Allow for all random maps to be placed into the pool at once.
Allow map bans up to but never to exceed 49% of the pool.
Allow up to 30% of the pool to be starred
(Devs)Add maps at your leisure to the pool by simply creating new maps
Add a second ranked queue that replaces Empire Wars (yet still contains Empire Wars) that contains many different fun game modes as a party game mode queue - add in death match, empires wars, regicide, king of the hill, mega random(in its current state), nomad, and many more fun game modes as well as ensure each of these game modes are added to the ranked custom lobby system to increase both in popularity.
This will add all existing random map scripts to the queue.
Available map bans scales with however many maps are added to the pool.
This allows for more specified maps to be chosen and increases the odds a map will be starred by both players and given higher priority to be played. It also scales with the size of the map pool as to how many stars you may place.
(Devs)Feel free to add new maps, much better than constantly changing the most popular ones to account for keeping away stagnation.
This brings the secondary queue into a much improved party mode system which increases enjoyment by the general team/hang out player base. And helps both the secondary queue as well as the incoming new ranked custom lobby system.
All while at the same time introducing different game-modes to new players.(refer to comment 34 for more info)
That being said, keep testing
Unlimited stars is also a possibility to ensure you will always have at least 1% of the starred maps in the pool available if the enemy bans the rest.
An alternative is to remove all stars(I am against this)
That being said, with the entire map pool available, it is much more likely that a single map will be starred by both players and thus played on a map that both players prefer, which this increases player-base happiness.(with 30% of the pool available to be starred)
Additional 6. Add in an unranked ranking visible in-game to allow for greater unranked lobby anti smurfing ability for custom lobby creators.
Hearty disagree, mainly because some of the less played maps only see the light of day when we force the arabia and arena players to play them on ranked.
Itâs a good suggestion, donât get me wrong. If we had the player numbers of Fortnite in 2018, or CSGO in 2013.
On the higher levels there already is a wait time of minimum 5 minutes, sometimes 10 for TG. Nowadays for 1v1 too because all the pros went to AoE4 for the viewer numbers.
Sure, itâs gonna work for you. And about 50% of the playerbase. But after a certain point Iâd rather play the 1v1 migration with Franks against Teutons than have a queue of 30 mins.
Besides, ranked is ranked because it measures something. And itâs not your Forest Nothing x256 skill. Itâs your skill on standard maps and settings, which if all maps were added would disappear, you still wouldnât be able to find a game because nobody else would queue for your Mountain Pass game that you play with that one guy from Australia at 3am your time.
Besides, if I can ban 49% of the maps, If I want to ban 5 maps out of 6, I can just add 5 random scripts and leave them open and I know that nobody else is going to queue up for them, effectively getting my bans, while not breaking any rules.
Limiting map bans to 49% of the pool allows for the queue times to remain the same as they are now.
If map bans were unlimited, queue times would reach hour-long endeavors.
The point of this is to both increase the amount of maps available to play, increase map bans and map stars to allow for a more focused search and to keep bans below 50% to allow for the every match made to have at least the remaining 1% of maps available to choose from if the enemy somehow bans the rest.
On top of all this keeping queue times low while allowing map diversity to be high.
I think that having the 7 maps for 1v1, 9 maps for TG is reasonable, but we should get infinite bans for both, regardless of queue times. You wanted to play just that one map, sure, knock yourself out, after waiting enough for it.
I would appreciate a queue for âall maps and modesâ- I am a FFA fan personally and I wouldnât at all mind just clicking a button and getting any FFA game whatsoever. Quick play failed to materialize this. But it is what it is.
The system could use improvements to give us a better experience. Such as being able to queue for ranked while browsing the lobby selector.
With how little improvement to the out-of-game experience we have seen for the 2 years DE has been out, I donâ think we can expect such big changes unfortunately.
So, donât get your hopes up. At best we can try for infinite map bans, which would fix the alt f4 issue as well.
The main problem with unlimited map bans is that matches are found before player preferences are considered, as is players would be matched, found that they have no maps unbanned between the two of them followed by being thrown back out into the queue.
Unless the queue system is drastically changed, I donât expect it to happen.
My suggestion as is attempts to take that into account and add to the current setup in a hopefully balanced and doable way.
I think that the implementation way will be as follows:
There is Arabia, Arena, Hideout, Nomad, Gold Rush, Islands, Runestones.
I have banned Arabia, Arena, Hideout, Nomad and Gold Rush.
I want to play either Islands or Runestones.
By clicking âJoin Queueâ I actually join 2 queues- one for Islands and one for Gold Rush. My elo is then compared only with players who have those maps unbanned. The moment an appropriate opponent is found, within a reasonable elo range, we get pitched against eachother. In any of those queues. If our preferences are the same, we will instead be put on that map (very unlikely this will happen, but itâs an option, if both of us have Islands and Runestones unbanned, we match on the Islands queue, but we have favorited Runestones, due to program execution lag, or consecutive execution of the queue thread).
I. E. player preferences are considered before matches are found.
And nobody is thrown back into the queue.
What your âsolutionâ lacks is a clear definition of a ârankedâ game. Some maps like Budapest are not meant to be a part of the ranked experience. On the other hand, I would like to see the devs giving us less options regarding the maps we play. Sure, we decide what to play. But we here are what, like 150 people and every month we play the maps we like. Everyone outside of these forums is forced to put up with whatever we want.
Iâm a firm believer that the game mode ânomadâ and the multiple game mode âmega randomâ as well as maps such as fortress and marketplace and additional scenario maps that go beyond the standard 1 town center, 3 vills + civ bonuses +1 normal scout/eagle scout with or without walls are maps that are insta-ban game-modes and should not be allowed into the map pool.
That being said, I would also appreciate a multi game mode queue to replace the feudal wars queue. Iâd love to see regicide, nomad, death match, feudal wars, etc in that queue among many other possible fun game modes. Giving the secondary queue a âparty gameâ game mode aspect would be fun af.
That would be in addition to the ranked custom lobby being added.
Regarding mega random, it can be as random as it wants, and I would love it if only it had the standard start binded to it. If that were so, then I would consider it for the main-line standard start random map queue.
Well your firm belief flies away in face of the facts that nomad and mega random are more popular then many maps in the pool. Iâd hazard to say most even. So what you want isnât what others want.
But again that is just your opinion. Clearly one that is not shared by others and even your own prior argument that random map should challenge players ability to adjust to different situations. Which nomad and megarandom accomplish far more then any other map out there.
Adjusting to different situations is well and covered based on the surroundings of the standard start and how the map is generated that adjusts what you adjust into to adjust to the surroundings.
Be it closed, semi closed, water surrounding, open, open land with or without water and fish, etc.
Without the standard start there is nothing to base your elo on and elo becomes worthless.
My issue with mega random mainly comes down to the double tcs, double vills, double scouts, etc - the possible nomad start certainly doesnât help either.
Also, youâre forgetting the scout.
When mega random actually starts with a standard start, I love it - but itâs the chance of an entirely different game mode and additional starting pieces that offset me.
The point of binding the standard start to it would also be to remove such double starts from being possible.
As for regular random maps that have such starts, I would rather not be in the standard queue - perhaps in a separate queue such as the party mode queue with multiple game modes.