I can’t tell how it will exactly function. The developers will decide on the details. But if I was in charge I would definetly prioritise the current team size rather than adding on it. a 2v2 pair will only play 4v4 if there is another 4 squad. There can also be a priority option that you choose one mode as a priority.
Yes having odd number of team mates changes a lot. I personally love 3v3s. They are decently competetive, Not too chaotic and not too boring like 1v1s. however when some one plays 2v2 the chances are he actually wants to play 1v1 but doesn’t like being alone either.
When someone plays 3v3 he wants to be away from anything that has to do with 1v1s. If this system gets implemented I would probably end up playing a lot of 2v2s but frankly I think it is a neccessary sacrifice. I can’t remember a game that was actually balanced in like las 2 weeks. They are all stomps.
I was trying to be actually lenient on this. My main proposal was going to be remove all modes and just force every one to play 3v3s xD.
I was mainly thinking about making the experience better for new players rather than for people who know what “pocket” and “flank” is.
Ohh i see, felt you were more secure on the implementation.
For sure, there many reasons why people prefer a particular mode. My point is forcing them off it is not something thats seems like a good idea.
For example, in ranked you only have military auto queue if your opponent also has it. Theres a chance you want to play with it and you wont get to and that deters people from doing so. This would be the same in my pov. People would have to want to risk not playing what they want for some arbitrary reasoning.
I see, yea i find both bad ideas, but thats Just my way of seeing it.
Well that New player is still gonna get grouped up with people Who have played 100 games but are still around 1000 elo. They Will still have expectations. Same as people would expect them to not age up at 7 minutes and know how their units works, etc Etc. Like you do in any game.
From experience the best fix is simply to find a regular group and queue together. Playing team strategy games with randoms and no voice chat is like playing blindfolded. With a fixed squad your rating converges to the team’s true Elo, and the matches feel much fairer. Clear roles and responsibilities also cut down on the “my teammates threw the game” frustration. Check Discords, here in the Forum, or in-game chat to connect; the game is far more fun that way.
I still do think that this is a necessary cause not even top block buster games with millions of active players dare to split the community like this.
My initial thought was that the entire AoM community are either : 1v1 players OR team game players. Mostly these two won’t mix. there are exceptions definitely, Most pro players do play team games here and there. But it it rarely happens that a team games player would consent to play 1v1.
absolutely unacceptable. This game manages to do everything related to an online game wrong. I get embarrassed talking about AoM to my other friends.
And I assure they won’t. Some people will do. But the overall experience will be better for every one. It will massively boost match balancings. There will be a lot of complaining and threatining to leave initially but they’ll settle down. ESPECIALLY if developers do make it clear that this was done in order to make the experience better and soothe the effect of low player numbers.
In this system I would never force any one to play 2v2s. People who play 2v2s are essentially people who want to play 1v1s but they don’t want to feel alone in the game. They are different than 3v3 and 4v4.
because that’s only you. Only you do check all of them. Most people don’t and they don’t realize that by clicking only one mode they are increasing the chance of being matched in a very unbalanced way.
most new players don’t know what these are. there are too many options in that menu for an average gen Z player. Streamlining that Ranked menu would go a long way and also my proposition would result in a unified queue which would make balancing a whole lot easier without taking away the fun of team games away.
There are degrees to forcing people. Stormgate at launch HAD NO TEAM GAMES OPTION. That was essentially forcing people to play 1v1 only. What I’m proposing is also “forcing” but it is a forcing out of a reason and forcing to a much less degree. The player base is too small and on top of that it is being split in many ways. Just look at quick match ! why is it even in there? It is just ranked with a even worse matchmaking.
Some people say RTS is dying because it is too hard. If you keep matching noobs with noobs this problem will disappear.
What happened actually was that people actually stayed and played. The only thing is that they won’t stop complaining about AQ. They are still playing, They are unhappy, but most of them are still playing. If they allowed AQ in this game there is a good chance that this game would be dead by now.
I’m highly against that option It only makes people check at the start of every game whether AQ is on or off. This game becomes an entirely different thing when AQ is on. Also it gives some players the dream of it might be back one day.
Yea but it would make lots of stuff better. It’s too late implement this now without pissing a lot of people off. Imagine in Dota’s earlier days there were also options “3v3/4v4/5v5/6v6”. CoD MW ( The original one) was a great game, Still is. Has many players in game ranger. Why it didn’t become the main stream like CS? simple developers failed to take an action in making a standard competitive game mode. They put shit ton of options there and let the community decide which one they want. And then you give so much freedom to every one chaos will surely ensue.
