Thanks for convincing me that you have played only one of these two maps.
Yeah yeah, yurt and horses. Thatâs what âdifferent layoutâ entails. Not entirely, thereâs more to it, but itâs a similar concept.
You really need to stop assuming people who disagree with you are doing so because they are dumb.
I can use google too⊠sorry but those two maps donât have the same start, so not much else to conclude.
Are you trying to pick a fight or are you being obstinate for a different reason?
Iâm not interested in your unhappiness with the map pool. What I do know, is that you want to have control over what âinteresting mapsâ you get to play on a rotation, since youâve already ousted yourself.
Some maps are objectively not good, and people talk about this in other threads from time to time as well, as well as this whole thread itself being about people ALT+F4-ing maps.
So maybe try to draw conclusions that extend beyond the previous three words of the last post.
Oh really? Then explain me why a player who queues for TGs alone must learn all BOs including Team Islands, but a premade 4-team can ban all water maps + Megarandom + BF and end up with only Arabia/Arena-like maps.
Itâs not a change in system. Compared to Voobly, this is what has changed:
- the pairing is done automatically
- some game settings can not be selected.
(1) is indeed a change in system, but people are fine with it, and thereâs no evidence that it would require matchmaking punishment, seeing Alt-F4âs donât happen in 1v1 or in DM.
(2) is not a change in system, it is a change in the competitive ruleset, imposed by the devs due to technical limitations, leading to Alt-F4âs.
Yeah, keep throwing out your bias of which maps you like and dislike in a discussion about people ditching maps they dislike. Really strong case youâre making here.
Which one? (this is supposed to be funny)
They probably shouldnât. I would be more than happy to do away with bans and preferred maps (generally, but especially in team games) because both create the situation where players can game the system and artificially inflate their rating over the norm by playing maps that specifically cater to their strength. Literally nobody reasonable would argue that having a 4-lock, preplanning a strat for an all-in castle age play, and then forcing the map pick to be Arena is going to be fair against a random opponent.
This is nonsense. It shouldnât exist. Itâs a separate problem, however, and itâs just a deflection from the current topic.
âNothingâs changed. Hereâs whatâs changed:â
As opposed to having a host with pattern recognition decide to accept, or reject, players based off a variety of factors that may be useful in creating a fair, fun game
No game settings can be selected. A preset list of settings that are acceptable to the system will be chosen randomly and automatically. This is a huge change from having 2+ people talk about exactly what settings theyâd like and all the little bits extra that can be changed.
(2) changes how the game is made. The system used to be run by players. The fact that youâd split hairs and argue that this is not a change in system is absurd. Not only are the options to be selected limited, you donât even get to select them and thatâs an utterly massive difference to the last 20 years of AOE 2.
You asked for an example, you got one 
As always, you have ran out of things to actually say, and going back to strawman arguments, tsk tsk.
If you believe that all maps are fine, then it looks like youâre also pretty much clueless about why ALT+F4 happens, so it means you also donât have any solution to it, since you canât exactly solve a problem that has no clearly defined problem statement. So again, your argument completely lacks any point or sense.
If players were allowed more bans, alt+f4 would not exist or be a problem. Would it create other issues such as long queues? Perhaps. But alt+f4 also boosts queue time and is frustrating as you actually get pushed back out of the queue (plus you get demoralized after you see your favorite map get altf4âed by someone).
Do you know your fallacies? Iâm not using a strawman. Iâm using Ad Hominem. Iâm going after your motivations since youâve already stated that you think certain maps are pointless and that youâd rather play Fatslobâs old patch viking only BF maps than some of them. Therefore, your bias is influencing your position, ergo Ad Hominem.
Best not to make mention of the common fallacies unless youâre certain youâve used them right.
Accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it to create confusion?
Nah, Iâm pretty sure that people alt-f4 maps they donât want to play, and therefore imposing some restriction on Alt-F4 will reduce itâs use. Now, we could also make it so that every map is maps that are extremely common and everyoneâs played ten-thousand times, but some might argue that itâd get stale, so itâs a preferential thing.
You know what people donât prefer? Having to go back into queue because their opponent Alt-F4âd. I have no evidence for this specific claim, maybe youâd like to debate it.
You are completely right. My mistake indeed. Thanks for the reminder. Either way, thanks for admitting that your post was completely irrelevant overall.
So you donât actually know for sure. Thatâs all that we needed to confirm. Then the rest of your post is pretty much irrelevant, thanks and have a good day.
You are committing what we call the âfallacy of fallacyâ to assert that since a logical fallacy has been committed, that there is no underlying point. There may be a root of truth under a logical fallacy that if left to the distinction of simply finding a logical misstep, would be written off, as you are doing now.
I havenât attempted to disprove it yet. Youâre actively attempting to prevent such discoveries by arguing against what is, by any reasonable account, the most logical explanation. Are you familiar with Occamâs Razor?
Though, due to your dismissive tone, I expect youâve already decided to retreat. I guess itâs easier to run back downhill all being said.
Hi there.
If alt+f4 was not an option, which of the below would people do:
a) not play
b) insta-resign
c) play
I personally would choose âaâ.
After years of online gaming, I can see that several people would choose âbâ, which would lead to griefing and even more frustration on whoever happen to be his teammates. I dont think most of the alt+f4âers would choose âcâ and carry on playing happily whatever map they got.
Do people alt+f4 because there is no punishment? And more important, would they behave differently if there was? Does it fix the root-cause of the problem?
