Stop making excuses for the devs, this isn’t an unsurmountable problem. It wouldn’t be impossible to add an ELO category specific to arabia, or arena, or blackforest. Which are the games people actually play.
At the end of the day it’s not my job to tell the devs what the solution to this problem is. It’s the dev’s job to come up with a solution to the “let people play ranked games on maps they like” problem.
If an Arena clown doesn’t want to get dumpstered on a different map type shouldn’t they try playing another map occassionally? If you get to 2k elo playing one specific map type that’s on you. Why should I have to suffer through the devs babysitting someone who can’t figure out “well maybe I shouldn’t play ONLY Arena?”
I’ve said this before, I’ll say this again. I’ll play any map, as long as it is not frequent. Playing arabia is fine. It can even be fun occasionally. The problem is when those maps come in frequently.
If you only want to ever play arena, play lobby. Same if you only want arabia, or michi, or anything else.
As far as match making goes, most people think that this is how it works: The algorithm picks 8 (or 6 or whatever) players at random, and removes all the maps which are banned. One map is chosen from the remaining ones at random, with a bit of weight given to starred maps.
I don’t think this is how it works, and there is no reason for it to work this way. Matching n things to m things is a problem that has been studied in computer science for decades at this point. Any first year CS student will know about the stable marriage problem. I don’t want to delve into technicalities, but this isn’t that hard to solve.
Honestly, that does seem to be the best option I have if nothing else changes. But it’s just difficult for me at the moment. And you are spot on with pretty much everything, I think.
if i ever have to play michi i uninstall.
this doesn’t solve anything as you are even more likely to play the maps you want to play least
so what makes you claim that this isn’t how it is currently implemented?
the reason for it to work this way is: it’s very simple to implement
are they? at least the OP doesn’t seem to think so.
that’s specifically why he wants this change.
i was referring to the other way around.
a 2k player gets to play on arena against someone who hyper specializes. now he’s gonna get dumpster on.
but your change is going to make others suffer as wait times increase, why should everyone have to suffer so you can have your pet change?
I sit in queue for 3-5 minutes already depending on the time I play and sometimes even longer if I do team games even if it’s with friends. Do I really care if it’s doubled that and I get a map I enjoy? Not really. Do I care if someone else suffers too? No, I really don’t. We can comprimise and you give me a lobby system that’s already in place for DM though and I’ll sit in that all day by myself until someone joins.
actually, it does solve things because if your opponent stars runestones and michi and you star runestones and arabia, you will play runestones or another equally or more starred map. your odds of michi in this case is 0.
and if somehow you and your opponent never star a similar map, then whoever stars the most maps will have the highest odds of getting a map they prefer, if the opponent stars only michi and you have a few maps you like and star quite a few, your odds of getting your preferred maps is higher.
not to mention, by starring more maps you increase the odds that you will in fact star a map that the opponent actually likes in return, and same with the opponent.
the point of this system is to drastically increase the odds that you will share a preferred map with the opponent, and one of those preferred maps will more than not be played.
Don’t speak for me. There are 4 “main” maps in AoE2. Arabia, Arena, BF, and Nomad. I have 0 issues with adding an ELO specific to those maps, but I think a better idea not to encourage such behaviour in the ranked ladder.
Hating 2 maps, while being okay with any of the other 5/6 and liking only map and not wanting to play any of the others is NOT the same.
generally there seem to be two kinds of players:
your suggestions is objectively worse for both types of players.
so if i star arabia, runestones, megarandom, nomad and my opponent stars blackforest and michi i still have a 1/3 chance to play a map i just don’t want to play at all. that is a million times worse than the current system
someone who just wants to play arena stars arena, gets matched with someone who stars 20 maps and his chances of getting his map are minute.
With all ranked worthy maps available in the pool, there will be allot more chances to find a common map between you and the opponent. As for arena players, the map is popular enough that they will have good odds of sharing it with another player in the star section, alongside other such maps like hideout or otherwise. Similar story with those that enjoy nomad types, they are still likely to get their preferred maps because the map/game mode is popular enough that the odds of them being matched with a like-minded player is going to give them more nomad games than current, not less. This pool type increases the odds of finding a common map that is good for both you and your opponent, rather than your wanted map types all being banned and never gotten and being forced into a map you’d rather not play because there aren’t enough bans, it is much better than having infinite bans or choosing only one map and queue times being increased tremendously grievously. This is the best option, having infinite stars and no bans.
Under the current system, you are far more likely to have your preferred maps banned by the opponent, and for the opponent to star their map and gain 100% odds of getting it because you banned your ‘worst offenders’ list and didn’t have enough maps you actually like in the pool and the opponent has free reign on the rest of the pool to place their star and bans.
Under the infinite star system, an arena player will have infinitely more odds of getting their map against someone that stars everything but arena, because it’s better odds than 100% failure because the opponent is not forcing the arena players to not play arena by outright banning it. the odds in that situation are better for the arena player, And arena is popular enough that they will be able to regularly play arena or some other similar map.
In fact, under the infinite star system, players who want to play a single map and only star a single map have far higher odds of getting that map, 100% odds provided the opponent stars it alongside their repertoire of preferred maps.