I’m not saying we should never put out any options. BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A SINGLE GAME MODE THAT DEFINES THE RULES FOR THE MOST COMPETITIVE FAIR EXPERIENCE and the game should start being balanced around that.
That is still happening so it is irrelevant. With my system you could go → If a stack of 4 players want to play TGs they will face opponents of higher elo if they are matched with randoms OR opponents of Equal Elo if they are also premades.
That is not the point I’m trying to make. I’m sorry maybe I didn’t get what you are trying to say right but I can’t see how “going in with a full squad” is related to “Let’s combine all team games queues into a single one”.
But since you pointed out to this: Right now playing team games solo is completely pointless. I’M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS NOT THE BEST EXPERIENCE, I’M SAYING IT IS COMPLETELY POINTLESS. With my previous thread discussing about people leaving what I was trying to do was to make the games more bearable and more meaningful.
I used to play a lot of 4v4s. they are shit ton of fun SPECIALLY in AoM. But as the time passed I decided to not play it because as the number of players increased there was a good chance that people would leave because of arbitrary reasons such as “My GF called and said the house is empty” well AoM is fun, but not as fun as an empty house with a girl. As long as there is no penalty, People will leave.
As I pointed earlier I can’t see how this is related to this topic.
They have nothing to say. If they admit that this problem is serious, they will also have to admit that:
And then we come to the conclusion that the game simply shouldn’t be played.
Thats a very broad way to water it down. Since theres also people that only play AI, unless you wanna group up people that only do campaign with peole that only play 1 vs 1 in ranked, which would be odd.
There are dedicated players to 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4.
You shoould check the team games leaderboard and see for yourself if those players got there playing 4 vs 4
Yea its a side effect of how the game works, imagine your base got destoyed and you “lost” but your allies won their side and overall won. Just to get out of the game and find out you lost elo. Not the best system, and even if it rewards trolls for leaving imo is better than just reducing elo of any player that leaves (i dont think theres a distinction in the game about leaving due to getting destroyed vs clicking leave).
You are taking away player choice in a game that already struggles, dont see any acenario where that goes well.
It does look like you dislike 2 vs 2 and favor 4 vs 4.
I get how you can see 2 vs 2 and 2 1 vs 1 in low elo. Thats not how the game goes as up you go. Its not 1 vs 1 on each side and more like 2 vs 1 from one team to the other with reacting from each side to help one another.
Yea… all 3 are different. You are jumping to the conclusion that since all of them are not 1 vs 1 they are the same, hence why you just divide as tg players or solo players.
Yea that game suffered from trying to force players into a competitve setting. They removed player choice in many aspects and suffered from it, which is what you wanna implement but in reverse. You wanna force players into the casual aspect of the game (2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 is more competitive than 4 svs 4) Competitive as in there are dedicated clans at high elo doing 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 but theres not much for 4 vs 4.
I dont see a reason for quickmatch to be there either, but i also dont play with military auto queue so its not an issue for me.
Not really, theres a good chunk of the aom community playing extended edition and voobly. But im nor aguing in favor of giving it back.
Nah, i dont think that was the issue. Gaming as a whole has expanded into this fast paced things. You just jump into a lobby and hop into quick matches. You CS/call of duty/fortnite is not getting to 40 minutes. It doesnt have this slow bur early phase of the game that is quiet for some time and then things begin pacing up. The games are action packed since you start.
Theres is…. its just not the one you play. 1 vs 1 has always been the standard, will always be the standard and balancing is mainly done for 1 vs 1. TGs balance is done to a side with consideration of not affecting 1 vs 1 balance. Thats how the games revolve around. Thats why many people complain about units and god powers and what not because X or Y is very strong in team games but not so much in 1 vs 1 and it doesnt see changes.
It solves many of you complains, ofc not all of them but the ones you seem to hate most aka you allies leaving you stranded. You have yet to come up with an rts that does any of what you want. Sure you can take that as your stepping stone into why RTS fail, because all miss this very thing you came up with. However as we already lenghly dicussed in another post. You cant seem to form an ideal detailed solution past “i dont want this and this would be better to me and how i want to play games”. Past that it was easy to pick holes and scenarios where it becameeither ambigious or donwright failed.
