I mostly play 2v2 and 3v3s and I never dodge and our opponents also almost never dodge or quit (maybe every 10+ games someone dodges the queue - afk even a lot more rare). I dont mind the current system too much - the mappool could be more varied - like add BoA maps to the mappool while BoA is going on or any other tournament. I would also like to play some of the Terra Nova maps or HC maps etc.
And you are currently already w8ting quite a while to find a game - so ideas like infinite bans will increase overall w8ting time a lot and also disencourage players to learn different maps. When I started I also wanted to only play standard maps but I noticed quite fast how much fun the variety of strategy on different maps is by playing them and seeing people doing weird stuff on them.
Imagine asking this basic question after we discussed this multiple times already. You’re just looping in your head.
Suggesting a lobby which doesn’t allow to rank and doesn’t give me any basic feature ranked should provide, fair and reliable matchmaking. Not everyone has your elo and can play with 1100’s every moment. Also this would obviously distract players from MM so in the end the downsides are similar to just introducing opt-in mm but without any of the benefits, you are directly pulling players away from mm.
Opt-in MM with limited map pool =/= a lobby. You never have to wait alone in a lobby, you can queue for multiple maps, the map pool encourages diversity. You just fearmonger with your nonsense statements.
So disingenuous. Always so concerned with the devs time when you don’t agree with the suggestion lol.
At least you mention that the lobby doesn’t allow to rank. But then still you suggest the lobby which will directly pull players away from ranked and make queue times longer, which was your initial concern with max bans/opt-in… It really makes no sense to say such nonsense.
Well as far as lobbys goes there are no limits to how you want to play it but its not a make wish were you only want to play one map and certainly not ideal for ranked as right now if ranked would exist it would need opt in or maybe just every map as counting aswell as a way to calculate an mm for lobby ranked but in no shape or form should the actually ranked be limited by people who mostly wanna play one and make ranked adjust to them people should adjust to the maps and learn the concept of map diversity
I can recognize a good point when it’s made for a position I oppose.
The only thing I have to say on the subject, is that if the population who wanted specific maps could go to an effective lobby system instead of being thrown into Matchmaking, it’d vastly improve the health of the queue. That, and it’d allow the matchmaking system to be more varied in map selection, as opposed to having the same four maps every week. The lack of a public option holds back the potential of the Matchmaking queue as much, or as more as one might think it’d undermine it by existing.
yeah, limiting how people play ranked makes sense. there is no point in having 4v4 90min treaty michi games in the same ranking as 1v1 socotra or deathmatch or empire wars. so we all think there should be some limits as to what constitutes ranked queue.
I like the current system because it gives:
-quick
-evenly matched games
-on a variety of maps
so what is your proposal to improve this?
-ranked lobbies have the issue of propbably needing loads of different ratings for different game modes etc. making fair matches harder to find, and drain people from the current queue
-unrestricted bans make queues longer and give people strange elo boosts when their favourite map is in the rotation. not to mention that we don’t know how much investment this requires from the dev team
I wonder how many people are actually frustrated by the current system, or if this is just a very vocal minority
Does infinite bans change anything for you personally? No, it doesn’t. If you don’t use it.
Lobby is not a replacement for ranked. Lobby doesn’t have ELO, so it’s not suitable to find equally skilled opponent.
Saying that other games doesn’t have infinite bans is irrelevant too. Arabia alone provides more variations than whole SC2 ranked map pool for the last several years.
And final note. If people can’t play game the way they want, they’re just leaving. Reducing playerbase and increasing queue times.
the dev team has limited time. if it was that easy to change they would have probably tried it already. so if they decide to implement this instead of bugfixes, balance updates etc. then yes, it does affect me
I didn’t claim it is a full replacement. but it certainly works as a partial replacement: if you don’t like the current map pool, or just want to play a specific map you can use to play. put the desired elo of your opponent in the lobby name and you can find matches. or search for opponents who share your preferences in the discords of pro players.
I didn’t mention any other games
if they are the same people who are currently dodging maps, good riddance if they are gone
my point is that we are all ok with some limits, you are deliberately ignoring my points. (also michi is a map)
it wouldn’t give matches as quickly. and not sure about the evenly matched part either, but this second part is speculation.
while we are speculating:
the kind of person who dodges because they don’t like the map will also quit early if they don’t like the civ matchup, map gen, boar lure or any other petty reason.
cool, we agree on that.
the current elo means exactly what it is designed to mean: your estimated performance against an opponent within the current map pool.
a) i’m not complaining
b) i wonder if it’s a good idea to invest a lot of dev time in a new matchmaking system, its testing, roll-out, bugfixes, perf assessments, etc if most people are happy with it. don’t fix something that isn’t broken
Some limits are needed indeed. For example every map needs to be from the game aoe2. (I hope I properly acknowledge your amazing point now.)
If you include things which are not maps then me specifying maps still stands.
It’s like you did not even read my post. You really disqualify yourself from any credibillity. If map dodging isn’t necessary anymore then you will get into games faster on average, queues for some niche maps will be longer.
(And obviously you ignore the fundamental point that getting into games fast is irrelevant if you don’t enjoy the map…)
That would happen under any system, so a completely irrelevant (and imaginary) point. So dishonest.
If you argue that opt-in/max bans would “give strange elo boosts when favourite map is in rotation”, you already assume that the current average elo is an “ideal” measurement for matching on a specific map. No it isn’t. Average is just average, not related to any specific map within the pool. Players can still play mainly one map by favoriting or avoid maps they don’t like by banning and dodging, so there would be no significant difference in elo accuracy when you allow full control over maps.
