Can´t we get a way to play the map we want in ranked?
The current system doesn´t work, even if i use all my bans and select the one i want to play as favorite, i wind up playing in a “for this week” scenario.
You may argue that skill has to be taken into account and that players should know how to play in a variety of them but:
You can pick a civ: in that case you could also argue that player should know how to play each of them.
Players avoid arabia: In most cases i play with an arabia start and end up winning the game at feudal (not fun for my opponent or me). If not, its against a one trick pony. A player that studied a strat for that one specific map and has an enormous advantage.
Creating a lobby as solution: Its not if we are looking for a fair match between players at the same level. Suggestion: players chose the map/s they want to play on and endure the wait time. If its an infrequent map it may take longer.
New suggetion : Different elo for each map, this way you could have the same map pool system without ending up with unfair matchups.
Any comments? Anyone thinks devs should have to consider this as an issue and work on it?
(Opinion from a 1100/1200 elo 1v1)
There is a big difference between civ picking and map picking: people are usually ready to play against any civ, but not against any map.
Players pick a civ they like or think thet perform well with and not not require a specific matchup.
On the other side, map picking is common between both players.
Map picking wrt civs is like deciding on a civ matchup. Banning a map is more similar to requiring your opponent to play a specific civ.
This is a very requiring request. The problem is that the match making system requires every 2 players to be able to play together (by having a common not banned map). What you suggest is in contraditction with this fundamental and would require the devs to redesign and reimplement the match making system. Which they do not seem to be willing to.
I think having ranked lobbies would be a good solution.
A nice addition to it would be to see ingame the game history of your opponent (elo, opponent elo, civ, opponent civ, match length, winner, map).
You have a point, picking civs its much more complex due to the matchups. And i appreciate your suggestion on ranked lobbys and a more detail profile information. Also i now undestand why it would be very complex for devs to tweak the map select system.
But in regard to “map picking is common between both players” as “fair”, i have to disagree. The problem isn´t the map itself, its the level of experience at that specific map (that doesn´t align to the elo).
For example: I get to 1200 elo by playing mainly Arabia, most of opponents have the same skill (because they are experience on it). But if i play a match in a map that gets choosen once per month in map pool by a user than bans Arabia (four lakes, arena, etc) and selects as favorite HIS map (for example Budapest ). He will be more likely to win.
New suggetion: Different elo for each map, this way you could have the same map pool system without ending up with unfair matchups.
@MarianoHM9814 You have a point, picking civs its much more complex due to the matchups.
@MarianoHM9814 But in regard to “map picking is common between both players ” as “fair”, i have to disagree. The problem isn´t the map itself, its the level of experience at that specific map (that doesn´t align to the elo).
Thank you for contributing @TwerDefender but i already atended that comment. I would like to avoid getting off track and focus on the unfair matchup at unusual maps, forced by the current map select system.
You yourself are a one-trick pony then. And since non standard-maps change every two weeks you can not call players who play those maps one trick ponies. For example if you as Arabia-one trick pony lose on Continental against another player, it is very unlikely that the other player is a Continental-one trick pony, because that map is maybe once in the map pool every 35 weeks.
You can not compare the situation with civ-picking. You only pick a civ for yourself and not for the opponent. But the maps is for both players.
I would love to play only 1 map. There is another solution, just forfeit the game and wait. Then ban the map that came up that you didn’t want. It’s what I do sometimes when I don’t feel like playing a water map when I want a land map.
I love how those threads about maps ALWAYS ends in the “I want” argument. Ranked is not about what you want, but what someone who has power to jedge wants. In this case, World’s Edge wants you to play a variety of maps. Play them or go to lobby.Or suggest something that is not self-centered.
IMO, always play the same map is boring ,and some maps are boring too.
We do have a lot of maps that are similar to arabia, so we should just get them into the pool instead of picking a certain map, however, BF and arena are classic maps that have been existed for a long time so they should remain in the pool. We could make map bans after games are found, then decide which map is gonna be played.
First of all, this is a community where changes in the game ALWAYS go by the “i want” from players. If what i had state is only shared by a minority, i am smart enough to accept that there is no need to modify the map select system.
But “self-centered” seems like a streach to me. This is a problem that has been voiced more than once Reddit - Dive into anything 35% of users (at this moment) from AOE2DE reddit share my point of view. I don´t see how its a big deal to wait longer to play on a less known map. Maybe “self-centered” is wanting to beat less experience players in a map that they aren´t even looking for.
