This dodging ban is a terrible idea, and often punishes the wrong people. I just had a 3v3 where one allied player disconnected immediately after the game started, so obviously the rest of my team resigned as well. What happens? The rest of us also get punished with a temp ban! Apparently we were supposed to stay and play the entire match 3v2, which would have been an annoying waste of time for both my team AND the other team, who would probably prefer to restart anyways rather than waste 30 minutes on an already decided win.
Also, I have had an enemy player not like how the match is going, and they continuously paused and unpaused until my entire team resigned out of sheer annoyance, thereby technically âwinningâ the match! This is ridiculous! Pausing should be banned entirely, or at the very least, limited to MAXIMUM 3 pauses per match. This game needs a LOT of work.
Yep, because thatâs how competitive events like tournaments handle it, leave everything to RNG. Oh waitâŠ
Picking maps and civs that work well together is a major part of the strategy. This is most obvious on maps like Islands, but it applies everywhere to some extent.
My feedback: I have had a number of games now where a teammate goes afk for 5 minutes or more and then resigns and twice theyâve even said it was to avoid the timeout. I found alt+f4ing before the game starts to be less upsetting than when someone resigns at 5 minutes. Before if I was alt+f4ed in the queue I could just keep watching youtube or reading or doing whatever else I was doing until I got a game. Now I stop doing what I am doing, play for 5 minutes only to have my teammate resign. It deffinitely happens much less than alt+f4 did before but I find it much more disruptive than the old alt+f4 when it does happen.
I know all feedback is expected to be discussed here but Iâve been following the topic on aoezone where the conversation is maybe a little more indepth than here (and a little more civil). The takeaway I get from that conversation is that people largely agree timeouts or bans are ok but that this needs to be accompanied by at least improvements to the lobby system so that people can find more easily single map games with like skilled players and make fair teams in the lobby. Thatâs just my takeaway though.
Arabia only Ranked Queue with Arabia only Ranked Elo
Arena only Ranked Queue with Arena only Ranked Elo
âTrue Eloâ ranked Queue with âTrue Eloâ Ranked Elo
Matching:
Arabia only and Arena only speak for themselves. Everyone who joins gets that map. Period. Drops Alt F4 down by an ENORMOUS margin. (remembering toxic player, elo discrepancy from terrible matchmaking would still need to be resolved.)
True Elo Queue means you pick a preferred map but have no bans. 50/50 chance of getting your map. In a team game you have a 1/4, 1/6, or 1/8 chance of getting your map.
24 hour timeout from True Elo if you alt F4. (because the premise here is that you agree to play my map if I agree to play yours, which an Islands player would be thrilled with 50% play rate, and a Scandinavia player would be thrilled with a 50% play rate. At LEAST compared to current) Devs need to ensure that actual Legitimate drops are identified and not punished.
Elo System:
Playing games in Arabia only ranked queue ALSO affects True Elo.
Playing games in Arena only ranked queue ALSO affects True Elo.
If you end up getting an Arabia game in True Elo, it affects Arabia Elo
If you end up getting an Arena game in True Elo, it affects Arena Elo
"You'll have worse queue times from segmenting population!!!"
No. thought experiment with me here. Which group would be worse off???
âif Arabia Only is truly 70%, they will only benefit from no Alt F4 from arena only dudes.
âif Arabia Only is truly 70%, Arena Only players no longer get Alt F4 in 50% of their queue, so going from 2 * 3 min queue to a 5 min queue will actually be shorter.
ââIslands only playersâ (smallest group) has been alt F4 to oblivion. they have waited half an hour to an hour to get team games on this map, if ever, eventually resorting to unranked, where they wait another half hour and give up. They will have a statistical likelihood of getting their map half of the time. Everyone they meet up with has essentially agreed to a âyou scratch my back Iâll scratch yoursâ mentality, so over time it will work out. Believe me â the vast majority understand their position. the only reason they have become alt F4s is because it will NEVER come back to let them play islands, no matter how often they scratch the other guyâs back. I guarantee the vast majority would be happy. Black Forest players, Scandinavia, Nomad, Islands, Mega random⊠I have a strong feeling if they could absolutely Guarantee that it would be a fair distribution âyou scratch my back Iâll scratch yoursâ situation, theyâd be thrilled. If not, they can always play unranked. (which is the current situation, so you canât knock that. Weâre looking for improvement here.)
