For 1v1 ranked matchmaking:
Would you prefer to be able to choose the map you want to play on if that meant cutting down the mappool from 7 to 4 maps (which would be necessary to avoid extremely long que times on less popular maps)?
This would mean the mappool would only include Arabia + Arena + 2 rotating maps (such as Atacama, 4Lakes, Gold Rush…).
0 voters
What do you meant with ‘No, i want big mappool’? I read this as i want to have all the possible maps available in ranked. In that case i go for neither.
The current system for 1v1 is pretty good. With 3 bans and 1 favorite you have a lot of control about the maps you can get. I think it is a pretty good sweet spot to satify variety vs one trick ponies. Both can enjoy the current 1v1 ranked queue.
It is a different story for TGs, 1 ban and 1 favorite map isnt really a lot control. Premades do have a bit more control. But that is the subject of another thread.
You mean making the map pool only 4 maps and then choose one without ban or what? In general the current system is good imo and doesn’t need any change.
Many people are asking for “unlimited” bans. However, as the Devs mentioned before, this comes with the problem that less popular maps would have long que times → which means even less people que for them → which means the que time gets even longer, and so on…
Cutting down the number of maps would counteract that problem. But it would also mean that your favourite map would not be in the mappool most of the time (if your favourite map is not Arabia or Arena).
People won’t be playing Islands even if you only have Arabia and Islands in the pool.
A more reasonable poll that actually makes sense:
0 voters
You aren’t giving up “map variety” by allowing players to pick what map they want to play. You’re giving up the validity of the rating system by ensuring players reach 2k by playing the same map forever and making ELO rating even more of an absolute joke.
Do any of you know what Fatslob’s rating is? You don’t? That’s kinda the point. Whatever rating he has is absolutely, totally irrelevant, because he only plays on his own settings, which means his rating is arbitrary and useless. You can’t compare his skill to another using ratings because his rating is based off his own personal settings, not the settings used by everyone else.
Allowing players to play whatever map they want and then attributing ELO to them is the exact same thing.
Islands is quite unpopular (yet I would play it to practice for low ELO community tournaments which I am some friends oftentimes participate in ^^ ).
I do think that maps like 4Lakes, Atacama or Nomad would have an alright playrate if they were one of the 4 options (even though people would be able to play as much Arabia as they want to…).
Isnt he stuck at voobly? He never moved to DE.
Irrelevant. He wouldn’t have a rating in DE anyway because he doesn’t matchmake, he hosts lobbies.
You’re kind of missing the point. He shouldn’t be rated, because the system makes no sense that way. How will you compare Fatslob to literally any arabia player?
That’s the point. No matter what rating you earn, it’s irrelevant when you don’t play with the same rules as everyone else. Your rating is pointless if not earned within the same subset of rules everyone else plays with.
This is absolutely not the same thing. Each of the popular maps (Arabia, Arena, BF) has a significant playerbase, so it’s very far from “personal settings”. You could introduce a rating for each map with standardized settings and there would be a ladder with >1000 players for each map, probably even >10000 for Arabia and BF. That’s more than enough to have a consistent Elo system.
The primary reason of a rating is not to brag about it, it is to decide whether a match will be fair or not. 90% of people don’t care about the rating, including many pro players.
What you’re essentially saying is that because you don’t view certain settings as competitive (which is already questionable, more on that later) then they shouldn’t even be allowed to have fair matches at all. I see no relationship between the 2. More concretely, Fatlsob must have a rating, even if you don’t consider it representative, it is still by far better than having no rating at all and throwing in matches against random opponents (where 90% of the matches will be a stomp).
Second, you are not qualified to tell what’s competitive or not, because it is mostly subjective. If BF had its own rating, and someone reaches 2k on BF 1v1 on a ladder with >10000 players, then I’d argue he’s good at what he’s doing, and you have no business telling him it’s not competitive, just let people who play this mode decide. Ironically, you believe “mixed maps” is the competitive setting yourself, when many people would argue it’s Arabia. I could use your own argument and say, the water-maps players are abusing the Elo currently, and reach high rating by just practicing build orders and exploiting civ strengths against a ladder that plays 70% Arabia.
The point is, no need to decide what’s competitive and what’s not, why not just let each map have their own rating and simply not care?
That is not what I’m saying at all and you’ve had enough conversations with me on this subject to know that, so don’t go there. You can’t have a reasonably competitive game based upon matchmaking if the rating system isn’t accurate. The rating system not being a joke is key to good games, not some arbitrary bragging rights nonsense.
