Can we get a better lobby system AND something that is more conducive to multiplaying that isn’t clown sessions EVERY game. Let players have unlimited bans. No one minds waiting for a map they like to play.
3 Likes
i can’t agree more. In fact i tried hosting lobbies but is not working. idk if people don’t look for games there or what.
1 Like
You underestimate how stupid people are.
If you could ban many maps the queue times would go up a lot and then people would complain that the queue times are suddenly high or that the ELO range is bigger.
Many people think they can magically get unlimited bans, short queue times, low ping and low ELO range.
5 Likes
Currently you can ban 4 maps out of 9 and this way there is always 1 map that you can play together.
The amount of dodging is kinda ridiculous these days.
1 Like
Yes. People complaining on the internet is not new to me.
Not asking for anything magical. Just a better lobby system for multiplaying.
As stated, people who play more nuanced maps will most likely be fine with waiting for 1 or 2 of their favorite maps to be played in ranked lobby. The likely result if the queue is too long, then they reduce their bans on map preferences. Ideally, it’s progressive and eventually finds a balance/median between favorite maps played and length of queue times and ELO range.
On of the main problems is that it will also increase the queue times for people that don’t use many bans since other might ban all but the one map you have banned. So everyone will be affected by longer queue times.
We don’t have the official data but I assume the developers have looked at the negative impact of more map banns and compared it with the current rate of queue dodging.
1 Like
this is only partially true: Right now everyone can be matched with everyone, so the person using all 4 of their bans has the same queue time as the person using no bans.
In a scenario with unlimited bans, more bans would mean longer queues, but no bans would still mean that you can be matched with everyone, so the queue times shouldn’t change for those people.
I think “more bans → longer queues” would be a fair system.
All of this also ignores another aspect: if the new system is more popular, more people will join the ranked queue, leading to shorter queues overall.
i doubt they have done that. there are several obvious improvements that could be done which they havent implemented
1 Like
I explicitly didn’t mention people that use 0 bans only people that use less bans.
If you ban 1 map you can’t be matched with someone who bans all but that one map. That might sound stupid but many people would likely actually do that. They would ban all maps but their favourite map so they can just play that one map, let’s say for example Arabia. There would be many people that just play Arabia as a result you would get Arabia in >90% of your matcher if you don’t ban any map. So if you don’t want to play the same map every single time you would ban it, right. So banning 1 map could lead to you having to wait significantly longer to find a match.
There is a reason why no other game that I know off allows you that many bans.
There are other systems where a match if found and then after that you can start banning characters, maps or civilisations. But that’s usually in team games.
1 Like
yep, fair enough.
i think if you just want to play Arabia, you should be able to just play Arabia. tbf the situation as you describe it is pretty close to reality on the current ranked ladder anyways. if you leave arabia unbanned, you get it in 75% of cases (i have no data on this, this is from my own experience when playing ranked).
In fact something similar exists for black forest in team games. but instead of being able to organize games for that in the game, the RageForest community had to create a discord to find matches there, becaues the game itself doesn’t allow it. same thing for forest nothing.
Why is it preferable to have these parallel structures, instead of allowing people to find the games they want in the game?
there are quite a few games where you can just queue up for the mode/map you prefer, and aren’t forced into others.
Because why stop this argument there? Why not also force everyone to play empire wars or death match, if the matchmaking algorithm decides so?
1 Like
It comes down to player numbers. AoE2DE is less popular then super huge games like Call of Duty and other games like Dota2 don’t even have multiple maps.
I mean even Counter Strike players complain about having to play Dust 2 all the time and that game is the most popular game on Steam.
1 Like
your entire argument is undermined by the existence of stable single-map communities like RageForest. It’s a fact that these communities exist, so I don’t understand why you are arguing in defense of the current system that puts additional barriers (finding games on discord, dealing with the shitty lobby system) in their preferred way of playing.
Do you really think that these players should also be forced to play maps/game modes that they don’t enjoy?
Why do you think it’s a good idea to keep forcing them to other platforms to play the way they like, instead of opening the matchmaking up in a way that includes them?
That’s purely not the case. In fact, it’s the entirely the opposite. The most popular maps will never see long wait times. Arabia and Arena will never suffer from less players nor less wait times. On the flip side, other non-arabia and non-arena players are forced to play those maps who have 0 interest in them. But that’s what ranked is: mostly cookie cutter maps with little to no variation.
IMHO, if a person is paying for DLCs, supporting this game, they should have some say in what MP maps they get to play. The devs missed out or ignored this with a lackluster and low-IQ lobby. Then complimented it with a near zero approach to find like-minded players to make as gaming friends or better match-making.
I have alot dodging problems. I am tired of arabia, bf, arena and nomad, so I ban them, than i get tired of others dodging and then unban one of them i will play again 