The actual map system for ranked just gives a random map from the standard ones (previously competitive maps only). It really sucks because a lot of civs in the game rely in certain types of maps to shine. Imagine have to play portuguese in maps without water, ottoman in maps without trade route, or any rushing civ in maps that start with a outpost in base. My suggestion is to make the map visible before choosing the civ, like in the ESOC pro games, or make it similar to AOE2 ranked, with a monthly map pool where players can choose their favorites maps and the match will be played in one of the maps that players choose. More suggestions are welcome too.
I already badgered the devs for a week or two on inital release about this and I think they’ve seen the arguments but disagree. I don’t think it will be changed.
The devs argument, as far as I can tell is:
We can pick between having tighter MMR games(less disparity in skill) or have less tight MMR games with more options, maps, gametypes, etc.
Having tight MMR(which in their eyes is more fair) games AND more maps options, etc would create unsustainable queue times.
TLDR to the argument against this:
A) In custom games, there was very little difference between a rank 22 and 23 or a rank 20 and a 21. (so a wider skill disparity isn’t awful)
B) To keep it as fair as possible in almost all TAD games, players would ‘split’ the high 22/23 ranked players and the 20/21 players into different teams. With the MMR system, I don’t think this is being done which actually makes the games take longer than custom games did, even with less players on TAD.
C) We really liked playing certain maps(as you said) and not being able to play them will kill the meta(it did) into just age 2 rushing. This makes port/japan/china and others totally uncompetitive, unlike on Deccan where almost anything but Spain worked.
Obviously, I don’t know about how my arguments apply to 2v2 or 1v1 because like many others, I don’t play those modes which IMO offer less variance from game to game, which gennerally is synonymous with requiring less skill because it encourages players to build robotic/brainless ‘systems’ which don’t have to change based on the match. This was aoe3’s USP and I feel as if the devs don’t fully understand that, because forcing us into this age 2 meta limits that match variance a lot.
Since you seem interested, here are the threads I specifically made:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/developers-a-call-to-action-mutliplayer-needs-fixing/104978
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/make-a-separate-ranking-for-custom-games/104505
no please nooooo. dont do this
1 Like
no please nooooo. dont do this
yes, better to keep the current system where everyone just age 2 rushes over and over and waits 5 mins to find a game. Keep in mind this queue time will get far worse as the playerbase loses players(has lost 1000 a week for the last 5 weeks straight).
i dont have that problem. Of courser players will leave the game, the game constanly crashes
the game constanly crashes
Yes, you are right that around 50% of the time quicksearch does ‘fail to connect’ which pushes the queue time above five mins, forgot about that.
Of courser players will leave the game
TAD(The Asian Dynasties) retained 2-3k for around 15 years. This game is quickly approaching that number already…
My point being, the multiplayer systems in this game are poorly designed. Quicksearch was a failure. Failing to connect isn’t a massive issue, the multiplayer system is. We had a community in TAD because you could sit in lobbies and talk, now that’s gone with a souless ‘finding game’ screen which ironically takes longer to load than TAD took with less players.
As for hard crashing out of the game, I very rarely see that now from myself or my allies/opponents any more.
idk what u are talking about
im talking about that game crashes when destroying buildings and fishersships
I’m sorry but you already mentioned the KO criterion for your own argument. This game has not enough players for more options. Full Stop. I was around pr 21/22 and I played mostly team games. I am in the top 500 team players rn, which is a strong indicator for the lack of players.
im talking about that game crashes when destroying buildings and fishersships
I don’t think crashes happen that often, that’s just what I’ve observed from multiplayer.
I do however see ‘failing to connect’ in multiplayer pretty often.
Oh also don’t get me started on people being AFK at the start of the game because the devs didn’t put in a accept button for quicksearch.
This game has not enough players for more options.
Yes, that’s my point. They don’t have enough players to add in extra variation for quicksearch.
They should allow us to do custom games like in TAD instead, the time to find a match was much quicker AND we had the ability to pick for ourselves what we wanted to play.
People don’t seem to realize the multiplayer ‘ship’ is quickly sinking. Their retention rate isn’t high enough. They really need to consider why custom worked for 15 years and why nobody played quicksearch in TAD.
Just because you force a system on people doesn’t mean they’re suddenly going to like it more.
1 Like