Matchmaking Punishment for Quitting when not getting the favorite map

Hello,

ever since the favorite map option was introduced to the matchmaking there has been a huge increase in the behavior of people just going alt f4 when they get a map that is not their favorite because it seems that they now expect to only play the favorite map.

as a player who like a variety of maps i sometimes have to ban arabia not not play arabia every single game. and that leads to people just going alt f4 when they dont like the map we got matched on. so i have to restart my queue and wait for another couple of minutes. this especially is a big issue on team games, because if one of 6 or 8 players does not like the map he will just quit and make everyone else wait again.

As this happens atleast in 1 out of 3 teamgames in matchmaking i feel like there is a necessity of having a punishment for that kind of behavior. something like a 15min ban would be good, so that people need to wait for 15 min before they are able to queue again. it might even be necessary to make it an IP ban, so that people can not just switch to a smurf account.

27 Likes

Or maybe increase the number of map bans, instead of alienating players with maps they don’t want

10 Likes

I suggest to remove the favorite map choice completely from the game and back to the old map pool. Actually after this choice was introduced in the game, the game became completely boring, it feels like it only have two maps!!! Everyone of course will chose one of two as a favorite map, Arabia or Arena, so if you didn’t ban one of them, 99% of your games will be Arabia/Arena, the other maps are rarely playable or chosen.

7 Likes

that doesnt work man… you need fewer bans than half the maps in the pool…

They could implement some extra queues, like arabia-only, arena-only. It’s technically possible. The waiting times would increase a little and the menu would become more complicated, so they’d have to be careful.
(I’m assuming it wouldn’t replace the current ranked map pool, which works really well for what it’s trying to do)

Such a change would also make me happy if they’d also include ques for various game modes with a map-of-the-week, as outlined in What if we had a Rotating Game Mode? or [feature idea] wonky fun que

6 Likes

No, you don’t. That’s a limitation purely invented by devs to not have to implement a proper matchmaking.

Besides, in 4v4, you only have 1 ban out of 9 maps, that is very far from “fewer than half the maps”.

You need at least one overlapping map no matter the bans by the players => maps - 2*bans = 1

3 Likes

I don’t understand why this is so difficult for people on this forum to grasp, it’s very clear that the devs are trying very hard to avoid have more queues than necessary.

One only needs to see games with failed matchmaking implementations kill their playerbase to understand why this is so important.

2 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes

You should queue up with friends, you get 4 map bans that way.

Although I understand why you may not have many if the language you used in your last post is how you normally carry yourself.

5 Likes

You’re the one using inappropriate tone. Your initial post is literally “it’s obvious that the current system is good for queue times, and I don’t understand how people can not grasp it”

For your information, half of the maps have less than 4% pick rate, so there is absolutely no evidence for the thing you claimed; (more bans would increase queue times). In fact for the majority of the playerbase it would increase by only a few % . However it would result in massive improvements for those who hate these maps and solve the problem of dodging

2 Likes

You literally called me retarded for my opinion, but go on.

You’re not wrong, but I think the people dodging maps when they already get matched up on their favorite map 85-90% of the time are being somewhat entitled.

OPs suggestion would achieve the same thing without affecting queue times while at the same time encouraging people to play more diverse maps or face a matchmaking penalty. This is fair in my view because the matchmaking system is used to track your ELO across all maps in the rotating map pool, not just your favorite map.

I suppose I say this with some bias, because even though I play mostly Arabia I’m not exactly afraid of playing other maps every now and then, like map dodgers appear to be. I acknowledge that I may have some weaknesses on other maps due to lack of play time on them, and I take the opportunity to improve on these maps when they come up on matchmaking. If I absolutely do not want to play a map, I ban it, and if I’m playing a team game with friends I ask the party leader if one of the 4 bans available to us can be used on a map I don’t like.

I agree it’s not a perfect system, but I think it’s the best compromise currently available, all the other alternatives constantly suggested on these forums have severe downsides that never get addressed (or always get downplayed) by the people suggesting them.

