Possibility to veto maps in Ranked like AoE2

I would like to know what you think of the idea.

The truth is that it is not comfortable to have an unfavorable MU and on top of that you are on an unfavorable map.

It is true that that would delay the search a bit, but that would favor that, even if you do not have a good MU, you have an acceptable map to play.

What is your opinion?

P.D: As an alternative option, let the map that will come out 30 seconds before be known to choose another civilization.

Honestly I don’t like the idea too much, because I feel like people will just cherry pick the dream maps for their civilization.

For example, when I’m playing Portugal, I could ban all maps that there is not water or ATP line on it, and effectively just get greats maps on the queue.

I’m not saying that I would do that. But I have PTSD from the old times when I used to play on lobbies and gameranger. A lot of people straight up banned you if you refused to give them a good matchup. So I don’t like any change that gives the ability to nitpick their games.

I do like the current QS. Is better than the old QS, and much better than going into lobbies trying to find a game and people just banning you from the lobby when they don’t like the matchup.


I have also not suggested that many maps are banned, but the 2/3 that may be the worst for your civilization and that clearly puts you at a disadvantage from the start. At least I see it that way to balance the confrontations

No. It can take 5 minutes currently to find a game in quick search ranked. Also as someone else said people would just pick maps that are good for their civ, even if it was like a monthly poll it’d still be bad because a lot of people are quite boring and play the same thing constantly like deccan, it’s way better that the maps just get rotated.


I’m not talking about making a pick on your favorite map, but that of the 10-12 maps that are ranked, you can veto 3 so that there is greater equality of conditions. I will also answer you with the response of another user in another forum.

"When you queue you set game mode, civ and vetos (there should be a default option of no veto) and then queue. The system can match players like it always did, collect the vetos and pick a map from the remaining pool. This operation takes no time "

It’s just diluting the player base further and will make it take longer to find a game.


eu acho que não precisa o jogo tem vários mapas legais

In aoe2 this works because the civs are more or less identical, this would not work in aoe3, if I’m Germans I’ll just ban the two no tp maps, if I’m Dutch I’ll just ban any map that favors aggression, if I’m usa I’ll just try to get maps that are easy to wall, it just wouldn’t work.

However I do like the idea of a map pool that changes every month or so, maybe with one or two of the maps being voted on by the players like this


In the AoE2 it works and it is more hardcore because there is much more traffic.

If I use Germany, the Ottoman Empire or Spain on a map without TP, I start with a clear disadvantage at the beginning, not to mention that there are civis that can counter it.

I’m not looking for a favorite map to be picked, only that the 2-3 maps that harm civilization a lot can be removed or, at least, that you can change your civ knowing the map in advance.

There are many Maps in Ranked, if u veto 2-3 maps, It shouldn’t affect in QS, because there are much variety.

Well all civs have good and bad maps, I enjoy that. I play ports a bit and if I get pampas sierras or kamchatka etc then it’s obviously a bit more of a challenge because atp and water are both out, makes it more interesting and forces you to play different.
Ottoman can still do market and the mosque etc, their mosque xp is getting buffed slightly soon as well. Germany obviously like the tp in transition but they’ll just have to make do with a church.

I’m not sure how you want this to be implemented but I think it could work if you match with a player and you can then veto 1 map each like in pre-game lobby, that way the probability of a non-tp map is much lower.

1 Like

There are several options, including knowing the map 30 seconds before and being able to change your civ.

The problem is not only if you have an unfavorable map, but if you face a civ that makes you counter, double unfavorable and the percentage of victories would be very low.

One of my main civs are the Ottomans and I know what I’m talking about when I get a map without TP against a civ like Lakotas or Dutch (for example) and you only have to rush or there is no way to win. Logically, the percentage of victories makes that civ, or Spain or Portugal or Germany (or any civ that depends on the tp) and if on top of that they have a counter civ, it is hardly competitive.

