Please stop trying to force people to play games they hate

I’m a low-mid ELO player who usually play team games. There are two maps I absolutely hate playing: Arabia and Arena. Now, Arabia is actually a decent map which can be fun. But it rarely is, at my elo. If you play pocket, you’ll see a flank fold under feudal pressure from one opponent. If you play flank, you’ll get 2v1s and pocket will be happily booming away. This, of course, isn’t always the case. But it happens often enough to drain any fun out of the experience for me. Also, I really dislike the thin treelines which makes me spend half the time looking if there are new holes I need to patch up.

You can ban only one map in team games. That in of itself wouldn’t be a huge deal, except that you get the other one like 3 out 5 times. Queue dodging is now such a huge deal that you get 1 min, 5min, 10min, and now 1 hour ban on ranked queue. The other option is to resign after 5-10 minutes, but that sucks for everyone else playing.

“Why don’t you just play lobby games?” because ranked games are actually balanced. Lobby games have 800ELO players going against 1600ELO players. That is the opposite of having fun.

So here is my question: What is the expectation here? Am I supposed to play through something I really don’t enjoy, and therefore won’t play well? I have played several hundred arena and arabia games, I know I hate those by this point.

You have only three options with this system: 1) dodge queue/early resign, which may earn you a temporary ban, 2) Play somewhat normal and lose organically as fast as you can 3) play a game you don’t enjoy, while already knowing you won’t enjoy it.

This system has terrible incentives, which makes everyone’s experience worse. So, just let us ban 2/3 maps in team games. We’ll wait and put up with longer queues if that is the trade off.


Arabia is the most popular map, even if you ban it, you’d probably still have it show up a fair bit. And Arena is the second most popular. Also, you’re missing option 4), which may not appeal to you at all, but in my opinion, is just to play 1v1s.


Option 5) look for some people, like in the game’s official discord, to play with you to get more bans.
Depending on the maps you like you can even find some communities to play more balanced lobby games


Option 5 is my Thing. I never Play with randoms and i have accumulated around 40 nice people over the last two years to Play TGs with. More bans and better communication and No early quitters and toxic people. Most of them i met through 1v1s and some of them through the people i play TGs with.


As I mentioned, I don’t mind playing those occasionally. I dislike it, but that’s fine. The problem is how often it shows up.

I should find people to play with, yeah. But that’s difficult for me because time zone issues. I’ve found some great people, but almost all of them play when I can’t.

I work every week a different Shift, but still can manage to find someone. I Bet you can too :slight_smile: whats your timezone?


You have quite the problem since so many maps are variations of either Arabia of Arena. If you truly hate both then I have to ask what is it about those maps that you hate so much?

If you do not like the open-ness of Arabia then this also counts for many other maps also (Atacama, Gold Rush, Acropolis, Four Lakes etc.). And if you do not like wall and boom on Arena, then this also applies to other maps (Fortress, Hideout, Hill Fort etc.).

Which maps do you actually enjoy playing?

1 Like

Those maps are the bread and butter of the game, along with BF and Nomad. Arabia and Arena are very different from each other, so it’s odd that you don’t like either of them. Sorry to say it, but maps simply become more enjoyable when you learn and practise strategies specifically for those maps and subsequently start winning more often. If the common theme in your games is losing, then yeah of course it’s not fun. But as is usually the case with all of these “This map is unfair” threads lately, the problem is not the map, it’s your skill level. Most players can’t get past this fact, because it’s easier to blame weak team mates or the map than accept the hit to the ego. As pocket you should be helping flank by going FC knights or xbow. Help your team, don’t abandon them.

The game is extremely well balanced nowadays, most civs are not OP, apart from maybe Gurjaras, Hindustani, Poles, Burgundians revolution etc. The maps are just a learning curve. If you only learn build orders for one type of map, don’t be surprised when you keep losing. The pro players have already consistently pointed out the OP things which need changing. Everyone else is lower ELO, so our complaints are almost always due to lack of skill or game knowledge. Hard to admit, but admitting it is the first step towards improving. I am sympathetic though. I hate losing too.

1 Like

somewhere in the middle i suppose

I usually play throughout the day, with large gaps in between. My time zone is IST though :smiley:

I hear the same comparison from other people, but I don’t see it as even being close.

Gold rush is so wildly different from Arabia that I don’t know how you can make that comparison. That is a map all about the center. Most of the battle actually happen for that gold and stone. Arabia has battles happening all over the place all the time. Four lakes have a bit more diversity with the fishing. I don’t particularly enjoy that map, to be fair. I’ve never played acropolis or atacama, so no idea about those.

Hideout is nothing like arena either. There is nothing you can do before castle age in arena against a competent opponent. Even in castle age, the most popular strategy is a castle drop right next to your opponent’s walls or monk and siege. You can destroy the pallisade walls in feudal age with m@a and archers.

But there is a bigger difference between these two. And that’s the amount of space you have, and the amount of resources you fight for. The middle area in the arena isn’t particularly resource-rich. You also don’t have a lot of space to set up a huge farming eco.

