Then why are you supporting a topic which goal is exactly to prevent people from having this option ?
Why do agree with the introduction of a bandaid that has clear major downsides (excludes all 1-map players and people who have disconnection issues), was never needed before, and which you know would not be needed if a better system was in place ?
How funny of you to say this, I made the same argument countless times in other threads and all you did was call me âdisrespectfulâ and insult my character for not agreeing with your ideas, but I accept your apology.
My experience with CS:GO tells me that none of these things are true, which was the whole point of my post, all youâre doing here is repeating your points without adding any substance to them, I already know that you think your opt-in system would bring in these positives, Iâm skeptical, because my experience with opt-in systems in other games (like CS:GO) has been the exact opposite, as I mentioned.
I already mentioned that Iâm an Arabia player, an opt-in system would work great for me, it would probably work just fine for BF and Arena players as well. It would just kind of defeat the purpose of ever adding any other maps to the map pool
The problem turned out to be that the idea of variety was more of an illusion than reality with the opt-in system, my choices in CS:GO were the following:
Would you ever choose the second option or would you eventually conform to the first?
In DE with the current matchmaking queue, our options look like this:
Scenario 3 happens 80% of the time for popular map choices like Arabia/BF/Arena (or higher? We donât have stats on this so we can only speculate), wait times are unaffected in all 3 scenarios, balanced matches happen on all 3 scenarios since itâs all under one queue.
I much prefer the second option, I donât know if opt-in on DE would play out like in CS:GO, but like I already mentioned, high level players in CS:GO like to play many different maps, which is different from DE where most people even at the mid level already only prefer 1. I can only assume it would play out very similarly, only worse due to CS:GO having 50x the players that we do on average.
for you and @PacificWheel208 Iâll try to list the reasons an opt-in system would be bad for players like myself:
The current 1v1 system is pretty much ideal for people who donât want to play any particular map more than 40% of the time. It would be incredibly hard to design an opt-in system which works as well and doesnât have greatly increased queue times.
@Fano0517
Iâm aware you made that argument before, I just wanted to say that it felt like a relief to hear at least âsomethingâ within this topic in particular. I donât remember, but I probably did not call you names for this argument. You gave an actual example, itâs not an argument out of selfish entitlement. Not that I believe itâs necessarily reliable to take conclusions from that such an example. Perhaps on a bad day I might get pissed off that your main point is a comparison from a different game. Because I could name a different game where the opt-in system does work, does this mean that your argument is not conclusive? Probably. I donât play CSGO so unfortunately I canât really say much about it.
Luckily we agree that the outcome will not be only 1 map as is the case in CSGO:
Those 3 maps is what I would call the worst scenario, the very least I would expect for quick queue times. If the outlier maps have a multitude longer queue time that would be realistic. All in all a big improvement over what we have now because now weâve actually solved the alt-f4 problem and no one is playing games agains their will.
I understand that you feel you have something that would suggest it would not work as I see it. But why be so adamant that it wonât? We could name different games and they could all have different outcomes. I feel like youâre just not giving it a chance.
Variety is not a given that you can create out of thin air, itâs someting that should happen out of significant community interest. Also variety without control is worthless, whatâs the joy in playing different maps one doesnât like? And ofcourse in the current system everyone that enjoys unpopular maps is fked because alt-f4. Giving them the opportunity to queue longer for their favorite map is a gift.
I donât think it would be balanced such as you discribe, itâs more likely that maps outside of arabia, arena and bf are gonna be unbalanced OR have a long queue. A queue time of ~10-20 mins for a such a map would be reasonable.
Ofcourse shorter queue times will look interesting but imagine if arabia was unpopular with 15mins queue times, I would not hesitate at all. Right now queue times are already 6 mins so itâs not such a big deal. Even a 2 min queue on black forest would not pursuade me.
The evidence is out there on our previous discussions, I wonât harp on it because itâs irrelevant, my advice on this subject would be to take points against your arguments as they are instead of thinking they are attacks on your character and getting angry about it, but anywayâŠ
I think games where opt-in works well are games where the majority of the playerbase is ok with playing a large variety of maps to begin with (and as such they will select multiple maps when they queue, instead of banning everything but their favorite), we unfortunately donât have that luxury in our playerbase.
