You say it like it doesn’t matter. To me it matters a lot becouse thats the way i like to play. Thats why even if aoe 2 De is amazing, i still prefer to play 1v1 arabia on voobly
I do not know know where to post this but Civs like Mayans and those without Stables should have one. What they can build there is the mounted pikeman and skirmishers. They mount on donkeys to make it work.
There is a unit called Eagle Warrior / Scout that plays the cavalry role for you.
I know, I understand it does matter, apologies for that.
What I mean though is, looking at
if you changed your sentence to
“I can make a 1v1 green arabia lobby and wait until someone joins and just play 10 arabia matches 6 hours long. DE gives me the option to do that”,
it would be a true statement right?
It’s the way you phrased it, it makes it sound like DE won’t let you even make a game in a lobby - or there’s no players for green arabia - or you can’t play the same map multiple times in a row in a lobby.
Again I’m not (now) even completely against some kind of lobby elo - (I probably was at the start of reading other threads).
Would you expect the majority of players (still at voobly) would move from voobly to DE if there was a lobby elo implemented? (They should probably also implement a DE profile page like with voobly with replays etc.) It would be nice as PacificWheel says to have DE bring all the communities together.
Yes I can make an UNRANKED game but come on, unranked is so boring it doesn’t make sence to play unranked
Well, that sentence is correct, to be fair the only word DE has taken away in that sentence is the word “Ranked”.
It would be so easy to implement and people that want to find a match faster, they can just search in the matchmaking.
To me, the following thread seems to be the same idea:
I just dont know anymore what is said in what thread. For me both threads are about getting some kind of rating shown in the ranked lobby. They only seems to be different in the details to me. Almost everything said here can just be said in the other thread and vice versa. Cant the threads not be merged? Am i the only one who getting confused about those two threads?
That map is mega random (you wont have guessed it by the name 11 ). You dont know what to expect. If i might give a suggestion to the map pool is it to swap MegaRandom out for another map that do makes sense. This map is already in the map pool for months and it isnt played frequentlly. Time to give us another map.
I found this was a nice escape from the wildfire of the other thread It got bit derailed into a heated debate.
Sorry, but you guessed it wrong too 11
In a previous post you sad it was MegaRandom. I reacted to the post where you said this…
Seems like you changed your opinion. I have played bogland. I can say it isnt part of the map pool and if i saw your opinion about the map i think it isnt for some good reason
But ELO is a ranking system! You cant have a ranking system not rank players. Its complete madness.
But then its not ranked - which is what most players want to play. Add the fact that most players cant see other players lobbies and his sentence makes sense - its something he had and he doesnt have anymore.
On the other hand, he can just click a button and the game will find him a match against a suitable oponent - which is great… unfortunately, he cant choose the map.
I think the right approach would be to unlimit the amount of bans you make. Like you can ban 1 map, or 4, or 6, or 7, as you wish. So you just play your favourite maps in the map pool.
Make us able to ban whatever we want
I already posted why unlimited bans arent great for matchmaking / elo. If you have unlimited bans, you get back to the situation of Voobly and HD.
This doesnt mean ranked ladder is completely fine. It really has some drawbacks. It really can have some improvements, but i think unlimited bans isnt the one of the improvements.
So what? I mean then I guess the best think for the community is everybody playing **** maps for 5 years long. Is that what you say? You want us to play maps we don’t like, do you?
I think I’d prefer different map pools you could opt for rather than unlimited bans.
As in there might be one pool of
closed maps: BF, Arena, Hillfort etc, (maybe even fortress regicide?),
open maps: Arabia, Serengeti, acropolis, ghost lake, maybe highlands/lombardia etc.
water/hybrid: Islands, Baltic/Mediterranean, Cross (Four lakes), Scandinavia etc
You could have a separate ELO for each of the pools. I think it’d be best not to make too many separate ratings, and I’d still prefer it to be a pool without not unlimited bans.
->It’s just an idea for matchmaking that could make some players a bit happier if something had to change.
As another random idea for an alternate to elo in a lobby, you could do an XP system - as in like how fps games tend to have, you gain XP for wins, don’t lose points for a loss. You could then have various rankings that way and show a win/loss ratio with the XP. I presume it could still be a reasonable way to balance teams (in terms of how experienced the players are - it’s still not on any one particular map)? Just another idea to throw out there.
I just fully disagree and It doesn’t make sense and nobody gives a **** about separete elos. I am talking about playing the map I want. Not of I want to play open maps or things like that. NO. I want to play maybe arabia with friends. Maybe i wanna play arena with friends or alone and now you can’t decide that becouse some people like you think that playing the map you like isn’t important. Well it IS very important to me becouse some maps are simply way better than others.
Have your ever thought about thinking about your wording before posting? It is not really a constructive conversation if you speak about ‘*** maps’ and ‘nobody gives a **** about …’ Even when you disagree, you still can be respectful. I just give arguments to my opinion and i got this as response? I dont think this is really polite.
There is already a lobby where you can host whatever game you want. It is not like you cant play the settings you want any more. So it is not like you cant only Arena games if you want to play only Arena.
We already have topic on this.
We are not discussing about elos.
Yeah but to be fair, you can still play the maps you want to with friends.
You just can’t do it ranked; and changing the matchmaking and ranking system from the way it is will affect more people than just you. I expect there to be compromises on both sides if changes are implemented.
There actually are far more interesting maps these days than just the ones that’ve been around since 1999 too. A lot of the tournaments in HD and DE have showcased some interesting strategies and games. Some civs even shine on these maps that wouldn’t normally on Arabia and Arena. If anything caring about the maps is caring about a large variety of maps rather than just one or two no?
I think saying ranked/elo/rated are sometimes interchangeable though.