Theres toxic people in every game, im not defending that guy. But the best way to avoid having to deal with that as an ally is to queu with people you know and simply not risk it. Is it a 100% wow solution? No, is it what you can do in any game? Yes.
The problem with that is you rarely really die in the eyes of the game. even if you have a single house standing the game counts you are alive.
You are missing out on the other side of this. People will be like “well I lost 2 villagers let me leave even if my team wins I’ll get t he points”. This encourages so many bad behaviors the very minute negative point that you pointed out falls completely short.
struggles with what?
absolutely! but I’m still allowing 2v2 players to still play. There will be many 2v2 games still.
As I said 2v2s are essentially two 1v1s. for most people who only play 2v2s it wouldn’t matter if they played 1v1s.
IDK I get the same vibe from both of them.
The difference is small. Besides the game is mainly balanced around 1v1s. No one is trying to balance the game around team games so essesntially they are all the same in the eyes of the developers.
They suffered because they forced people into a “competitive” settings that is not fun. Although stormgate did lots of things wrong… .
First we try to make the game more bearable for casuals then we will worry about the competitive aspects.
OFcourse people will do that. Some people are still playing CSGO instead of CS2. But CS2 is doing way better than CSGO. that is the same thing with AoM. Ofcourse it lost those players but it got more in return. Also I do remember that lots of people posting in Reddit and forums that Retold killed voobly.
CSGO used to go as far as an hour and a half. And I don’t see what this has to do with my argument.
No it doesn’t have to be. That’s why all RTS games are dying. If you make LoL 1v1 it will result in very balanced games, But it won’t be fun. RTS devs are choosing 1v1s because it is way easier to balance 1v1s. That’s why it is the standard.
I think I havent even brought that topic up in here. It won’t solve my issues btw. I don’t have any issues. I just wanted this game to reach it’s fullest potential. I have come to accept that climbing out of Elo hell in AoM is impossible without a decent team.
But it won’t change the mind of many others who think that a game that does not have a penalty for leaving is not worth playing. hence the current player counts.
As I said every RTS game is wrong in not doing it. Why should we follow a failing trend? Broken arrow bans people who leave.
I don’t have accses to discord. Shall I suffer in this game? Lots of people won’t go searching people trying them out one by one to see which one sticks around. I just want to click and play. I agree it’s not hard to find people to play but it is not easy either.
Also shit ton of other games already do this. It is super easy to implement. I’m not saying I won’t do it. probably I will be forced to do it.
I used to have friends. We played 4v4 in AoE IV. Non of them stayed cause the fourth guy kept leaving. In AoE IV people stayed cause the game was more competitive people actually cared about their ranks.
You are indeed defending him by not punishing him. He got no punishment. He left, Made the game even more harder for his team. And got the points HE will keep doing this.
That is the worst solution. people who you find in discord won’t always be online when you are online. What should be done then? not play the game.
To be honest I just lost a game because my team mate said he is going to watch *EHEM*** homosexual adult content and left…. So yea I really do think the same as the amaterasu’s username.
To be honest I will keep playing this game. I love it. When it is fun it is peak. There are just a few very small issues.
This is very true. Its very rare so it could be better to flip it around. Even if it kicks down on those rare ocasions.
Didnt realize it got cut short like they. Meant struggles with its playerbase
How can someone that doesnt main 2 vs 2 sustain that? Theres a reason if you look at those players progiles they dont play 1 vs 1 or play very little. They could change or simply leave, reducing player base more.
Thats far from the only place to find people to play with. Thou i agree with you the in game interfaces is very bad for finding players.
He is a toxic player that insults others. He should be van, but the reporting system is by sheer number of reporta, not by someone looking through them.
Its very dumb to say im defending him because i dont like certain change.
Its the solution you have. It applies to any games. For part of a clan, a community. You make it seem like its this imposible task. Yes the in game tools should be better for this. But you are not cripples to using discord only. Literally anything works. If you want go solo q find someone you like to play with and chat with them, add them and talk.
We can have an option for preferences, Each player will pick one and the system will try to do accordingly. There can also be a system that checks whoever hasn’t played his preferred mode recently will be prioritized.
I can’t follow through what you are trying to say…. Either way: If a player really died (what ever the game counts as dead), He is will get his points according to his team. If a player left without dying then they should lose elo regardless.
