I agree until the point you mentioned a lobby system, unfortunately elo lobbies can easily be exploited and used by people to inflate their own elo.
Won’t quote the rest of ur post but I like your idea for a MM map pool, but unfortunately this won’t solve the main problem, which is let them choose the maps they want to play, even if there’s a way to know which maps are banned the most the most played maps are still hated by some people and tons of those people wanna ban all maps but one or 2. I explained my idea on the previous post, but if u don’t wanna read through that huge all of text: the best way to give people what they want (aka choose the maps they wanna play and specialize on that) while also having an elo system that works and properly reflects their skill level is by making a different ladder for each map, so people will be able to choose what they wanna play while also having an accurate elo for each map. And if we want an elo that shows how good you are in general? Then there’s a ladder specificly for that, where you’ll play under a map pool system, and then your idea would 100% fit in this ladder.
I think the main thing we’ve all been failing to notice is that the main difference between AoE2’s players and maps and other RTS’s players and maps is that in other games while maps still affect how you’re gonna play, the impact of the change isn’t as close as how much AoE2 maps affect the way we’re gonna play, AoE2 has a big variety in playstyles, and the things you need to do to make each style work are very different compared to how things are in other games (and I feel that’s mostly because of the combination of having 4 different resources + map shape, things are much more straight forward when you only have one or 2 resources to worry abt and when there isn’t much variation on what you can do to defend your base, in SC2 they even have a rule set of what things competitive maps need to have so they always have X tiles of opening to the main base (pretty much a normal small ramp) and X tiles of opening in the 2nd base, so protoss and terran players will always need the same amount of buildings there to make a full wall, in AoE2 this is always random and depending on the map it can be really easy or really hard to fully wall your base (and let’s not forget about arena and fortress)), so it’s just natural that AoE2 players will be much more willing to specialize in maps they like instead of trying to get good on all of them. So it’s not a matter of this map pool not working, it’s more of a matter that we need a whole different system that can support all kinds of different players, while also having a part of it to allow players to check their general elo if they want to. In a game like SC2 people can say “I’m gold at 1v1”, “I’m silver at 2v2”, etc, but in AoE2 we have people saying “I’m 1700 elo at arabia 1v1”, “I’m 1800 elo at BF 3v3”, “I’m 1680 elo at arena 1v1”, people have specialized for years in the maps they like to play when MM wasn’t a thing, it’s only fair that when implementing a MM system that people are allowed to choose what map they want to play, but in order to have an elo that works it needs to be separated for each map, it’s just wrong to force everyone into having to be good on every single map and only have a general elo and that’s it. Imo for MM to work on DE, we need different elos per map, and be allowed to choose what maps we want, that’s my idea for how to fix things.
My view is that the ELO in the lobby system is not there so much for seeing who is “best”, instead there for giving an indication of the skill to help finding people with similar skill to find fun games, so exploiting should not be a huge problem and should let people playing the maps they want.
I do like the ELO for each map, but see som potential problems. 1. Splitting the player base, increasing times in queue (some say they are fine with it, but it will generally make it harder for all to find game an therefore less appealing online experience) it will specially affect the higher and lower 10% that will have it really hard to find opponents on their level. 2. My best guess is that it will be hard to implement a such system. 3. Then they can only compare to others playing the same map if the player pool is smal for one map then the ELO range may be 900-1100 while a popular map the elo could be 0-2000 and even the 19++ is worse than the 1100 on the other. (maybe not a big problem but something to have in mind).
I don’t think its good for competitive MM to let player only play one map since as mentioned before it make it impossible to compare with others except for others playing that map.
I guess that it should be possible to store stats for each player and each map with existing and proposed MM system and thereby have ELO for the specific map if desired.
By having the MM map pool system I mentioned they could still have specific ELO for each map but still overlap maps with others in the MM to get an more accurate ELO. And if they don’t want play any other map they have lobbies.
In a perfect world your idea would be good but with the limited player base I think it might kill the game if the system split us up further :S
This is in essence the real point behind an Elo system. It doesn’t determine who is best, it determines your likelihood of winning the game and awards points based off of that, which relates to your overall skill. If the game had been released with matchmaking, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it.
The lobby system is frankly archaic and can be (and is) abused, not to mention it can take even longer to find a game as people kick those who don’t match the Elo they want to play against (usually lower than their own). But some sort of lobby ranking system is necessary for games that are different from what is offered in matchmaking (and imo, some of the maps in the new pool that really shouldn’t be included). Really both should be offered with the understanding being that the matchmaking Elo would be closer to your actual skill level, while your lobby Elo is with you getting to chose the map (and likely your opponents).
Yeah I agree, that’s indeed a problem that could end up happening. I just wish there were enough players so that this wouldn’t be a problem.
I don’t really think this would be a problem, code-wise it’s actually pretty simple, just do what they did for the current system but instead of having a map pool there’s only one map. Then make different databases (to store the elo of players) for each different maps.