So if it’s water people will always play Spain port and hauds, and if it’s no tp people will always play dutch, this leads to less interesting gameplay because you will see the same civs on the same maps much more often, also keep in mind that in tournaments where players know the maps before picking the civs, hauds and ports are top tier because you know when you will get a water map.

1 Like

There may be maps with more TP, with less or none, with more water, with less water or more hybrids, with cows / llamas / sheep or without those animals, but what does not exist are a majority of players with extensive knowledge of almost all civilizations.

All this without counting that I do not agree that on maps without TP only use Dutch when you have Japan, Sweden, Russia etc, or on maps with water choose only the civs you say, because also Incas, British or other civs can compete In that aspect.

Well in reality for the average player it does not matter if there’s a tp for otto. Outside of higher elo players make so many mistakes that a shipment slightly faster is meaningless because they often forget to even send it.
Same applies with water etc, france can beat ports on water easily at average levels, the small differences just don’t matter as much when you’re floating 1000 wood with 2 shipments banked.

Players actually seem to put too much weight on these things when they’re relatively low ranked, I watch many streamers and see people saying that a games ‘gg’ in the first 5 seconds because they over chopped 50 wood or it’s a traditionally unfavourable match up, when in reality they lose because they sacrificed 10 huss on a group of pikeman, or leave their falcs completely undefended.

I’m not referring specifically to your case, as I’m sure your high elo and these things do matter, but devs typically nerf or buff things based on the average player, that’s why civs considered weak at high level like aztec still get nerfed.

Nerf civs based on average level is a mistake they don’t make in the AoE2 for many reasons I assume you know.

It is not necessary to be a high elo (in the middle elos there is already a meta) to be annoyed by a BO that you must do because there is no TP on the map.

Maybe, I still think it’s best that the games balanced around the average player, otherwise new players get frustrated and don’t play the game.

1 Like

New players are one thing and average players are another, the important thing for a new player is that the game has a good playability, among other things. The important thing for an average player is that they are well balanced and improve their game, but many of them do not have enough knowledge to know if the civs are really balanced or not and the most logical thing is to balance based on what the pros and understood people says.

The players that play lower-rated players should adapt, as happens in other games.

If the average player gets frustrated, no one forces him to play ranked. In competitive games there are many players who get frustrated by not giving more, it is something inevitable.

Well what matters to developers is sales, so if all the noobs are getting smashed by aztec rush because they don’t age for 10 minutes then aztec rush will be nerfed, they want players to have as pleasant experience as possible so they stick around and buy dlc and future games.

When I started on definitive I got matches with a lot of noobs and I remember 1 guy saying how this games stupid and he’ll never play again, I explained to him a few things and he understood where he went wrong etc and hopefully kept playing, but many people will just quit which is not what the developers want. You will notice with aoe4 that it will be a lot more slow paced like aoe2 is.

I would say that ranked is actually best for average or lower players because after a few losses they will be matched to similar skill players. If you go in casual and make a new player or noob only game tons of people join to noob bash, I mean people like 1500 elo will join a lobby to go against someone new to the game which is quite sad.

1 Like

I start with the last because it is not true that in custom games the level of the players against the beginners is higher. There is everything (always more deviating towards the bottom than towards the top) and you do not play ranked, in ranked you play against people of a similar level as long as you find a quick game and easy and effective strategies have always existed in RTS.

I guess you have never played a game like SC2, number 1 a few years ago and with a lot of traffic, the competitiveness of that game did frustrate many players (the games could end in 3 minutes) and still it had and has a lot of traffic, balancing in favor of High level.

Nobody forces the players to play against the players in multiplayer (being able to play and practice against the AI) or to play in ranked, having more game modes. If you cannot counter a strategy, you find a way to do it and stop crying or leave the game, since it is not made for you.

What you cannot do is balance to the liking of the low or average levels because they do not have enough knowledge (the vast majority) of the metagame.