I am pretty sure map-based matching will put me to face people with ±400 elo (I am ~2k elo) for niche maps… so I pretty dislike it as a diversity crowd.
I can understand some points from people loving to play BF/Arena only, but people leaving the game is weird to me tbh… wont the diversity crowd leave the game as well? It is not like I will be able to play Socorta if I am Socorta main, if there is unlimited ban in ranked.
I mean, people will just play Arabia / Arena / BF at the end if there is unlimited ban, the other maps will be volatile af that I will probably face a 1500 ELO guy if I choose Socorta only, we may as well delete all other maps and make 2 queues - Arabia / Arena(closed maps) queues at the end.
Sure a ranked lobby should have always been there for maps outside of the map pool, but the point is that every player that uses the lobby for regular maps is doing this at the cost of the MM system…
In your mind everything you find great about MM will remain if many will use the lobby, this is a fallacy.
There is a difference between pointing out things and being unreasonable or dishonest. Seems like you are a bit dishonest here to be fair. There is barely any proper discussion to be had because people just project their ideals and pretend this is an argument to deny others preferences. It’s really bizarre.
I also play in the lobby now and then. The point has never been that it’s impossible to get games there, even fair ones. The experience is not equal and as reliable as MM, and again, the more the lobby is used the more MM will suffer. So suggesting the lobby is a complete joke. I really don’t get it.
I think there should be a checkbox in MM that limits the elo difference with your opponent, so you can choose to wait longer in queue to increase fairness.
Opt-in/max bans is a democratic system that pleases the most amount of people. If many wanted to play socotra queue times would be short. You want to play a niche map = you wait longer in queue. What you are asking is to get a similar experience for a niche map than for a popular map, this can only go at the cost of someone elses fun.
You are right about being limited at 2k RM 1v1 level, you are top 300 including many smurf accounts. Things will be more restricted there. What you can do is spread some awareness for socotra in the discords, encourage your peers to select socotra. I don’t know what else there is to say. I don’t like mentioning the lobby but at high level for niche settings this does become viable, in these cases it does make sense to find likeminded practice partners.
You are basically saying you want something and if you don’t get it it will be boring for you, so you wanna have it. I don’t see the argument. You wanna be competitive on socotra, I respect that, but also respect others who want to be competitive elsewhere.
I think many have the idea that if they play one game on someone elses map then others will have to play one game on their favorite maps, this can be a good idea if both parties agree but cannot be forced on an entire community.
I’m not joking. You are seeing the lobby system as is, and just assuming that’s what I want, but with numbers attached. That’s why you can’t wrap your head around it. You are far too focused on your own personal gripes with the matchmaking system to consider the alternatives, or even really consider how a good public system would work.
Strictly speaking, making a new system with the features you want and need for it to work instead of overhauling a working system is how you make changes happen in a way that doesn’t make people quit. Your argument that we shouldn’t look towards improving the lobby, instead focusing on fixing your perceived issues with the queue is a fantastic way to make people unhappy. If I had everything I wanted out of the matchmaking queue, I’d have it split into map-type queues, and then totally remove all bans and preferred map choices altogether, but I’m not demanding that we make those changes to the matchmaking system and then insisting anyone who disagrees with me is some troll. So step off the idea that I’m “projecting,” and keep your misguided ideas of why someone would respond to you, to yourself, and focus on what they say, not the motive behind what they say. Doing anything else is arguing in bad faith. Doing so, and then using that self-made assumption to call people dishonest, dillusional, etc. is beyond acceptable.
???
Who says I’m against improving the lobby, they should make it ranked and do whatever else to make it better. What does that have to do with my point that a lobby can never give the same automated experience MM can?
Why would respecting map preferences be my sole perceived issue and a way to make people unhappy?.. With people do you mean those who want to control what others have to play so they can get shorter queue times? 11
Don’t say I haven’t considered how a popular lobby would behave, I used to play in one for years. You could get reliable and fair matches, however not with the same comfort of an automated system. It’s like going back in time. You ignore the main point, a popular lobby will break MM… can’t have both.
