1111111111111111111111111111111111111…
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
Tell that to the Viper 
Also, why is potential fornication coming into the equation on a video game forum? Have you lost your damn mind?
Ok you’re not a big picture guy. We have to start with the macro changes and then we can focus on the micro issues you raised.
My idea of positive selection with more potential points awarded to your ELO if you win based on how many maps is the solution. For example, if you select all 20 maps, you would get 1.0x potential ELO pts. If you only select 1 you’d only get .05x of normal points if you win. I thought of every possible argument and every possible other solution, and this is the best one. You can try to knock holes in it, and suggest better alternatives, but there are none.
You think a lot of yourself, don’t you? That’s far to volatile for a ranking system. You can’t have that many variables.
Wrong. You wouldn’t even have to change existing ELO formula. You just use append a multiplier to it based on how many maps the player selected in the MatchMaking screen.
All 20 maps is 1.0x. Each incremental map is .05x. Each user would be highly incentivized to select as many maps as they could potentially stomach to play so their ELO would rise more quickly. While players who only wanted to play one map, would be able to do so in a fun ranked manner.
Well I always say that to lets say brake the ice in a funny way, works pretty well and I dont have that high elo. Like I have something to start the talk with and after explaining her what does it mean the girl doesnt straight away run scared… I can think she could be Her 
That would entirely change it. Are you capable of the math? Please think your ideas through before you get so defensive. You’re talking about increasing the Elo k-factor for a match from 30 to potentially 58.6 if someone picks all 20 maps, likely earning 29 points a match. That is ranking breaking.
WTF how does 30 * 1.0x = 58.6. Too much eggnog!
Haha look above. Admitted defeat.
Hardly, I realized that your argument betrays your original concept. Don’t change your concept.
I believe this direction could make most players happy. A few popular maptypes with each its own MM queue, have checkboxes for each map you want to queue for. TG selectors. Random civ only or Show if opponent picked civ. (Not sure what is best) Elo could be shared or seperate per maptype. (Not sure what is best)
A ranked lobby for all other maptypes and civ pick, with shared or seperate elo from MM. (Not sure what is best)
Imo freedom of choice should be one of the highest priorities, no matter how competitive the environment.
3 Likes
Too much freedom of choice == you better play what the rest of the community likes to play or enjoy 30+ minute queue times.
The current system is fine, the maps just need to rotate, and unfun/unbalanced maps should be patched to not be so.
The only problem to fix after that is balancing the maps/civs such that certain maps don’t become mirror matches every game due to broken civ advantages.
2 Likes
Don’t you see the irony of your post? You basically want to force the whole community to play your style with these map pools. My solutions is perfect in that it encourages people to select as many maps as possible but it also allows players to play there way if that is very important to them. This is the most democratic and equitable solution.
Too much freedom of choice == you better play what the rest of the community likes to play or enjoy 30+ minute queue times.
You are basically expecting short waiting times on unpopular maptypes in a MM system…
With the checkbox system there could technically be an infinite amount of maps to choose from and you would have the waiting time of the fastest match. The more maps you select the faster you will be matched.
The current system is fine
For you. lol
I would like to add that the Idea of continuously rotating civ pools sounds like absolute h e l l. Maps don’t continuously rotate in popularity, its fairly static over longer periods of time. You are putting an rng factor on top of an rng factor. If you want to play new maps you can do that in the ranked lobby.
@FasteningCat7 I like the concept of encouraging map variety rather than forcing it. Would the fact that having more maps selected causes shorter waiting times not be enough?
The reason why I thought to add the ELO affect was because most of the community would play Arabia. Even if you select all maps you would play games just as quickly but you would mostly be playing Arabia. While I’d be fine with this I want to make a solution that makes as much of the community as happy as possible. It seems like a good part of the community wants to encourage competitive play on more maps. My solutions is the only way to incentivize that while also allowing people who want to play the game their way an opportunity to do so.
Let’s say the maps are below and for every additional map you select you get 1/12 of the pts you’d normally win. I’d select the maps with a star which would give me 8/12 of normal pts and still lead to a good variety of games. Players willing to select all maps would rise in the ladder more quickly but at least I’d be playing the game how I want to play and if I really wanted to improve my ELO I’d be incentivized to select the maps I currently hate.
Arabia*
Arena
Black Forest
Gold Rush*
Islands
Nomad
Ghost Lake*
Oasis*
Team Acropolis*
Steppe*
Valley*
Chaos Pit*
I’m expecting there to be a single queue, such that the entire playerbase is on it to reduce queue times, and I want that queue to have some form of map variety, this is what we have today.
What you are proposing is 20+ queues, where all but a few are completely empty, I don’t think your system would introduce map variety, but it sounds like that’s not your goal.
I am also against changing the Elo formula to include outside variables like how many maps you chose to queue for, it seems antithetical to how Elo is supposed to work in the first place.
