This is why allowing 4 bans per player with 6 maps in the pool will not work.
The vast majority of problems are caused by arabia (most popular map) players hating closed maps and arena (2nd most popular map) players hating open maps. Having both in the same pool does not really help. However, I like the direction you are going in.
How about categorizing all the maps (available in AoE2) as open, closed, hybrid, water, nomad, etc. and have separate queues for all of them. Players who want a specific map should select the queue that contains their map and favorite it. That way, even if someone gets a map that was not what they wanted, it won’t play out too differently from what they wanted. Players who want to be quickly matched should be allowed to queue up for as many of these separate queues as they want.
This was just an idea to divide most picked maps and hybrid maps. It might also be Hideout and Arena (with Arabia and Runestones) only tho. In that way 2 bans would allow players to choose between closed or open maps
I agree with all the points. Just thought about half pool bans for each player so (for example) one player who wants to play Arabia only, he’ll have to wait till he finds a team (or a single opponent in case of 1v1) who didn’t ban Arabia.
Longer queque for sure but at least he will get the map he wants at the end.
For sure TG elo reset should be a priority tho
In 4v4, there are 8 players. 1 ban each player = 8 bans. So with 9 maps you always have 1 map available. So, if you give 5 bans per player = 40 bans, thus you need 41 maps. Does you smart brain understand now???
Give people unlimited bans/opt-in. Match based on maps before elo.
If a player thinks queue times are too long for a specific map then they select more maps, this is a self balancing system. If necessary each map could be selected by default each time you open MM.
Everyone who is willing to wait for whatever map should be allowed to do so. Entire tournaments and communities are formed around specific maps. To portray playing what someone enjoys in a game as selfish is beyond ridiculous.
Exactly. The least they can do is experiment with this.
Perhaps not every month, but it’s not like these suggestions are new either. They can absolutely add new solutions to playtest every couple of months. Having more map bans for example is likely just a matter of changing a few variables, not something that takes ages.
Ranked lobbies are already present for DM and they can develop it further for a general ranked lobby. That’s something I’d expect to take maybe a few months, but this has also been suggested several times prior so I’d like to also start seeing some solutions soon. The reason we won’t is likely just because the devs don’t want to do this, hence my point - you won’t know what works best until you try it. Map bans for example can absolutely be done very quickly for a test run for a month.
We don’t need to have evidence of something that is blatantly obvious to a casual onlooker to claim it is true. Many map bans distort balance, rankings, and play rate to an extreme degree. What you, and the players like you want, is an improved public ladder to allow players to find people at their elo to play a map and settings of their liking. Matchmaking isn’t the place for that. It isn’t the place for that in any game ever and the fact that the players who play this game and want it to be that do not understand that is far more damaging to the Matchmaking system than any perceived flaw therein.
@Morgathor pretty much made me unnecessary in this thread, tbh. It’s hard to earn a like from me doing anything less.
Lobbies or no lobbies. Thats all just theoretical and philosophical whats morally right and whats wrong. How people “SHOULD” play the game. All that are just words.
In reality people will still play ranked like they want, not like it is designed. “People do stuff differently than it was initially designed… Mild shock.jpg” If they only want to play few selected maps, then thats what they will do… It does not matter for them if its for best interest to game desing or not.
With more bans yes ques get longer for people who use all the bans, thats the trade-off. People who like short ques, can play with less bans or no bans at all.
More maps bans means you don’t just match people on skill and then pick an available map. It means you have to match people on skill and non banned maps. This is adding an extra constraint, which is more work then just changing variables.
This looks like a small change, but other small changes aren’t made either. TG rating is broken since the release. People already came up with how to change the calculation. That seems like just altering a some simple lines as well. But the devs still haven’t done it yet. Given this experience I don’t really think the devs have so much spare time to test thinks out.
I have no idea why the devs have taking out unranked. Because that is just were you asking for. The name is strange, but it seems to me you ask for such system. It will be fine if they add that again to the lobby. But people didn’t really like it that much. It has the same drawbacks as the lobby at HD or Voobly. Adding something like unranked back to the lobby should be more like an ‘alter some variables’ thing.
Currently people already have two options to play the game.
Ranked is to get into a quick balanced game in a more competitive setting with a rule set (map pool, map bans, …).
The lobby is for people with much stronger preferences which doesn’t fit ranked (no map pool, just pick whatever map you like, also free to pick whatever settings you like), for playing with and against friends, for clan games, tournament games, …
Yeah, there is also quick play, but that seems to me a failure from the launch. So I if ignore that mode for now. I have never understand why the devs have added that mode as well. There isn’t really any one who things ‘i like ranked but I don’t want to have balanced games’. As result it is pretty much death.
Based on your preference you can pick where you want to play. If you only want to play Black Forest team games, then don’t join ranked, but play in the lobby. If you only want to play 1v1 Arabia and nothing else, then also go to the lobby. If these player do decide to play in ranked, then they are the ones who playing at the wrong spot to me.
You can pick whatever setting you like in the lobby. You have the complete freedom about your map pick. So I have no idea why people who better fit in the lobby don’t want to play there, but want to change ranked.
Some people still think that ranked should bend to their will but as i currently see it its fine and my main concern is if there would be more bans or opt in it would take even longer in higher elo to find games
Also yea i agree for people with strong preferences the lobby should be perfect but then again some things are still missing like an elo thats shown for lobby ranked games ( dedicated ranked lobby games missing aswell) and i think then all should be fine