Is real that all people only want to play Arabia?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

I’m tired of hearing the same misinformation coming from you over and over.

Opt-in allows controll over;

-One map
-Many maps
-Popular maps
-Unpopular maps

Opt in will results in increased queueing times for everyone (including the most popular map!)

Total bs. The only reason that queue times for arabia would increase is if less people want to play it… The whole idea of opt-in is that queue times are tied to interest, so even if queue times would increase for that map it would be organic and a sign of change of preference within the community.

it will push the community to just play one map only.

Not true, stop making up bs. You are just coming up with imaginary counter arguments to push your agenda.

Nothing is holding anyone back from selecting multiple maps, and deselecting the maps they don’t like.

The new system is much less nuanced, it forces a player into 1 popular preference of another and further increases ‘tunnel vision’ towards popular maps. This is exactly what you are against. Opt-in allows you to have full controll and regulate a more even spread across maps.

I feel you’re still comparing to a traditional lobby. We’re in a totally different climate now, there is a large community that enjoys variety, many new players, a map pool system that promotes variety by suggesting different maps, the abillitiy to select more maps which decreases queue times. You can’t make those claims without taking all this into account, and even in the context of a lobby that’s a gross exaggeration.

At least make sure your arguments are in line with reality.

1 Like
22

Calm down and stop saying “total bs” when they are clearly correct when they say it reduces the variety of maps played, and a smaller range of maps will be played. Obviously allowing people to choose maps reduces the variety in maps being played, compared to the current system where it uses a uniform random pick from ALL maps. A uniform random pick maximises the variety.

Once you have people segregated into playing just their favourite maps it is understandable that the matchmaking can be more restrictive, although I think the developers are trying to keep everyone in the same pool and so not segregated, so I agree with you it hopefully does not increase queuing times.

I am skeptical that this next map selection system will be an improvement, and I think the developers will need to redesign again.

1 Like
23

We are comparing opt-in to the new “preference” system. Not the current one.

Opt-in will allow controll over variety compared to a system that heavily favors 1 preference, not taking into account what the other player likes.

Variety is only positive when someone enjoys the map…

24

Personally, I think opt-in is better than the current system, but the new features that are coming this July are a good compromise between opt-in and current system.

Opt-in does increase average waiting time because it reduces the number of players that can be matched with you.

The current system (and the new stystem that is coming as well) has the lowest waiting time possible because you can be matched with any player from your ELO range, since you’ll have always at least 1 map in common that is not banned by any of the 2 players.

The current system first matches 2 players together, and only then figures out what map to pick. In an opt-in system, it would have to filter matches based on maps first.

If I had to give my personal ranking of the different systems, it would probably be this :

  1. Incoming system : [7 maps] + [3 bans] + [decent map pool] + [Preferred map feature]

  2. Opt-in system, as a close second or on the same level as 1)

  3. current system (same as 1) but with no preffered map feature)

  4. June system ( 9 maps, 4 bans, bad map pool, no preferred maps)

2 Likes
25

I’m just one guy but yeah I really only want to play random civ arabia against opponents of approximately equal ability. Free map choice within the pool (i.e. unlimited bans) would be ideal for me. Anyone who says their matchmaking will take longer because I won’t be matched on other maps with them should consider that they won’t be matched with me anyway if I’m not playing because I’m tired of maps I don’t like.

5 Likes
26

I’m so tired of everyone always playing in Arabia under the same settings and never going out of their comfort zones that’s why I started to play random maps and there is a lot of good ones, lately I’m enjoying a lot Frontline for example

1 Like
27

I love coastal, continental, golden pit etc and host it all the time in unranked matches so hopefully every time someone plays it unranked they gain confidence and enjoy it to play it better on ranked.

I am a noob but this is the best way yo affect other noobs.

1 Like
28

Why? Just cos you like variety doesn’t mean everyone else should be forced to. If people like Arabia they should be allowed to play it. It’s not about “comfort zones” it’s that people enjoy Arabia more than other maps because it’s open, encouraging aggression rather than walls and FC.

1 Like
29

I see your point, that’s why I enjoy Frontline more, it’s a even more agressive map. For me is just that I been playing Arabia for years and I know how other players behave there, why not to try everything DE has to offer? , but many players online are quite square minded.

1 Like
30

I’ve also enjoyed Gold Swamp, Scandinavia and wolf hill.

I prefered Green Arabia over Arabia on my time in the Zone.

In my expereince making only 1 map popular can be detrimental for some people. It happened to me with dust 2 in CSGO. everyone wanted to play just that map that I started to reject it, and now never play it.

31

Wolf Hill…pls don’t mention that map, I’m getting PTSD flashbacks…

I also don’t understand the point about “Preferred map is bad because it would steer everyone towards the popular maps”.

That statement doesn’t make any sense. How can something be bad if it gives people what they want? Surely by definition if something is popular then the majority of people favour it?

What’s the problem?

Also, why not just put the random clown maps for people who like variety for variety’s sake into the unranked lobbies, and leave the handful of maps which are viably competitive for ranked?? These are the maps that have stood the test of time.