The variety in map types that have large followings in DE are Arabia/BF/Arena like you said, the problem is that there is little overlap between players who enjoy all 3 or even 2 out of 3 of these maps, and outside of these 3 maps popularity falls off hard, if it takes 10-20 minutes to find a game on a water map, then that map type is effectively âdeadâ as far as the ranked ladder is concerned.
âReasonableâ is relative to how much the person really wants to play those other maps, I think youâre overestimating a playerâs patience.
What I like about the current queue is that (in my experience) Elo is accurate enough across all maps and map types that creating a balanced match does not require knowing which map the match will be played on, this is an awesome advantage of our system that we would not be leveraging without rotating map pools and random map selection, we can have balanced games on Arabia, BF, Arena, and everything in-between thanks to the way the system is currently set up.
Opt-in is a step backwards because now the balanced games are only for the maps that are popular enough to have a healthy number of players queueing for them, everything else will fall by the wayside as queue times get longer and matches become less fair.
I know itâs different from the lobby systems of the past where people could be selective and only play exactly in the way they wanted, but I think we have an opportunity to shift that mindset towards one where players are instead learning to adapt to map types they arenât used to and perhaps learning something new each time those maps come up, instead of complaining that they didnât get Arabia/BF/Arena for the millionth time in a row.
i did not really want to keep answering to this post but this got my attention.
i think what you say there is not true:
1st of all games where opt in solutions work do have a way larger playerbase. that is absolute key to have a somewhat working opt in solution, without basically reducing the game to 1 map only because people are getting tired of waiting for too long to get a game.
2nd and that is the even bigger issue i see: we do have a player base that likes variety. it is the way smaller part of players that is only enjoying one map. so if we introduce an opt in solution the fewer amount of people will be happy. but what that also does is that players like me, who like variety will either also activate being queued for arabia and arena there is a big chance that i will get 90% of my games on only those two maps (as i already do when i do not ban arabia or arena in 1v1 these days) or i will spent a long time in the queu to then get an unbalanced game. So variety will just be dead.
But why should we give up the fun for the major part of the community for only a minority? i dont see the point.
Majority in this game has played 1x1 arabia since original game, what are you smoking at 11, even now in 60% or more plays arabia, the rest of that 40% is split in different maps, making arabia the most played map.
despite your insult i gonna answer this before going back to being silent observer of this topic again:
only that a majority of players accepts to play on arabia by not banning it, it is not the majority that wants to play arabia only. that is a big difference. learn how to use numbers if you bring them up.
Well, first, if youâre speaking about 1v1, Iâm also satisfied with the current system (with Alt-F4), and I believe opt-in would make close to no difference there. My main issue is in TGs (3v3 / 4v4) where we have much less bans and longer queue times, but Iâll argue about 1v1 because the arguments still apply.
For most of the points, this is mainly listing all the advantages of the current system and saying any other system would not have the same advantages. I mean thatâs true, if you are 100% satisfied with the current system, and all these points really matter for you, then itâs fair that you want to keep it, but on the other hand by conceeding some of these points Iâm also trying to make massive improvements for people who are not satisfied with it.
Letâs take your arguments number 2) and 5)
I mean, how much of an annoyance would it be for you, that youâd now have to play with the new settings a bit and take the decision of how long youâre willing to wait, compared to the current annoyance that some people have to be literally forced to Alt-F4 if you want to play a specific map. I donât pretend your request is not valid, what I pretend is the drawback for you is certainly much less than the weighted benefit would be for those people.
Now you might think, as the system is doing the job correctly for you, and I suggest to take something back without clear counterparts, you have no interest in supporting it. But the counterparts are hidden: the current system is very fragile, especially if matchmaking penalties were introduced, weâll get a drop in playerbase that will affect even you. I genuinely believe with opt-in the regain in interest for the playerbase will offset queue times and lead to no difference for people who are satisfied with the current system.
Iâll go very quickly on the 3 other points:
-4) is already the case. Arabia has 60% pickrate so it means people have drastically less experience on other maps. Then if a player bans Arabia every time heâll likely inflating his Elo because he will be more skilled on the other maps.
-1) right now the contract is âpeople who like variety force people who donât like variety to play with themâ. I believe this negatively affects a significant more important number of players than the contract you describe (positive cycle between people who like variety)
-3) This point is too long to discuss, I suggest to keep this one for later.
this is the first map pool I hate 4 maps.
