MM SYSTEM for everyone

Using checkboxes you could queue for as many maps as you like at once, per map select all the configurations you are interested in;

[1v1]
[2v2]
[3v3]
[4v4]

The game puts you in each queue and looks for the fastest match. It remembers your preferences for next time. After being matched you get the option to chat (gl hf) and it will allow civ pick or random, the game tells if your opponent has picked or not (not show civ). When both parties choose the same option the game will start immediately. When one picks while the other goes random, the players are able to communicate their thoughts. The random player in this situation is in a disadvantage, so he gets the option to skip and the game will look for a new opponent.

The end screen [Victory] does not contain any buttons, not to immediately encourage the player to leave the game. Instead the popup dissapears after 5 seconds so the player can inspect the map and engage in post battle discussion. Players leave as usual via the upper right menu, which also features a rematch button that the players can use after agreeing upon a re.

Pros

  • Freedom to pick maps. (+No bans)
  • Democratic (Queue times in direct correlation to map popularity)
  • Promotes map diversity without force. (Shorter queue times when selecting more maps)
  • Larger possible variety of maps while keeping everyone happy.
  • Fairness regarding civs, does not force uneven settings.
  • Chat, community aspect.
  • Rematch option

Cons

  • ???

In this system everyone can be happy with their favorite maps in the pool, instead of being negatively impacted by their least favorite map. It would behave just like an automated lobby, providing speed and ease of use without taking away player choice.

~8 main popular maps, these could be accompanied by more (12-16) maps. Even ideas such as a rotating map pool would be possible next to the 8 popular established maps. The nice thing about this system is that more maps in the pool don’t significantly affect queue times, and you could never complain about long wait times since this simply means that not many people want to play map x with you.

Someone will say; but then all games will be arabia. In that case you could de-select arabia and you will quickly match with another popular map, there could be a mechanic in place that attempts to create diversity when you have more than one map selected based upon previous games.

Another will say; but the point of MM is that one cannot climb playing only a couple maps… Ofcourse the same could be said about often playing the same civs. However as competitive as I consider myself, I still believe that elo is merely a tool to assist us with fair matches. It should never be something that hinders our freedom, that argument is out of proportion when you consider what it asks us to give up. I believe AOE2 with its random map generation lends itself well for playing certain maps over and over again. And someone that wants to try a certain strat with his favorite civ, he should be allowed to as long as both parties agree ofcourse. If you realise that you cannot remove player preference, you understand that the current MM system will never be able to please a diverse community. I have not been convinced that playing all the maps in a map pool is a ‘must’ superior way of experiencing this game, or that it is the best and most effective way to learn. In contrast I believe that the map pool (and the lack of consistency it brings) can be overwhelming for new players. It is important to remember that as a player you have no direct controll over the map pool, so with the current system a player will be punished by each change they consider negative. The suggested system above is far more flexible and healthy for our community by respecting player identity.

2 Likes

There would be no diversity because it will be a democratic system, everyone will play 1v1 Arabia or 3v3/4v4 BF for fast queue times and all the other maps will get ignored.

Yes, you can deselect arabia, have fun waiting 20 minutes.

ELO will no longer correlate to overall skill, just your ability to play your single favorite map (or the map the community deems most popular), this is pretty important in finding fair matches because you can queue for nothing but 4v4 BF and your rating will only reflect that, if you are 2k at 4v4 BF you probably wouldn’t be able to queue for other maps without being vastly underrated.

The current queue is a thousand times better, the maps just need to rotate more often, and megarandom needs to be tweaked to have fairer maps and standard starts instead of the silly starts it has now.

2 Likes

You can find lots of Arabia and Black forest games in the custom lobby. I have played many games in the lobby and it is very easy to find people to play with.

No need to change the Matchmaking. Just romove those stupid maps and add more regular maps with standard start and resource allocation.