Why not have even a casual matchmaking system? No elo is gained or lost, but the matchmaking is done for you, and you can pick as many joke maps as you want, just for variety.

32

If people want variety then it will be reflected in their preferred maps. If they don’t want variety then you will see a smaller range of maps being picked and consequently played.

Either way, the people who play the game should be getting what they want. What’s the problem?

1 Like
33

It seems people are using this argument over and over, but it’s very innacurate in my opinion.

Nobody is “making” Arabia popular. Arabia is “naturally” popular. People have the choice between several maps and they choose to prefer Arabia. Nobody is forcing them to prefer Arabia over other maps.

The system isn’t giving Arabia any special treatment. If we consider the map pool of 7 maps, each of the 7 maps are treated equally by the system, even with a “preferred map” feature.

1 Like
34

Arabia has been popular for 20 years. well in AoE there is a good thing and is that you can’t change the map in casual or deathmatch over and over.

35

Because I want to do what I like and not try out everything out there?! If I know something is good (for me), why do you think I have to switch it up?
That has absolutely nothing to do with being square minded. It’s just about personal preference - there’s no right or wrong when it comes to discussing how to enjoy a video game.

Just like some people order the same 2-3 meals at a restaurant basically all the time and other people switch it up a lot more - both are fine and it only depends on what you subjectively prefer.

It’s perfectly fine for you to switch it up, just as it is perfectly fine for players to want to only play Arabia - so I think it’s a very good thing to have a system that allows players to go for what they want. In order to reduce que times both sides have to compromise a bit - One map only players will have to play some other maps (how much depends on how popular the prefered map is, which is fair as well), but will get their favorite map more and variety players will have to play certain popular maps a bit more, but still will be able to go for more variety.

2 Likes
36

Agreed.

Also, something I noticed is that the people that are fighting against the Arabia popularity and promoting map variety for everyone (regardless of whether most people actually want map variety or not), are often casual players that play at a relatively low ELO and actually do not care about competitiveness.

They have to understand that there are actually good reasons why Arabia is actually popular among players who play at a certain level of competitiveness or ELO, and preferred over other maps like Golden Swamp or Kilimandjaro or Hill Fort etc…

One reason is that it is one of the most competitive map, where a given game will be decided mostly on skill rather than map generation or unbalanced civ choices, or by the clownish style of the map.

Another reason is that Arabia allows for a large variety of playstyles and build orders. You can play agressive, defensive, or a mix of both. As opposed to closed maps like Arena where it’s mostly defensive booming gameplay, and too open maps like land madness where it’s mostly pure agressive gameplay, Arabia allows for a balanced mix of different playstyles while still being decent in terms of map generation and ressource placement.

Moverer, it is true that one reason is also the fact that people know the map very well and are used to it, therefore it is the map that a lot of people have mastered the most. While it is not the sole reason why people at a certain level prefer Arabia over other maps, as mentioned above, it does play a role in why people like Arabia for competitiveness. The reason is that you are less likely to make mistakes due to poor knowledge of a new map, like you might on maps like hillfort, kilimandjaro and such, and more likely to play at the maximum or your capacity.

As you said, it is a great thing that the new system will allow people to do what they prefer.

Those who like competitiveness and like to play a lot of Arabia games for that reason, will be able to do so if that is what they want. It doesn’t mean they will play only Arabia forever, as some people seem to argue. Preferring one map doesn’t mean you’re just gonna play that one map only. Some people might, and more power to them if that’s what they want. But most people won’t, in my opinion.

Those who like map variety and play on many different maps will be able to do so as well. Just ban Arabia when you feel you have played more Arabia than you want, and/or choose other maps as preferred maps and get them more often.

3 Likes
37

There is no misinformation at all from my side…

This is already countered by Nataraja9531:

Have a match in the opt-in system? Then this will be also a match for the current system (before or after july patch doesnt matter). Have a match in the current system? Maybe it isnt a match in the opt in system. Thus the number of possible matches can only decrease and thus proves that the waiting time of the opt-in system never will be lower than the current system.

The new system forced no one into the most popular maps. This argument is again countered by Nataraja9531:

So it is pretty easy to play on different maps in the current system. Just ban Arabia or just ban the most popular maps and you will play on the other maps. So the new system pretty much still allow to play on these kind of maps pretty frequently.

Issue with opt-in is that it will found more quickly a match at the most popular map. From all maps in the map pool, the most popular one will have the lowest waiting time. So if you want variety and opt-in on different maps, you still get a lot of Arabia. Players who like variety dont necessary hate Arabia, so slowly but surely players will get stuck with Arabia only, since that will the only reiable way to get a quick game. Not necessary because they all want to play Arabia only, but because an opt-in system will gear players towards the most popular maps.

It seems like most like the suggested changes, you are one of the few that wants another system.

Did you see that i quote the opinion of someone who is pro Arabia and would love to play more Arabia to counter your arguments? The new system just make sense for those who want to play Arabia (or another map) and for those who want variety. I am not pushing my agenda with arguments that make no sense. I feel like you are doing this. I havent seen a good argument to opt for the opt-in over the currently announced system.

