At least they are trying to fix one of the issues of Alt+F4: The inflated ratings. You dont have to quit any more, if you dont want to play with you noob ally with low winrate, because his rating is inflated.
Not sure if this will instantly have an impact on the number of Alt+F4’s, but at least it is great to see that the devs are looking in these big issues. I wont be surprised if the Alt+F4’s are the next big thing they will address.
Honestly this will take several months to take noticable effect. Chipping away 16 at a time from 2300 will take time
They may take additional steps. I hope they do. Otherwise it will takes months, probably even years.
For now at least they look at a big issue. That gives hope.
If they made a queue for nomad/megarandom, I would play the **** out of it.
Id love a ranked random playlist no civ picking no position picking on pure random map. I don’t like water maps but even they’d be alright in this kind of pool at a low % rate. Ranked ladder makes it really hard to play anything other than a super stale open map with a meta civ pick. having the option to go random is nice but isnt a realistic option beyond a certain Elo. I find it a shame cos I’m not good at 1v1 but I’m up there in TG and I can only play like 10 civs without severely handicapping my chances to win with current structure. Ideally I’d prefer we all played random civ and position in ranked but I guess at this stage people would be really upset with this change so surely a new playlist for random everything would be the next best thing. Might be faster matchmaking too? I think a random everything ranked playlist would be everything the hardcore aoe community wants. This game has lots of civs which I don’t ever get to play as I don’t play 1v1 and in TG your shooting yourself in the foot not picking civ. Can’t play lobby games either cos other issues exist there too which can’t be helped. I play lobby games with some friends that are very close in skill level and it’s great fun going random everything and adapting and way more variety of situations and strategies that can be used. It’s a shame cos I feel like more layers of this game are not being seen by people on ranked ladder and this playlist would keep a huge amount of people happy. There would be very little alt f4ing. I think this playlist would do better than empire wars will. Lots of people from the pros down to the middling Elo players would like a less stale ranked experience without alt f4 and more variety.
I think most high rated players would be all right with random civs and positions. Complaints against it will intensify the lower the rating goes though. So most people would be still against the idea.
Just give unlimited map ban then all is ok thats it.Why force anyone to play a map he/she doesnt want to ?
-and add some gaining/losing elo point regulation for each banned map. (%5 for each map for example then player who banned 4 map will get +13 elo instead of +15 from winning )
that wont work. elo needs to be consitent on each side otherwise we will get elo inflation like team games. just unlimited map bans and no elo punishment is the answer.
Nope… atm you have less map bans for everyone in the lobby than there are maps. This is because the map gets picked by the matchmaking alg after the players have been matched. Just saying that giving unlimited map bans would be everything the devs would have to do. No you would have 9 different matchmakers, and people who are able to be in multiple of them at the same time. But if they introduce this there really is no point left why DM 1v1 had to leave the ranked MM, since this would split up the player base wayy more
Unlimited map bans makes the elo system pointless because your rating will simply be inflated by you playing on your best map and ignoring the rest.
Might as well just go back to the lobby system if that’s what we want.
I play AOE 2 semi-religiously and I’ve never been forced to play a map I didn’t want to, because I know what the definition of “forced” is, and it’s not “randomly be seated into a game using settings I agreed to, and decided I didn’t like the result.”
As usual, the argument is “we’re forcing players to do something” when they queue up on their own accord and they don’t get Arabia. That argument is absurd.
The current system is affected by this problem just as much. Someone can inflate their Elo by training only on the 4 least picked maps in the pool and just ban the rest.
That’s playing with words. Rephrase it this way if you prefer: the player is forced to agree with settings that make no sense, if they want to queue. When a large part of the playerbase disagrees with the game settings, the game is the one at fault, not the players.
That last part is key.
It is not necessary for you to queue to play AOE 2. The queue is a nicety.
Yes, that’s why I advocate changing the system entirely, not speeding it into it’s worst possible conclusion by making all the mechanisms that distort the Elo distribution more overbearing.
Splitting the queue into map types and resetting general Elo is the proper move. I actually think it’s the more quality move if we want players to stick around in the queue system long-term as well, as it’d give players distinct reward for approaching variety, and give them that benefit of feeling that they’re climbing and making progress continuously.
Maybe on a reset, we can have people select a queue type they want their ELO to apply to instead of having it wiped, so that players can stay at their current skill level on the maps they’re most practiced and avoid the week or so when total newbs get fast imperial BBT rushed by Viper playing the Turks for a mastapizza video. I digress.
Imagine getting to ~1600 elo on Arabia, and then switching over to learn water maps and not being punished by getting thrown into 1600 islands immediately, instead getting that same incremental grind you had for open land maps. That’s what we’re giving up for Alt-F4 and “Why not just give us unlimited map bans.”
