community, which is great. The 2v2/3v3 players(while being the more popular mode) doesn’t have a community at all, so our voices arn’t heard.
When I say to people in nilla that hesitate to buy DE that there is no rank in lobby they are all surprised and like “wtf so u’re forced to play with beginners and all ?”…
I can’t understand how people that played a lot the original can play DE like this ? Exept for the 1v1 player… but they are a big minority let’s be honest.
I can’t wait to hear everybody cry in 1-2 years when u will need to wait 30 minutes for an unfair game on QuickSearch cause there wont be 4 players same lvl searching game at the same time… 
There’s 7000-10000 players right now weeks after release, and the QS is working, and just barely, 1/2 match is fair.
Just think about the future, is it to hard to ask ? Can u guys even imagine a QS system with 1000 players last ?
Just imagine the same system on vanilla or TAD right now ? Just do it.
Just think about the future, is it to hard to ask ? Can u guys even imagine a QS system with 1000 players last ?
In TAD(The Asian Dynasties) at night or morning the MS/LT lobbies would usually merge so we could keep playing.
With quicksearch this is no longer possible.
That is 100% because the ladder isn’t working, not because of quicksearch being the primary game method.
What i’m saying is that we can enjoy QS for now, I do too, there’s a lot of players.
We are all gonna cry in 1 year. A matchmaking system can’t work if there’s not thousands of players.
Yeah, but the fact that the system is new is also contributing for unfair matches. Since everybody, experienced and beginners players alike, start with the same rating, so is normal that some uneven matches happens on the beginning. But, with time, ratings will eventually reflect better the reality and fair matches will be more common.
I agreed with @vividlyplain, on hosted lobbies, people can manipulate team games just like they manipulate 1v1. Just like on 1v1, a player can pick up maps that he wants, against civilizations that he wants, against players that he wants, the same is valid for premade team games. God, how many 3v3 on Deccan I played until a realized that the premade team have a unfair advantage against some random guys teaming up? The random team pretty much always ended up toasted 
I think the most accurate measure for a team player ability is when he is in a random map, with teammates that he does not know, without any premade strategy. That’s where you can accurately measure somebody’s performance, not in a lobby when you always play the same guys, with a premade strategy, over and over again.
Of course you always can play on lobbies for fun, but those should not be rated, because most of the teams there are formed by long time game pals when you played a lot of games together, so is not a accurate measurement of the player skill, because your real skill shows up when you are out of your comfort zone, not in it.
When u go inside a room is not like u must play the game, if u feel something wrong u can just out and look for another one, there is going to be at least one room with conditions what you’re going to like. Also you’re missing everything about clans and frienship in the game. So every game must be randoms, no one talk, just play and do it’s best, multiplayer games is not only play and win/lose, is also the community inside and outside the game. Im sure that a lot of players enjoy more the game playing with their friends or people they know
Also, in qs u can just invite a friend and f-u-c-k the randoms with your premade , so that point doesn’t make sense. But I agree about the random maps ^^, play in random maps is better than always play in the same map, but that is decided by the most of the players in the lobby, is not only a host decision.
There should be lobbies for both ranked and unraked, is the best. Everyone wins
Also, why is there a filter for ranked games in the lobby explorer? lol
Yes. That’s exactly my point. On lobby games you are always on your comfort zone because you choose whatever game you like or not.
I didn’t say those games shouldn’t exist, thought. I said they should not be rated.
Yes, but you cannot choose your opponents there. The reason I played against so many of those premade teams is because people tend to kick opponents that pick civilization that they consider “bad”, that happened to me a lot when a played India. People just kicked me of the lobby because I chosed a weird civilization that is not the usual France, British, Germany or Japan and potentially could mess their pre made strategy. But, usually I got tired of keep waiting and jumping from lobby to lobby, that I picked games that I knew I didn’t have good chances to win anyway, because I just wanted to play already.
I was trying to make this point in a attempt to rebut @UnlimitedSnaky argument that, eventually on the quick search option will make you wait for a lot for games that is not well balanced. Which I think is preposterous, because I can sincerely say that I already waited extended periods of time to play games that were suspiciously balanced on lobbies. So I don’t think it will make it worst, I think removing the subjective judgment of the players only can make the ratings be more precise.
Why everyone just ignore when i say it can’t work in one year, 2 years, 5 years… with 2000 players left ?
I’ve already fallen multiple times on russe + sioux rushing.
Once, 2 Inca aged instant and rushed and destroyed our 3 tc at 2min to 3 min in 3v3… this is literally meta abuse, can u imagine I lost my tc at 2 minutes 20 ? I wasnt even aging rofl, nothing i can do.