1 Like
38

So confusing to read your post because you don’t even respond to what I say, you don’t try to understand it.

I never claimed that opt-in doesn’t increase queue times for some maps. I stated many times that interest would be tied to queue times. You claimed that even arabia times would increase, which I pointed out is false.

The new system forced no one into the most popular maps. This argument is again countered by

Since you can’t ban each map, the system will force you to play the preference of another.

So it is pretty easy to play on different maps in the current system.

Who are you even arguing to? Do I disagree that the current system doesnt provide variety? No.

I even stated in my last post that variety is only good when you enjoy the maps, controll over variety is what makes opt-in superior.

Issue with opt-in is that it will found more quickly a match at the most popular map. From all maps in the map pool, the most popular one will have the lowest waiting time. So if you want variety and opt-in on different maps, you still get a lot of Arabia. Players who like variety dont necessary hate Arabia, so slowly but surely players will get stuck with Arabia only, since that will the only reiable way to get a quick game.

Then don’t opt-in for arabia… jezus. You understand that you can adapt your selection on the fly right?

so slowly but surely players will get stuck with Arabia only, since that will the only reiable way to get a quick game.

It’s not your right to have short queue times on less popular maps.
Queue times are tied to popularity.
You can remedy this by selecting multiple maps.

Did you see that i quote the opinion of someone who is pro Arabia and would love to play more Arabia to counter your arguments?

In your world someones opinion apparently is a ‘counter’.
He likes the new system because it will increase his chance at playing arabia. However it will not guarantee arabia for him. Or for another type of player guarantee the chance to play a less popular map.

The new system just make sense for those who want to play Arabia (or another map) and for those who want variety

So again you are totally wrong, the system doesn’t make sense when you prefer specific maps since nothing is guaranteed. It doesn’t make sense for people that want variety, because variety here is meaningless without controll over the maps. Who wants variety over maps they don’t like?

The reason why one dislikes opt-in, is because they want to force variety to reduce overall queue times. Because you don’t want to wait, others must play maps they didn’t choose.

you are one of the few that wants another system.

Simply disingenuous given all the complaints on various messageboards, even within this topic.

Opt in is only good for players that prefer one map only and dont care about longer waiting times for everyone.

There is no misinformation at all from my side…

Lol

39

Talking about bs. How to react to your post full with bs… Clearly you misunderstand my on almost every point.

Opt-in will increase queueing time on every map, so evey Arabia

If you compare the current (or upcoming) system with opt-in you will notice two things about the waiting time:

  1. Waiting times will be tied to popularity if using opt-in.
  2. Even for the most popular map the waiting time will increase. So even on Arabia the waiting time will be increased (but not by a lot, since it is very popular).

We seen to agree at point 1, but disagree at point 2. There is only an issue: Those points are facts, no opinions. You can prove this with maths. Just run some simulations and you will see this results. For me there is no discussion at all. Even at Arabia you will see an increase at the average waiting time. It is just all about the following observation:

  1. In the current (and upcoming) system players will be matched based on Elo.
  2. In an opt-in sytem players will be matched based on Elo and a common map.

Adding the requirement of having a common map in the search for a match without changing anything else will just results in less possible matches, will never decrease the waiting time. Adding a new requirement makes only matches that where previously valid, now invalid. It dont works the other way around: There are no invalid matches that become valid because you add an additional requirement. This observation just proves that waiting times for a maps cant decrease. So you just cant have lower waiting times for Arabia in the opt-in model.

So it is just a fact that queueing time will increase on every map (thus even Arabia) in the opt in model.

Opt-in will force players towards more popular maps

Players that want to play all maps will most likely match on the popular maps, even if they also dont care to play on unpopular maps. This will even further limit the amount of players at the unpopular maps.

Players seek variety, but just end up playing at the popular maps. This will even further increase the waiting times for unpopular maps. And this is not because players dont want to play the maps, but because they just get an match much more quicker for other maps. The longer waiting times will then results in less players joining the queue, because they dont wanna wait that long. I am afraid we will end up with just playing the popular maps in the like. This is also what happens at Voobly, HD, … In the end every played the popular maps only. Not becuase no one want to play other maps, but it is just the easiest way to get a quick game against an equally skilled opponent. If i heard about an opt-in system i really think we will go back to how it was. Many would like that, but also many enjoy the different maps. I see it as blessing to the game that it is not Arabia only anymore, but we will see many more maps. I also understand that others like Arabia (i do still like that map too) and want to play Arabia more. What you like is pretty much subjective.

If i look at the upcoming patch, this seems like a good compromise to me. I know for sure the number of games on Arabia will be sky high. So players who want to play mainly Arabia are happy. Players that loves variety will also be happy, since you can still get into the other games easily.

You claimed that i just wanna push my own agenda and that i just come up with imaginary counter arguments. I just show you that it is not only me, but even players that also like Arabia do understand my reasoning and to prefer the upcoming system above your suggestion. This just showed that i dont really push my own agenda or come up with imaginary arguments.

2 Likes
40

I think the new system is pretty good. You can still play the weird unpopular maps in the Unranked game mode. Wonder what they might announce next.

1 Like