Okay, wait. You have completely ignored my point. But also, there are maps I really do enjoy, black forest and nomad among them. Are you able to consider that maybe I enjoy certain maps and dislike others despite my skill level? Maybe I’m not greatly skilled, but I’m not particularly skilled at balancing a stick on my tongue either, because I don’t enjoy either of those activities.

Also, I never boom in arabia before I have an army of at least 20-30 units, even as pocket. I usually fc and go as cav archer and camels or knights and camels.

It’s not about losing, it’s about how I lose. Arabia doesn’t have a lot of resources, treelines are so thin that you almost always overchop, and xbows are useless as a flank unless your pocket actively supports you. That’s because your opponent pocket can send in a few knights and clean up your xbow mass and if you make pikes against that, your opponent flank will clean you up with his archers. Also, certain units I really enjoy, like elephants and infantry are absolutely useless in arabia.

Yep, you are spot-on. I like maps which are more open than arena, and more closed than arabia. Which is arguably almost every other map. Or, let’s go full michi, make a deathball and duke it out that way.
Weird terrains are also something I really like. Black forest is great in how you can cut through and surprise your opponent. Same for hideout.

1 Like

this game would be pretty cool if there is elevation line of sight. lower can’t see higher type, or lower can only see 1 elevation higher. where castle and outpost or towers would grant 4-5 elevation LOS with no issue as they are taller buildings.

1 Like

I agree completely. The only issue I have with this is that this would give cavalry more los than infantry. So, infantry should get some other buff. Also, speed change depending on terrain would be cool. Historically, horses have a really hard time in swamps and marshes. They do really well in deserts. Also, let units move a little slow uphill and faster downhill. Especially for siege. How is it possible for a 5-ton onager to move as fast uphill as just rolling downhill?

Also, got arabia 3 times in a row. I’m going to get myself suspended soon.

1 Like

That’s literally the whole point of team games.
Team work!


Okay, you ignored the rest of my comment, and picked this one thing to address. Why exactly is that? The point is that I don’t enjoy it because it doesn’t suit my play style. Not because I lose all the time.

Also, again, I addressed this multiple times indirectly. Teamwork is extremely hard with you are playing with randoms and communicating over text. But you can do something without a LOT of coordination in something like nomad or black forest. That isn’t possible in arabia.


I’ve been advocating for more map bans. Do you want infinite map bans?


Of course not. Three or even two bans in total is more than enough.


Better to have infinite stars and be rid of map bans alltogether. Maps with the most stars will be chosen or placed into the pool to compete with equally starred maps between the opposing teams.
That, and unlocking all ranked-worthy maps to be entered into the pool at once.


There are always so many of these threads but the answer is really quite simple.
No one is forcing you to do anything. And of course lobby games are not a great alternative.

You can’t have 2 or 3 map bans when there’s a pool of 9 maps and you are queueing up for a 4v4 game all on your own. Why can you not have 2 or 3 map bans? Because if you do, all of the other 7 players you want to play with also need to be allowed 2 or 3 map bans. And then you have 16 or 24 map bans for a pool of 9 maps… so that’s obviously not going to work.

If you queue up with 3 friends to play a 4v4 map, then you have 4 map bans, and so does the other team, this means there is always at least one map that nobody has banned.
Similarly, if you queue up for a 2v2 game with a friend, you still get 4 map bans, leaving, at least one map that no one has banned.
If you queue up all on your lonesome for a 4v4 game, then all 8 of the people who will be matched into the game will get 1 map ban each, leaving a minimum of one map that nobody has banned (we’re seeing a common theme here). Or you could be matched with your three rando teammates against a premade team of 4 (who have chosen their 4 map bans together and are likely planning a coordinated strategy). Again, a total of 8 bans, leaving a minimum of 1 unbanned map.

If you want to maximise the number of bans you have to use when you queue up for games then you need to find some friends that you can invite to join games with you. Then you can get on a voice chat and talk to your teammates to coordinate better and generally just have a much, much better experience.

Personally, I have never had an enjoyable game playing with random teammates, would much rather play 1v1s (where again, the total number of bans is of course less than the number of maps) if my AoE buddies aren’t available for a game.

So you really have 3 options with this system: 1) Find people to play with; 2) Play 1v1s; or 3) Play games on maps you don’t like with people who won’t cooperate with you.

Option number 3 is clearly leaving a sour taste in your mouth (understandably), so you should really try out options 1 and 2. When you are talking to your friends on discord then your flank will call you out for leaving them to die to 2v1 feudal pressure, and instead, you can be the ones going 2v1 against the flank whose pocket is just leaving them to die.

1 Like

Option 4, the devs do what everyone has been clamoring for for years and allow players to play ranked games on only the maps they like. At this point I’m certain there is some director at forgotten empires who refuses to give the player base what we want.


yes becaue that would totally give realistic ELOs and make balancing matchups very easy when you have someone who plays 4-5 maps and has a 2k elo, against someone who only plays arena and has a 2k elo.