Yes please ! great solution !
The last 2 weeks, 50% of the games in the Lobby are bugged … You cannot enter in it. It is terrible !
1 Like
Games that implement this feature still have a matchmaking time penalty for players that frequently decline matches, and when you decline a match everyone is thrown back into the queue except you.
I guess a smarter way to implement this would be to just remove that player from queue and not remove the other 7. Wait for one more to join up. So that way no need for time bans and the other 7 players don’t need to rejoin queue. Everyone happy
2 Likes
True that! It also helps if someone queued for ranked and went afk.
Probably the best proposed solution here
IDK but he isn’t around here anymore
With this caveat, it works.
Just to put the bottom line again imo about this issue. The Alt4ing is just a team game issue in 1v1 I have never seen this issue and people rarely talk about it, but in most cases it is a team game issue, by this the devs should only focus on fixing the problem only for teams not 1v1.
2 Likes
I’ll speak for myself. I’m not going to waste an hour of my life playing a map I do not want to play. I play this game for my own enjoyment. Not so we can have a “balanced elo” score through forcing people to play every map. Thanks but no thanks. And you need to also consider, if you succeed in forcing people to play maps they don’t want to play–making the game less enjoyable–it will hurt the community and reduce the amount of people that play.
7 Likes
This is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better. Great idea!!!
With all due respect, your idea is just an official way for alt4ing , so in the end you didn’t solve anything, you just make the alt4ing easier to players.
1 Like
You’re not wrong, and while I’m not a fan of the end result (that being ratings becoming ever more useless) it’ll solve the other, immediate problem that alt-f4 is causing, that being continuous re-queuing for the rest of the players unfortunate enough to be queued with some jerk who will ditch.
So long as the player who ditches is forced to wait until the game he’s ditched starts before he gets a game, and we also differentiate ELO ratings by map type, this is workable. Without that, this system doesn’t function, so we need that to be a number one priority with this.
Imagine the system in action, and really reconsider the point. If the players who don’t want to play a map sit out until the game starts, that automatically makes the least-popular maps a high-priority queue while someone is waiting for a game with one. That sounds like a win to me.
I don’t think his way would help that much, maybe it will reduce the time queuing a little bit but it will not solve the problem. So imo the best way is just give unlimited bans ONLY FOR TEAM GAMES.
Guess why it doesnt happen? Because people get to play what they want! 3 bans, one preferred map means you can play what you like or at least in general terms close to it (Arabia or open maps, Arena or closed maps, Nomad or hybrids), because you can basically ban Arabia&Arena, or ban Arena&Water, or ban Arabia&Water and get the style you like.
On TGs you only have 1 ban if you play alone, and even in a group its hard to find concensus on alternative maps… Often my friends invite me to play some Arabia TGs and another group prefer to play BF TGs…
3 Likes
Yeah this is why I said the best solution is to add more ban choices to team games map pool, it is much better.
1 Like
You can’t add more bans without changing the whole MM algorithm, the least they can do is to allow only one ban per party, so things will be less controlled by premades.
So the answer to not getting more bans is to actually reduce the number of bans? Then its 8 people that can potentially altf4 instead of 4?
1 Like
The amount of ALT+F4 would skyrocket to numbers never seen before
2 Likes
Well, no. The poster above was just explaining that adding more bans would result in a complete restructuring of the way the matchmaker works, which is not a trivial task.
For example, if you give solo players 2 bans instead of 1 for 4v4s, there is now a total of 16 bans across both teams, which increases the likelihood of there being no maps available to play if bans happen to be evenly distributed across the map pool.
For this to be feasible you would have to either:
- Increase the number of maps in the map pool to 17+
- Take map bans into consideration before matching players, effectively creating separate queues per map
Neither of these options is ideal for hopefully obvious reasons.
We could just make the maps 100% random with all maps and no pool to pick from.
Sure. Then everyone would complain, move back to lobbies and they would have to add another ladder for whats been played for 20 years. MegaRandom which is the closest to your suggestion has a 6% playrate even though its fixed.