There would be no diversity because it will be a democratic system, everyone will play 1v1 Arabia or 3v3/4v4 BF for fast queue times and all the other maps will get ignored.

I expect it to behave just like a lobby, but automated. You are exaggerating, diversity will be encouraged but not forced.

I don’t understand how you can already predict how it will turn out? If many people want to play a map, then times will be reasonable. There is nothing holding you back from selecting more maps.

Yes, you can deselect arabia, have fun waiting 20 minutes.

Source? I think you are exaggerating. Times will be in proportion to the popularity, that is fair. You can’t complain about that. It is unreasonable to expect equally short times when you host a 1v1 oasis compared to 1v1 arabia.

ELO will no longer correlate to overall skill, just your ability to play your single favorite map (or the map the community deems most popular), this is pretty important in finding fair matches because you can queue for nothing but 4v4 BF and your rating will only reflect that, if you are 2k at 4v4 BF you probably wouldn’t be able to queue for other maps without being vastly underrated.

Just to add this; the system above would still allow TG and 1v1 ELO to be calculated seperately.

Voobly and HD have never taken into account “overall skill”. And they work good enough, so this problem is not so significant as many like to make it seem. I play on ladder all the time on HD so I know that the system is good enough for providing fair matches based on ELO.

Overall skill is just the average between all maps, so in that system the ELO is not accurate for any of them individually. While in the system above, players that only play certain maps will be more accurately matched to likeminded individuals.

More important, it has to be balanced. It is not worth it to take away player choice in such extremes in order to “generalise” the ELO.

The current queue is a thousand times better, the maps just need to rotate more often, and megarandom needs to be tweaked to have fairer maps and standard starts instead of the silly starts it has now.

How do you even expect a limited system to please a whole community when everyone has their own preferences? Maybe at one point you will be happy with the maps, but then many others will be unhappy… I really cannot understand the mindset. Also the main maps should never rotate (after being perfected). Why would I want to be unable to play the most popular maps? I would only suggest a rotating mappool for the extra non established maps eg. maps 9-12.

@Kuoting

You can find lots of Arabia and Black forest games in the custom lobby. I have played many games in the lobby and it is very easy to find people to play with.

This is impossible since the lobby does not allow ranked play, or display ELO to achieve fair matches. (aoe2.net is not part of DE)
Also I think it is unreasonable to request for the 2 most played maps to head off to a lobby… It should be the other way around, a MM should take into account player preference and map popularity.

No need to change the Matchmaking. Just romove those stupid maps and add more regular maps with standard start and resource allocation.

Again… This is my point. “Stupid maps” is subjective. People like you will always be fighting over the maps. This discussion has been going on for months.

2 Likes

The matchmaking is supposed to be fair and diverse. Letting people to pick their favorite map is not fair, and only one or two popular maps is far from enough to make mm diverse. You could request the devs to improve the lobby to but not remove the matchmaking.

I hate the current pool too, so I have played many games in the lobby. For 1v1 it should not be defficult to get a fair match because you have aoe2.net. For team game you can just go random team and i think its fairness is not much worse then matchmaking. Though I still hope the devs will make ranked pool or lobby better. You can pray the change will happen with me.
:sob:

1 Like

Here’s a source: https://aocrecs.com/maps
Out of ~1.5 million recorded games on this page, roughly 99% of the maps are some variation of Arabia, BF, and Nomad, trying to play anything else right now on voobly is pretty impossible, or will take an exceedingly long time, certainly more than the 3-7 minutes it currently takes me to queue up for a nice variety of maps on DE, I don’t want to go back to voobly’s lobby system.

I’ll argue that having to choose to play from one of the 3 “standard” maps (Ara, BF, Nomad) is far more limiting than getting a random map from a pool, playing on non-standard maps tests your adaptability, which is something that’s not really ever tested when players always get to choose their favorite map.

I agree with you in that the standard maps should probably stick around, and the other maps should rotate.

