Do you think adding more ban choices will solve the problem especially in tgs? I actually don’t consider this as 1v1 problem because I have never faced this in 1v1 or it is extremely rare, but as TGs yes it is an issue, but imo adding more bans choices will be the best.
Most of these discussions have been worthless back and forth between people who have completely different points of view (because they are bothered by different reasons) and the thread from @UnfamousScout was the first thread I’ve seen about the topic that was more constructive than just QQ
I think that I am with you @WoodsierCorn696 on supporting the idea. People need to be encouraged to make teams and not queue for 4v4 as solo individuals. It is nonsense to jump into a team game solo. But Aoe2 devs really need to help the community out on this one. It will solve the portion of ALT+F4 that happen due to solo players quitting on their team of 4 just because they don’t like a team mate. It will also solve ALT+F4 due to bad maps, because people are less likely to ALT+F4 on their team than when they are solo.
Agree with @WoodsierCorn696 , this just makes noob-bashing even easier than now (and it is already terribly easy in both 1v1 and team games, although that’s also largely a problem stemming from the way the game is played, but that’s worth a thread on its own)
This is a terrible idea. First of all, people can just make smurf and you will have a complete chaos in the ladder, as at that point any meaning of the word ‘rating’ is completely out of the window. Second, people can (and will) just throw games/AFK games on purpose. Third, it doesn’t solve the problem that it takes a long time to queue, so it will just frustrate players and drive them away. We need solutions that are more friendly to the community.
This might be the best idea tbh, I liked voobly’s system much more than this chaos we have in DE.
Dumb question… Why we don’t have a ranking for each map? (used for matchmaking)
And the overall ranking is then an weightened average of all the individual ones.
So to get a high overall ranking you have to play all maps to a certain degree. But you can always chose the map you like to play now.
I can understand the argument for willing more influence on the maps you can pick in TGs. If you queue solo, you can only ban 1 map, which seems limited. But i am not really sure if this will fix the issue. I feel like most of the current Alt + F4s are because of ‘noob’ allies as result of the broken TG ladder. Most recently opened threads about Alt + F4 have that as reason. Also more bans will lead to less matchess. Already the TG queue will take a lot longer to find a match. More bans will mean less matches, thus longer queueing times. All in all i am not really convinced about that solution.
This happens a lot in most discussion. For this reason i already say outside most of the balance discussion, because i feel those are the worst.
I am not really sure why it will lead to more smurfs and other things you describe. I think it mainly punish those who are selfish and dont understand the rules of MM. If you dont want to play by the rule set of ranked, then go and host your game in the lobby. For some reason people dont really seem to understand this. Their behaviour is toxic and needs to be punished in my opinion. It looks to me the time penalty will mainly hit these players. Also time penalties are part of many other games as well. That is for a reason: They seem to work.
Can you explain what was great about voobly’s system? My opinion is quite the opposite. Let me explain my experience with Voobly:
-
Splitting the ladders between noobs and pros (NPL vs main ladder) was pretty terrible and created some kind of barrier to improve. At some point you get stuck. You was too good for NPL, but too worse for the main ladder. For me this was a barrier which i couldnt over come. As result i just played the game for a little bit. Hit the upper limit of the NPL and just stop playing the game. In DE we just have only one ladder. There is no split between noobs and pros on the ladder. You can just gradually improve your rating.
-
At voobly elo didnt really transfer between maps. As noob i started with 4v4 BF. I got pretty good at that map (for my elo), but i also wanted to branche out to other maps. When i tried 1v1 Arabia, i could only play against players with much higher skill (but same elo). If i tried to play against lower rated players (since for Arabia my skill was pretty much lower), then i just got kicked. As result you were mainly stuck with playing 1 map type only. Not because you want to play one map only, but because this was the result of how the lobby evaluates. DE on the other hand gives more easy access to playing multiple maps. It seems to be paradoxical: More freedom in map picks force players in just playing less maps. One of the big benefits of DE is the easy ability of playing different maps against equally skilled players. Going back to a lobby will remove that benefit to me.
-
People tend to lurk in the lobby, instead of joining rooms. In most rooms you saw it really takes a while before a room is filled to 5-6, but after that almost instantly filled to 8 players. But then it still took a while before the game started. This had multiple reason: Sometimes that host was just AFK, so you waited to the lobby to be filled and then everyone just leave the room again. Sometimes a player had issues with fast proxy. Another time the player is tired of waiting and will look for another room. And so it continues. Even with Alt + F4 in DE, you will get into a game more quickly then on Voobly. I think half of the time i was just waiting for a game to start, instead of playing the game itself.
