yeah, or uninstall game and play something else entirely when the game keeps kicking you out…
that would been your own fault there for breaking the rules of the ranked enviroment or of whatever game you got banned off
Also i think getting banned isnt instanly a reason to uninstall it Thats just silly
Well if a game just goes out of its way to be annoying and unfun, why play it? I sure won’t, and many others wouldn’t.
1 Like
damn right there are alot of other games that you might enjoy
the key here is just trying to work with the community and not against it as some people in this community tent to do because selfish behaviour neither rewards you nor other players and it shouldt thats the whole things
like i said thats the whole thing why i agree that a temporary timeout that stacks gratually with how often you missbehave
Well kicking players off the game doesn’t exactly sound like ‘working with the community’. Just sounds like getting rid of people you don’t agree with.
1 Like
well its not kicking them its temporary and no i agree with some i relish some ideas people have sometimes critical of it but the thing i want and bot only me and mqny others too is that alt f4 atleast dimminish or cease
That will probably diminish ALT+F4, sure, but also playerbase. So I dont like such ideas.
i said it before in the main alt f4 topic and i say it again some of the reasons people alt f4ing are either maps the teammates or selfishness and 2 of 3 Problems are fixable
People just think about how much time they have to wait until they find a match in their favorite map but they don’t think about the other side. There’s a human player at the other side and he is not here to make you happy. He’s here because he wants to have fun, the same as you. Nobody has the right to force other players into doing things for pleasing you. If they don’t want to play your favorite settings, why the hell forcing them into a match they won’t enjoy? This is so basic that it feels stupid just to have to explain it.
Devs should think about changes that lead into an improvement in total happiness among players. In this case, they are about to change the game in a way it will be more annoying and unpleasant for the big majorty and that’s nonsense.
If I were the player who wants to play a non popular map as black forest, for example, I wouldn’t be complaining about other players skipping my settings. I would go directly into unranked or I would leave the game, because there’s no enough players who enjoy the game the same way as me. Complaining about others because they don’t want to make me happy is just childish and irational behaviour.
1 Like
I haven’t had time to read everyone’s comments so apologies if I double up what’s been said. Here are my views:
-
I like the sports club vs park play analogy. To add to that: To me not playing other maps is like not being willing to practice your backhand or serve in tennis because you just like only forehand rally. Fine, but don’t complain that others want to play competitively. Same to those who only want to play nomad/mega random or any one specific map
-
The ELO system is after all supposed to be judge of your ability to play Random Maps after all, an ‘overall’ rating, not a specific map rating. This creates good fair match ups, and from my experience it’s pretty good at balancing it.
In my opinion this is exactly what you are doing. Complaining about others because they don’t want to make you happy. This is literally a complaint thread, I don’t hear much from arena/megarandom/nomad players saying they shouldn’t have to play the other maps. Mostly I hear them complain about their maps not even being in the pool one month. Imagine arabia not being in the pool for a month, how would you feel?
-
50% of the player base wanting only arabia means that 50% of the player base also doesn’t want only arabia, this doesn’t warrant ignoring those people
-
IF the vast majority of players want only arabia and FAVOURITE it then the vast majority of the time they will get it. eg 10 other people are playing, 5 want only arabia and favourited it, 1 has banned it, 4 have it open but not favourite. 50% of the matches you get arabia guaranteed. 40% of the time you get a 50/50 whether its arabia or not. 10% of the time you don’t get arabia. Statistically you get arabia 50+(40/2) = 70% of the time. That’s a good amount of the time.
1 Like
Better go and read the big topic to have a better understanding of the issue, you and what devs think or call skills are not even close to what it is and you or the devs are no one to tell us how to play the game we have played for 20 years. You really need to know the history of each map and older competitions to understand why some maps requires more skills due to optimization and polished strats with several civs, unlike mixed maps that only benefits less than 5 civs and the strategy is about the same all the time.