I think if more people took this approach and used these opportunities the way I do there would be a lot less complaining when it comes to matchmaking.

5 Likes

I don’t think you’re retarded at all, just wanted to emphasize the type of discussion created by starting with "It’s obvious, how can people not grasp it ". But let’s go on.

Your arguments make perfect sense, but it’s a question of what we want: (majority of playerbase happiness) vs (map diversity). Increased map bans will likely be a huge sacrifice for map diversity . In fact it’s likely that giving unlimited bans will end up with everyone playing only Arabia due to queue times for non-Arabia maps becoming prohibitive, starting a vicious cycle.
On the other hand I’m of the opinion that Arabia alone promotes enough diversity already, so I wouldn’t see the issue with map diversity reduced to the minimum… I mean we regularly have 100% Arabia tournaments and it’s still not stale after 10+ years.

I agree that there need some punishment for early quitters. I would extent the length from getting matched (1 min. countdown) to 5 minutes into the game. All those quitters makes it impossible to get into a game.

The issue is the biggest at team games. You just need one quitter and the game is over (or wont start at all). But it also sometimes happens in 1v1 as well.

I would suggest some ladder with increasing penalties. The first quit can be free. After that every quit means an additional minute of waiting time. Something like that. Just look at other games and in most other games you see such kind of ladder exist.

If you dont like the settings of the ranked queue, i would strongly advice to not play in the ranked queue, so you dont waste the time of other players as well. There is also a lobby for those who dont like the ranked queue. Go and play there and dont waste the time of other players. I fully supporter some punishment for quitters.

No idea how you relate pick rates with increased queueing times. It is true that more bans means increased waiting time. This can be proven easily. Adding a new constraint (the need a map in common) will only decrease the number of matches. Less possible matches means increased queueing.

That maps are played less frequently is based on the current bans and the favorite map selection. This has currently no impact on the queue time. You say there are maps that have less then 4% pick rate. That is because it also shows maps from the current map pool. A map that will always in the map pool will be played much more frequently than a map that i just in the map pool once in a while. If you really want to compare the pick rates, then compare the pick rates within a map pool only. You will still have some less played maps, but you cant conclude anymore that most of a pick rate below 4%.

1 Like

Fair point, thank you for being civil.

I don’t disagree with this, and it’s the reason I favorite Arabia when I play 1v1. I simply feel it’s a shame that there are so many different map types and styles that get completely ignored by such a big portion of the community. I take the chance to play those maps when it’s given, working on my water builds is enjoyable since it’s not something I get to do often.

The suggestion to add more bans would simply mean that diversity would decrease, and the ongoing effort by the devs to introduce more variance via map pool rotations and the biweekly voting would be for naught.

If this is what the majority of the community wants then so be it, but not everybody will be happy with the decision, especially the players who enjoy playing less popular maps, and it sucks to see those players being ignored.

1 Like

That’s not just a mathematical problem. If you impose arbitrarily low ban count, people will just dodge/not play which will increase queue times like it currently happens. Punishing players for dodging is not a solution since it reduces the player count and thus also increases queue times.

Well, there are multiple maps in apparence but -for me- the problem is that most are poorly designed or play just too differently from the rest (in my case: hate BF and water maps). If you went to create 9 new maps that are all interesting and put them in the pool then I would hear the argument of map diversity much more and wouldn’t see any issue with the curent system.

I’m with you, BF is always an insta-ban for me, it’s poorly designed no doubt, but many people still enjoy it and those players may feel alienated when their queue times increase, though in BF’s particular case it may be a non-issue since BF players are numerous and probably banning Arabia while favoriting BF to begin with in order to match on it more often.

There are some bad water maps as well, but also some good ones, I think hybrid maps are often ignored, Four Lakes is one of my favorites, I like Baltic and Mediterranean in theory, some players complain that they always play out the same way, that’s probably true, but I don’t really experience that at my level, and the maps don’t come up too often anyway.

