People at different ELOs have different map preferences

1v1 Map Pickrates (according to

<1000 ELO
50% Arabia
18% Arena
7,5% Nomad Style Maps
24,5% other maps

1250-1650 ELO
74% Arabia
8% Arena
5% Nomad Style Maps
13% other maps

Looking at the stats (and also telling from my own experience) people at lower ELOs enjoy map variety much more then people at higher ELOs.

Since people at higher ELOs usually start to become more competitive almost no one is willing to learn maps other then Arabia as it does not make any sense practicing a map for two weeks just to have it out of rotation for months to come…

Do you have suggestions addressing this issue?

What I would like to see would be semi-permanent maps. For example if 2 maps would be added permanently to the mappool for several month.

This could look something like this:
January-April: Atacama + Hideout
Mai-August: Land Madness + 4 Lakes
September-Dezember: Gold Rush + Marketplace
(These map suggestions are only examples of course).

→ this way people actually had a reason to become good with other maps.

If I knew that a map like Atacama or 4 Lakes would be in the mappool for a long time I would start learning more build orders and strategies for them. But because they are always out of rotation I am sticking to Arabia just like everybody else… :weary:


Well, I think it would a sensible to have a few more maps permanently in the map pool. I would suggest the following set:
Four lakes

These are all good, competitive, standard maps that deserve to be available for selection permanently. The voting could then be about 1-3 additional maps every two weeks.


I agree with your idea of semi-permanent map.
Or it can be implemented as bi-two weekly two week Four lake, two week Hideout, and Four lake for next week (Just example)

I agree with your list of Nomad and Islands which is classic and totally deserve place (Islands can be rotated with Northern Isle or Team Islands)
For Four Lake, and Hideout I think it can be rotated with other Hybrid/semi-closed map.
Map pool should contain variety of map though, we are missing hybrid map in a two rotation in a row.

Increasing the number of standard maps means we need more bans though.

1 Like

Bold idea: Drop arabia from permanent map

(Disclaimer: likely a bad idea, I can elaborate more)

And 99% of these “other maps” is just Black Forest.

You assume that people at lower elo are more interested in playing a variety of maps, but the reality is that they care less about what map they play, and they aren’t really bothering into specializing into any of these. They aren’t learning variety or playing adaptively, they will play all these maps the same way they play in their favorite map or at least they will try to.

Besides, it’s very unlikely someone will put 1000 hours into Arena or Black Forest and not go crazy or get tired of playng the game entirely, that’s why you see “less variety” in higher elos; mostly it’s Arabia players the ones who remained playing for that long. And for good or bad, regardless of what you think of this map, this must be taken into consideration when changing map pools. I say this even though I’m in favor of removing Arabia from the map rotation at least once in a while.

People at higher elo have played more MP hours and know what they don’t want to play (most of the "other maps). That’s the main differentce that stats cannot show you

Who would have thought, people keep playing what they want to play even when DE team tries everything they can to prevent that, including timing them out.

And yet this forum is still full of people who pretend that Arabia-only players are a minority, people who would tell you how Nomad and Megarandom are fun and competitive maps, and how unhealthy it is to play only Arabia, well looks like the vast majority of people who actually play the game disagree with you…

Ironically, there used to be communities for ranked BF, Arena, and DM, but DE has alienated them out of ranked by endlessly forcing them to play maps/modes they did not want. So the whole thing about making the map pool more varied and forcing players to adapt, has lead to the exact opposite of what it claimed to achieve.

Please rework your matchmaking now instead of punishing your players. Someone who plays Arabia-only HAS NO BUSINESS playing against someone who plays only BF. Even if you let them “democratically” choose the map with a map ban system, it will necessarily be unfair for one of them, and so that player becomes angry and leaves, and so you time them out, and so you end up with only one type of players in ranked: the one who plays the most popular map (Arabia).

(This post has been brought over from another thread, the feeling is similar so I’ll leave it mostly unedited)

Hidden pick civs is a wonderful addition to the community. No longer are we forced into random civ lobbies or face un-sportsmanlike intentional counterpicks. I’ve always avoided random civ lobbies like the plague, and I still do. Civ pick in its current state is very sportsman-like. The most we could change for the better is to lock in the civ upon queueing and have the player numbers have no tie to civ position, Regardless of what map pops up.

