It is an accurate assessment of his skill in map X.
Why do you need to have a general skill assessment?
If a player chooses to play 500 Arena games and gets to 1400 Elo, this represents his skill on Arena and if he keeps playing only Arena he should be continously matched against players of similar Elo that are comfortable playing Arena at that level, a success for the matchmaking.
Under the current system, if said player then decides to play Arabia he will naturally lose a few of his games until his Elo settles according to his Arabia skills, unavoidable until the system changes to include individual map Elo (or split in 3-4 cathegories such as Open Land, Nomad, Closed Land, Hybrid).
Not sure how you can claim what Age of Empire was always about if since MS Zone (20 years ago!) Arabia, BF and Nomad have been the most played maps. And given the playrate of MegaRandom, which is the closest to your suggestion, 95% of the playerbase disagree with you.
If thats how you like to play it, great, go ahead. You can open a lobby and do it. If it was the most popular I would support your suggestion to have it in matchmaking.
However, current playerbase and statistics support that game would benefit more from a Arabia-only queue than anything else [if we are talking new ladders].
go look at the maps in the full random / blind random pool
not all of them were balanced for competition, but that style of map design what the game is about. arabia is 5% of the game, not 100% of the game
they intentionally excluded gimmicks like arena / black forest / nomad
iâm not saying you should be unable to play those gimmicks, but iâm just asking for a queue to play the actual game the way it was designed
and nomad is for teamgames anyways. there isnât really any reason to play it in 1v1 unless they ban civ-picking or actually balance the game for nomad or something
because currently weâve only got one queue, with one rating, so if itâs not generally applicable itâs generally worthless.
we donât âneedâ to have one. we have one. and right now, itâs an an absolute joke. given how itâs used to ensure you get a fair, enjoyable game, thatâs a bad thing.
I undertand the option to play full random or blind random exists. But considering since Age 1 its never been the âway to play the gameâ with full random, which also doesnt happen in AoM or Age 3, subsequent games developed by the same studio that had a Matchmaking system, nor the choice the devs of AoE2 DE decided to go with, then I am quite sure its not âthe way it was designedâ.
As I said, asking for a queue for an unpopular setting wont get you very far, I am afraid. Though you are free to do so.
I understand the argument that over time each map would end up developing a ladder of their own and they would not be comparable per se which could be very problematic with people exploiting an âeasier to climbâ map, but considering the large number of players that enjoy mixed settings, I believe it would regulate itself and no ladder would be too exploitable.
I suppose if its never tested, we wont know for sure. The current system doesnt seem to be working very well anyway.
Besides, if anyone wants to play at 2k Elo currently, all they have to do is play their placements on TG first, then switch to 1v1âŠ
Thereâs a lot of problems with the way team elo is set right now, and that clearly needs to be fixed, however letâs not ignore a problem that we can solve because thereâs another problem we should solve.
I havenât read all the posts, but I think my idea is perhaps good enough to warrant a post. I think a good solution for 1v1 would be an increased map pool, players do not get to see what map they will get next, and the algorithm doesnât allow the same map to be repeated in succession.
This would work better if more maps from past tournaments and other well crafted maps would make their way into the rotation though.
I guess the problem would be that the lobby system would need a lot of revamping for those who want to practice against (semi-)random opponents on specific maps at a high level.
Why do you consider this to be a good solution? What are its advantages? To me it looks like bs, you just force players in ranked to play something they donât want to play.
Because it means ALT+F4 is meaningless, as you canât guarantee a specific map will come up. Elo will be more meaningful as you canât just grind out one map to reach a specific elo. People who just memorize 2 build orders can no longer just climb up to 1500 elo without game knowledge (not that it bothers me specifically, but that is bad design I think), diversifies gameplay in general as more maps get played, people will QQ about balance less because the meta will be less stale as not every game will be just an arabia 1v1 etc.
All you need to do to make ALT+F4 meaningless is remove the âpreferred mapâ option from the game, but I think we all agree that this would be a step backwards.
Itâs a step in a direction thatâs different, whether or not it is âgoodâ is dependent on whether or not they improve the rival systems for games, ensuring those wanting a specific game now can actually get one with ease.
Iâve been supporting the removal of the preferred map choice since it was released and I still do, though I think the game needs a lot of other things as well to make such a change wholly positive.
You can already choose what map you play. That place is called the lobby. If you dont care about balanced games (option 2 in the poll, an elo system is meant for balanced games), then the lobby is just the place to go. So we already have option 1 in the poll.
For option 2: There are some issues with the Elo system. The discussion about these issues is centred in Analyses of the ratings - Spotting the issues. There are even solution that will give you even more control over maps in ranked, while having a more meaningfull elo rating.
The first option of your poll is kind of equivalent to âI want to play in the lobbyâ and the second is âI want to play in rankedâ. But i am pretty sure if you made that poll, the final result will be quite different from the current result. Many ranked players are voting for option 1. So be rephrasing your poll you will get a compmletely different outcome.
No, it isnât. If youâve read the rest of what Iâve had to say on the subject, you know my point was to rebut the poll posted by the OP since his poll has two options and you can only choose one, indicating at least in part that this was a question where one answer excludes another, a false dilemma.
Being able to pick what map you want to play does not mean a tiny map pool, and having a large map pool does not require it to be random selection.
Having a rating system associated with players who are picking their own favorite settings turns said rating system into an absolute joke. My poll is not a false dilemma. You can have a good ELO system that accurately describes player strength, or you can play whatever map you want in ranked all the time. You canât have both.
If you think you can, youâre wrong. Thereâs no rephrasing the poll. The poll is provided as is, and accurately describes the dilemma of Alt-F4 and the push for unlimited map bans as it relates to rating and fair matches. If (or when) we split the queues the dilemma may be solved.