Queue Dodging Timeout Feedback

If this company wants to know if age of empires community likes or dislikes this update with the elo system , maybe they should make a pole easily accessible to everyone and see where the new patch stands,

my vote = this patch is the worst patch to date, 2nd worst is removal of DM whats next?

do you guys remember voobly or msn zone having these issues with an elo system? nope

1 Like

Devs, if you are reading this, please make lobby system better, please. Save us from this endless debate.

2 Likes

My game crash for no resaon bcs this game is not working well and crash for no reason since the release, then i get a timeout, nice ! :slight_smile:

1 Like

It’s not a software programming forum… When people say “give unlimited bans”, they mean, “rework the system to allow infinite bans”, not “set the variable map_bans to 9”. Devs will know how to do it, no need to debate the implementation for them… The important point is that, there IS a technical solution. Whether it’s presented in the form of Arabia/Arena/Random queue or unlimited bans is just a UI thing.

In fact, unlimited bans is already implemented in quick play (you can check, it’s presented as unlimited bans, not as multiple queues for each map, and we don’t wait 30 million minutes), so even your assumption that it’s not just one variable to change.may be incorrect. It might actually be just that simple.

1 Like

Man, Zone and Voobly had Matchmaking? Damn.

New system, new problems.

1 Like

Hmm. First off I checked two days ago while I was looking into this, and you do NOT have unlimited bans in quickplay. it is the same rules as the standard, just presented differently. I highly doubt they changed that within the past two days. But feel free to screenshot a picture of the quickplay queue with all maps banned except for one. I’ll gladly admit I’m wrong if you can present the evidence it was changed within the past two days.

As far as your comment on “when people say” … you and I have had different experiences on that obviously. (admittedly I have been active on steam forums rather than this particular age forum, but in the steam forums at least that conversation has happened countless times).
In my experience the conversation normally goes something like this:
“we want unlimited bans! TODAY!!! it should take like 5 seconds to implement!”
“it will be a relatively large change that will take a lot of structure changes because they’ll have to have it match by map first and then elo instead. And there are always chances for bugs with a change that big.”
“no, they just need to change it from 3 bans in 1v1 to 6. and 4 bans in teams if I solo queue. Or at least just add one to each.”
“you can’t do that because then it is possible that every map will be banned.”
“well, if it matches you and all of them are banned, then it should just drop that matchup and rejoin the queue for each of you until one of the matchups works out.”
Then someone tries to explain using words that it would multiply queue times, especially if a large percentage of the population bans all maps than one.
Then the first guy says something like “nah. it wouldn’t affect anything”
That is where Floydroid’s chart would be useful. it would show the mathematical probability of a given percentage chance with a few key population percentages.

That is the type of scenario that Floydroid’s math is set to estimate and demonstrate why it is a terrible idea. I’m sure you can see the flaws with that particular solution, thus why you assume they would never do it in the way that is mathematically represented here (at least hypothetically other than the specific adjustments that would need to be made for incorrect logical assumptions). (Of course they would follow a solution that makes it match by map first rather than just requeue… right? RIGHT??)

Part of me agrees with you that we shouldn’t be the ones coming up with the real details on the solution, but the other part of me realizes: you’ve see in the past where they just take what the forums say and run with it. (i.e. just timeout) without really thinking of all of the angles and possible outcomes and pre-emptively solving those issues. Soo I feel we do have at least some responsibility to be vocal about particularly disastrous outcomes from particular solutions. I think we’re both on the same side here in general. We both think they need to match map first and THEN elo/teams. We just have differing opinions about our role in highlighting potential issues, and there has been a bit of misinterpretation in the thread. That’s all.

1 Like

I’m not even in the “This is a technically difficult solution to implement” camp. That would infer, for starters, that I think it’s a good idea. I think I’ve made myself pretty clear that I don’t think it does healthy things for ELO, for balance, or for player count. Unlimited bans are a bad idea. I don’t even want to get into the technical stuff because that’s for the techs to figure out after they’ve decided it’s a good strategy, and I don’t think it should get that far.