You are encouraged to broaden your horizons of maps rather than have a limited pool, but you certainly will not be punished for having a limited star section, for instead you are encouraged to find a map between you and the opponent that you both may enjoy, and that means the odds of finding an opponent that stars your preferred maps is far further increased than current, especially with all ranked worthy maps in the pool at once.
Under the unlimited star system, the upsides far outweigh the downsides.
Under the current system the down sides are practically equal to the upsides, and under infinite bans there are far further downsides that infinitely outweigh the ‘upsides’.
It is better that the playerbase focus on maps they enjoy, and the infinite star system allows them much higher odds that you and your opponent will have a shared map between you that you both enjoy.
The goal is to keep queue times the same or better while increasing the player satisfaction ratio, and this is the best option. That, and alongside this change creating an in-game ranked elo system in the lobby area to give all accounts a ranking.
i dont think so. most people dont know ‘all ranked worthy maps’ so will only star a few they know they like. this means you will be thrown into random maps where you don’t know what the settings are. the only way this works is if you limit the pool to some 10-15 maps, and we are basically back in the current system.
this is such dishonest arguing. you only view the matchmaking from the player who benefits, and only the case where he benefits.
These suggestions also very much go counter the title of the thread. If someone ‘hates’ eg Nomad, currently they can ban the map, and never have to play it. in your proposed system they would actually be forced to play it.
I dont like Michi or Black Forest in 1v1, if we get a system where there is a chance that I have to play it. I will leave.
I think a fair system would be the following: both players rank their maps from favourite (10) to least favourite (0). you add the ratings by both players and the map with the highest rating is played. if two (or more) maps are equal in rating the one with the lowest difference in rating by the players is picked.
This is basically just a refinement of the current system. think 10 for starred, 6 for not banned, 0 for banned)
Let’s compare your proposed system to the current one:
Let’s have a few examples of player types:
Type 1a, likes open maps, is ok with Nomad maps, doesnt like closed maps (stars open and Nomad maps)
Type 1b, likes open maps, is ok with Nomad maps, doesn’t like closed maps (stars open maps only)
Type 2, only wants to play arena (will leave either open or Nomad maps unbanned in the current system)
Type 3, likes Nomad maps,is ok with open and closed maps (will leave either open or closed maps unbanned in the current system)
I think these are all realistic player types for 1v1.
in the current system, if you have two players of the same type they get what they want. in your system there is 50/50 chance type 1b get a maps they are only ok with. this is worse than the current system
if you have two players of different type matching:
in the current system they play a map they are both at least ok with
in your system they might play a map one person hates, while the other one loves it. If this is better or worse is up for debate. I think it’s preferable to compromise and play something you are both ok with, but I can see people thinking it’s better to have one person endure a map they dislike if the other one prefers it.
I was thinking the same. I mean it sounds nice when you read it but I’d think that many people will put 10 for arabia arena or whatever is their preferred map and rate the rest 0. But at least you can if you wish so differentiate between your non favorite maps in greater detail by giving 1 or 2 for instance.
Also what I like here is that bans are only soft bans. If put 10 arena and 0 arabia I could still get arabia if my opponents does the opposite and both of us didn’t put any more points in other maps. Personally I’d much prefer to play one arena and one arabia game than two gold rush games but current matchmaking favors the second option.
Irrespective of all that, however, I assume such a rating system could be a bit complicated to implement and would be extremely buggy. To me at least it feels that matchmaking has never been in a worse state than now. I don’t play a lot right now precisely because I don’t see the point of playing maps I don’t like anymore but when I do play like 10% of games are on maps that I banned. This bug existed before but was quite rare now it happens a lot to me. And that’s with a super simple mm system can’t and don’t want to imagine outcome with a rating system as you propose (even though I like the concept).
games out for 3 years now and hasnt been implemented yet. seems pretty impossible to me, either because of financial issue or game issue.
Ban arena and go full aggro dark age on Arabia. Previously say it to your team. If it works, cool, if other team members just play passive, then it wont work and you are dead in 10-15min, so can start another game.
Most of low elo prefer not playing arabia
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we don’t need individual map choice, we need map types to choose from. Just 3 or 4 categories and ban as many as you want. All maps should fit into one of the categories so with each map rotation your map category choice can stay the same but the maps within each category change.
We should have free bans for arabia and arena. Since they will never remove them from the pool it ends uop being obligatory playing them
Or maybe forbid people from banning these two maps ? Then Arabia-only and Arena-only players will be satisfied to get their map ? And it would open the door to ban more maps, as the matchmaking will know for sure that at least 2 maps are feasible. We could also make these 2 maps less likely to be chosen in a match where other maps are still open.
Excellent idea if you want to make everyone’s gaming experience actively worse. In case you didn’t read my first post, I’ll usually just resign after 5 mins if I get arabia/arena more than once every 10-15 games I play. I am assuming you don’t want your ally quitting in 6 mins.
What about a “Fast Play Map” that changes every weak?
If you don’t like to be in the queue for long, you can go fast play and everybody in fast Play gets to play on the same map (random civ).
This way people get encouraged to try different maps and random civ instead of being forced, cause they still have the standard ranked if they want to have more selection.
With this also new map types can be promoted to the community in a feasible way.