The matchmaking is supposed to be fair and diverse. Letting people to pick their favorite map is not fair

Reality says good enough right? I have fair matches all the time on HD, your argument is inaccurate. It would mean that every match in the past 20years of aoe2 were unfair. More important your measures are way out of proportion for what you want to accomplish since it almost entirely erases player choice.

The system above does not force but only encourage diversity, you should be happy with that.

@Fano0517

Out of ~1.5 million recorded games on this page, roughly 99% of the maps are some variation of Arabia, BF, and Nomad, trying to play anything else right now on voobly is pretty impossible

I was wondering how you got to the 20min for deselecting arabia, that isn’t even close to accurate. You would still match quickly with another popular map.

With those statistics you are just proving what I mean, that the current MM system does not respect what the community wants to play.
You expect short wait times on maps that people would not select, that is unreasonable.

You would rather force variety, than let the community decide what is popular and what is not.

I respect that you want to have variety, but I don’t respect the lengths in which you are willing to force something on others. It has always been democratic, and now DE comes along and they just ignore how the playerbase has been playing? Personally I have been hit hard by this and am unable to continue how I (and the majority) have been playing 1v1 Arabia for years. I’m not a fan of civ picking, but I would never support a system that would limit others from playing like that.

I’ll argue that having to choose to play from one of the 3 “standard” maps (Ara, BF, Nomad) is far more limiting than getting a random map from a pool, playing on non-standard maps tests your adaptability,

That is a false statement, you can choose any map you want. It will just take longer in queue to play nonstandard maps. That is normal. Your argument doesn’t make any sense, random gives you zero choice over what you play at that time. The DE MM system takes away any player identity.

playing on non-standard maps tests your adaptability, which is something that’s not really ever tested when players always get to choose their favorite map.

Providing a choice does not mean everyone will only play 1 map. “not ever really”? Ofcourse it is not the same, but again you are heavily exaggerating in a game where every map is randomly generated. Also it is highly subjective if someone actually wants that, a game should not decide how a player plays it.

Please, I am hoping to get a reasonable conversation going about how this system would function in practice. I have waited months since the beta before posting this.

1 Like

Correct, another popular map, the three most popular maps, as mentioned above, are Arabia, BF, and Nomad (or LN).
Do you honestly think my queue times would be reasonable if I wanted to play, say, Mediterranean? If I opened up Voobly right now and hosted a 1v1 lobby for Mediterrenean, or TI, or Cross, or Steppe, how long do you think I’d have to wait?

It’s not unreasonable, in fact, it works pretty well with the current matchmaking implementation :slight_smile: At my level (around 1200), I don’t get many quitters, or whiners, or people dodging maps, most people just play what they’re given and don’t appear to be unhappy about it.

And I haven’t been playing nearly as much AoE2 as I would like to have been over the past 15 years, mainly because I always found the lobby system tedious, the wait times unbearable, and playing the same maps all the time a bit boring, nobody joined me and my friend’s lobbies when we were playing Blind Random, Full Random, or Random Land Map, so I stopped playing entirely in favor of other games.

DE revitalized the game for me, I’ve been wanting MM in AoE2 since 2013, when I switched to playing Dota 2, CS:GO, and PUBG, and saw how efficient their matchmaking systems were, it made the game accessible to a wider audience, and they blew up as a result.

In fact, I predicted exactly the system we have now many years ago when DE was first announced, there is no real way for it to work well for everyone otherwise unless the DE devs choose to ignore 95% of the available maps in the game in favor of adding ladders for just Arabia 1v1 and BF team games, but then we’re back right were we started, and many aspects of the game get left out of the competitive meta and delegated to unranked lobbies only.

What do you mean? Voobly has had “choice” for years, and the only things that get played are Arabia, BF, and Nomad/LN, as evidenced by the link I posted in my previous post, that’s the point I was making.

I had a feeling that the Voobly veterans would have to be dragged kicking and screaming when this system was finally introduced, and I still can’t for the life of me figure out why people just don’t try new things.

