Forcing players to not play arabia will never be the answer just like how removing family share in its entirety will never be the answer to smurfs; what should happen is to change the environment for the better.
In terms of making it better for the map pool would be to stop placing non-random map(non-normal start) gamemodes such as the nomad gamemode and nomad maps as well as mega random(until mega random starts with a minimum and maximum of 1 tc, 3 vills,+civ bonus, 1 normal scout or eagle warrior depending on civ, it will be considered a separate game-mode for this argument, and once it gains the normal start of the random maps queue proper it will deserve its place in the random maps(normal start) queue.) To reduce the amount of âinstant banâ maps and allow for more possible maps the playerbase will actually consider playing.
Another item is to allow multiple starred or favorite/preferred maps, around 2 or 3 to improve player satisfaction when being able to have a chance to gain a map they like rather than getting set together with a player that bans the only map you favorited out of a list of very few wanted maps and most being insta bans and ones you just hate less which increases the odds to 100% of them getting their preferred map if you didnât ban that one.
And if both players happen to star a map together it will be the one to be played which will increase satisfaction even more. If more than one is starred together then either way whichever is picked the playerâs happiness levels will improve.
It is psychotic to see someone enjoy a thing and then feel entitled to force something else. This entire premise is a false dilemma because not only arabia players appreciate control over maps, to single them out is problematic.
Polls like this show how ignorant or intolerant this community is, to the point where a democratic result directly attempts to interfere with what many have come to love the most. You cannot decide what another part of the community has to do when they would be fine on their own given the tools. These people should be deeply ashamed and the devs as well for encouraging this.
Fantastic how every time this discussion come up it is always the question âshould arabia players be forced to play other mapsâ, and half of the commenters fall over themselves to say no they donât;
But nobody asked the question in reverse: should non-arabia only players be forced to play arabia? Because without separate queues, and limited bans, chances are always that theyll have to.
In the current system, if you want other people to play your maps, you better be prepared to play theirs as well. That is what you are expecting from others, after all, but remember that not every opponent you meet on Arabia actually wants to play that map all the time either (or at all)
No - Non-Arabia Players are a minority that is better kept in the lobby system. A ranked lobby system, and i said this thousands of times, is the only viable solution especially in a game that is this unmodded, with pseudo-reports and no real action ever taken.
Act up, Lame, Vill fight or BM, and host ignores your forever - keep doing it and you wonât be able to join any rooms. For newcomers, they can have MM in Quick Play and unranked lobbies if they want. Ranked is something so complex, every host is better at making fair team than an algorithm, and if not, ârandom teamâ can still be added to have a matchmaking system
Wow way to shove 40% of the active multiplayer base to the curb. With that attitude of âme, me, meâ no multiplayer could exist, if everyone thought that way
The â40%â you say is a minority consisting of multiple minorities, there are maybe 10% arena players, 10% nomad players, 6% BF or whatever. Arabia is the 60% common ground and as I said, ranked lobbies or infinite mapbans are the only solution. Itâs the complete opposite, itâs the 6% that keep screaming âME ME MEâ, as they forcing others to play their maps
Arabia with Random Civ was the default for 15 years and it was the most skillfull, best competition ladder I have ever seen.
Adding punishments for Queue dodging can be, IMO, seen as an attempt to sabotage aoe2 to make aoe4 sell more.
Iâd have to disagree with you here. Though I agree that Arabia is overall the most even map and therefore is a great way to test and compare player skills, it hardly exhausts the potential of play in Aoe 2. If anything, an arabia-tournament like kotd4 would be hopelessly boring if not for the fact that it is pros playing. How bland would online play be if it were just arabia only? Not to mention that the elo of arabia only players is hardly reflective of their overall skill, as is usually shown by the fact it tanks for most if they try other maps - a pretty poor yardstick to measure elo for MM, then.
Just because the minority of players that wants to play other maps than arabia is divided in smaller minorities doesnât mean you can just ignore their needs. Every player has the right to take advantage of matchmaking, and we both know that with current limits on lobby MM (cant always see elo, Smurfs abound there too), the ranked system works better. And trust me, i make lobbies all the time to play maps I want to play.
Lastly, the altf4 ban is not a tool to get people to quit Aoe2. It needs tweaking, to be sure, and people getting bans for no reason is a problem that needs to be fixed. But this measure was a necessary solution to a giant problem of toxic behavior from dodgers which affected multiplayer before. If you have a problem with that solution it says a lot about you as a person and how you see your relation to other players.
I donât think so, please read my comment under the poll. For example, Iâm pretty sure death match players have a strong preference for DM over random map. But being a much small group, it is much harder, or less democratic to satisfy their preference. While we may infer 50%+ of the 1v1 community is happy playing arabia, and I donât see why you wouldnât let half of the community be and do what they prefer.
Just to make it clear, the poll question is whether âarabia players should be forced to play non-arabiaâ, and not âshould non-arabia players be forced to play arabiaâ
The answer to such question should be: ânoâ. We are not saying neither that is the solution to arabia players being forced to play non-arabia. Forcing people to play what they do not want is a very negative thing in my opinion.
Well, should we maybe fix this?
No, shouldnât be ignored. I simply canât find a good reason to make one minority force the other minority, as long as they are big enough minorities.
Indeed and it was much needed. It simply leaves the problem (smaller than the previous one, luckily) of people being forced to something they strongly wish to avoid, and I am pretty sure we can still come up with a better solution.