Super crazy idea. But think about it before you criticize. Think about it. Just ponder. Let it mull over. Arabia guys get 100% control, balanced games, and short queue. Arena guys get 100% control, balanced games, and short queue. All others get FAIR playrates on their desired maps. No manipulation by banning the popular one, no manipulation by alt F4. FAIR.
While weâre at it, on a TOTALLY unrelated note. allow unranked to have filters on who can join the lobby. CPU performance test? Y/N.
Ranked Elo 1v1 within 800-900? Y/N
At least 10 Ranked 1 v 1 played? Y/N (slow down smurfs)
win rate above 40%? Y/N
Perhaps others. (Ranked game win within past 10 days?)
It may take Forever to fill it, but at least youâd know you had a good game (probably).
For people who want random more often:
next to the âwilling to go randomâ icon, the opponentâs current selection of that icon is visible. Clicking it flares that icon to your opponent, essentially asking if they want to have a random civ game. Currently there is no communication about it at all, so I forget to toggle it back on after playing a map where it REALLY matters like Islands or Arena where I definitely do NOT want a random civ.
All Iâm saying is I would appreciate a reminder that I left random civ off, especially if my opponent is hoping for an all random game.
Here I disagree. Arabia and Arena should have separated elos. Why? Because this way arabia and arena players would be more tempted to âtryâ different maps occassionally if they see realistic chances of winning.
Also, I think if we make âtrue eloâ or ârandom map eloâ there should be either no bans (unrealistic) or a limited amount of bans possible. Itâs better to have bans than directly selecting maps there, as usually you only want to avoid certain maps. Like me avoiding arena cause itâs so repetitive.
Otherwise, I like the concept. I think if there are these 2 maps that currently dominate everything, why not just making queues and elos just for these maps, so the âoverall eloâ is not disturbed by their influence. Why forcing an arabia only player who may have 300 less elo on random map to play and lose there? That makes no sense. If he likes to try new maps he could just start on a new ladder and slowly get comfortable with random map. Thatâs the way to bring players to try different maps. If you know that the sea is cold you also donât want to just blindly jumb into it. Not you slowly get deeper with a tempo you feel comfortable with.
Look we have a map rotation vote every fortnight. And what are the top picks? Guess what - Megarandom and Nomad are always in the top three. And were not talking 25% here were talking more like 30-35%. Speak of majority.
And there always plenty of arabia-ish maps to vote for if you want to choose the lesser of evils.
When a person alt-f4âs, they basically punish the other player for not picking the exact map the dodger wanted. In other words, if I donât want to get dodged, I have to pick Arabia - megarandom and land nomad are a big no-no. And indeed, why canât we allow anybody to play the game however they like? But that extends also to people who do not play arabia or arena, and keep getting dodged. And besides, dodging is the literal opposite of playing the game, so the whole âlet them play how they likeâ argument doesnât apply to the practice of dodging itself.
That said, we need better solutions than this. I agree the current system needs an overhaul of sorts.
I got in a ranked 4v4 game, and one of the enemies had disconnected or similar during the loading screen. I decided to drop so the rest of the players could 3v3, but I got hit by the âThere is a delay before matchmaking queues are availableâ message.
Perhaps my behavior did look identical to queue dodging, but what should I have done? I think I saw the other players dropping after I did, so they werenât interested in a 3v3. Are we all going to be punished because of that one player?
It penalizes resigning before 5 minutes, I think. The system definitely needs finetuning to account for the situations in which people didnât actually dodge or resign early.