Look at League of Legends as an example. They had a punishment system in place for quitters and still it did not solve it⊠They ended up having to allow players to pick lanes and forcing the meta.
1 Like
Given the rather brief length of your post, thereâs not a very high chance of it having any substance to it. Itâs not like I was replying to a book.
Completely familiar, but Occamâs Razor is not always right. The point is that you have no idea why people ALT+F4, donât care about finding out why, donât care about solving the underlying issue, you just assume that kicking people out will somehow make things good.
I just donât have anything left to tell you, as much of your arguments are made just to be obtuse, and not to actually facilitate any brainstorming.
Greetings.
It depends on the player. Some would insta resign (whatâs a few points of rating compared to enjoyment), some would play on. The argument that someone would simply âchooseâ to stop playing entirely makes zero sense to me. If you claim it, thatâs certainly a disappointing factor that youâd choose not to play on in the face of a restriction, but I guess every person has their limits. So why not public games with friends? Why not find matches on one of the many AOE discords? Would you really not play on at all if the system started to restrict Alt-F4?
My honest expectation of the game is that if players who used ALT-F4 to find a specific game setting were pushed out, theyâd migrate in large part to the public games, and the hosted lobby would become a lot more populated, which in my eyes is a good thing. Whatever is stopping that from happening now is clearly a result of the Matchmaking system being an effective replacement. If it stopped doing so, Hosted games would spring back up, and you could play your Arenas, Arabias, Nomads, or anything else at whim, with no RNG. Thatâs preferred to the current system.
LoL has exactly one map. Iâd like to tell you itâs as similar as you make it seem, but it lacks a direct comparison in the very different playstyles that different maps tend to foster. Further, you arenât ditching because you didnât get a âlaneâ you wanted, you are ditching because the map itself is different. If we were queueing summonerâs rift, every game, you wouldnât have a day where you get 7 Alt-F4âs in a row. The problem here is dramatic. Worse than in any other game due to all the factors Iâve already mentioned. And the solution, Hosting games, and a PSR, is being trampled by this issue right now. It creates the lack of need.
then one would assume youâd take the discussion into account for context of the statement rather than assuming it stands alone? If I need to copypaste the entire discussion to reiterate my points so you donât assume everything I say is missing a point, I shall, but in a favor to the rest of the forum Iâd rather not.
Indeed. But when you arenât willing to acknowledge the most logical explanation for a problem, you are skipping a valuable level of analysis to say the least.
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Whatever word youâre referring to there has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Reducing the frequency at which someone can Alt-F4 will reduce the frequency at which someone will Alt-F4. That is clear and obvious, and itâs whatâs being proposed. This isnât arguable, this is stating that A=A not A=B.
Ad Hominem.
also,
Itâs not a separate problem. It is just another evidence for what is exactly the core of the problem: the map restrictions make no sense, they come from a technical limitation on the dev side and not from a genuine decision to change the competitive ruleset. You chose to believe that it comes from a genuine change, but itâs likely not, the devs are not against leaving people play the maps they want, they are just unable to implement it, thatâs why they keep adding workarounds like the âfavoriteâ option, or the quick play unlimited bans, and thatâs also why they keep silent on the Alt-f4 issue imo.
I meant that itâs not a change in system but a change in ruleset. What you are suggesting is to punish people for not adapting to a new ruleset.
You yourself admitted these things in your earlier posts. You were arguing against the necessity of doing more research in this very thread. No Ad Hominem going on in here. I tried in multitudes of ways to discuss it with you, each and every time, you refused, and instead started going on off random tangents and obscure arguments. This whole discussion is already super off topic and contributes nothing.
You havenât made anything noteworthy to discuss for several posts in a row. Not sure what I can construct from your posts altogether. Youâve been trying to prove obscure and irrelevant points for a whole day now.
Looks like you already forgot the time you went on about the hellbent griefing player tangent that you opened up earlier in this thread. So no didnât accuse you of anything, just stating what already happened.
If itâs not a separate problem (I actually agree with you here, I just wanted you to say it) then what is the difference between four players making a guarantee theyâll play a map theyâve planned for and one player making a guarantee that theyâll play a map that theyâve planned for?
Civ draft is a gamble. You pick the Franks and then get issued a stay on Islands and your pick is OOFâd. When you can decide, on a whim, to play what map you want to play you can game the system and provide yourself an advantage by picking a civ for a map you are guaranteed to play and thatâs a problem with this system be it 4v4 or 1v1. Now that we acknowledge this. Why are you defending this??
No, Iâm suggesting someoneâs game shouldnât end before it began because a random player didnât like their draw. Iâm in favor of games being played, not ditched. As a side-favor, Iâm in favor of removing competitive advantages for people who want to game the system in general, which is possible in itâs current iteration.
In multiple cases I stated that we needed to have feedback spliced into the actual game to provide more accurate data and that this would be a net good. I refused however, to allow that to be some sort of acknowledgement that the data we have now is no good and shouldnât be acted upon. We have plenty of data to show, at this point, that Alt-F4 is a massive problem, and that doesnât need to wait until a comprehensive data-collection effort is present.
You keep getting stuck on âBut the data isnât enoughâ and thatâs a line you can draw literally anywhere so if youâd be willing to set the goalposts further as opposed to acknowledging whatâs already here, youâd be further likely willing to move said goalposts once you have a hard number to stab past.
Knowing that something is a problem =/= knowing how to resolve said problem. Which is why I made various suggestions at the very beginning of our discussion, and I honestly donât want to make a full circle and go back to square one of this whole conversation.