Thanks for your comment, about civ-picking, i know how its more complex than map select taking matchups into account. Never the less, i was looking to show how by the argument of “get better” people could impose every kind of ideas that doesn´t neccesary translate to a better gameplay experience.
About “you yourself are a one-trick pony then”, i don´t have a problem playing blackforest, arena, fortres even four lakes… but i don´t see why players must be force to learn how to play mongolia, budapest, etc at the expense of their elo.
Now a days people Alt F4, in my opinion implementing a solution wouldn´t change the time queues that much. It will be a way of upgrading the experience for that users.
How much is “35% of AOE2 reddit users”?
Yeah, of course, someone who likes a “niche map” that appears only here and there is selfish for wanting to play that one because they MIGHT have something under their sleeve that would give them some hypothetical advantage, just like Arabia/Arena/BF-only players have something under their sleeve on their preferred map when they face someone who has no idea about what’s the meta there ¯_(ツ)_/¯
How much is the “35% of AOE2 reddit users”? do the math, 401 users voted, 154 want to be able to pick the map. Please take the same time to read as to write on the post.
About your thought on all players have some sort of insight in every map… yes, thats obvious, what i am stating is that users should face each other in the scenario they BOTH agree on.
154 reddit users, we have no idea if all of them actually play ranked or not. Just in 1v1 there is more than 40k players. Take your time to see how irrelevant this data is before writing your posts.
Both players agreed that, between the week 7 maps, the one played is not between their three most disliked. Isnt it enough? If they got 4 bans, then there’s a chance they would have to play a map disliked by both because the system tries to get as fast as possible a player around your level.
IF it finds someone, under the “more than 3 bans scenario”, but you cant play because thanks to the bans, then you would have OR to play a banned map OR to go back to the queue. The longer you stay on the queue it highers the chance to get someone further away from your level. Is this what most players want? Do you all who asks for longer queues for the sake of playing just specific maps do really know what you are asking for yourselves (or even worse, trying to force that on others who likes “niche maps” because they are “less important” than you)?
If that data is irrelevant in comparison to active players, then i m sorry to break it to you… most of the posts at this forum are.
And no, baning some maps and be force to play in others isn´t enough. People have the right to decide the way they want to approach the game. Stating that the problem of wating times is that you would be playing and unfair match beacuse of elo difference is as bad as playing vs an user that is´nt experienced with the map. The only difference, in the first case, both agreed on the map.
Then. Go. To. Lobbies. Your lobby, your rules. Rank only make sense because there is some parameter to evaluate people that happens beyond their liking and disliking. Its the same thing on any other thing that has some kind of ranking.
You are assuming that a “niche map” is played only because someone stared it, but you are ignoring the very obvious possibility that your and your opponent’s stared map was banned by each other, than you had to play a non-banned-nor-starred map that might seem niche. And you are ignoring that both of you might not have a single clue on how to play that one ¯\(ツ)/¯
Splitting the ranked ladder for every map would devalue the ranked ladder imo. Not all players would play against each other anymore. I think the ranked system would become rather uninteressting. Some sports had splits in their history (Chess, Indycar, Darts) and it wasn’t a good thing for them, because it devalues the competition.
You can ban the worst 3 maps. Mongolia is maybe the worst map in the game, but banning is possible.
I press never Alt F4 before a game. It is a rather bad thing to do.
Implement what Viper said - 10-15 maps with about 5 bans. Maps like Mongolia are so much better than Arabia, which is good but has gotten extremely boring and overplayed. Need different maps every week, otherwise ranked is way too repetitive.
When I played Voobly I played only BF ranked and didn’t care about other maps (provided it was original AOC and not DE), but I’m personally so tired of Arabia and Arena. There’s so many new cool maps that are never used.
So whoever wants can play only Arabia ranked and the others can play whatever else they want and still have ranked experience.
A little bit more maps would be good but not too much.
The problem with 15 maps in the rotation is, that if you don’t get the map you favored, or a very common map like Arabia/Arena you will most likely always get a different map. With 15 maps and 7 bans, there are 8 maps you have to leave open. If you always get a different map, you can’t learn any of them properly. With 4 maps open now it is more likely to get specific maps more often so you can learn them in 2 weeks.
So I suggest to just increase the number of maps to 9 with 4 bans.