The intent here is that there are three elos. Arabia Elo, Arena Elo, and True Elo. But if Iâm a 1200 in Arabia and I want to branch out, I can start by queuing (as a 1200) in True Elo. If I then lose a game on Arena, my Arabia 1200 is preserved, but my True and arena rating go down. If I keep queuing and get Arabia 75% of the time, I might land at 1150 True, 1100 Arena, and 1200 Arabia. So on days I want to play Arabia, Iâll get A very well balanced match in arabia. if I want to play arena, Iâll get a very balance match in the arena queue. If I want a balanced True Elo game, on average Iâll perform at that elo. Because it is an average of my performances on the relative frequency of those types of maps.
The True Elo system does in fact have no bans. That is the only way to guarantee a âreciprocityâ arrangement which is Why it works. If Islands players and Black forest players have a âguaranteeâ of sorts that they can play their map a FAIR proportion of the time, they are much more likely to actually play the other guysâ map, which in turn helps their own ability to play their own preference. I would go for a 25 min game I donât like followed by a 3 min queue over 25 min of alt F4/5 min resign and eventually have to give up. Iâd take that Any Day. And all the âONLYâ players from Arena and Arabia would be drawn away from the True Elo Pool anyways, so it is even more likely it would work out well. Aww yeah.
The elo transfer thing is just to help people not have to start from 1000 to climb all the way up to 1800 . that would be a mess. I know for the average joe itâs no big deal, but ⊠perhaps a compromise would be to start everyone at 1000 elo Arena so your True Elo climbs at half the rate of your other two. So if Iâm 1800 and 1000 I would get matched with 1400 . Which is definitely more realistic than assuming a 1400 arabia is a 1000 arena. They are probably actually closer to 1200 arena. Interesting detail taht could be tweaked one way or another.
I imagine it would work better if we didnât say âban how many he wantsâ. instead, use the phrase choose the map queue(s) he wants.
I know it seems like semantics, but I imagine it matters here: It seems almost certain the developers have structured it in a way that matches players first and then maps. So it would introduce nightmare situations if it matched you and there was not a commonly unbanned map. Theyâd have to spend a Huge amount of time attempting to reconcile that logic and writing catches for different scenarios.
Instead, they already have it built in that you can join different queues at the same time. you can join 1v1 RM, 1v1 EW, and 4v4 EW all at the same time, and it grabs you into whichever matchup comes available first. Just expand out those options and I imagine it would be able to handle it.
This way their code will have the minimum amount of changes (read: fewer bugs)
Anyways, just one version of my thoughts. ((Since there are multiple ways of solving this issue))
well, i found the way to crash de game and not get strike, happy day bye bye megaramdons bfs, y etc, only 1% of people choose the maps, please devs use the brain, and make the vote in the main menu
Offtopic, but I like to help you by pointing out that you can unpause the game if someone else paused it, and every player has a maximum of 10 pauses. This means you can prevent someone from doing this.
Inverse is unstoppable. Anyone paused because they needed a minute, enemy kept unpausing until we used up all our pauses
So pausing is pointless
I have a complaint about the queue. The flank of our bf 4v4 dropped or rage quit before minute 5, so I resigned after he did that. WTF, why am I getting punished by devs for that.
@DarkFaiderDE1 This is honestly the best solution I have seen so far. Have also considered:
A lobby (and elo) for each map - then there will be hardly any games in very rarely chosen maps (archipelago, ilands etc.) due to lack of players and there is little incentive to try other maps.
One lobby in total, but you can choose which mappool you want and you will only be matched with people who have the matching maps - again hardly any games in very rarely chosen maps and elo is not comparable, because some people boost their elo over only one map, which they know perfectly.
etc. etc.
Your solution connects that pretty nice. Especially the possibility to prefer a map in the true elo lobby, but not to have map bans, is pretty clever (only drawback might be, that you can have very unbalanced games in rare maps, because the opponent canât match the map at allâŠ).
Also your idea of filtering in unranked lobbies makes a lot of sense to me. How many times have I written âxxx elo 1v1 pleaseâ and many people signed up who didnât have the eloâŠ