That’s because the maps themselves didn’t receive many (any?) balance changes or updates over the last 20 years. Unfun and unbalanced maps should be iterated upon so that they offer a better experience in a competitive environment, DE is supposed to be a living product, there’s no reason they can’t be updated to be better.
Nothing you said above is accurate. There would be a single queue. Plenty of variety with low wait times.
The only way there would be a long wait time is if you only selected one map and everyone hated that map so much no one else selected it. If that was the case, the free market map system just taught you a valuable lesson; that map sucks and it should probably be removed from the pool.
I’m expecting there to be a single queue, such that the entire playerbase is on it to reduce queue times, and I want that queue to have some form of map variety, this is what we have today.
Do you think your wishes are everyones wishes? Do you think others should be considered too, or only yourself?
What you are proposing is 20+ queues, where all but a few are completely empty, I don’t think your system would introduce map variety, but it sounds like that’s not your goal.
To clarify, what I’m saying is that with the checkbox system there would be no difference in waiting times between few or many maps. Just tick all the checkboxes next to what you want to play and it would match you with the fastest match. Essentially you are queueing for multiple maps at once.
MM works best for the very most popular maps such as arabia, bf, arena, nomad ect. But I have come to realise that with the checkbox system there could be more and it would not impact the rest of the system. There could even be a rotating pool next to the “standard popular” maps.
Checkboxes per map could be compact like this, either you select X when uninterested or you select one or multiple configurations;
[1v1]
[2v2]
[3v3]
[4v4]
I think if you would seriously consider the system you would probably like it a lot. It really contains everything you want.
Pros
- Freedom to pick map(s)
- Variety of maps
- Low wait time
Cons
- ???
Elo can still be considered how its done best, shared or seperate per queue. Perhaps divide maps into categories such as open land, closed land ect.
That’s because the maps themselves didn’t receive many (any?) balance changes or updates over the last 20 years. Unfun and unbalanced maps should be iterated upon so that they offer a better experience in a competitive environment, DE is supposed to be a living product, there’s no reason they can’t be updated to be better.
If a map gets balanced and it gets mainstream popularity, it could be added. Not the other way around.
@FasteningCat7 I have a question about your system. lets say I pick 8/12 maps, I win 8/12th of the points. What if I lose? Do I lose 8/12th of the points? Would that not mean that nothing really changed other than slowing the system down? Eg; playing many maps has more elo win potential but when you lose you get hit equally hard.
2 Likes
It seems that what I described is what we’re currently getting, I’m happy with it, many others are too 
I think you are woefully underestimating how poorly this would play out in practice, it sounds great, but the majority of people will likely end up gravitating to the same few maps and ignoring all the others for the sake of low queue times.
Consider the following scenario:
There are 100 players currently in the matchmaking queue, 50 of them are queued for only Arabia, the rest, alongside myself, are queued for a variety of maps, Arabia included.
What is the likelihood that my next match will be on Arabia? What is the chance that it’s on any other map? Chances are I’m playing Arabia multiple times in a row just because of the amount of people available to play there versus anything else.
If I un-tick Arabia for the sake of variety, I’ve just removed 50 people as possible candidates for a game, it will take a lot longer to find a game and it probably won’t be a good match.
If I’m queued up for Arabia and you are queued up for Black Forest, we will never match each other, these are effectively separate queues, multiply that by the amount of maps in the pool are you see where the problems can arise with wait times, selecting more maps will effectively just put me on the most popular one at the time.
This problem is nothing new, many games with matchmaking have faced it and they’ve all solved it the same way, by implementing a map rotation to introduce variety.
Before CS:GO did this, it took 2-5 seconds to find a game on de_dust2 (the game’s most popular map), and upwards of 10-15 minutes to find a game on anything else.
When PUBG only had one map, it took a few seconds to find a game, and now that they have multiple maps, it takes minutes to find games on the less popular ones, while the most popular map (coincidentally, the one I dislike the most) still only takes a few seconds.
Would it not be fair?
The more people that choose a certain map the bigger the chance you have of getting it. If you make a less popular selection then wait times will become longer. Sounds democratic.
If I un-tick Arabia for the sake of variety, I’ve just removed 50 people as possible candidates for a game, it will take a lot longer to find a game and it probably won’t be a good match.
Its normal that all maps other than arabia take longer to match. You can’t expect matches with players who aren’t interested in playing your map.
If I’m queued up for Arabia and you are queued up for Black Forest, we will never match each other, these are effectively separate queues, multiply that by the amount of maps in the pool are you see where the problems can arise with wait times
It would probably take as long as filling a lobby. If enough players are interested in the map it should not take too long.
2 Likes
The map selection only affects points won. You’d still lose the same points. Otherwise, there’d not be enough incentive to play more maps.