Yeah that would be a thing, but that’s why this would only be done to the most popular maps (aka the 4 big ones: arabia, arena, BF, nomad), I do wish more maps would be available competitively but players just don’t play the other maps as often
I don’t feel like the elo difference would be a problem tho, if the maps are different then the elo automatically has no way to be compared, the variation would be smaller and bigger for some but at the end of the day it would be like trying to compare a starcraft 2 player elo with a warcraft 3 player elo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah I mostly agree, and I just rly wish the player base would be bigger to allow it, but tbh? The player base already is and has always been split, even if we didn’t notice it. There are countless players there that only play arabia, others that only play arena, others that only play BF, it’s always been like that, trying to have a system that will put everyone in the same maps together will do nothing but anger everyone because they’ll just refuse to play anything that isn’t the map they wanna play, and this topic just proves that if we look at previous posts. “Arena and Nomad? In my matchmaking? DISGUSTING!”, “WHY DID THEY ADD BF? IT’S THE MOST CANCEROUS MAP EVER!”. Literally the only single thing that every single one of us agrees is that mega random in the map pool is a joke. I think the main thing we should focus for DE ranked is to have a system that gets players to play DE instead of push them back to voobly or HD, which is unfortunately what’s happening rn. Like idk, maybe implementing my idea would bring players back to DE? Maybe implementing a ranked lobby would bring them back? Maybe doing what you said and having both systems side by side? Idk, but as long as the system brings players to DE it’s good enough for me, because at this point literally the only thing that can split us up even further is having a system that pushes us away from DE, and unfortunately that’s what’s been happening rn. Unfortunately trying to unite everyone in the same MM system is the one thing that’s splitting the player base even further, if the devs wants to bring people back and keep everyone happy then they should try and work around the fact that the community is split into players that only wanna play X map, and I do understand it’s not an easy decision.
I’ve experienced a number of players quitting on me once the map loads and I figured it was due to the fact that they banned all the maps they don’t like and couldn’t ban the one that loaded so quitting was their solution. I can’t blame them… even though I’m not banning any maps currently… But it’s the only option if you feel like your only good at 1 or 2 maps in the pool and are really serious about your ranking.
Perhaps this will motivate the dev team to improve the system. Because we can’t have 1/3 of the players quitting all the time either.
Yes, I only like ONE of the maps, Arabia. That means there is only a 12% chance I will get to play on a fun map. In the release version of DE, even though I hate water and ships, all of those maps were something I could get used to and enjoy playing. Hating 6 out of 8 maps, isn’t good. (Gold rush is ‘ok’). Banning three doesn’t help. I play the game for fun, so why would I want to keep playing if I only have fun 12% of the time?
I wonder if Voobly will come out with a way to use DE with their system, so we can play exactly the map we want and view the skill level of the person we will play against before playing?
Another thing, some people just immediately quit the game if its a map type they hate, which then causes them to have a lower rating than they should, so it is messing up the ranking system as well. What is so hard about allowing people to play the map they want to against people of similar skill? You can do that on both HD and voobly, why not DE?
Honestly, the maps from the release version of DE were so much better, even though I hate water and have no interest in boats (the ideal would be to just play Arabia, the game is hard enough as it is).
I mean honestly, a horse that runs around the map as fast as a sports car instead of a scout? Starting with a castle? Starting with walls or the ability to build ten walls between you and your opponent? Is this meme play or what? We want to play the genius game that was created and honed over 20 years, not have it ruined by these weird meme maps…
P.S. I HOPE THE DEVELOPERS READ THIS ENTIRE MAP POOL THREAD (if not, does anyone know where we can leave serious feedback where they will read it?)
I think my proposal of having players select maps they are willing to play instead of banning is still the best solution for MM. If users want a game asap they will select all maps. Literally nothing will change for the community besides they will be matched with people who only want to play popular maps more often. Nothing wrong with that. We should not have to sacrifice freedom of choice just to be like other games when there’s no tangible benefit. If they want to encourage players to try maps they don’t like, you can adjust the ELO system to award more points and lose less points when you play maps that you don’t normally play.
You don’t have the ability to play the settings you want in a rated mode today. The unranked lobby doesn’t have ELOs so there’s no way to ensure balanced games and to ensure that players who come are the level they say they are. It’s also more fun to play for points. Unranked lobby is pointless for competitive play. They should just have a lobby with the ability to make the game rated or not.
We don’t have to chose matchmaking or rated lobbies. There’s still a huge community not playing DE. It will be the best ROI for Microsoft if they offer the best of all worlds and unit te community. More streamers, more tournaments, more competitive play in DE will mean more new players buying DE. If the matchmaking proponents are right, then most players will gravitate towards that, if they’re wrong then most people will use the lobby. We don’t need to have this false dichotomy forced on us. There’s enough players for ranked lobbies and matchmaking and we should make the matchmaking changes suggested above.
While I understand some people want to just log on, not talk to anyone and get a game ASAP in MM the below is what I miss about rated lobbies:
Playing the settings I enjoy in a rated mode. Playing for points makes everything more fun.
Talking with opponents before games and having that community feel when I play instead of feeling like I’m in this cog just being pushed into matches. I want to make friends and see who is playing
Grude matches. It’s fun to replay people after a loss. Get revenge lol!
If I can only play a game or two that day I’ll want to play Arabia or an open land map. It ruins my experience being forced to play on Arena or BF for that one game. This is really what’s killing my desire to play DE
I love the diversity of legends who only play in specific settings like FatSlob. I can’t wait to challenge players like him in a rated lobby
it’s frustrating when people quickly quit in MM before one minute because they weren’t able to play on a map of their choice
Honestly this being forced (unranked is unplayable due to no skill matching possibility) to play maps I don’t like is the worst thing they could have possibly done, worse than any Cumans or tower rushing imbalances. It was easier to quit games with Cumans then have to quit 80% of the games because they arent the maps I want.I thought unbalanced civs were bad, nothing is as bad at killing my interest in this game as being forced to play on bad maps. Except maybe taking away skill matching altogether.
I don’t know if we needed it quoted and repeated but good that we agree.
Then I don’t understand what you are saying that the game dident have MM which it has and had.
I don’t know what you mean that lobbies are abused today when there is no ELO atm.
The problem with kicking people joining with wrong ELO range is easily fixed with adding an option to set ELO range for lobbies if wanted.
But nice that we agree (as most that have voiced their opinion on lobby system) that it should be an visible ELO.
Could you elaborate on how your ideal system would work. My understanding of your proposal is that players should be able to play any map (100+ MAPS) any settings and compare it and with others and think it will give an accurate estimation of skill?
You most think that MM most have some limitations right?
I do agree to some point that awarding change instead of forcing is good but with ELO is easily abused.
That’s why I bring up that rated lobbies is essential for people wanting try out other things or specializ on specific maps, and let MM be a separated place to have an more accurate estimate of your and you opponents skill.
ROI?
However I don’t thinking having MM and lobbies separated is a large problem since they serve different needs. MM can seem too serious and competitive for many while lobbies is the place for having fun with different modes and so one and thats great to have as an option.
I think all your problems are solved if they just add visible ELO to lobbies so don’t understand why you have to be angry about MM.
On Voobly and HD they are. Setting an Elo range for lobbies would do nothing to change that. People kick players out of lobbies all the time that they don’t want to play against due to their Elo, sometimes over a very minuscule difference.
First of all they made the improvement to ban 3 maps in 1v1 (if that’s what we are talking about) so your chance of getting Arabia in MM atm is 1/5 =20% and I’m with you on thats low even though gold rush and we are at 40% (still low).
I think having people to learn one new mapstyle(let people chose one new style between 3-5 new style maps) per rotation and let the chance be 10-20% to get it is okay since the change make the game interesting (for many not all).
Those maps are a part of the game and people like different styles, that’s why it’s important those maps exists also even though they might not fit your style or is not so flexible and competitive. That’s why it’s important that people should have to vote what maps should exist and exchange the map pool so others have a possible to be tested.
Arabia is a good map, but there are alot of similair maps that should easily be interchanged in between to keep the game interesting for an example.
You can read my idea further up on how they could easily improve the existing system, a goal could be that with bans you should have a 80-90% get one of your familiar maps and if you get the map you are not an expert one you can see it as something new and interesting to try and learn and loose ELO if trying to dodge that (since so rare it won’t have a big affect on the ELO overal anyways)
Well if they are that picky let them, there are other lobbies to join then.
And by having an ELO range they could set it to what they want and wait forever if Noone match, then don’t need to kick. So I must say I don’t really se the big problem.
It’s really not ideal for ranked and creates longer wait times. A matchmaking system does fix that issue. For all the bellyaching you hear about the ranked queue, it really doesn’t take as long as finding a game on HD or Voobly except when those are very busy.
This has all but turned me off of playing ranked… which I would guess is the opposite of their worries about queue times forcing us to play such a huge set up. The old system was land map leaning, and that more or less matched what is popular. It just needed a tweaked map pool, with ban options after choosing. Frankly, as implemented for team games, there is way too high a chance to play something I don’t care for in any way. I considered the option of joining team games and quitting directly after map selection, but decided that would be pretty rude.
Preferably, it has a similar, but tweaked old map pool and does the following:
The server tells us that you are playing some map, say Scandinavia.
And then both players have access to 2 bans. If any player bans, then it picks again with Scandinavia being removed from the pool. (1 ban for Team Games)
one way to improve this i think would be to increase the size of the map pool by 1 (9 in total), so in 1v1s you could have 4 bans, and even in 4v4s your could have 1 ban and it wouldnt decrease in any way the queue time as there is always 1 map left at least.
Personally i would add some map like cross, where it is mainly land map, but there is water if you want to go fro it and get the extra eco boost. If it were me id also change steppe to something more arabia like but thats very personal opinion so…
Thank you for sharing your experience.
In that reason we must say, Megarandom map generation is broken. This never happened to me.
Solution would be to replace Megarandom by Fullrandom and rework MegaRandom to make sure each player has same starting position