I havenât got time to read all 100 posts but based on 20 posts I have read, does that mean AOEII DE ladder should include Arabia and Arabia only? Maybe arena and thatâs about it. No more BF no more interesting new maps. Everyone just go Arabia or arena all day long, cause people say we already have enough variety without map diversity.
Maybe we can do one step further: when new player installs the game, only Arabia and arena maps are downloaded. All other official maps need to be downloaded in game settings later on.
Honestly they should just remove the whole Map variety system. And go by the most popular maps the people have played for years. Split the 1v1 RM elo into the following elos: Arabia 1v1 elo, Arena 1v1 elo, Islands 1v1 elo, Hybrid Map 1v1 elo. And add separate queues for each. No one will feel the need to ALTF4 before a game starts anymore.
Yes queue times will increase for players who like to play something else than arabia or arena, but thatâs a needed sacrifice in my opinion. The community has been playing the game for 20 years, and thereâs a reason why the meta evolved to mostly play those 2 maps.
If DM is allowed to have an active ladder with less than 200 active players, then so can 1v1 Rm be split into Arabia, Arena, Islands etc⊠The Arena queue will most certainly have 10 times more players playing than the DM queue. You could even add an empire wars queue and even that one will be more popular than the DM queue currently is.
Teamgame can continue using a similar system like this one, with like the 10 most popular teamgame maps.
For this way of thinking the game was stuck almost 20 years, with almost no progress in terms of player base o features. Hope we are not coming back to that.
Dude, they canât make ONE queue function reliably, letâs not add in 10 more failure points.
The thing is⊠how do you know they alt-4, or the game just crashed, or if they legit lost connection⊠I support the idea of punishing them because this affects other players but will be hard to really know who deserves it, also this behaviour has to do with the fact that sometimes you get forced to play in maps that you dont like specially when playing tgs without friends because of the only ban you get in that situation
I donât call this âwho deserves itâ because I donât think someone who leaves a game deserves some sort of punishment for doing it. Donât call it a punishment, because it isnât. If someone leaves a game, either connection issue, leaving for a good reason, or leaving for no reason whatsoever, itâs a loss of time for the players the DC left behind. Weâre trying to make the queue better for them not worse for the dropped player.
If itâs connection, a 15 minute time-out may likely expire before connection issues are sorted, and if they arenât, itâs a safeguard for the next group being guaranteed that this wonât happen to them.
If they have to leave, or just decided in the middle of the game that they are done for now, a 15 minute timeout isnât going to affect that at all. If they really need to leave, theyâll probably leave for more than that, and if theyâre burned out for the day, thatâd be some excellent burn recovery to return before that.
The only situation where a 15 minute timeout (the OPâs original suggestion) is really a setback is if you join a game, donât like the settings, quit because of the settings, and re-queue immediately. In that case, itâs a setback for the one player that wants to play the one true map and a boon for the rest of the queue who doesnât have to worry about being paired against that player for 15 minutes.
Right now thereâs no system to dissuade this action, and I donât think itâs out of the question to suggest a very temporary queue restriction would help to deter the behavior, and even if it doesnât, itâd reduce the frequency of the queue being subject to an Alt+F4
No man, punishing players who pick BF, ARABIA or ISLANDS onrated games is the right move. Why should I be force to plaly maps I dont like? Give the option to cross them out. I am not playing aoe to torture myself with maps I dont want to play. I want fast aggressive maps. I dont want to play sims I want WAR. Why shall I be punished because the programmers cant find a solution in 2021 about a simple problem? Fix it. Go on VOOBLY and LEARN. You took a great game and you made like *****. Only graphics and lag is betterâŠall the other aspect of the game are destroyed.
I queued for 1v1 Ranked yesterday, preferring Four Lakes and couldnât join the match for 3 times in a row. This is nonsense. Seriously people are even dodging Four Lakes? Is there anything âtoxicâ with it?
For those who only want to play Arabia (or Arena), I think the most viable solution is to display the Unranked ELO in game, and let them go play lobby games, just like on Voobly. Ranked queue needs punishment. That is common sense. @GMEvangelos
This is 100% what will happen if they ever implement a matchmaking penalty:
Worse part is: AltF4âers will continue to Alt-F4 anyway, no matter the penalty, because youâre not addressing the reason why they Alt-F4. Youâre taking a super naive approach and hoping blindly that it will work while ironically calling for âcommon senseâ. Common sense would tell you, when Problem A induces Problem B, you solve Problem A, not Problem B.
things that never happen in any game with penalty for dodgers.