I think the question shouldt be should arabia only player be forced to play something else but rather should the devs revert to a true concept of ranked rm( random map) instead of prioritising one
Also i think this stigma on arabia only player also forced these player to dodge everything that isnt arabia which is unhealthy but a mere cry of yes its mostly represented but shouldnt be the sole map to think about
They made so many maps that are beatifull playable and in the spirit of true rm i think every map should be played and no map should get prioritized
Sorry but most players priorize arabia for a reason. Itâs just the most versatile map or at least used to be.
Itâs absoultely legit to have a map preference if maps play so differently like they do in aoe2.
If you need to dodge all maps you donât like even if you naturally get 80% arabia anyways if you favor it is ofc another question. But thatâs your personalrestriction.
Another thing is to demand from devs to force people to play something they appearently canât appreciate. Why the heck? Thatâs some inacceptable intrusion in the game experience of other people.
Age2 is fun for most players cause they can play it however they like, there are a lot of different strats that favor you personal perception of the game. And that also makes it fun cause you donât play the same match every time, you always have different strats against you. Especially in Arabia were most strats were viable.
I donât understand why there are players that want to restrict other players how to play the game. Whatâs that nonsense? Canât we just accept we are different and everybody can be the way he is? Itâs a game not a company where there are bosses pushing others around just because they like to tell them what to do. Thatâs not supposed to be a thing in a game.
So please you âpseudo bossesâ stop telling others how this game âhas to be playedâ.
Nope. Boot up the game, start up a skirmish, and have a look at the list of game modes. Nomad is not one of them, and neither is Megarandom. If you want to play Nomad or Megarandom, you have to select them from the location menu, and when you do that what youâre actually doing is telling the game which random map script to use.
The phrase ârandom mapâ was originally used to indicate that the map would be generated randomly (as opposed to a campaign or scenario, where the map has been designed by a human). Nowadays there are other game modes that also use randomly generated maps, and ârandom mapâ means the game will use the default settings in the map script.
Iâm sure there are other arguments that Nomad and Megarandom shouldnât be in the ranked map rotation â but you canât argue that theyâre not random map scripts. There are literally files in the game folders called nomad.rms and megarandom.rms2 (rms stands for random map script).
Infinite map bans is not the solution - increasing the amount of favorite/starred maps possible to 2 or 3 and removing insta-ban seperate game-modes such as nomad and mega-random is. (Mega random needs to be stable in having max/min of 1 tc, 3 vills +civ bonuses, 1 normal scout/eagles scout afterwards it will deserve its place in the random-map(normal start) ranked queue.
Nomad is a separate game-mode much like empire wars, regicide and death match are separate game-modes. Nomad just happens to have maps made for it, thatâs all that is.
The map pool needs to have a consistent basic start with different maps - the maps can be as random as they wish, starting surrounding possible resources be what they will, land or water, the start must be consistent.
The map pool will be so much better with more actual options players may consider to actually play and in turn star multiple maps increasing the odds of players starring the same map at least once or reduce the chances of all your starred maps being banned and increasing the opponentâs choice of map to 100% if you didnât happen to ban their map as well.
Having less insta ban maps allows you to ban maps you happen to hate less. In the current setup you ban insta-ban maps and keep the maps you hate less but still hate.
With more favorites and the removal of seperate game-modes, we will see more stable maps in the queue.
Nomad and megarandom are a viable alternative for different scenarios that bring in a spice insteqd of the same bland start and therefore they deserve to be in ranked rm because people actually like a bit different approach to a map
I wouldt exactly call it trash i would say nomad is still in his forner roots aswell as megarandom but the devs notice that an unsportsmanlike behaviour like vill fights before the first tc was up was not very liked so they got a treaty in and i think yes they might could change it differently but for the sole standard that you have to gather your vills and build your tc it was justified
I wouldnât call it unsportsmanlike. I would call it dumb.
You donât want to queue for 20 minutes to have a 2 minute match. Especially in Team Games it doesnât make sense cause if one team member is out that early itâs usually gg.
I think this treaty was a wise decision by the devs.
Opposed to the punishment of arabia only players, that wasnât a wise decision.
The whole thing with Fights before the first tc is dumb and unsportsmanlike. Also the timeout is a perfecr example why something had to be done instead of queueing for 20 minutes and have a 2-5 minute game
Its good they timeout them because people that leave or grief disrupting the game
Edit: just keep in mind if they want you 5 minutes in a game dw its not that much of a strech but they should Focus more on the first person that resigns or grief
As long as you also remember that you arenât the only player in existence, nor the center of the universe. If you were the only player in multiplayer, you couldnât play a single game. You need another player to play with you, and that means you need to consider their wishes and preferences as well. It seems like people decrying the devs about forcing them against their preferences, conveniently forget about this fact. Around half of the people you are likely to encounter online either donât like to play Arabia or donât want to exclusively play that map and since your multiplayer experience always depends on the cooperation of at least another player, your wishes alone can never be the end-all of the conversation.
This is why splitting the queues, even if it increases times, would at least guarantee that the person you encounter made the choice to play the same map (Arabia) as you, and those who donât want to play Arabia wouldnât be in your queue at all.
For now, however, you share a queue with others who donât prefer Arabia, and your experience depends on the willingness of other players to cooperate. If you are not willing to cooperate with them to provide the game experience they seek, why would they return that favor to you?