After you find a match, ever player hs 30s to make a hidden civ ban.
After that the bans are revealed, you get to nomral 60s to pick your civ from the remaining civs. the full random civ you vote for is not selected by that, so if everbobdy is random, the ban doesn’t effect that.
to combat higher dodging: if you dodge after the civ reveal, everybody in your party gets the 5min ban!
What do you guys think?
Any Improvments?
I feel it may sometimes cause no-game like how dropping is now (e.g. dropping after the game starts. but players will be forced to accept civ bans every time, so it won’t be a problem, is it?).
And 30 secs isn’t enough to choose a civ, but 2 mins is too long. You need to think civ selecting (thinking and clicking) times.
Ranked match need some improvement, but it seems a long way to success.
I also have some ranked idea. I’m thinking new map pool; categolizing maps as Open, Semi open, mounted, hybrid, water, nomad, closed, and chaos, then picking maps randomly from each types one by one. We will be able to fun a variety of maps.
This can’t happen because by that moment you will know who is your opponent (by using 3rd party applications), so you will be able to know his favorite civ/civs.
Favors people who hate playing against a specific civ, but rather detrimental to players who main a single civ. Especially if they face up against an opponent who uses 3rd party software to identify them and then bans their favorite civ because it is their favorite civ. It could get really problematic for some people. (“Facing Hoang - insta-ban Celts!”). And it’s possible that certain top civs would be the target of frequent bans (which would again be problematic for people who main those civs). And it would also require adjusting the random selection option to avoid banned civs. And playing a single civ is a piece of advice sometimes given to newer players.
I think that it would just be a nuisance to some people (some of whom will dodge based on it, similar to how players dodge based on map choice). And some people won’t even use it. And if somebody dislikes a civ enough to ban it, they’ll likely dislike more than 1 civ in this way. But adding more bans just raises the chance of the aforementioned issues showing up (of players having their main civ perma-banned). So I don’t think adding civ bans to ranked would be beneficial.
Tournaments often have bans (which helps ensure that a single OP civ can’t be used to dominate - as an obviously OP civ will often get perma-banned), but in ranked, a consistent strong civ choice is going to be reflected in a player’s ELO (which is used to create matches that are relatively even).
Actually, it would be enough to copy the Dota system, I think. Each player selects 4 civs to ban, after which the system randomly selects 4 civs from the 8 indicated and bans them.
After that the players choose from the remaining ones.