Queue Dodging Timeout Feedback

game dropped again while loading, another 30 minute timeout. great job devs!

1 Like

Dodged a game agian, not gonna play a game with all 3 teammates with lower than 45% win rate in 2k+ elo games.

Thats gotta be the most bizarre reason for AltF4ing I have ever heard. Enjoy the timeout, you deserve it.


got 10+ accounts here, game is cheap

Just use family sharing, you don’t have to purchase the game multiple times.

1 Like

Was waiting in the queue, which was then aborted by a error message.
Now I have to wait because of queue dodging.
I think that was not the intention of the change.

If this is happening after each error message, that should be fixed as soon as possible.

Yeah totally absurd xD, YOu know why we have elo? Just because of that. If a player is often paired with players of higher elo he will lose more often. But he still gets his accurate elo even if he loses much. I mean a player could dodge everybody who has higher elo than himself and get a 80 % winrate or whatever. But he would still get his correct elo.
That’s why we have elo matchmaking and not winrate matchmaking.

And this guy also punishes players unnecessarily who already have been “punished” by the matchmaking that gave them unfair matchups…
This is really poor imo. You shouldn’t play teamgames if you disrespect others in that way.

ANd btw 45 % winrate isn’t that uncommon in that elo range in tg currently. It’s because of that silly elo abusing of certain players, they steal elo from “mid elo” players currently. And mid elo is about that range in TG actually. So many 2k tg elo players have a negative winning record bacause of that elo stealing. Does this make them bad players? no. It just shows the bad matchmaking and certain players abusing the system.

Can’t understand this kind of behaviour. It’s this typical behaviour of people that always blame their teammates when they are losing - and only want “winners” in their team.
Guess what, because of the matchmaking system it’s completely random if you have a positive or negative winning record in mid elo. At least in 1v1s without these elo shenaningans. Winning percentage doesn’t shows anything about the skill of a player.
This kind of dodging is indeed toxic, as it is so completely unnecessary. Nobody has any benefit, even yourself. But you made 3 other players that were also punished by bad matchmaking before, unnecessarily wait. If you are so selfish, just don’t play teamgames! It’s in the name. If you are unable to play in a team, tgs are just nothing for you. Period.

You know TG Elo was broken for years due to a bug in the ratings calculation, right? As a result, many people have Elo way above their actual skill. I have seen people with 2500 TG Elo yet with 40% winrate.

If you get someone with <45% in your team there’s high chance he’s one of those and is on a losing streak until the system manages to put him where he belongs. I would not say one should leave based on his teammates winrates’ but it’s true that winrate has become a very solid indicator of the outcome of a match and I for one would not like to play a match with 3 teammates at 45% winrate (good thing I play only with premades now). Once again, stop calling people ‘toxic’ when all they do is exploit a system that just asks to be exploited.

1 Like

We should usually have equal Elo on both side. There is something wrong if somebody often get matched against enemies with higher elo. You must know that he also have chance to pair with low elo players.
We can never know if he already got his correct elo or not.

It was all 3 players with lower than 45%. 1 player with that win rate isn’t a problem if he is going to try to win the game. In my experience, there is only a small chance that all of them can carry their weight, and it is a guaranteed loss if there is 1 or more smurfs on the other side. There is a great chance that one or two of them will give up early. There are really a bunch of players who rage quit and 80% of them with lower than 50% win rate according to my experience.

I can try to help you to understand this kind of behavior. One guy gave me a low elo account with 30% win rate a year ago. I solo pushed all the way to 2500 TG elo but the win rate only reached 38%. People dodged 4 of 5 games and they said how can you get such low win rate, you must be a troll blablabla. I ended up with playing with the guys who don’t care about win rate and I lost many games in a row. It shows that many people will dodge me if I don’t care about my win rate.

I won’t play the game when I know I am going to blame my teammates. I don’t want to blame them so i choose not to play with them. I guess nobody want to lose many times a row. Also, it is obviously people don’t like some types of losing such as 1 guy resign early then team resign early, got beaten by smurfs, etc.

Only solo players will get completely random matches. Premade team got huge advantage over non-premade.

Nothing will absolutely show the skill of a player, but it partially show the gaming attitude of the player. It is my choice to take the risk or not.

It can be called toxic whatever you want, but it is necessary to me. Very few high win rate player will rage quit. Although some of them talk trash which is acceptable to me but most of them will keep playing and being helpful. As I mentioned before, most of the early resign and rage quit happened to low win rate players.

Since when the word selffish can be used here? Don’t you know that you are toxic and selffish as well when you are calling others selffish ? You didn’t understand or tried to understand why people are dodging the games like this. I would say the people who don’t want to try to win TG games shouldn’t play TG. This is all my problems with TG.

Sorry but your dodge makes absolutely no sense. We have elo rating for a reason, because winning percentages just tell nothing about the skill of a player. A player can get 80 % winning percentage if he dodges all people who have higher elo than himself. But this doesn’t makes him a good/better player. It’s actually the opposite. Because he avoids challenge he will stuck at the level he is in the long run. So a negative/lower winning record actually indicates that a player may have faced a lot of stronger players and therefore has more experience to contribute to a team game.

And this works also in the different direction. If a player is more often paired with players that have higher elo than him he will have a negative winning record. But still his elo will be correct as a lot of his wins are wins against players that are actually rated higher than him.