At first I thought implementing this system now is pointless since These sort of systems are meant for player retention not for gaining new players and the players have already left. But I think it should be added before any more diehard fans get dissapointed with the state of team games.
Dude I can’t ask people to always be online when I want them to play. There are just so many things wrong with this solution I don’t know where to start with. Also is this the only solution that you have?
This is something that can easily be managed with automation. That’s how most online games work. They automate the main stuff and put human moderation over other stuff.
The thing is you have completely miss understood me. I have come to acceptance that this is my life in AoM now, I should stop playing 4v4s and just play 3v3s play as good as 3 people. What I’m trying to say is for OTHERS. The other players won’t accept this, If climbing the ladder in solo is this hard no one will keep playing it.
The new players who are hopping on from other games will find these systems archaic.
When a game struggles with it’s base unifying the queues will make it better not worse. As I said I’m not taking 2v2s away. I’m just saying that there is a chance that they will have to play 4v4 sometimes too.
that preference is what we have thou… you click the mode you wanna play and not the ones you dont want to.
That you are right, is a very rare scenario that the opposite should happen. Meaning simply punish both leavers or players that lost due to loss of units. Would also prevent leavers from deleating all their units to escape punishment.
Theres no difference in game. And fi there was you could exploit it as i mentioned above.
No one said it was perfect. But its what you do in every game. Dont wanna deal with toxicity in lets say League of legend? Then mute all players or find people to play with. Is is the best solution? No, is it 100% available and fits all your needs? No? Will you get an idea soution that does that? No.
You are forcing people to take a chance into playing what they want or getting something they dont. Its literally the same reason as to why many people dont go into ranked since getting military auto queue is a gamble. They might get to play a match how they want to, or they might not. That divides people, it doesnt encourage.
If thats your worry you could simply make it like voobly where lobbies can be toggled for ranked play and give elo. Granted you coudl “fix” matches to boost accounts but lets be real, its not like elo matters much and it would allow people to unite, create and join lobbys as well as to adjust for matches people enjoy to play at. Would also give means to avoid players with bad rep.
You need to have 200 people on your friendlist, then someone will definitely be online. However, it takes about 5 minutes to find a match. Therefore, you’ll never meet. To enter the lobby, you need to finish the game at the same time.
In AoE 3, there was no auto-match for ranked treaty games. They could only be started through the lobby. You can’t imagine what a mess it was. AN HOUR to start a game. I stopped playing ranked treaty because it was just unbearable.
The problem wasn’t popularity. The problem was that players simply weren’t playing with people they didn’t want to. You connect to a guy with the same ELO as you, but the problem is, he has a 50% win rate and you have 70%, and he kicks you.
And then there’s civilization juggling. You join a lobby, one guy picks a civ, another picks a counter-civ, the first one does the same. Repeat 18 times, then one of them leaves or someone gets kicked.
A miracle just happened. I waited 15 minutes for a match and… got a really interesting one. Unexpected, right?
Me 2! I would have kept playing but as usual our 3rd resigned. so there was no point in going forward.
Not really if there are 6 people in queue with different modes on they will never be matched. atleast this way they will be matched.
Oh so sorry I kept you repeating it over and over again
The game can easily distinguish that.
Yea but the problem is this game does nothing to punish any behavior.
Playing with AQ is way more different than playing a 4v4 instead of a 3v3. Especially for newer players.
You mean allow custom lobbies to give elo?
I actually think about this a lot. seems like in old days (i.e cs 1.6) since there was no matchmaking every server had an admin and would kick players who cheated/trolled. Nowadays with automatik matchmaking we seem to have lost it.
Yea it is just too much hassle.
I don’t think he was talking about treaty games.
This was such a massive problem for me in AoE2. For some reason auto match making didn’t work for me and I had to join lobbies. I was super new to the game and every one would instantly kick me. bad days….
15 minutes is a long time to wait…. I’m glad your games last more than 15 minutes. I can’t remember the last time I used my Mythic god power.
If people would rather play any game than Just a specific one they could Just click all options. You are removing that choice.
Not really. This isnt lol where you cant delete your base. In RTS you can simply delete all your units and get a defeated screen that way.
You are not looking past the example. Is simply an example to show removing choice and forcing people to gamble to play the game in a way they dont want to is enough to keep people from event trying.
Yea, on a toggle option for team games. Prob keep 1 vs 1 as is.