They made no vills and the third players fed them, simple. This is Meta abuse.
In lobby, u would avoid that kind of things.
Aren’t u afraid to just always play vs lame ? Idk, like being rushed by otto everytime ?
God, how many 3v3 on Deccan I played until a realized that the premade team have a unfair advantage against some random guys teaming up?
In at least 95% of ms+ or lt+ lobbies the teams would be random, so you can’t predict. You would only split double factions, e.g. double port.
people can manipulate team games just like they manipulate 1v1. Just like on 1v1,
You’re viewing this through the lens of a 1v1 player…
I think the most accurate measure for a team player ability is when he is in a random map, with teammates that he does not know, without any premade strategy.
A: It does for 1v1 AND a small minority(mainly new) players which don’t mind the dull/repetitive meta of age 2 otto/india/russia/rushing or hussar/sioux villager hunting.
A2 short: The real competitive part of aoe3 for most people was 3v3 Deccan or GP, either of which we can’t solely search for now!
A2 long: Quickmatch has a lot of maps which are uncompetitive for most factions in 3v3; The main reason people loved Deccan is factions like Port, Dutch, France, Spain, China actually had a chance.
To elaborate, most maps(remain after their balance changes) have food wayyy too far away from TC, this means as the game gets longer, villagers have to go too far out to get food and suceptible to villager hunting. To avoid this players rush the opponent on most maps.
Of course you always can play on lobbies for fun, but those should not be rated
A1: Why should you be able to dictate to us how we should play?
A2: We can no longer avoid ‘problematic’ players from the lobby. We can no longer avoid racist/BPD/rude players. Furthermore we can no longer avoid the inevitible cheaters which will come into the game; after the money dries up in a few years and there’s nobody to mod this game since it’s made by a indie studio, we need players to have a degree of authority which custom games offered.
A3: See above arguments. Plus the arguments listed in the thread below.
I think you are arguing about ‘lobbies vs QS’ which has been discussed in Developers, a CALL TO ACTION. Mutliplayer needs FIXING!
and the devs seem to have conceded to our arguments, this is a seperate discussion on seperating ranks.
I’m both a 1v1 and a team player, and I think I actually played more games on teams that on 1v1. I already gave my testimony on how I got kicked out on some games because I had chosen India. This happened on specially on those 3v3 Deccan games (That’s why I think the @vividlyplain comment was so on point), if I locked up on India, a lot of times the host specifically tells me to change civilization, and when I said no, he just kicked me out of the room.
So this argument that team games is different that 1v1 is not true, you can cherry pick games on both if you really want. You can have a premade team, and choose your opponents, civilizations, map, etc, just by kicking out who disagrees. And I can testify against that because I got kicked out on a bunch rooms because I was playing a civilization that people didn’t liked to play against it.
A1: I wish 1v1 was this easy. I would won way more games. 
A2 short and long: You are literary describing cherry picking. The “real competitive” part should not exclude players that like to rush and raid their opponent. If I want to rush one of the opponents and make their teammates invest heavily on military while my teammates booms, this is a legitimate strategy that should be respected, and if you are trying to avoid it because you are afraid to deal with they, you are cherry picking games.
If you get on a map that the hunts is to far away from the town center, herd they back or build a outpost near they and herd there to avoid raids. Put up some walls to help you out. Adapt your strategy. But choosing a map that suits your strategy better is straight up cherry picking.
And I play a lot of games with Portugal (Which, by the way, have a good rush) and Dutch, they are a solid civilizations that can be played in a large variety of maps. My brother plays with Spain, and can perform well in a big variety of maps as well. And I know that France and China are solid civilization as well, because a I see a lot of top players using they all the time. They have good chances to win in a lot of maps.
A1: I’m not trying to dictate anything, I literally said that you should be able to play on a lobbies if you want. But those games shouldn’t be rated. For my understand, you are the one trying to dictate how people should play by avoiding rushes based players.
A2: Why we can’t just flag rude/cheating players?
And when the money dry out, the whole servers of the game would be shut down, and the online aspect will be inaccessible, and you will depend of unofficial servers to keep playing anyway, or play with your friends exclusively on LAN. Just like the old playstation 2 online games that I have.
A3: I’m actually arguing that lobbies games should not be rated. Which is more or less where the discussion went after @n0elus comment. (The second post of the thread)
For me both quick search and lobbies should be available for players to play. But lobbies should not be rated because players are literally choosing games that suits them better, and this is not a precise measure of their skills.
