The Dodge function is needed again.+game system needs to be changed

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

=== My English is not good.I use a translator.====

1)The reason why this patch is wrong -The reason why Dodge is needed again.

  1. Patches for people on the team.I make a team with beginners every time.
    Some people have a team score of 3,000 or higher.But his alliance is less than 1,200 points.
    You have to play games with these people every time. This is unfair.

  2. Make a team with the people you blocked.I have to make a team with people on my blacklist.
    I don’t want to play games with someone I hate.

  3. Not everyone needs to be good at all guidance.Office workers or busy students cannot teach well.
    We are not professional players.Aoe2 has too many maps.You can’t study all the maps.

There should be more maps that can ban.
1v1 can play seven maps.Only three maps can be blocked.
Team play can play 9 maps.But you can block only one map.

There are many kinds of maps, but there are few kinds of banable maps.

2)If there is a large difference in scores when making a team, the game system should be changed so that the team cannot be made.
As I said before, friends of extras and players create new accounts every time.Their team score is less than 1,500 points.
People with a team score of 2,600 or more or 3,000 points or more form an alliance with other accounts of friends with less than 1,500 points and bother people.
Smurf team masters play with beginners and enjoy bullying.
This is unfair.
If there’s a big difference in scores when making a team, you have to change it so that you can’t make a team.
We are tired of this harassment every time.
Because of this smurf team, many people delete the aoe2 game and leave.

thank you.

2

You raise some legitimate concerns that others have also communicated. I believe the true root cause is arranged teams competing against teams of random players.

Arranged teams (groups of friends) have significant advantages:

  1. Arranged teams can have practiced strategies (you go fast castle; I’ll scout rush to hold off opponents)
  2. Arranged teams are more collaborative (sling, looking out for each other, offer coaching/feedback)
  3. Arranged teams can select mutually beneficial civs
  4. Arranged teams have better communication (such as using voice, not just chat)
  5. Arranged teams support smurfing. The random algorithm is not making a team of a 3000 Elo with 1000 Elo – the arranged teams are.

Recommendations:
A. The top Elo player should be designated ‘Team Captain’ in the UI to encourage that person to communicate a plan and help with civ picks. This is purely a social construct.

B. On arranged teams, the matching calculation should put a floor limit on the lowest Elo player. That is, a 3000 Elo player + 1000 Elo player might be calculated as 3000 + 2500 for matching purposes.

C. When the match is over, the random team should be given the option to play together again. Or, at the very least to assist them in ‘friending’ each other. That way, more arranged teams will form and balance out the advantages.

1 Like
3

Actually, will it be possible to team match so that the arranged team size is consistent?

E.g. if you play with 3 other friends, you always get to match a team of 4 friends as well

1 Like
4

I wouldn’t expect this game to have enough players queuing at the same time to support only matching with the same size of arranged team, but I know that what some other games do is to have a preference for doing that if possible, but they’ll mismatch the arranged team sizes if the queue time is getting too long.

5

To me the easiest fix would have been the ranked lobbies, so you know and accept who you playing and what you are playing, that was a big win for the communities already established in the 20 years of existence of this game.

But if you want to make it around MM system, there are several workarounds, for example:

*Adding an elo range when joining to a queue, lets say 500 elo max difference no minimum option(this should put and end to the waiting preferences that allows unfair match ups)it will increase waiting times on higher elos, but it will be fair for lower elo players.

*Resetting the tg ladder, porting the 1x1 ranks to start with something accurate, add an elo limiter for ranks above 2400(just like 1x1 ladder) so after that elo they don’t gain more than 1-3 points, so reaching clown 3k,4k,5k elo would be impossible.

*Change MM map system, if among all the players matched the preferred map option is majority, it nullifies the bans, so the system turns democratic and fair, rather than current system, where one guy can ban the map and force the rest to play other map. -this option would work easier than others-

*Instead of punishments or timeouts, when a player leaves the queue another player fills the empty spot, rather than dissolving the players, i mean all actual MM games uses that system, idk why aoe had to disband all the players involved just to infuriate them.

I think that pretty much fixes everything without changing it too much, there are more things i would add, but well, if the devs keep pushing punishments, then they are people you can’t reason with.

6

Yes, this would be very beneficial.

I still believe there should be a cost to the Alt-F4 player in order to reduce this unwanted behavior. But, I really like your idea to reduce the impact on others.

7

when a player leaves the queue another player fills the empty spot

  • good idea
1 Like