Yes you are right! Ques will go longer with more map bans.
But also map dodging will drop significantly. Personally id rather wait few more min in que than have people dodge map by 5min afking or LAN cable unplugging…
If you change the 5min timer… people will still find a way to abuse the “new timer”. Thats just how creative people are who do not want to do what they are pressured to do… Simple human behavior.
Do you prefer to wait more to play a map you like, and not to have someone quit or dodge.
Or you prefer to play maps you don’t want to play, take the drops and/or force others to play what they don’t want to.
More maps in the pool, and more bans.
The two fixes it.
I’m not asking for 8 bans in a 9 maps pool.
Im asking for 5 bans in a 14 maps pool.
It’s 8 possible maps vs 9 possible maps.
But let’s you choose better.
You can finally ban arabia, nomad, black forest and arena at the same time and play other maps!!
Don’t bring me the “unfair” thing because ain’t, in a 14 maps pool you have open, closed, water, anything.
Also, S tier tournaments are played in many different maps we never see in the pool.
And there are so many maps for AoE2!! Come onnnnnnn
This actually makes a lot of sense. More Maps and more Bans…
People who want fast ques, would not use all the available bans and would play variate of maps from open to closed to hybrid.
People who would only like to play selected maps and use all the available bans, would have to stay in que longer.
Its easy to crasp… you use more bans, your que is longer, you use less bans, you get games fasters.
Some people would like to have games fast, whatever the map. Some people would like to wait in que for 10-15min for maps they specifically like and chose to play.
As said, I am all for more maps, but am afraid most alt-f4’s only like one setting.
14 maps probably implies more arabia like maps (arabia, runestone, lombardia, haboob, serengti, land madness, lowland, highland,…) and more nomad like maps (nomad, land nomad, afrucan clearing). And seeing how people react when the rotation gets arabia+runestones+nomad+africanclearing, I am skeptical.
Still, worth a try for sure. Hopefully I am wrong…
People who only want to play certain maps will always find a way to not properly play maps they do not like… For them its not about games per hour.
Like i brought up on OP. There are multiple ways to dodge, some more time consuming, some less. At the of day people will figure out to beat any anti-dodging mechanic. And people who will suffer, are the other participants on that particular game.
This would be a ‘fix’ if the matchmaking system sorts people by “Maps available” first and “elo rating” second.
Currently I believe it matches people “Elo” then “Maps available”. It doesn’t look at maps until similar elo is found. If both favourited maps are banned they get a random one of what is left.
So if you literally just add more map bans under the current system it can find people of similar elo and then see that they have no maps in common (each banned everything except their favourite - which was different to eachother). What happens in this scenario for you? Does it drop the matchmaking and just roll the dice again? Does it just pick one of the favourites and ignore the other players map bans?
Your fix needs more to it. I think you want
matchmaking to be based on map preference first
Then elo similar second.
Problems with doing this, it doesn’t seem simple. I think it effectively makes multiple match making systems/queues. I don’t know how easy or what resources is required for this. But lets say it’s not frivolous since they can’t run matchmaking for RM EW and DM modes all at the same time. They only can manage 4, currently RM 1v1 + team and EW 1v1 + team.
Perhaps you think it better that people get the same map and it doesn’t matter the elo difference? Or that it checks if the elo is in range (like it currently checks what maps are free) and that if the elo difference is too big it drops the matchmaking and rolls the dice again?
At the very least the current system finds two players of similar elo that are guaranteed to have a map free. Which to be fair is the bare minimum for a matchmaking system imo.
The current system relies on the mutual willingness of two or more players to play on the maps in a pool. If you like Nomad but only run into the arabia-only crowd, and they don’t want to play on your map, you won’t get to play. It takes two to tango - it cannot just be about the wishes of one person.
If we abandon the idea that, to keep the system functional, where we all agree to sometimes play maps that we wouldn’t have picked for others, in return for which others will play our preferred maps, then the system breaks down.
Essentially the entire issue we are having right now is created by people who prefer to selfishly prioritize their own wishes and completely disregard those of others. People that are okay playing other maps aren’t inclined to alt-f4, after all - they’ll just play them. Then map dodgers (not saying OP is one) come here to cry about all the map dodging, proposing that, in order to solve the problem map-dodgers themselves caused , we should break the system even more by having more map bans, which essentially encourages this whole “my map or no map”-mentality.