Contrarily, I think giving out different ELOs for different maps solves a huge list of problems all at once, would incentivize more players (generally) to play matchmaking, and it’d make moving to a “play what you want” system non-detrimental, as your ELO wouldn’t just be generalized for all maps at once. Then it doesn’t matter if players only play Arabia, so long as the players they play against are rated at the same level they are for arabia.

This is the solution I want. This is hopefully, the solution they are working towards. Accompany this with some reward icons for playing certain map types 10/50 times like they do playing civs. Done.

Please remove this with a hotfix, it has made the multiplayer experience so much worse for me. Can’t wait to switch over to AOE IV at the moment.

agreed im just hopeing the devs come to their senses and remove the changes. they dont even need to do anything as drastic as inf map bans. the other thing they changed being if your oponent altf4ed you are put right back in the que seems good enough to make altf4 much more bearable. its a shame they had to package such a good change with such a bad change that is the timeout system

2 Likes

getting into matches is faster now

if the false positive disconnect is a rare event, a brief timeout is preferable to sitting through griefers alt+f4ing for 10 maps in a row

still, the people who don’t want to play the game and go afk on a map they don’t like should not be in the same queue as me. give them ranked lobbies or a separate beginners’ queue or something. i don’t care what the solution is as long it stops them from griefing and wasting others’ time. timing them out will not work. they have an endless supply of alt accounts.

They should at least add a “Vote to leave” system. Ally losing a villager fight in Nomad and a whole team agreeing to resign but having to wait 5 minutes is just a waste of everyones time.

Not that I agree with this method of punishment. I’d rather have more control over what I play than being threatened into playing.

Getting matches, yes. Getting the match you want? Perhaps not, depending on what you prefer. I have found games faster, but I have not found the games I want faster, if that makes sense. Overall my experience has gotten worse.

You are not the only one, i have finally decided to stop playing team games, my last experience was disgusting in every sense, queue times were quite long, 4 games in a row i got matches really unfair, again the system throwing 1k elo lower allies to me just to fill the game for some stackers in their preferred maps, the last game i was happy to see that my allies were somehow close to my elo finally, just to get matched vs my friends who are in 3.4k elo vs my allies 2400-2500, i had to close that game i am done getting games with impossible chances to win and getting punished for refusing to team with players several tiers below my level.

Current system can not and will not sustain a healthy population playing team games, cause everything has been designed to push players away.

Like i said the stigma that 70% doesnt matter for a game that should allready pushed ranked rm into a variety skill map selection rather then 2 or 3 maps shows us how diverted people became. And yes obviously they should reset the elo and fix the smurfing problem, but in all honesty the new ranked applicated pumishment working for the sypmton that plagued us the most is just fair.

Ps: yes i agee the ruling on the current time out system might be a bit wonky but we can bring the developer ro keep this concept and strech boundaries of what ranked rm really means and that it is about variety and people who just alt f4 because they dont like a specific map should be punished and if we can fix the lobbys then ranked lobbies will become their place and true rm ranked can unfold

1 Like

I disagree with this, it’s assuming that people are picking a map at random. If ALL players ban every map except Nomad, then Odds a 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 can start is 100%. People aren’t picking maps at random and so queue times will be affected disproportionately depending on the % of people picking your map. e.g. everyone only has nomad open, except for 1 person hoping for arena… their odds of getting a game are 0%.

1 Like

Maybe less pumpkins and more game fixing!!!

4 Likes

So, i just launched the game, queue up with some friends in ranked, got to the game loading screen, then the game just went straight back to the main menu. No error message, nothing.

Now i cannot queue again. Sure only for 5 mins, but next time will be longer, and the time after that?

I can see a time where the game drops or doesn’t connect and we get hours of bans.

It need a cooldown period, so that if you don’t drop or anything, it gets reset to the smallest time.

they need to remove this feature in its entirly. they basicaly fixed the issue with putting players back in que when someone altf4’s and then made a 10x worse problem with this timeout for disconecting.

4 Likes

I Have -10 Streak After they implanted this ■■■■, the game was boring