So i am pretty happy with the ranked queue. I wont say it is the perfect system, but to me it is much, much better then the lobbies like we have on Voobly and HD. Even the lobbies of DE are pretty terrible in my opinion. A while back i give it a try, but after 30 minutes i still didnt get into a game. So the issues with the lobbies still exists in DE. Based on this experience i dont want to go back to a ranked lobby system.
Based on your response it seems like you have another experience. Could you share this as well?
This idea is also posted in this thread. I am pretty blanco for this suggestion. I can see why people want this. You will get better ratings for each maps, so MM would be more accurate, which will lead to better quality. On the other side you need to play 10 maps to really get a ranking. That means you need to play 10 games for each map before you end up with a ranking on every map. That seems a lot. For maps that are every time in the map pool, this will be doable. But some other maps are just in the map pool once in a while. So no one starts with a ranking on those maps. As result the game will be just more imbalanced.
I think a hybrid options would be better suitable: Divide all maps in certain sub groups, like open / closed maps or land / hybrid / water maps. This way you will end up with a rating for maps based on the sub groups.
But in the end such rating system can be to complex to understand for most players. You will end up with multiple ratings. That is not really clear to me. As result i am pretty much blanco for suggestion about splitting the ratings.
2 Likes
This would work, I think. So in every new pool we get at least one map for each of these categories and if players really dislike that map they also can just wait for the next map pool to get a “better” one.
But more quality matches! Because if you are in a team, you’re less like to say fu all and early resign. Solo people don’t tend to care and just resign, even though in a 4v4, it’s not always possible to prevent a player from getting crushed. (Basetrades)
These same people are contributing to the TG ladder problems. When they keep quitting to find better allies, they are artificially manipulating their rating. All in all, these kind of problems would be reduced by less solo people wandering into team games.
Because a lot people already have smurfs, it would take me less time to load up a smurf and jump into a new game than wait out the time out 
So might as well do that.
Do you think this happened to a lot of people though? It doesn’t seem like a bigger problem to solve than all the dumb things about the current 1v1 ladder, e.g. easily being able to go 1500 rating without any game knowledge.
It doesn’t in DE either. All the one map only warriors would get shrekt by people hundreds of elo lower, so when they do decide to venture into other maps they basically get the experience of what you just described, which then just reinforces them to stick to their guns…
so that whole problem you describe about rating not representing skill accurately is absolutely present on certain levels in DE too, you’d have to go through to a pretty decent rating to get to the point where players skills are less uneven on different maps.
Well this is exactly the same in DE right now… the amount of time spent queuing is ridiculous and the game quality is quite variable due to the problems we both laid out earlier. I pretty much stop playing ranked games and just play games within team with team members anymore. (although the lobby system isn’t the only reason why I’m not happy with DE, it does contribute)
Forum moderators still have direct comunication with devs. By merging this thread there is an implicit assertion: devs know very well about this issue.
Quality matches must be the main concern, CSGO at release had less numbers that starcraft, but slowly was climbing thanks to an steady stream of improvements. CSGO is succesfull because its matchmaking has all map bans + temp scaled bans for dodgers. Addresing the issue will only increase the number of players.
3 Likes
So basically you call Voobly’s new player lobby a terrible idea, because you were stuck in it? 11
Plsss don’t try to shut down the discussion with your opinions if you are stuck in the new player lobby 11
I agree that CS:GO is a good reference. It’s works so well. Haven’t played it in years tho.
Are there rating’s for each map in CS:GO?
What flaws does the CS:GO matchmaking and rating system still have?
Is it possible to lower your rating in a short time to get matches with lower opponents?
there is a trust factor + prime mode now.
So a new account will have low trust factor because it can be an smurf account or even a cheater account, and those accounts will be matched with low trust players. So a silver player with high trust factor will find smurfs very rarely now. mantaining the account in high trust also demands to be playing constantly in MM, so it’s usual for globlal elite players who play mostly in ESEA/FACEIT to have low trust and not get all the benefits of this new system.
Maps that are less played like Train, have longer time queue and the difference of skill level is more evident (novas+silver in the same team)
Starcraft has a different approach, with different ELO for every mode (2v2 ELO is different to 4v4, and 3v3 solo ELO is differente to 3v3 premade) And they only have 3-4 map bans. The system is fair but for teamgames AOE2 playability is better.