I don’t care if “you only have time for one game, etc.” You may very well be matched against someone who also only has time for one game, but is playing it on your map, perhaps not their preference. It isn’t an argument to destroy matchmaking with map dodging. Multiplayer in essence always concerns the preferences of more than one person and if we allow a selfish “my map or no map”-mentality to run the show, I guarantee you it will harm the online scene.
You really doesnt seem to know how the current match making system work.
Currently you have 9 maps in the pool and at most 8 players. So if all players ban a different map, then there is always a map left. So you can just match 8 players and there is always an unbanned map.
To achieve the same in the case of 5 bans you need at least 41 maps in the map pool. Currently the matching is done based on elo (and probably server too). With less then 41 maps in the map pool you need another constraint. You can’t just put 8 players (or less for 2v2 or 3v3) together and pick a map. Now you also need to make sure that there is at least a map available for a that group of players. Add more constraints to the system means more waiting time. And the waiting time is already bad.
Many dodgers seems to be one trick pony’s. They want to play just one map only. In your solution you still have 9 possible maps, which is still more then the just 1.
I give you this point. I really love to see tournament maps into the map pool as well, but i think it is better to have a small map pool wherein these maps rotate, then having a big map pool with these maps all the time.
People really need to learn new maps, so dont really add many at the same time. Just introduce 1-2 maps at most at the same time, but let them appear regularly in the voting after the introduction or something like that. We dont really need a big map pool to also play these great tournament maps.
The amount of dodging really went down since they introduce the punishment system. At least that is my experience. The only tweak i want to see on the rule is that if one player quits early, all others are allowed to leave early. This way you dont have to sit out the 5 minute if you have a bad team mate.
And a general reply to this thread, not as quote to an specific user:
Many dodgers for some reason dont understand that match making isntt meant for playing one map only. It is a ranked environment with certain rules. So it is about overall quality, not just about one map only. If you want to play one map only, then you can host this in the lobby. So these dodgers should move from ranked to the lobby. That is the only real solution for this issue.
I agree with your mentality, only thing I add is that the people who only want to play 1 map typically have come from before DE where they would play in Ranked Lobbies. So they got to only play their map, and gain elo, and keep teams somewhat balanced.
So I think the issue is trying to transpose that over to a matchmaking system. Matchmaking can’t be that, and shouldn’t be that imo. But they don’t have the same lobby system as before, and I’m not sure they’d use it even if it does have all the features of voobly. Because lets face it, pressing a button and getting a game is ways easier than setting up lobbies.
But matchmaking isn’t lobbies no matter how much people want it to be, and so here we are - upset. On all sides.
I think the devs could be encouraged to trying out new ‘solutions’ such as these. Try for one month with map bans, see how people like it or what the activity is like.
I also agree that sitting in the queue for a long time is the likely outcome from this, but if someone ALT+f4s then you’re still technically sitting in the queue for a ‘real match’, so to speak.
I’d say the only actual negative is losing out on those matches where someone is just 'aw i didn’t want to play this map, ugh but i guess i’ll play it ', instead of quitting. Not sure how big that number is though!
I’d personally like to see ranked lobbies become a thing (from BF perspective), but keep it separate from ranked TG matchmaking. Or, in fact, turn back on unranked rating! It was such an unnecessary thing to stop from being tracked. It wasn’t perfect, but it was something. I’m glad AoE2 net is still tracking it in a way (there’s no ladder, but your unranked rating still changes that you can see in the lobby view).
And well, I guess a con of that is maybe ppl in ranked BF lobbies would just eternally play the same Mongol-Celt-Spanish-Bohemians/Britons all over. Maybe the ranked lobbies could have pre-sets such as Random civ too?
I would like to share an idea about this.
Considering to move EW on ranked lobbies (just like DM), we should have 4 map pools spots.
Pool 1) 1v1 with 6 maps (arabia, runestones, black forest, arena, fortress, hideout)
max. 4 bans, so players can just play the way they prefer (open or closed maps)
Pool 2) TG with 6 maps (as above)
max. 4 bans as above, doesn’t matter whether you queque up alone or with friends for 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4
Pool 3) 1v1 with 8/10 maps (nomad, land nomad, megarandom, islands, african clearing, etc, basically hybrid and not “standard” maps)
I would leave half pool base maps as fixed (nomad, megarandom, islands and a couple of other maps) and make people vote for the other 5 as we have been doing now.
max. 4/5 bans for each player (half of the pool base)
Pool 4) TG with 8/10 maps as above
max. 4/5 bans as above, doesn’t matter if you queque up alone for 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4
Of course this may lead to a bit higher waiting time but it should also lead to avoid people dodging a bit more.