I want to play the map I want

Why are we forced to play maps we dont like?
Just make it like voobly, what’s the problem?


While I don’t mind having a variety of maps to play with a map ban system…

It’d be great if people could leave the queue after a countdown started to go into the game (where you pick civs and can see the map).

I managed to match with the same player 3 times in a row who only wanted to play arabia and resigned in the first couple of minutes each time.

We wouldn’t need that if there was no limit on how many maps you can ban. I do

I completely agree. This and the hidden civs aspect of the game have been the most frustrating changes to the game since the start. I swear I can live with all the bugs and constant crashes if you let me just pick a map and see what civ my opponent wants to pick

n’t see the issue if someone wants to ban every map except for Arabia and they are willing to potentially wait longer to find a game we should have that freedom. Especially when people are resigning found games and wasting more time than it would have take to ban every map but arabia in the first place


aoe players: why do i struggle to find players in the queue (or even with similar elo)

also aoe players: why dont we make it even harder to match players by allowing them to add more contraints to their searches

anyone need explaining on this? or do you get my point?


It only takes 2-5 minutes to get a match. But if I have to insta quit a game because I got megarandom or that awful new map (can’t remember its name, alpine or something- I used all my bans on the turtle maps like bf and arena already), then that doubles or triples to time to get a match, whereas in most cases I’m sure my opponent wouldn’t mind playing Arabia.

I mean come on, is there really anyone who would have a problem playing Arabia but not any of the other weird maps currently in ranked? At least weight Arabia so there is a higher chance of getting Arabia versus these other weird maps.


Gameranger is clearly better.
@francisco2002 This has been discussed long before, have you read all the posts already?

Feel free to take a look at my suggestion. I find the concept of unlimited bans a bit counterintuitive, instead you should opt in on every map and setting you enjoy. This gives the same result but makes more sense.

1 Like

I think one only makes more sense than the other provided it isn’t too much hastle.

For instance if there’s a pool of 30 maps in play,

a) most of which no-one wants to play then a map ban system is a lot of hassle - since if you can ban as many as you like you’ve to do a lot of clicking to ban things.
b) most of which are playable/fun (optimistic sure) then an opt in system is painful having to click every-one to opt in
–(The solution to both is just have an opt-in to all or ban-all button, and then uncheck the few.)
c) About half are good and bad - it doesn’t really matter which system you’re using then.

Anyway once the map pool is small enough it shouldn’t really matter whether you use an opt in or ban system right?

In terms of implementing it practically I’m sure there’s issues to both. At the moment though since you can’t ban all maps between you in 1v1, that at least optimistically guarantees you a game right?

1 Like

The thing is, in 1v1s players who want to find a match quickly can just not ban maps, and they’ll find games just as fast as they do currently. If you don’t ban any maps, you can still match up with everyone, even if they banned all maps but one. And the players who only want to play specific, potentially unpopular maps will have to “pay a price” of a longer wait. Currently the “price” for that is playing 7 other games on maps you don’t like, which is simply much higher. Having a limit on map bans in 1v1s makes everyone have a worse time.

In team games at least there are a few players who players who benefit from a limit on bans: the ones who don’t care about the map, and just want to find a match ASAP. With a limit on bans, these players can relatively quickly get into a game on, let’s say arena, with many players who might have preferred black forest, arabia, or nomad. If there are 4 players waiting for a BF game, 3 for arabia, and 1 doesn’t care about the map, in the current system they will end up playing, but on a map many of them didn’t want. That’s the cost of the map indifferent player having a shorter wait.

However, I think the limit on map bans highly discourages many players from playing team games. At least I know that I would play a lot more team games, if I didn’t have to sacrifice what little control I have over the map in 1v1 matchmaking. And more people playing means shorter waits. And also if a significant portion of the playerbase would only play one map (and it’s likely that this would happen if you look at the amount of BF team games on Voobly), the wait times wouldn’t significantly increase for that map.

The fact that there shouldn’t be a limit on map bans is a no brainer in 1v1s, and still the most democratic option in team games, even if you don’t think it would increase the team game playerbase.