As I have said, surely there are many options to address this issue, but doing nothing will kill the teamgame mode, which a very strong point of AoE2. for 1v1 SC2 is more balanced and fair, (no main gold exposed, no laming)
That is not what i said. I said NPL is for bad players, main ladder for good ladder. But there wasnt really a place for the average player. At that point you gets too good for the NPL, so you cant play in the NPL for that reason (you will be banned from the NPL at some point). So you have to go to the main ladder. But almost everyone there is too good. So you couldnt find balanced games either. You can still improve by getting your ash kicked over and over again. But that didnt seem fun to me. Not sure about you, but i play for fun, not for trying to be the best. DE solved this issue by just having one ladder instead of two seperate ladders. As result i did get better in DE (while still having fun) and my current 1v1 elo is well above the average.
The issue with comparing with CS:GO and SC2 (like @XuanZue did) is the player base. The number of players has a big impact in how good a MM will work and how details the options can be. So before you copy such system, you really have to look if those also fit for AoE II which seems to have a smaller player base. I am not saying you cant look at them. Only to be careful when trying to copy the MM features to this game.
Guys, I merged the topics per request of another forum user. I hope this helps the dev team recognize how big this issue is and that it needs to be addressed.
5 Likes
So you merged the thread i started in hope to get a serious discussion into this mess, on request of another user? o.O
Anyway, the devs are aware of this forever, but they can’t do anything about it.
For whatever reasons.
3 Likes
be me
wake up
check messages
28 notifications
all radiatingblade
PANIK
sees content
thread merge
28 posts merged into new thread
Yeah, this’ll hopefully stop complaints about “Another alt-F4 thread” whilst simultaneously make it seem like the guys upstairs could see it.
other games give a MMR to entire preformed teams, not just the individual players
when i queue alone, i can get paired with people who don’t even speak the same language as me. and we don’t even get allied vision because the game settings are so archaic. meanwhile the other team has everyone on voicechat
idk who implemented this matchmaking system, but it keeps spawning games we have a ~100% chance to win or a ~0% chance to win. and the leaderboard reflects that with so many people at 70-80% winrate (instead of 50%)
i’m not saying we have to separate teams from individuals, but at least wait 20 minutes before just throwing together the first 8 people you see into a game. we would rather wait for a fair game rather than play a bad one.
i think the current matchmaking just looks at how long one player (or one party) has been waiting, and then after 6 minutes they will just play against whoever is in the queue, irrespective of whether the game will be close. instead, it should only do that if everyone in that game has been waiting a long time (like 20+ minutes, not 6 minutes), not just a single player in it
getting rid of people fighting over positions might also reduce alt+f4. if there are 3 players who want to play pocket and only 1 pocket position, that should never be a reason to quit the game and waste everyone else’s time.
they should get rid of position-picking except for tournament-level events & custom lobbies. let people learn how to play the game instead of just memorize how to do 1 thing. the position-selection stuff completely ruined the game balance too with all the knight/xbow specialists being picked at the expense of every other civ
1 Like
@TheBiz1
Are you aware of the bug in the TG Elo calculation?
If you look at the elo of players (see aoe2.net), then most games seem pretty close on paper. The inflated TG elo makes everything into a mess, so pretty much no game is balance and your TG elo doesnt mean much at all.
This is also the result of the inflation. Even players with a low win rate have a high rating, but they are still pretty garbage most of the time. All this mess is the result of the inflated TG elo. This is already part of the game since its release and still not fixed by the devs.
For more info about the bug:
that bug is only part of the story
the match-finding system itself is flawed. it should not be spawning games with hundreds of elo difference between the teams, regardless of whether or not that elo rating is accurate
it happens in 1v1 too. i don’t need to play against +300 elo players unless both of us have been in the queue for an hour
I do not see this happening very often unless you are at the edges of the ladder (top or bottom).
In my experience its much more common to see a 2400 player with 39% win rate paired up with another 2400 player with 65% win rate then a 2200 paired with 2600 to play against 2400.
1v1 all my games have been within ~100 Elo difference.
And I think it expands after 7 minutes, which sounds like a reasonable choice. You can just cancel and requeue, like top players do.
cancel + requeue doesn’t do anything if the other team has been waiting for more than 5 minutes
the game will still drag me into those matches and there is no way random individual players will do anything against a preformed team of +200 or +300 elo
My post had all the multiply asterisk signs removed from it for some reason making it hard to read 