A lobby doesn’t even provide the comfort of MM so it can’t give me what I want… You can’t make multiple systems without hurting the others… Nice assumption that MM works and it doesn’t take continulously banning people because they need to do alt-f4 tricks to get enjoyment out of it. There is even a large influx of alt accounts and as a result an increased smurf problem.
looooool. That can’t even remotely be compared to what I’m saying. Opt-in/max bans provides the freedom of a lobby but then automated, I am not forcing my narrow vision, I do not control what maps will and won’t be popular. The idea isn’t even clever, it’s the most obvious system one could come up with.
I guess you mistaken then. The only argument is my second paragraph (I think losing player is not valid argument), otherwise I have no indent to provide arguments and/or convince you, as I dont think it is something to be convincable. So I didnt provide arguments, I just expressed my views.
In particular, I think most of your points regarding the issue is valid from people who want to have more control of maps they played, but I disagree with the viewpoint personally as I don’t find it fun.
You equate losing players who have reasonable expectations (good queue times for popular maps) with losing players who have less reasonable expectations (good queue times for niche maps).
Niche players can’t even go elsewhere because you probably won’t find socotra lobbies on voobly or HD, the only reason why you are getting these queues for socotra is because others are being put in it.
We can agree and disagree on what is fun to play, this is subjective. However when it comes to creating a mm system (the topic), allowing people the chance to find likeminded players should be an objective right. Because fundamentally a game is meant to enjoy yourself, this freedom was possible for 20 years. When DE was released people bought it with the idea that they could play on in the same way. Back then the details of this system weren’t made clear yet.
Nobody here is equating losing a part of the playerbase with any other part of the playerbase, except you. You are fine with making people who don’t agree with your idea of the game want to quit, as opposed to simply making the game better with more features, you continue harping on one feature you want to change, which will alienate those who disagree with you.
Unless you are making the argument that the current system is losing the players you claim are being lost to the current system (lol 73% arabia, k bro) the only person trying to make a change that will have the effect of hemorrhaging players is you. You are still doing the exact same bad faith argumentation I’ve warned you about, so we’re about to get to the point where you start getting mass flagged because you can’t have a cordial discussion. Please knock it off.
No, the point you are making is nonsense. Utter nonsense, and absolutely moot. If a popular lobby system with good mechanics and easy access comes into existence, and players migrate to it because it serves them better than the Matchmaking system, then it’ll show us that the Matchmaking system is flawed, and that’ll prove your point. Or, it’ll be an indication that the game does better when it’s hosted lobbies as opposed to playing with a whole load of presets, so long as the lobby system is done well. What I care about is players. If the players migrate to the new lobby system, and people don’t do Matchmaking because the lobby system is better… Why exactly should I care if Matchmaking dies if it does a bad job at providing to players what they want? The opposite is the same. Players will migrate to the medium that best serves them. If that results in the less effective medium not getting used, who cares?
I believe everyone’s expections are reasonable and noone’s expectation is better than others. I personally don’t buy the argument of popularity.
Well, we can also say that the freedom of enjoying Socorta / land madness / other maps were lost for 20 years imo. I think there will always be tradeoff / conflict between people who want to control the maps and people who want to play niche maps and the conflict is not resolvable.
An interesting anecdote is something my boss told me. She said an elephant gets locked into a pitch black room and 4 men join as they cant see anything they try to find the elephant one goes under its belly and says its a cave one touches his belly and says its a mountain one touches his tail and says its a rope and one touches his trunk and says its a snake the moral is that people could argue over it but unless they dident see the full picture its different yes everyone can have his/her opinion but you shouldt never clinge to it before you dident see all of it
Basicly if you tryverse it to aoe2 logic everyone can belive certain things but if they are particually right is dependent of how they saw the whole picture or clinged to an idea and narrowminded tryed to follow it ignore the rest and stirr up an argument
In my experience most of the people conplaining about the system are the Arabia crowd. These people arent really happy with the current system.
