Should the ladder get a ban draft?

[TrustyCarp27706]

@Gaturro7777

let ppl play whatever they want and you can choose whatever you want

Who told you they won’t be able to play whatever they want?

[WoodsierCorn696]

@TrustyCarp27706

If you are 700 ELO player or don’t play ranked at all then you don’t have the right to say no because you don’t care about the fair play.

What is this for weird statement? A 700 Elo player should also enjoy the game. It is not like only the pro scene has a voice or something like that. The game is for everyone.

To be clear: i am not 700 elo or lower. But i think this statement makes no sense at all. Also they should have a voice.

@TrustyCarp27706

GETTING A BAN DRAFT SYSTEM IN RANKED IS A MUST RIGHT NOW.

Why? I havent seen a good reason yet.

[Pulikesi25]

@TrustyCarp27706

Just as a conclusion, adding a ban draft will not change anything except for the better, devs will havw many informations and feedbacks why X and Y civs were banned a lot, it will help them to balance the game. Also this will not prevent players from picking civs, all players will still be able to play whatever they want.

I have nothing against a ban draft or additional options for ranked play. New options, new system is always welcoming. But I don’t want a system where everyone just picks Franks, Mayans and bans some of their potential competitor civs, say Poles, Lithuanians or Gurjaras.

@TrustyCarp27706

The multiplayer is the most important part in the game, if the devs keep adding civs like no tomorrow it will be a Titanic and disaster, not a good thing as they think. More civs means more imblanaced stats so more players will even stop playing AOE2 multiplayer due to the unfair match ups.

Just to make a fast conclusion; let them add 1000 more civs but not a single one should be in Ranked. And we really need a ban draft system in Ranked; 5 bans would be good start.

This comment is what I was replying to and I have even quoted it. Devs have been adding two or three new civs per year and almost all of them are amazing for ranked play. How is it not dumb to just simply say that new civs will cause imbalance and unfair matchups. Right now the strongest civs on most settings are the oldest ones. New ones stay strong for a few months and then get balanced.

@TrustyCarp27706

You also may say “if you don’t like new content don’t buy it or back to 1999” or whatever, this is also dumb because if I didn’t get the strong civs or buy them then this will reduce my chance to get fair match up in the ladder because I don’t have all the civs, so for sure I will be forced to buy them.

I’m merely suggesting that if you feel a lot of civs is overwhelming, you have an option to play competitive age of empires on voobly with the old civs only. You mentioned that none of the new civs should be in the ranked. And I suggested that since some of my former buddies from the 2000s were not interested in coming back to the game because they felt like there were too many civs and bonuses to learn. So we played on voobly a few months ago in the old version. There are still a lot of players who play that version. Its more like a recommendation and not like throwing something offensive at you.

@TrustyCarp27706

You also may say “if you don’t like new content don’t buy it or back to 1999” or whatever, this is also dumb because if I didn’t get the strong civs or buy them then this will reduce my chance to get fair match up in the ladder because I don’t have all the civs, so for sure I will be forced to buy them.

The strongest civs on every map, every setting are ones from 1999. If you don’t buy any of the DLCs and played only the pre-2010 civs, you can still totally compete with any of the new civs in every single map and setting.

[TrustyCarp27706]

@WoodsierCorn696

Why? I havent seen a good reason yet.

You didn’t see a good reason? Can you tell me why we have ban draft in the tournaments? Because it is so clear the civs are not well balanced and many civs are very hard to deal with so have a ban choice will bring a fair play. Also as long as we are getting more civs, the balance will always be harder so having a ban draft is really a necessity right now. If you think all the civs are fine and well balanced then this is not my problem since you can’t see the situation here.

[Zelley00]

@TrustyCarp27706

Who told you they won’t be able to play whatever they want?

Because many people only want to play a single civ. If their civ gets banned, they wont be able to pkay it even though they want.

That is why I think too many civ bans will annoy many players. If you can only ban one civ, they will be more willing to learn a second “backup” civ than having to learn 10 civs. There is nothing wrong not wanting to master all civs.

@TrustyCarp27706

Also this will not prevent players from picking civs, all players will still be able to play whatever they want.

What do you mean ? AFAIK banning a civ prevent the other player from playing this civ.

@TrustyCarp27706

Can you tell me why we have ban draft in the tournaments? Because it is so clear the civs are not well balanced and many civs are very hard to deal with so have a ban choice will bring a fair play

I think it is also to increase the civ variety and to allow mind games. In the finals there are more bans than in the previous rounds and qualifiers. Some players are also unconfortable playing against some specific civs

The number of bans is decided by the host, not the players. The players should now better what is stronger at their level. And if we knew that 10 civs are OP, why wouldnt we just globally ban these civs instead of letting each player guess which civs are the strongest ones ?

The only way to give fair play is mirror picking. I am sure there are no 2 civs whose matchup has a consensus of perfect 50/50.

There is a consensus amomg pros that the civs are overall fairly well balanced for non competitive play at their level on arabia. For competitive if they think a civ has 50.5% win rate over all civs, they will pick this civ 100% of the time. But 49.5% win rate isnt a bad odd either.

@TrustyCarp27706

You also may say “if you don’t like new content don’t buy it or back to 1999” or whatever, this is also dumb because if I didn’t get the strong civs or buy them then this will reduce my chance to get fair match up in the ladder because I don’t have all the civs, so for sure I will be forced to buy them.

What is a fair top 3 civs for you on arabia ? on arena ? on nomad ? on megarandom ?

Do you pick something like Malians on ever arabia game and turcs on every arena game ?

@TrustyCarp27706

GETTING A BAN DRAFT SYSTEM IN RANKED IS A MUST RIGHT NOW.

It is not a must, it is a nice to have. Overstatements often makes you lose credibility…

[TrustyCarp27706]

@Zelley00

Because many people only want to play a single civ. If their civ gets banned, they wont be able to pkay it even though they want.

That is why I think too many civ bans will annoy many players. If you can only ban one civ, they will be more willing to learn a second “backup” civ than having to learn 10 civs. There is nothing wrong not wanting to master all civs.

No. Even if their civs banned they will still able to play it because the match making system will still goes on until they match a player who didn’t ban their civ, it is exactly same map ban system that we have already.