Also, imagine the statistical wonders of being able to analyze four different queue metas, so we can actually see what civs dominate on what kinds of maps, instead of having every water civ have a 47% win rate and be complained about needing buffs ad nauseum because 88% of the playable maps have no water whatsoever. Then, maybe we can finally nerf the Vikings. >.>
Im willing to beat that most players find the que system just fine. Your playing a competitive ladder not picking your own settings in a lobby. Instead of everyone whining about rank not letting you play your prefered map ask for quick play to be improved with unlimited bans and a hidden elo system. This way you keep a competitive ladder and a for fun ladder.
Still playing with words and missing the point. When Aztecs were imbalanced, people could still go to the lobby and play with a data mod to fix it, right? So why did we end up nerfing Aztecs ?
What Alt-f4’ers argue is that the settings make no sense, so you can either argue that they do or do not make sense, but do not tell them that they have the option to not play with the settings, that’s missing the point.
I think so too, but it is equivalent to unlimited bans, just an interface thing. You could have unlimited bans and the underlying system keeping track of your Elo for each map type.
First you have absolutely no data to back this up, in fact, there are public stats showing that Arabia has disproportionally high pickrate across all Elo ranges and modes. So, the most reasonable assumption is that many people would be happy with a way to queue for Arabia-only. You also don’t know how many people are currently not playing due to not having the option of unlimited bans. For example, half the games in the lobby are Black Forest. So it is fair to assume that many of them would play the ranked system, would it provide the option to queue for only Black Forest.
Second, whether the “unlimited bans” community is larger than the “satisfied” one is not very important, both are large and should find a way to queue for their desired settings, without having to wait 2 years that the lobby system gets fixed. We have the option to have both communities happy, but we decide not to take it.
No idea why you would suggest that and not agree with unlimited bans in the ranked queue, that would lead to the same results, the only difference is that you label one as “casual” for no legitimate reason. Please explain to me how Arabia-only is more casual setting than random map.
Just because its pick doesn’t mean much. My data is that fact that most players are playing rank. Im not saying that they wouldn’t like a this map only choice but thats why you would make a different lobbying setting for it. Most games played competitively have separate ques that play under different settings.
Its a ranking system for random map not a ranking system for arabia. I don’t think this needs more explanation. If you need me to ill try to break it down more but it would take more time.
Because the developers thought they were out of line. Not because a subsect of players thought so.
What I’m saying is true. It’s not a test of the imagination to understand that. I’m also not suggesting that it’s a clean tradeoff. Most things aren’t.
No, it is not. If you just give each map in the current pool a “map type” assignment and then give it unlimited bans, you’re going to have people who will learn and play one map which is still an elo distortion, even if it’s limited to one pool of maps. No, each map type should have its own pool that you play from without bans so as to assure that your rating for “Open Land Maps” isn’t predicated on one specific land map, or else it’s pointless and we’re back to square one.
Pools, and you ban Pools of maps that pertain to an elo of a type, not Maps. Otherwise the Elo system will still be a total joke.
Yes I think it needs an explanation. In particular, explain why if it is a “random map” ranking system then why Arabia is played in 60% of the 1v1 matches. Also explain why a solo player in TGs must learn all the maps and be prepared for truly random experience, while a 4-premade can ban for example all water maps hence only focus on a subset of maps.
My explanation is that the developers wanted a system where players could queue for every map but ended up messing up seriously by laziness and not realizing most people want to play only certain maps. This explanation explains the facts above well. Yours does not.
And many of them Alt-F4, so that does not say much.
The fact is most are not alt f4. It is prevalent in the upper elo.
Its random map with the option to have a map with a better chance to be picked. It is true that arabia is popular but a person playing only s single map should not be ranked on a similar ladder as someone who mastered multiple maps.
You are stuck being place ina team with others who have their own ban. In a premade team each player is still getting 1 ban its just that theirs are together.
Yes, it was decided by a subsect of players: the ones who played ranked (which are a tiny minority of the total playerbase). Then the developers listened to complaint, thought there was a way to please this community, without reasonably hurting the rest of the community (the ones who play single player).
If you trust developers to decide what is good and is not good, and think minorities should not complain, then I don’t know why you complain about Alt-f4 at all, it has been part of the game for 1 year and obviously does not affect the large majority of players (who don’t play ranked).
(edited) There is a way to keep the matches balanced by keeping track of each player’s per-map performance.
Example, let’s say 2 players of similar overall skill queue up within different contexts:
Player A queues most of the time for Arabia and BF. He will have an Elo of 2000 for Arabia, 2000 for BF.
Player B queues most of the time for all maps in the pool. His Elo will be 1900 for Arabia and 2100 for other maps.
The system then knows that Player A is more likely to win vs Player B on Arabia, and less likely on BF. Suppose it ends up deciding that both players should be matched together due to long queue times, it proceeds to choose one random map (BF or Arabia). If the map is Arabia, then the Arabia Elo is used for the new Elo calculation, if the map is BF, then the BF Elo is used.
(edited) Let’s say that 4 players A and 4 players B play 4v4 and are matched on Arabia, each one solo queues. Then the matchmaker will mix them together, for example 2xA + 2xB vs 2xA + 2xB, and the teams will be balanced.