I’m sure we’ve all thought or seen this suggestion before, yet I still feel the need to put it on the table.
I don’t see the point in forcing people to play maps they don’t want to play. Some of them will ragequit the game, some of them will be tilted, some of them will play it half-assedly. Why not just let people choose the map they want to play ? Forcing diversity is never good, and the map pool isn’t even that diverse anyway. Those who want to play all maps can still choose to do so.
You can play the same one map over and over again.
In a place called lobby: your game, your rules.
You are welcome.
I know.
Thousand time someone asking the same thing for 5 years.
Wont happen.
No reason not to. Just because it didn’t happen before doesn’t mean it never will.
It’s matchmaking. If you limited the maps you limit the number of potential matches.
That reduces the speed and quantity of matches.
Either you have to wait longer to find someone or get someone with a higher ELO difference or worse ping.
And it also affects others since they also can’t match you because of incompatible map lists. In team games the issue is even bigger.
If they limit the number of bans to less then half the maps then you can match with everyone in 1v1.
You can play the exact map you want to play by creating a lobby. As far as ranked goes, its a matchmaking system and if everyone are given 7-8 bans queue times could be extremely long. Maybe 1 more ban can be given when number of ranked players increase by quite a bit.
I think that’s a trade-off I and many others are aware off and would be willing to accept
I have to disagree. Everyone is pretty much willing to do something, until the consequences appears to be worse than expected. There are two possibilities: a) they are too dumb to see how better this idea is or b) they have data to support their “tyranny” and are not willing to share it.
As I am not their employee, I have no access to any data and have no idea which option is true 
But every person using too many bans would make the queue times for people with less bans longer too.
Also if you are able to ban more maps then most people will just do it without thinking about the consequences.
There is a reason why no game allows you to ban many maps.
In team games maybe but 1v1 would not be affected that much.
sorry, couldn’t help myself
I don’t think it’s that simple:
Arabia is still by far the most popular map. So most people would see no impact.
Additionally some people (like me) would come back to ranked, I just don’t have the time to learn 4 or 5 different maps. More people means shorter queue times.
Furthermore I think queue dodging would be rarer. This would not only lead to better games, but also the dodgers tend to get timed-out. Fewer timeouts means more players in queue, again means shorter queue times.
Lastly I think most of us are ok with longer queue times if it means we get to play maps we enjoy. If you were to not pick any bans your queue times should remain unchanged
It’s easiest to implement
It will never happen
Invalidates the entire motive of a ranked mode.
Right now there is at least one map that neither player 1 nor player 2 have banned, so everyone can play against everyone. This allows the Elo value to continue and the system to be balanced.
I think the current ranked system is far too noob friendly, even.
Maps should be divided by category (open, closed, nomad, water, hybrid) with mini ban & draft.