Given that there are many more maps yet fewer bans in 3v3 and 4v4 compared with 2v2 and 1v1, do you think the number of bans should be increased by 1 to a total of 2 bans?
Here are the statistics on team maps played: https://aoestats.io/maps/RM_TEAM/1250-1650. Given that MegaRandom and Black Forest are amongst the two lowest played maps (indicating that no one likes them), and yet are STILL in the permanent team game ranked map pool, should bans not be increased by 1 so that 2 maps can be banned?
Seems like these are old stats, so i dont know how reiable those are. Seems like based on the map pool of June or maybe even older.
MegaRandom has no fixed spot. Black Forest do.
The issue with more bans, is that it will mess up with the current matching system. Currently the system first pick all the players and then decided on a map. With 2 bans for everyone you can end up with no possible maps to pick, because every map is banned by at least one player. Adding more bans isnt as easy as it sounds. It also has some drawbacks, like it will for sure increase waiting time for everyone.
The issue with BF is mainly it is liked by one part of the player base and hated by the other part, but there just needs to be one player that ban the map for it not being played. The result: The play rate is pretty low, while there are more players wanna play that map. Even if the map isnt ban a player, there is still the possibility one or more maps have also no bans and thus that game is played at another map. I can see the play rate go up when we have the new patch and players can select maps as favorite.
So only looking at this stat is not the full story.
I just hope that people just read this before they vote, so they understand the consequences of there vote. This post is just to give more background and not an advice to vote for yes or no.
4 Likes
Of course no, mappool is too small for 2 bans per player. It means there could be 12 banned maps in 3v3 and 16 banned maps in 4v4. There would be no map left to play, duh
1 Like
If every single map is banned then the system should pick from the maps which were least banned amongst the players in the game.
For example, if in a 4v4 situation, out of all 8 players, Arabia was only banned by one player AND all other maps apart from Arabia received 2 or more bans each, then Arabia would automatically end up being picked.
However, if Arabia and Arena were BOTH only banned by one player each AND all other maps apart from Arabia and Arena received 2 or more bans each, then the system would randomly select from Arabia and Arena.
Yes I know what you mean but it doesn’t work like that. If you ban a map, then it is like a veto - it guarantees that you are not going to play it. It is not acceptable that there would potentially still be a chance you get that map. Hope it makes sense to you.
I understand what you mean, but I’m just proposing a hypothetical solution if all maps were banned by all players.
How likely would it be that that would happen anyway?
Alternatively, you could send all players back into the queue again until a match is found at least one map is not banned between all players.
If you ban something it means it is out completely. What you are proposing is a system of map preferences or something like that. Honestly, it could work but I am sure it would generate a lot of hate and players would complain that the possibility of dodging a map had been taken away from them.
It is very unlikely that something you or other users propose here gets implemented. Even though devs don’t communicate at all, they might still be going through the post but don’t expect that someone from the team will discuss it with you. They might use your idea though, but if they do, you will never know.