Current system is silly by design, 7 players have arabia as preferred one guy has it banned, the outcome 7 players are denied to play their map cause of one guy, also arabia is not 50% of the preferences is beyond 60% and without guys ruining the experience for others the map would be even close to 75% at very least.
But that is only talking about the maps, and yet people like you think it is the main reason if the current issue, but it is not i would like to explain you with apples why the experts don’t play Tg as teams or are even interested in the ladder, despite being competitive players, they sure know how to play all maps unlike some of us, they don’t like the freaking system cause of the forced match ups with very low rank players, the system only cares about quantity and not quality, they don’t want to spend their time killing players +500 below their level, it ain’t fun for anyone.
And your assumptions or estimations are also wrong, in a solo tg queue i have arabia as preferred and from 5 games i am lucky if i get it one time, that is not even close to 70%, in fact from 10 games i have only got it around 2 times.
2 Likes
I admit my example is for 1v1 not team games. As that is what I was posting about I would like to hear your thoughts on 1v1’s too.
I don’t like the idea of saying what maps people can play based on how many civs/strategies are viable. I don’t know if you’re correct in your assertions but even if you are people should have an opportunity to play. Not every game, but some of the time yes.
I chose “50% of players want arabia” to be generous in the calculations, again 1v1 calculations. If you put it at 60% then you would get even more 1v1 arabia games. Also remember it’s % of players who ONLY want arabia, not who “are willing to play it”. I don’t know that there are actually stats on that. Only how many times it gets played. But if you have the stats please link them.
Regarding the top professional players. You even say they don’t care about the maps
So how would only having arabia fix the match making system for them. Still lower level players in their games, the matchmaking elo hasn’t changed. Complain to fix the match making for sure. I don’t know what the algorithm for it is. I believe if no1 is around your elo after a certain amount of time it matches you with a wider bracket. It takes a longer time at those levels to get a game even in 1v1 so I’m not surprised that there aren’t enough players to make an even team game. Is this anything to do with maps?
Also to complain about ‘the majority of people’ not getting what they want by appealing to what the smallest % of players think and that what they think isn’t anything to do with maps seems very odd. I’m not sure it helps your argument.
1 Like
Oh and I got 50% of player base want ONLY arabia from Derra
ah yes, water maps are more balanced, despite the fact every pro tournament has vikings vs portuguese plus a few other civs (formerly used to be malay), while you can play pretty much any civ you want in arabia
1 Like
try explain that to the legions of people that WILL complain with 1 hr queue times…
the solution is not access to all maps, but infinite bans will still help. there still has to be a pool of maps, to limit 1 guy queueing for 2 days because he wants to play a map absolutely no one else wants to…
and why do people keep mentioning if they are programmers? it doesnt change anything? does a noob programmer suddenly have more insight over a mechanic who has played competitively for decades clocking 1000’s of hours??
1 Like
I think the current system with limited bans and preferred map is a nice balance between playing what you want (preferred map) and not waiting for the opponent too long (limited bans). I like it.
And a quick reminder for those who miss glorious days of Voobly and it’s perfect systems: Voobly still exists
Being a programmer doesn’t give you any authority in UX related topic, so mentioning that is pretensious and pointless 
1 Like
That’s not a viable alternative and you know it. Nobody wants to play the old game without all the bug fixes and with laggy games. Not to mention the fact that almost all of the player base moved to DE so the voobly lobbies are dead.
this is a good advert for DE though, i wish every time someone said “but voobly was better” they would add this caveat as well… there’s a reason DE is more popular, and unfortunately we cant cherry pick every single thing we want to fit our own agenda…
yes guys, unfortunately, you cant have every thing you want, just the way you want it, personally tailored to you… you cant play coastal on ranked 1v1 just because you want to… (least played map from recent stats)
Everything? At the moment you are closer to nothing than “everything”.
Edit: finally started a game after many dodges etc… After 2 minutes somebody dropped and the game ended 
The devs should be embarassed for the state of this game…