The multiplayer system just sucks

So I’ve played aoe 2 on and off since the conquerors first was released in 2000. In recent I’ve played almost daily on voobly or HD, mostly team games with friends but also plenty of 1v1s. But, since DE was released neither me nor my friends play aoe anymore.

Now I like a lot about DE, the graphics, the server-based multiplayer system, the new civs etc. However, the new multiplayer system with a matchmaking function where you can’t pick map, see who you’re up against or even see his rank, just sucks. You should have the possibility to just play 1v1 arabia when you feel like it, or 4v4 BF with your friends, if that is what you want.

Now, you have a lobby system as well, but it’s not ranked so you can’t get a competetive match there. And even if more experienced players would use the lobby system more often, you still can’t balance the game since you can’t even see the ratings of the different players (wtf?)

In my opinion, and most old players I’ve talked to seems to agree, it would be way better to just have a proper lobby system for multiplayer. The matchmaking system was a fine idea in theory, but it just doesnt work.

I really hope this is fixed because I still really like this game, and I do see a lot of potential in DE.

9 Likes

I personally am a huge fan of the matchmaking system, finding a player in a rated lobby takes much longer, in my experience.

I do think a rated lobby should be in place, or at least displaying ranks from matchmaking so you can find opponents near your level.

Hopefully it’s coming in January’s update.

10 Likes

What is your average waiting time to get an opponent on voobly?
And voobly had much lower player count than DE at any given time

They have 8 maps, if two players can both ban 4 maps that can result in 0 maps being available.
Allowing more bans would require adding more maps.
Which I’m hugely in favor of, just saying, it seems that’s what’s restricting the ban number.

1 Like

MANY PEOPLE talk about it , not to mention the fact that nobody sees the ratings of otherplayers. So even in unrated games - you cannot select the team members to achieve balance. In rated games you cant pick a map and you cant be sure VS whom you are playing. The enemy might be higher or lower and you never know… Not to mention the lack lobbies with certain rules / parameters SUCKS.

1 Like

Why is this such a big deal to people? Assuming the matchmaking system works as expected, the enemy will be near your own rating, it doesn’t matter if they are higher or lower than you, as long as they are close enough, deal with the hand you’re dealt.

2 Likes

That’s exactly the problem, they aren’t close enough.

Lots of +0 in ranked.

But that’s exactly the issue, I don’t want to be dealt a hand. I want to be able to choose myself whether I want to play a try-hard 1v1 against someone better than myself to test my skill, or play a casual arena TG with people of different skill level.

This has not been my experience :man_shrugging:
Keep in mind that there is a display bug with ELO where it sometimes doesn’t show you your new rating until after you next match, people have reported losing points after wins, but only because they lost the previous game and the system is just showing you the difference after it has caught up.

I think it’s pretty clear that matchmaking is the “try-hard” mode, for anything else there’s lobbies (a ranked lobby should probably exist and be separate from the matchmaking ratings).

I prefer the matchmaking system the way it is because I was constantly kicked from lobbies on HD for being 15-20 points above the host’s own rating. Finding a game with a rating above 1700 was a nightmare.

4 Likes

Disagree, I like the map pool and the queue system much, much better than lobby browsing. You shouldn’t be able to rank up playing only one type of map. If you want to do nothing but 1v1 Arabia, make an unranked lobby. Ranked is for more serious competitive play.

I agree you should be able to see your opponent’s rank tho.

3 Likes

When there’s more players on ranked competitive play later, having some different leagues would be good to show your level and your MMR.

But for now, not many players are on ranked due to unable to cope with the stress of losing or playing against better players at their level, you cannot expect the MMR system to work perfectly as else you either will be queuing forever for a match, or you’ll have to play against people who has very much higher or lower MMR than you currently do, simple logic.

Worse, for now, everyone starts elo at the starting MMR, so fight your way in ranked to increase or decrease your MMR until you’re at your level of play, and the system will be able to match you against your level of play opponents, when there’s enough players in the ranked pool.

We cannot expect anything with little amount of players on ranked where everyone is only playing lobby.

So basically if you prefer serious competetive 1v1 arabia (which is what most serious competetive players like to play), you have to endure playing maps you just don’t enjoy. That’s just stupid. Let people play whatever map they like.

1 Like

Having MM is the way to go. The thing is having the perfect one for age2. Lobbies allow you to fix your games to your liking. (Aka kicking Players and fixing up your matches) but i think you should see your opponent in the picking phase (maybe u dont need to see their name, just what he is picking and his ELO) and then select a map both want to play or just random map

2 Likes

It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to follow a path towards turning AoE into a real e-sport, and you need to set some standards if you want to do that. But I agree that you should be allowed to see another player’s ELO on lobby.

1 Like

I also realy like the MM feature as it is. But for other players their is a need for balanced Lobbys like mentioned above.

1 Like

I’ll never understand why Arabia is the only map people can play on

3 Likes

Then why nearly a year later does the game still match people 200+ rating points a part.

Only happens at the top or Bottom where the number of players become scarce.

What is considered bottom? 1000? Sub 900? Because I know for a fact it is happening to people around the average rating (which is about 1050), regularly getting those rating differences.

I mean something like top 5% and bottom 5% of the players. All other 90% will most likely dont have big differences. How closer you are to the top or bottom the more likely it is that you big elo gaps between players. Around the average rating (1050), this probability is pretty small. Only exceptions seems to be if you play against someone with very few games (Than the difference is sometimes a bit bigger, but still not 200+ rating) or if you are some time in the queue (this will make the range bigger, since there are no players inside you range)

I assume you are talking about Ranked 1v1’s and not about Ranked TG’s or Quick play. To quickly explain those:

  • TGs: In most team games the differences are bigger, because you need more players in the same match. The queueing time is a big longer, so the range in which match making looks is also a bit bigger.
  • Quick play: Quick play isnt matched based on rating (as far as i know), it is just random. So yeah, in quick play you will end up with bigger elo differences. 700-800 points difference isnt strange for quick play. This is why the design of quick play is very bad. I made my own thread about this issue: