Random civs sounds like good fun. Although I think there should be an elo, or some other cutoff. E.g. for a complete newcomer, playing random civ would be a nightmare, and initially better to learn 2-3 civs.
Ranked should have the settings most player would agree on playing. I dont think many of your suggestion makes sense from that perspective.
Lots of player like to pick civs. You can make a point of needing a majority for pick civ, instead of the current majority for random civ, but i dont think such change will make many people really happy.
Idea is to vague. You will have a map pool of 70 maps, with no possible bans or picking favorits? Oh no, that will never going to happen. There are map types people prefer and map types most people hate. You cant put every map from each small niche into ranked, without even bans. You wont really make friends with this suggestion.
I kind of like this part, if i understand your suggestion correctly.
If you can only remove them from the map pool for your own, then it will be fine. Having some semi random map pool would be fun. For example you like archers, so you can pick all archer civs and let the game decides which archer civ you will be playing. I like this part.
This makes me wondering if i understand your idea correctly. It look like, you want to ban for example Khmer for everyone instead of how i understand your idea. I must admit i have this feeling a lot with your questions. For that reason i havent voted in any poll.
Not sure how this question is meant to be.
Is it like, do you like my map ban system? Which is kind of strange, since you suggested no map bans.
Do you like the current map ban system? A no can mean to many things. It can mean you want more randomness and more different maps, like your suggestion. A no can also mean that you want a completely different system with much more control about the maps.
I guess you meant it as point 2…
Like i already expected many players wont like this suggestion at all.
This again feels like i mis interprent your only suggestion i liked. So i am not really sure if i am understand your idea well.
As I said in others similar threads. I support the maximun customization of the game experience, but it should have penalties in ELO’s point earned for those who picks civs and ban maps and rewards for those who play random and take more risks. This just for ranked. For quickplay please, give people freedon for ban and pick whatever they want
don’t know about the other stuff, but teamgames need a separate random civ queue
the game is not balanced for civ-picking + position-picking. they had over a year to fix the civ balance and they basically did little to improve it except nerf a few random infantry civs that nobody was even using.
you can’t have maps that are basically pre-explored scenarios and expect there to be civ diversity. people just pick whatever civ got the most bonuses for their spot, and they will never be wrong because they get to see the map before they pick their civ & position.
That actually has the opposite effect of what you intended. Since such a player who plays a smaller selection of maps and civs will have their strategy very well developed, giving them less ELO just means that they get to face weaker players while keeping their favourite settings.
Point is: ELO is not a reward that you need to collect and increase. ELO just reflects (supposed to reflect) the approximate skill level of your opponents.
Maybe you are right and my idea is not the right path, but my intention is that ELO reflects an overall skills for a player. Imo a player with good skills in different situations should have more points than a excels player in just one strat or just one civ if both have the same quantity of win/loses
This doesnt make sense though. Points represent your skill under a certain settings. The punishment for one-trick-ponies is that whenever they change the settings, they will be matched against opponents that they cannot handle and will therefore lose.
Also bear in mind civs are not asymmetrical so if you play one, you generally can play another 3-5 with very similar execution / strategy… Playing Vikings, Britons or Ethiopians m@a into archers then xbows/monks into imp arbs is very much the same and works very similarly… And if I specialize into one of them I may be able to win a game or two I would otherwise lose on other civs, but its certainly not a 100 Elo swing.
Some of the worst suggestions I’ve seen around here.
Players want more freedom to customize their experience. Next time, add mixing DM/EW/RM game modes, or perhaps when you queue up you end up in a game of DOTA or TF2.
Exagerations aside, I would love to be able to create a “Random Civ Pool” myself before each game, where I tag the civs I want to be a part of it.