I think that there is a lot of design space for the devs to come up with more balanced maps, not to mention many community tournament maps that already exist that should become official, following the same footsteps that Four Lakes/Cross did back when it was just a tournament map.

However, introducing unlimited bans will probably prevent this from happening since regardless of what new maps get made they may get insta-banned by the majority of players wanting back-to-back Arabia matches all the time.

2 Likes

Here we go again another guy that wants to judge and force people play a “variety” of maps. I prefer Arabia over all maps. I would alt f4 as soon as I do not get arabia because most of the maps are either too slow for my taste, boring or simply a civ coin flip.

Remember this is a small community and believe me when I say most players including myself are as stubborn as hell. I only play Arabia or nothing at all. And banning players over something they don’t want to play will only make the queue take longer for you then you’ll come back here crying asking why the queue takes too long.

I nevertheless agree with the fact that the ban should be applied to people that get their favorite map but leave the queue.

15 mins is too absurd!! 5 mins is probably more just and optimal. But the second ban in the row could be 15 mins.

…Still I don’t like this ban idea as I sense some bugs may turn up and many players will get banned for no reason or increased queue time provided that the queue already takes time.

What I personally feel would be such creative and great idea is to display a pop up message for the player who did not get his favorite map asking him for example:

Would you like to play Arena?
Yes | No | Vote Arabia

If Yes Game starts.
If No the queue continues.
If Vote Arabia You receive a pop up that says: Your Opponent wants to play Arabia, Agree? Yes|No

This way everyone wins. No one alt f4 and you’ll be alarmed which map choice was rejected.

Tbh It’s also difficult to ban all water maps and pre-walled/slow-paced maps like arena, blackforest, nomad etc. I mean I would not mind playing only open maps with decent resources access like Arabia, Serengeti, Goldpit but obviously some weird map has to make its way in.

5 Likes

that right there is the issue. why are people so tunnelvisioned, that they can only play one map (and many of those even only play 1-3 civs).

while i do understand, that you dont like slow maps, there are a lot of other maps with early and fast agression that are not arabia. for example hidden cup had great maps, with a lot of them having at least a focus on heavy feudal fights. what is the point to not play those?

and if people would play random civs the coin toss is not that big of an issue anymore. there is hardly any map where there is more than 1 or 2 civs that are clearly better than others. than the others. and still even if you run into one of those civs in a random matchup you should be able to get a chance with creative play if you are not compeeting within the top 200.

3 Likes

I answered your question previously because we love Arabia and it’s fun balanced open map. Now let me ask you this question: Why are you judgmental on what maps and civs people choose or enjoy?

If you have issues dealing with Arabia or some civs maybe you need to work on that instead of complaining.

Only Mongolia and goldpit that are maps I could play on daily basis. The rest is either water maps or land maps with awkward access to one of the resources.

Please I have played all ranked maps and it became clear to me why I personally don’t enjoy them.
Socotra:

  • Two tiles of stone (700 stone) a cost for 1 castle and must buy stone for towncenters (common UU such as plumbs, conqs, cataphract ,throwing axemen, etc are bound to fail)
  • Too many golds > feudal pressuring gold will not work since the opponent can find more gold piles than forests. And you know very well what happens when some civs get access to gold…
  • All woodlines are safe in the back and can be walled with 3 or 4 palisades and no tower or aggression will ever reach in there.
  • One elephant only (I don’t like having the second hunt removed It, makes the dark age eco mediocre and game slowpaced. I want to have the choice between luring zebras or scouting faster. unfortunately not possible here)
  • The more you play this map the more you can add to this list…

I can go on with the Hideout, Niledelta, Fortress but I hope I made my point why we enjoy Arabia and how a map can restrict/impact many playstyles and strategies. As I said before Serengeti, goldpit are maps I can play every day as well.

2 Likes