1 Like

Your 1v1 Mediterranean will fill when others want to play with you… simple as that. It baffels me that you want to speed up this process by forcing others into your lobby.

But the comparison is not 100%, In the suggested system above you would be able to queue for mediterranean without being blindly stuck in that queue only. You have choice over wether you want to “risk” waiting for Medi only or have it as a side option.

It’s not unreasonable, in fact, it works pretty well with the current matchmaking implementation :slight_smile: At my level (around 1200), I don’t get many quitters, or whiners, or people dodging maps, most people just play what they’re given and don’t appear to be unhappy about it.

You are totally ignoring all complaint topics about map pools, players that leave in first min, history game data, my personal experience… have some respect please.

nobody joined me and my friend’s lobbies when we were playing Blind Random, Full Random, or Random Land Map

when I switched to playing Dota 2, CS:GO, and PUBG, and saw how efficient their matchmaking systems were, it made the game accessible to a wider audience, and they blew up as a result.

Stop forcing a MM system because you have seen this in other games. None of those games have random mapgeneration. AOE2 is a unique game even compared to other RTS. I believe we can have some benefits of MM while also keeping player choice.

What do you mean? Voobly has had “choice” for years, and the only things that get played are Arabia, BF, and Nomad/LN, as evidenced by the link I posted in my previous post, that’s the point I was making.

It’s incredible how you interpret the data, because there are a couple of popular maps you see that as a problem that needs to be changed through force. Wtf.

unless the DE devs choose to ignore 95% of the available maps in the game

It’s like you think that all maps should be played somewhat equally.

I still can’t for the life of me figure out why people just don’t try new things.

Do you really think we just play arabia because we don’t want to try new things? I have played many different maps, Arabia is just by far my favorite. I enjoy the consistency every day. Who are you to decide what I have to grind on ladder?

The suggested system above is a middleground for us both, it will be more diverse than voobly and HD but also still allow player choice.

This will be my final answer to you, please don’t respond. It think your reasoning is selfish and disrespectfull towards player choice. I have explained to you how the current system impacts me. I would like to have a meaningfull discussion about how viable this system is, without having to deal with such unreasonable expectations.

This kind of answer is in the same vein as if I were to tell you to go play in the unranked lobby if you wanted to play your favorite maps instead of complaining about the MM queue, but you and I both know this is a non-answer because ELO isn’t displayed in the unranked lobby and there are tons of other problems there.

The reality of your suggestion is that finding a match on “non-standard” maps will be next to impossible with your system because the community will congregate on the maps with the lowest queue times, it is not a middle ground because when queue times increase for non-standard maps, people will just queue for Arabia to get a quick game instead, but you don’t care because that kind of system caters to you and your map choices.

For what its worth, pro players seem to agree that DE rankings using the current matchmaking are far more accurate than Voobly’s ladder, mainly due to the map variety and the inability to choose your opponent or dodge people you know you can’t beat (exploits notwithstanding).

What’s wrong with thinking this? If other maps aren’t going to be relevant then they should just be removed from the game entirely.

It’s ok for certain maps to be popular, players can choose to play those maps through lobbies, but a ranked matchmaking ladder should take into account everything the game has to offer, that way players are ranked accurately across different play styles and maps, rotating map pools + bans is a pretty good way of doing that without having long queue times.

The current system also allows discussion to flourish regarding certain maps that may be unbalanced or might favor one civ above all others (e.g. Indians on Alpine Lakes, Mongols/Chinese on Steppe), and balance decisions and tweaks are made based on that feedback, the game can evolve more dynamically this way, in fact, it already has, if you haven’t noticed.

If your preferred way to play the game is to stick to one map, then that’s ok, and hopefully the devs come out with features that make this more feasible for you, hopefully in the way of ranked lobbies, but I don’t think the matchmaking system needs to be changed to accommodate this.

1 Like