That’s why winning percentage is absolutely no indicator of the winning chance of a player, it only shows if the player was more often paired with players that are better than him or more often paired with those who are worse than him. It’s just randomness caused by the matchmaking.

Just an example from the current rankings:

3 GL.TaToH 2511 69.72% 525 228 1
4 GL.JorDan_AoE 2489 56.38% 658 509 2

Tatoh has more than 13 % higher winrate! But JorDan just has played more often against players that are better or at the same level as him, that’s why he has the lower winning percentage, cause if he wins against better players he gets more elo than tatoh if tatoh wins against weaker players and vice versa.
The elo correctly shows, that they are currently about at the same level, but according to you, the lower winning record of jordan would indicate he would be the worse player.

Nothing is absolutely right or wrong here. You might wantna reconsider your words. We all know that a player with 100% win rate have a great chance to carry this game and a player with 30% win rate will probably be a troll. The player with 80% win rate in your example could have dodged many games before, but most likely he will win this game when he decided to play this game.
I could partially agree with your opinion, but does not change the fact that nearly all rage quiter and early resign players got low win rate.

1 Like

Disagree, if they quit a game their elo goes down and they get easier opponents. Then they have higher chances of winning in the following games. Yes their winrate would be marginally lower than it would be if they wouldn’t do this. But the randomness of matchmaking has much higher influence there.

I don’t know where you got your “fact” from. Have you made a statistical test with confidence intervalls? For me this is just a hypothetical construct, that would need to be proven.

What it indeed does is lowering the elo. Rage quitters will get a lower elo than they would usually have. So actually a better indicator for a rage quitter would be someone who has higher winrate than other people in his elo range, not the other way around. (Cause rage quitting will lower your chances of winning against equal or better opponents but you will still have high win chances against weaker opponents => as you easily give up chances to get big elo points from people ranked higher than you you will overall lose elo).

So actually, a comparable low winning record for the elo would be a sign for people that don’t ragequit.
But i think this effect is largely overridden by the matchmaking randomness aswell.

Here is why we need to stop asking for infinite bans:

Here is my suggestion for a better solution.

Hmm. Interesting theory. These are all worst case scenario and assume random preference among maps, which are obviously flawed assumptions. (A 4 person Premade team would need to be calculated out as a single person, because they would all in theory ban the same map) (if 90% of the playerbase bans islands, then it lowers the effective percent of population baning in your calculation)

However, it certainly is directionally correct, and as far as a thought experiment really does demonstrate the enormous magnitude of the “small” change people are asking for. Very interesting indeed.


The lobby system needs to have the lobby ranked system visible similar to how the previous versions do - I know it exists, just needs to be visible to improve the manual lobby system - it would help to reduce smurfing by people with no rating.

Just because someone posts numbers in an Excel sheet doesn’t mean the formulas make sense… Seriously, the sheet predicts a queue time of 30 MILLION MINUTES in 4v4, you somehow believe that?


That’s a 57 year wait :rofl:

And when you get a match somebody still Alt+F4’s when the militia or scouts arrive.


11 leave me alone.

But since you started it, go ahead and compare the definitions between “hypothetical” and “prediction” in the dictionary. They are two different things. That spreadsheet was a mathematical representation of “hypothetically”.

if we gave them the power to ban infinite maps, and 100% of the player base used that power to ban 90% of the maps, we would see… " Now that we’ve done the math, we consider whether that is actually realistic at all. We look for assumptions that are hidden in the math and whether we agree with those assumptions. We critically think about whether that means the answer will be higher or lower. We might even use some of the other math to estimate by what order of magnitude it might be off by.

If you re-read the response, I pointed out that it was unrealistic in magnitude, and I pointed out a couple of flaws in the logic as to WHY it reached unrealistic results as far as specific numbers.

Soo… while you are correct about the fact that it is EXTREMELY unlikely to ever see a 30 million minute queue, you were very Incorrect in your analysis of what I was saying. You were also used incorrect logic to say the math was wrong because you didn’t like the outcome. (The math very well may be correct, but the assumptions for that specific section of the hypothetical matrix don’t align very well with what we can expect the community to choose based on several factors.)

TLDR: Leave me alone.


First, you concluded your post with “Very interesting indeed.”, so no, you did not “point out something that was unrealistic in magnitude”, you pointed out something that was completely incorrect, without doing basic checks, and implied it should be trusted, because you liked the outcome.

Second, I did the math in another thread, someone who bans all but Arabia should get around 1 minute queue time, as expected from the intuition, very far, very far from the 30 min queue supposedly in the spreadsheet. So no, I did not say the math was wrong because I didn’t like it, I said the math was wrong, because it is wrong, as one could guess from the nonsensical 30 million minutes predicted, and even OP admitted it was wrong.

Third, I have no idea who you are, and your history shows I replied to you only once before, so your repeated “Leave me alone” makes even less sense than the rest of your post, unless of course, you are a smurf account.

Haha alrighty then. Looks like you understand everything perfectly. you still missed a step in the logic and therefore misinterpreted both the intent and content of the message. But that happens. I wouldn’t sweat it too much if i were you.

In an ideal system if they could filter and match people by map first and then by elo you could reach times around a minute. Great. But that solution is not “giving infinite bans” . It is also not what his comment is about if you read it and the context he linked it to.

We are discussing just “giving infinite bans” and the catastrophic failure it would be if just implemented as so many people think is good. Like go into the code and change the variable “max_map_bans” to 9 instead of actually fixing the fundamental flaw.