How do you get a good game with an opponent that’s a fair match for you if the rating system doesn’t appropriately evaluate your skill and do the same for your opponent?
Precisely. This is not a good result. Then the matches can’t possibly be fair. That’s why we can’t have chosen maps. Because it makes ELO a total joke, and makes finding good matchups impossible because the ELO system doesn’t work to properly evaluate player skill.
No I don’t know what you mean, and I am not supposed to guess, you have explicitly said “Fatslob should not be rated”.
If he shouldn’t be rated, then you are suggesting to throw him randomly into games. So he won’t have fair matches. If you are suggesting something different then please write it explicitly, in particular, if what you are suggesting is to have each map have a separate rating, then your poll is misleading, because you oppose “choosing map” with “having a reliable rating” in the poll options even though such system would have both.
No, I’m suggesting that someone who hosts his own games shouldn’t be rated because the rating system doesn’t apply to hosted games. Further, any rating that would be associated to him as the result of a public ELO system shouldn’t then transfer to the ranked ladder since that would create bad games.
My poll is based off the current system, and is a rebuttal to the poll posted by the OP. The OP decided to list “Picking your own map” against “A big pool of maps” when that’s not a legitimate tradeoff. One of these things doesn’t preclude the other in the slightest.
You can have a big map pool where you choose your own map or a small map pool where you choose your own map, and both can be randomized, neither of these things preclude the other, and yet the choice is “one or the other” which is the most distinct example of a false dilemma I’ve ever seen.
In the current state of the ELO system, the real tradeoff is listed in my post. You can have good (average) opponent matchups on a randomly selected map, or really, really poor opponent matchups on a picked map. You can’t have both.
Hosted games have a rating system. It’s just not clearly visible. And Fatslob has a rating on Voobly.
Yes we absolutely can have both… and in fact we already have it in the current system for even more incompatible settings: DM 1v1 and RM 1v1. We currently have a meaningful rating for RM 1v1 and one separate, meaningful rating for DM 1v1. I see no reason why that could not be extended to multiple queues eg. Arabia 1v1, BF 1v1, Arena 1v1 etc.
That’s not the subject. Right now, we don’t have that. That’s the point. That’s why we can’t, and shouldn’t, choose what maps we play in matchmaking.
When that changes, your assertion that we can “have both” will be correct. Right now, it’s not correct, and it doesn’t serve the conversation to idealize and then take a jab at me because I refuse to do the same.
Do you think it’s an accurate assessment of his general skill? As in, he’d win half of all his games against players at that skill level on any setting?
The only rank that matters is the one you get playing ARABIA, the rank you get outside that map is just fake, look at arena, 4lakes players, etc, they are 200 points or more above their real.
So adding more ranks for different maps ain’t worth even the effort, cause this is a 21 years old game, the community has already found the best map to measure skills, whether if you like or not, that is not gonna change.
Then another factor that inflates ranks are those guys who only pick one civ and one strategy all the time, the inflation of such players is comparable to only arena players, right now on DE most of the ranking system is not accurate it is just a reference but still better than nothing.
For 1x1 i’d say the current MM and 7 maps option is not that bad, what is really bad are the maps chosen by the devs in the rotation, this current map pool is probably the worse i have seen, i just don’t have enough bans or good options, this issue has been always a thing, they haven’t learned, why there has to be 4 lakes, nomad, atacama megarandom and other maps every 15 days if they have a really low playrate compared to arabia.
I would prefer if random map and random civ were both mandatory
If we do that we’ll end up having way more Alt-F4s than we have now.
Clearly he’s therefore in favor of timeouts for queue dodging.
i don’t like the small map pool. it’s a big reason why i don’t play 1v1 very often
if it had new maps every time, it might work (real random maps, not scenarios like socotra/crater). but when it’s the same maps we’ve already played hundreds/thousands of times, i am not interested.
aoe2 was always about exploring an unknown map, balancing army vs navy, and actually fighting with a variety of units from all the ages. instead most of the maps they shove into the pool have no variance and are just about pushing deer every time because there is nothing to explore. RM is better when there are multiple areas worth fighting for (eg. land & sea) in order to create constant skirmishes and differentiate builds from each other. both players camping & booming with a single deathball army leads to long stalemate which is very boring in comparison
i don’t think it’s unreasonable to let advanced RM players have a separate queue for playing the actual game (eg. something like Full Random or Blind Random) instead of this training-wheels version