If you actually care about elo accuracy then you would argue for elo to be calculated into seperate open/closed/hybrid ladders (not to be confused with seperate map pools).
Most people don’t even have a clue about details and what the alternative could bring so “most people being happy” is meaningless. The system is broken, it does not respect map preferences and causes map dodging. They actually needed to come up with an entire punishment system to make it somewhat work, talking about wasted dev time. It’s not acceptable when there is a proper alternative and the current system is forcing extreme subjective limitations.
And wow you’re so considerate of dev time when you don’t agree with the idea… Trying to downplay this major issue is so delusional. You can’t even form one significant argument.
Says the person who supports dictating how others play the game.
It is an assesment of the content of your post, it’s not too personal.
Honestly i dont care about opt-in or whatever diversity is good all maps should be played and there is a reason why there is timeout system because there is no need to dodge a map over personal preferences
Doesnt change there shouldt be only 1 map that dictates the game but rather a whole bunch and one we can navigate certain descisions from not like arabia wil ever obsolete
Wrong i mean yes we all try to make the game healthy however it might work but honestly it shouldt be dictated by one map and fun shouldt be taken by dodging
Also we dont wanna limit how people should play or what they shouls play we actually try ro make it so its less dodging and more healthy variables
There are arguments made from me in this topic and in several topics before but it seems you conclude that noob bashing is a better idea then constructive critism. Also so what if you can beat me on every map i have fun playing alot of maps and not just the same ones over and over. But rather keep to yourself before insulting me as a noob for no reason
No i dont and honestly i only try to contribute to a healthier system
Never said it never tryd to be like that but nice ad homien
There is one map which represents 75% of the pickrate at high Elo.
BUT the current system enables ANYONE to ban this map and force the match to happen on a map with 2% pickrate.
As said, you and the devs live in an alternate reality where people want to play all kinds of maps, and yet absolutely no stat reflects that, and yet you just claim it as if it was obvious.
The problem is that the people who are affected by this problem, have already left the game.
The Arabia crowd is already satisfied with the current system. because it’s an Arabia-only queue basically. Except that you have to Alt-F4 once in a while.
And the diversity crowd, are satisfied because they have the most favourable system that they could dream of.
The real victims of the current system, are the BF and Arena players, or more generally those who want to play exclusively 1-2 maps that are not Arabia. Now they are playing in the lobby and enjoy getting stomped by smurfs due to the malfunctioning Elo system, or they have left I guess.
But you won’t hear these guys complain, because after three years of hopelessly waiting, they know devs absolutely don’t care about them. Not like this was a surprise - Arena map script was bugged for 6 months after release, BF was butchered by the onager cutting trees change and countless stupid changes aiming at making the map more competitive. While we’re at it, let’s also remember those DM players who once had a chance to play their mode in ranked but nope, screw you too.
From 1v1 perspective: Arabia crowd is not satisfied. Many Arabia 1v1’s grinders have multiple accounts to bypass Requeue ban timer. With “in the future” single account limitation this would end up 5min afking/sem-playing. Way more wasted time for a players actually “WANTING TO BE IN THE GAME”.
From TG perspective: players dodge left and right, pull the LAN plugs and just semi-play until they can quit without punishment.
People supporting multi map diversity seem to have massive misunderstanding. People who like to play specific maps, they do not care about queue time nor Rank. Dodgers are willing to sacrifice queue time or rank to just play the game like they want.
And you can bring up whatever philosophical and moral reasons why its wrong. But in the end those useless words have 0 effect to those peoples actions in real life.
This is a perfect description of the issue in my opinion. I’m a BF player and have been since 2013, I was slow to make the switch from HD and Voobly to DE because of the state of the DE lobby system (can’t filter by map in the browser and no elo) and the fact you can’t pick the map you want to play in ranked.
Eventually I made the switch in 2021 because overall it was worth it but, still even now in 2022, it is more difficult for me to find or host balanced BF games than it was ever for me to do in HD or Voobly. I’m not saying DE is not the better game overall, because it is, but it is a worse experience trying to get a decent balanced BF game than it was with previous game versions.
I still have at least 20+ friends who refuse to leave HD and Voobly simply because its so much more of a pain to get balanced BF games. They would rather wait for longer with less players than make the switch to an inferior lobby browser or give up the elo feature not present in DE custom lobbies. I just find the whole situation sad because DE was supposed to finally be the version that united everyone.
I continue to support DE and buy the DLC in hopes the investment leads to further multiplayer improvements as I know dev work is time consuming and expensive. I would gladly pay for the game 5 more times over just to get a better system for BF players and others like us.
So why are you arguing about it again? Swing-and-a-miss.
I don’t measure the health of the queue strictly by numbers of players. I consider firstly and foremost whether or not players are broadly happy with the experience. A good experience will lead to a growing use, whereas a bad experience will lead to it’s shrinking. Removing the incentive to alt-f4 by bolstering the parallel public match option will lead to a better experience, period.
In any case… you have long ago left the purpose of reasonable and honest discussion, throwing accusations upon anyone who disagrees with you or straight up calling people incompetent. Stop that. I run a great deal of my games out of public lobbies, believe it or not, and I’m used to doing so because up until DE that was the only option and the fact that you’d accuse me of simply sentencing the arabia crowd to have to endure it because I don’t care is missing the mark to say the least.
