[Poll] How do you see the Ranked Queue?

After you read this post, vote what you think at the bottom

Recently there’s been a lot of talk about the dev’s decision on punishing those who alt-f4. For many, this is seen as nothing more than a temporary solution. Many people think there should be unlimited bans, while others actually do like this new change. After you read the entire post, vote below what you think and comment your thoughts as well.

Honestly, whether this change is good or bad really depends on the intent of the ranked queue. Is the ranked queue supposed to be an easy way for people to easily find balanced games to play, or is it meant to show skill?

I’ve always been under the impression that the ranked queue is a show of skill and does this by pairing people with people of equal skill, on a variety of maps. If this is the purpose, I think allowing infinite map bans is the wrong approach.

Take, for example, a player who loves Archipelago or other water maps. We’ll call him Jeff. Jeff bans every map except for water maps. Now let’s say he pair with someone looking for all kinds of maps. We’ll call him Todd. Todd will now face Jeff, who exclusively plays water maps and is highly skilled at this one map type. Because Todd wants to just play a balanced mix of maps, he will get destroyed by this player who only plays water maps. Unless players have to face other players with their exact same skill on the exact same maps, infinite bans will probably not work. Sure, it may work well at pairing Arena lovers with other Arena lovers, or Arabia players with other Arabia players, but because situations like this can happen, I’m not sure it’s the best approach. I think this may force players to feel like they need to specialize in certain maps, and there can be no middle-ground approach.

It can also cause Elo scores to mean completely different things to different people. Assuming situations like I described earlier happen, a player can have a 1800 Elo on water maps, but be 800 in Arabia. Similarly, another player can have 1200 Elo, but they have played on a variety of maps and are competent players at all maps, unlike a player who exclusively plays Black Forest, or someone who exclusively plays Arabia. Those who only player one or two maps will have an inflated Elo because they face other mixed-variety players that aren’t as specialized. Many tournaments also require an amount of Elo, and if players have very high Elo scores because of the few specialized maps they play, this score will, for the most part, only reflect their skill for those maps.

Infinite bans, assuming the ranked queue is meant to reflect competitive skill, forces people to choose and specialize at maybe one or two map types, or risk getting destroyed by players who specialize. It can ruin the game for players who just want to play a mix of maps, and it can cause some serious Elo problems.

One solution could be to have several different Elo scores, such as water map, closed map, open map, etc., but that may be too messy or complicated. Another solution may be to reserve players who want to play only one or two maps to a separate, less competitive queue. Again, though, this depends on what the ranked Queue is for.

If, on the other hand, the ranked queue is meant to just pair people with other people and is not meant to show competitive skill, then unlimited bans seems like a pretty great solution. Players who want only one or two maps can choose to wait longer and play just those maps. Players who want to play a mixed variety can play a mixed variety, banning maps they don’t want and including those they don’t. This way, nobody alt-f4’s because they will always get the map they want.

I understand that, quite often, people just want to have some fun and don’t want to sink an hour and a half into a Black Forest game and instead would rather get some quick action in Arabia or other open maps. It doesn’t seem fair to force people to play maps they don’t want when they don’t want to, hence the initial measures the devs took will not work. People will still hate maps, and will still alt-f4. From what I’ve seen, people will either alt-f4 quite often, or never do it. I don’t think the devs’ current solution is quite the right approach.

As long as all Elo does is help pair you against opponents of equal skill level instead of reflecting competitive skill, I can see the appeal for infinite bans.

Personally, I think the ranked queue should be for those who want a mixed bag of maps and those who want infinite bans should have a separate queue like the Unranked queue, but it will also have the same maps as ranked. This way, those who specialize in very specific maps will queue up with other people who also specialize in those maps, making it much more fair, while those wanting to increase their ranking across a variety of maps can use the main competitive queue.

Hopefully all of this post makes sense, and I don’t mean to start any angry arguments or anything, but just wanted to share my thoughts and ask for yours. The overall idea behind this post is that whether Elo is just for finding opponents of equal skill or whether it’s for showing competitive skill is important. Honestly, both sides make sense to me, but I’m curious what everyone else thinks. Make sure you cast your vote in the poll below.

What do you think the purpose of the ranked queue is?

  • It’s to show competitive skill on a variety of maps.
  • It’s to put players against those of equal skill level, regardless of the map.

0 voters

What is the solution to the alt-F4 problem?