I would love for further map variety. In the current system of limited maps in the pool I desire less insta ban game modes and more map variety.

In a better system, the voting system should be done away with.

Replacing it with:

  1. All random map scripts available are placed in the queue

  2. You may ban up to 49% of the maps

  3. You may star up to 51% of the maps

  4. Maps with stars by both players will gain priority

Etc: this will ensure that, most of the time, the maps played will be the ones both or all players actually like.

All of this with some editing for team games, but essentially this for 1 vs 1.

And queue times will remain short because you will not be able to ban every single map even if both you and your foe each ban separate maps from eachother; there will always be at least 2% of maps remaining.

And in this better system, nomad needs its own elo/ranked lobby or queue or both to survive.

This will all increase map variety drastically in a positive way.

This will also heavily encourage players to expand their map horizons beyond their training wheels(build orders for specific maps) and crutches.(limiting maps to 1 or 3)

Strange statistic, what do you make of it? I don’t see how experience would make players prefer a smaller map pool. Shouldn’t they become better at a variety of maps over time? Or is it more of a mindset where they just want to play one thing after a while?

I supposed this doesn’t really indicate experience either, there are a lot of players under 1000 Elo that have been around for many years. Maybe its more along the lines of: players that focus on Arabia climb the ladder faster. Seems like that would be a minor factor though.

Agree with number 1. But the rest is unnecessary with infinite bans.

The current system works by matching two players with similar ELO first, then comparing what maps they banned. Therefore you can’t simply implement infinite bans into the current system.

I am hopeful they will implement the ranked lobbies they are currently “testing” with Deathmatch mode also for regular matches…

1 Like

It sounds really good, but then only one map will be voted (with the current 7 maps for 1v1). If an open map makes into the pool it’s quite good, so people that like closed maps can ban all open maps and just play closed and two of water/hybrid/nomad. And viceversa. It sounds fair for me

Obviously, which is why I prefaced my comment by saying all maps should be in the map pool (not the current rotating map system). More maps means more choice, so infinite bans would make far more sense if we had the entire map pool to choose from. Or at least some kind of system where we could ban all but 3 maps or something.

1 Like

For the current system to work the maximum number of bans are floor ((number of maps - 1) / 2)


Ok but I wasn’t talking about the current system. I meant the hypothetical system of all available maps in the map pool. More maps means more choice so it would need much more bans. But even with allowing all the bans, you’d still get quicker matches on the ladder. Because all the Arabia guys would pick Arabia + all the Arabia clones + probably most of the open land maps. And the funky map / anti Arabia / anti Arena players would have dozens of funky maps to choose from with a much higher chance of getting matched.

I am not sure if infinite bans would work.

Actually, how other RTS implements map bans? In particular SC2 / Warcraft 3 Remastered?

Please don’t make assumptions about the preferences of other players. Only because someone has map preferences that differ from Arabia/Arena, it does not mean that these players are happy with getting anything aside from Arabia/Arena.
For example, I do like map diversity, especially towards the hybrid/water direction. Still, the number of well-designed maps is much smaller than the number of poorly designed or overly gimmicky maps (mostly those that currently tend to end up in the bottom half of the voting). If I had the choice of either playing Arabia or playing a randomly selected map from all other possible 1v1 alternatives, I would probably choose the former, not the latter.

Besides, throwing all maps into one queue is quite problematic since I assume that the vast majority of people don’t even know all maps around. With the current pool system, you at least have a chance to look at the 1-2 unfamiliar maps in advance.

1 Like

Same as some people don’t know the tech trees or strategies of all 39 civs. You just learn by playing.

No, you don’t. To get even remotely familiar with a new map, you need to play a few games and try out different approaches, learn from mistakes, etc.

This is possible within the current pool system, because you have the opportunity to play the same maps a few times during one rotation.

In fact, the very point of the suggestions in this thread is to further increase such opportunity by making the map pool more stable.

1 Like

Actually you would, by stabilizing the queue with every standard start random map script, players would play multiple maps often, and they would become familiar over time with experience as it should be. The variety would be a great experience adder and would help to remove players from the training wheels that are build orders for specific maps in favor of them building further flexible experience and removing them from the crutch that is remaining largely on 1 map type.

1 Like