I read the topic you linked, and I think they have more of less the same discussion going on. So this is my opinion for both of them.
A1: I wish 1v1 was this easy. I would won way more games.
That is in regards to the 2v2/3v3 meta. 1v1 is generally infantry.
A2: The “real competitive” part should not exclude players that like to rush and raid their opponent.
My argument is that you don’t get to decide, players do. When we were given the choice, we liked certain maps. This is no longer possible.
A1: I’m not trying to dictate anything, I literally said that you should be able to play on a lobbies if you want. But those games shouldn’t be rated.
A1: If they’re not rated as you well know, nobody will play it. The devs have us by the balls atm. All we want is the choice.!
the whole servers of the game would be shut down, and the online aspect will be inaccessible,
This is also a problem, that it’s hosted on servers instead of like aoe3 was by the players(so it cost a lot less).
For me both quick search and lobbies should be available for players to play.
Custom not being able to gain ranks litterally means custom will be not even worth playing; if you actually have played the game for any amount of time you would know the skill disparity between -17pr, MS and LT is significant.
I feel like players in general tends to go more with infantry, and change to cavalry during the game if it’s need. Both on team games or 1v1. I don’t know why though, is a sincerely interesting human tendency for me.
What you mean by “you don’t get to decide, players do.”? I’m not a player?
This is exactly my core argument. On lobbies players tend to choose games they ‘like’. And because of the subjectiveness of this element, there are players that straight up choose to play only on maps that suit their style, against civilizations combinations that they like, and might even choose the opponents they are playing with. So this should not be rated, because you are just picking combinations that are comfortable to you.
I don’t think I expressed myself well. If a game does not have a server, you can only play on LAN games, or is under a goodwill of some fan that goes out of his way the create a unofficial server for players to play on it.
If you are playing a LAN game, either the players have the IPs of each other, or you cannot play at all. If some warmhearted fan decides to host a unofficial server for the game, it will be some system operator/sysop/Ademir/admin or whatever young people called nowadays. I have a bunch of old playstation 2 games that the studios that created them don’t even exist anymore, and all of them are in one of the two situations that I mentioned.
So there is no possibility of the game stay without moderation, either someone that is hosting the server will be moderating, or really will no be nothing to moderate, apart for separate groups of friends playing each other on LAN connections.
This is not true. Most of the lobbies of the original age of empires are unraked, and people still play. I play LAN games with my brother all the time that are unrated, but we are playing there just for the fun.
Now you are just throwing the “yr a noob!!1!” argument around. I played this game more than I like to admit. Actually if had spent the time I was playing this game studying something more useful, my life would probably be better by now.
I am aware that people have different skills levels on the game. But I don’t think that lobby games where people literally choose games that they feel comfortable playing is a realistic measure of their skill levels.
Toroida, Idk, I feel you’re not used to how the online worked.
Exept for scenario and FFA, which combined are less than 10% of the games, literally everybody played ranks, and only ranks.
U can connect on eso now on legacy if u want to see how it is…
Yeah ok, but what about people that don’t want to stop ?
- There’s 2 main reasons for me to ask for ranked lobbies :
Once someone is a known cheater, you can avoid playing with him. Imagine being forced by QS to play again and again with someone spawning a truck ?
U are not forced to be matched with noobs if the game don’t find a player in 2 minutes. Everybody rather wait 5-10 minutes and have a 3v3 full colonel than a 3v3 with 3 colonel and 3 lieutenant that will be able to do nothing…
This is exactly my core argument. On lobbies players tend to choose games they ‘like’. And because of the subjectiveness of this element, there are players that straight up choose to play only on maps that suit their style, against civilizations combinations that they like, and might even choose the opponents they are playing with. So this should not be rated, because you are just picking combinations that are comfortable to you.
As I said, I don’t think the 3v3 QS meta is competitive; I think it revolves around hunting villagers or a age2 rush, neither of which require much micro, good timings, intelligence or nuance. As the game progresses to around min7-8 the game has a lot more unit variance, more units to control, more villagers to control, a lot more timings to consider not only from yourself but from your opponent, trade post percentage, etc.
People liked certain maps because they offered a better experience. The current system has destroyed our ability to choose. Nobody will play custom if you can’t progress or because(in my case) I refuse to play on maps which force a meta I don’t enjoy to get a rank which doesn’t even reflect my skill in the part of the game I play, which is mainly Deccan/GP/NE.
Games without seperate ranks have a significant skill disparity because of the two aforementioned reasons in the paragraph above, which offeres a bad experience. If I wanted a easy game I would play against bots.