So you’re saying choose to play as flank or pocket… and that’s it? Because I know for a fact more people want to play pocket than flank and that is where the issue lies.
And if I’m the more experienced player I’d rather play flank then have a noob teammate resign in the first 15mins.
And if you’re not good at one or the other so what? It’s a game have fun.
The issue here is people choose a pocket colour within half a second before they see what map it is or pick a civ. All they care about is being pocket, which is totally selfish and toxic
When I play with friends we don’t choose colours based on civ… the ability to adapt is more enjoyable than following a build order on the same map over and over.
The most important position in a teamgame is the pocket position, walls can stop rushes and buy time, so the flanks can survive and wait for the pocket, if the pocket is a bad player, there is no point in playing that game, you will lose that 100% of the times, unless there is a huge skill difference.
I had a team mate who had terrible winning ratio and he took pkt in arena tg, instead of booming he went for a castle as teutons and one stable, min 27 he was still 2 tcs and like 14 farmers, while my enemy was castle pushing and i was totally fine, his pocket in the other hand was fully boomed, i resigned when i saw his economy, even if had a significant lead over my guy the other pocket would have crushed me and the rest of the team.
That happens all the time in most maps, when they see a good player with bad allies, one of them just go full yolo vs him and the pockets outboom the rest of the opponents or 2v1 hard, so i recommend anyone to just leave the game when you see low elo players picking the pocket positions.
There are plenty of games, even at the very highest level, where the flanks cannot survive. It is folly to assume the very worst player in a game of average skill will do better.
Even down your worst player, a 3v4 is a 3v4. Less map control, harder to secure trade, less pop to work with. That’s beside the very serious possibility that they get frustrated and straight-up quit.
The most important position in a random match teamgame is the flank. If you’ve got a bad player on the edge who doesn’t play the situation right you can lose half your map.
Actually the discussion is based on the situation of the bad player sniped pocket position in the first second, not that we dislike all noobs who are trying to win.
The noob who sniped pocket will less likely to communicate with his team or he would ask for the position first. We can predict that the guy will not talk and work with team. He want to be pocket and play the game himself anyway. It is already a 3V4 in this case.
I cannot really deny that flank is the most important position. This is correct in general, however, SouMexican already told some examples, enemy noob flank can harass you in dark age and slow you down so you will have less chance to beat his pocket as flank.
IMO, picking pocket is easier to deal with drush, trush , douche and lame. A fully boomed good player is more helpful than a survived noob. Back to the topic, I will not let the same noob snipe pocket twice or I will just alt+f4.
This is a good point! It’s rare to see this actually get said or written down.
As are these. Also very good points. Especially easily observed in lower elos. I think the game needs better social functions and encourage people (of hopefully similar skill levels) to form more permanent teams and play that way. I think that would help reduce one aspect of the ALT+F4 issue, as some players just tend to ALT+F4 games if they perceive one of the randomly assigned team mates to be a noob (or even if they just don’t get to pick the position they wanted to play).
Again, similar problem. 1 minute of just meeting 3 random people is not enough to decide civs and strategy, especially if some player(s) might not be familiar with the map. For TGs to be less plagued with issues like these, there need to be better social functions to connect people and encourage them to form teams. It’s a whole lot easier to discuss a strategy with people you’re already familiar with, and there’s no position sniping. Also eliminates language issues, where players simply might not even have a common language to communicate with.
Cause multiplayer is not up to FE devs but to relic team, microsoft might be the one choosing this kind of MM, but if they keep this MM, elo algorith and map distribution i can say all confident that aoe 4 will fail.
Funny thing is that Microsoft has its own true skill ranking system for team game multiplayer, but this is not implemented for aoe2 de. Instead we get a very weird elo calculation.
The solution is as simple as that, let the players chose, some people would argue “but in ranked you have to know how to engage every map” and there are a lot of reasons why this is just false.
[details=“Summary”]
But to not repeat myself with points i made on the other post i would give an example.
Lets say ranked is meant to play in a way that you have to end up with the same skills as the proplayers since they are in the top of the ladder… that includes to play in every single map of the poll (with the freedom of banning some of your choise) Why this isnt working for the civs then? Lets force the player into banning the 33% of them. “They have to learn how to play with all of them”.
How has this issue not been attended to at all, has there really been no communication from anyone working on the game? I took a break several months ago and have only just returned to find the alt-f4 fiasco in an even worse state. I’ve been averaging approx 1 hour of queue time before ever making it into the game, consistently! Regardless of your position as to how this issue should be resolved, I think all would be in agreement that some affirmative action needs to be taken, something needs to be done and desperately so.
I have been seeing quite a few posts on here stating that alt-f4 is an epidemic in the community. I was just wondering if it is elo specific. I was thinking this as I personally don’t experience this problem. I think its kinda dumb as you can just create a lobby to play the map you want.
Again, the poll is broken. You’re mixing up TGs and 1v1, 2 systems with different Elos and one that has 4 bans, one that has only 1. Your Elo ranges are also far too large, 90% people will be between 800-1600 if it’s 1v1 Elo.
Also what does it mean “do you experience Alt-F4” ? Is 1 Alt-F4 every 10 games considered experiencing it? 1 out of 20? 1 out of 40?
As per a suggestion i am splitting up between two polls. Do you experience alt-f4 at your elo on Team Game?
ALT-F4 In TG Ranked
0-400 elo yes
0-400 elo no
401-800 elo yes
401-800 elo no
801-1100 elo yes
801-1100 elo no
1101-1300 elo yes
1101-1300 elo no
1301-1600 elo yes
1301-1600 elo no
1601-1900 elo yes
1601-1900 elo no
1901-2100 elo yes
1901-2100 elo no
2101-2400 elo yes
2101-2400 elo no
2401- up elo yes
2401-up elo no
0voters
What counts as experienced Alt-f4? You have personally had it happen to you and consider it a problem. If you look at the forum this seems like an epidemic. In team games im at 1100 elo and made it a little higher and never noticed. I like stats and was wondering if it is elo specific. Like you get high enough and people just dont want to lose elo on a game because of the group they are in. If you are an f4er let us know your main motivation.