This describes my feelings about the lobby system at HD and Voobly. You were forced to just play one map only to have some kind of reiable elo. As result all diversity was gone. And even then the elo wasnt accurate at all. Matches in ranked on DE are much better balanced compared to HD or Voobly. That just shows that the lobby isnt just a good system at all. That was true in the past and is true now.
These niche map people would potentially be alienated because not enough people want to play with them. Exactly as what would happen with the lobby which you suggest… You make zero sense.
73% arabia doesn’t mean people have full control over maps. What even made you think everyone in those games wanted to play arabia??? That is a simpleminded way to look at the problem. This is not about arabia players getting their way, but allowing likeminded players to find eachother. Currently the reality is that many need multiple accounts to dodge the penalty.
Man this makes no sense to me. Indeed we want the best system, would that not be MM? Because MM is more convenient, you can queue for multiple maps at once, don’t need to find lobbies manually, the map pool suggests multiple maps which promotes diversity…
Basically we want the same thing (control over maps), but I want it automated along with these benefits. Indeed it does not matter if the worse option dies, however we disagree on what the best option is.
It seems obvious to me that MM can do everything a lobby can but better. So I see the lobby mainly suitable for maps outside of the mm map pool and private games.
Supply dictates if your expectation of good queue times for niche maps is reasonable, this is not subjective.
No you can’t say that. The freedom to play socotra has always been there in the lobby, it is just harder to find opponents.
You have a conflict with reality and your preference because you enjoy a map which is niche, to play this reliably you need to pull in other players. This is a difficult position for you and I feel that.
I am a progressive house DJ… GuyJ/Alex O’rion/Kamilo Sanclemente/Paul Kardos style. For me it’s also hard to find gigs because the genre is niche.
Well the idea of unlimited bans is that it goes along with reworked MM in that matches are found based on maps and not just elo. Otherwise the system wouldn’t work ofc. And to the degree that someone else which is more or less in your elo range you will find matches. If you ban everything but socotra it might take a while ofc. And that’s precisely what might encourage people to not just ban everything: The more you ban the longer you wait.
Ofc this system has its problems but tbh nothing is worse than the current one. If you don’t want people to choose the map they play on that’s fine but remove these map bans then so you at least have a chance to play there.
Well it may be true but I refuse to believe that / buy that argument, imo if my expection is not met I would simply leave the game - I don’t really care if the game is successful / popular or not (I play a lot of unpopular games anyway…). The game may be better for a lot of people but not for me, therefore I oppose the idea.
But noone plays those map in lobby in reality - in theory there are people who enjoy niche maps but majority of people wont even try it if there are no limit.
(btw Socorta is just an example / filler and I actually don’t really like that map lol)
The current system is better in my opinion, as the ranked diversity will be destroyed and I valued them more than playing any specific map.
Tbf I don’t see my opinion being convinced either, I am just here to represent a voice of the so-called diversity crowded, reflecting a lot of my (you can say selfish) preferences.
That’s my point. If you wanna have diversity over map preference just get rid of any bans at least. Because there is no map diversity currently. The queue is basically arabia only. If there wasn’t bans at all you’d see a lot more maps. From a diversity standpoint as you call it I don’t see any reason to endorse current MM.
Well ofc you can’t because that’s not an opinion that’s a preference. These merely express what you want or not. Again I don’t think this thought process does make a lot of sense (see above) but it’s your preference so why should I care.
What is based on opinions however is what system is the best. Like my preference would be to just play arena all day (well tbf if that would be the case maybe I’d want to play more open maps again 11) but I think that MM without any map bans might be best system overall. Although I think there are good arguments for opt-in systems as well. I just can’t see what are the arguments for the current system.