  • Create a separate queue for those who want infinite bans
  • Create separate Elo scores for different map types (open, closed, water, etc.) and allow infinite bans
  • Allow infinite map bans
  • Leave it as it is now (post-October update)
  • Revert it to what it was (pre-October update)
  • Other (Post idea below)

0 voters


I personally am a fan of this idea, as a possible solution. I think it is a way of letting people play arabia/arena only, or a mix of maps. To incentivize playing a variety of maps, a good way of doing it could be to scrap the traditional elo mindset, and allow players to gain more points then the other player loses at times. Then, if people only play one map, they can gain up to an extra ten points for example if they play a different map, or something like that. It would possibly need a couple of elo ratings though, for each group. Just my thoughts on it.


Is this post implying that Arabia-only players are not competitive? And the true way to improve one’s skill at the game is to train randomly on Nomad/Megarandom/BF?

No, sorry I should have clarified. Arabia-only players are indeed competitive, but I don’t think they would be as well rounded. If a player only plays Arabia, they won’t have as much skill at other maps, like nomad. For me, I really like easily-wallable maps like arena and black forest, but if I only ever played those, I would be terrible at Arabia-like maps.

I understand that, of all the maps, Arabia will build more skills than any other map can do. It requires extensive build order knowledge, skilled micro, and other important skills that maps like Black Forest could not give you.

All I meant by this post was that, overall, I think playing on every map type in the game equally would make you generally better at every aspect of the game. Again, that’s not to say that Arabia is not competitive or does not reflect game competency - a 1300 Elo player in Arabia is most likely better at the game than a 1500 Elo Arena player. When I say “competitive,” I’m really just meaning “well-rounded across a variety of maps.”

1 Like

I think it would be good to have queues Arabia only, Arena onlh, and mixed. Or you could have open map pool and closed map pool queues. With distcint ELOs per queue.

Actually yeah, I think this would be a great idea! My biggest issue with the infinite map bans solution is that it punishes those who like a variety of maps, but this eliminates that worry entirely.

I also really like @floydroid772’s idea, where you can have multiple map pools that have a variety of maps of a certain type. Being able to queue into Arabia/Arena only queues would be great, but I think it would be cool if there were a few maps of a type, like having a pool with Black Forest, Amazon tunnel, and Arena together or something.

1 Like
  1. If we care about people enjoying the game, then we need opt-in/unlimited bans. No matter how hard you punish alt-f4, you can’t expect to change preferences. Polls show that at least 30% of people want control over maps. Ofcourse enjoyment should come before accuracy because logically speaking you cannot match someone that doesn’t even want to play. Telling players to go against their will is probably the most harmfull major thing that has happened to this game after the shutdown of the zone.

A major factor is that usually people are afraid that opt-in will lead to too few maps being played, this is often based on comparisons to traditional lobby systems. However this isn’t taking into account how the situation changed;

-The community has increased in size and there is more interest than ever to play a variety of maps.
-The mere existance of a map pool encourages variety.
-You can queue for multiple maps at once without having to host a lobby and wait alone for someone to join.
-Making MM inclusive will invite players that otherwise go to the lobby.
-Removing the need to alt-f4 will significantly speed up MM.

More optimism is deserved. And it’s important to realize that forcing a situation which doesn’t happen naturally usually goes at the cost of others, going beyond encouraging variety is not reasonable and harmfull to the player.

  1. Some points regarding elo accuracy:
    A) One thing is sure; the accuracy will increase when opt-in gets introduced and likeminded players get matched more efficiently, more players use MM, more games are being played per player and smurfing due to the alt-f4 punishments goes away.
    B) Often you will hear people say that currently elo is indicative of overall skill across maps, this is a fallacy because an average means the elo isn’t accurate for any specific map. With an average of 1600 one could truely be 1750 on arabia and 1450 on islands.
    C) Technically If we want the most accurate elo, then we need seperate open/closed/hybrid ladders. (not to be confused with seperate map pools.) The counter argument is that in reality it might be hard for variety players to be active enough on every ladder.

What the best way to improve elo accuracy is, I’m not sure. However because these 2 elements are seperate and 1 already benefits 2, the logical approach would be to first change to opt-in and then consider if seperate ladders are needed.

This is not an option because you just take away traffic from the main queue which increases queue times with nothing in return. The same reason for why you don’t want a ranked lobby as an alternative for people with map preferences. To get the best MM system you want everyone together, make MM inclusive so people don’t even have a reason to go to the lobby.


I think it is better to make unranked lobbies that use unranked elo to match players for option too. Because if ranked is not about conpetiveness on a variety of maps, elo loses its value and then indeed, it will encourage specialization. Because if i want to try bf cuz I might feel like that one day, ill just be likely to get destroyed by a bf-only player at my elo, even if that player would be far below me in elo on say arabia or megarandom.

That just sounds like segragating the playerbase to me and when has segregation ever been a good thing?

1 Like