🗳 VOTE NOW! 1v1 Ranked Map Rotation - May 04

I completely agree with BuckledClub644, and would like to add that changing the map pool every 3 weeks is too frequent (and from my perspective completely unnecessary).

Is there any data supporting this claim or is this just a hunch? I have seen several complaints about this on Reddit and on Twitch, where the game fails to start and the perception is that it’s because the opponent didn’t want to play the map…

Regardless, ALT+F4’ing is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The frequent and pervasive map pool changes add an extra layer of complexity to an already complex game, unnecessarily increasing the barrier to entry.

Has there been a community survey about how the current map rotation scheme is perceived by the “bottom” (more casual) 80% of the player base?

He probably meant that it usually happens in team game queue and rarely in 1v1 queue. It certainly happens because of opponent Alt+F4ing most of the time

3 weeks is pretty good and I desire the map pool to have a greater variation of maps. In general, the map pool is usually bland as the maps are basically cookie cutters rather than what players actually see in tournaments. Specifically the Battle for Africa maps and Chrazini’s maps come to mind if you need examples.

“Map rotation” should be removed entirely, they should just give us the full list of maps that have ever been available in the map pool and then give us unlimited bans. Or heck just reimplement the ranked lobby system we had in Voobly.

1 Like

+1 (20 chars…)

No, please, no. MM is much superior compared the a lobby like Voobly had. MM is one of the biggest benefits of DE over Voobly.

And if you dont like MM, then go play into the lobby. There is already a lobby.


Hi there.

What do you think would be the downside of having lobby actually count towards ranked as well?
I dont think the suggestion is to remove matchmaking, but simply that one can host a Ranked Lobby too.
You seem to indicate in lots of threads that games are played on Lobbies for those that only want to play one map… But why not have these games count towards Ranked as an incentive for players that want to, and can actually find balanced and rewarding games on Lobby?

1 Like

The point of rankings is to give you opponents at a similar level, but they only work if you can really control the variables so that everyone is being ranked based on the same general metrics. Example: Chess ELO is very accurate because 1v1 all same settings, so everyone is ranked based on identical metrics. Age doesnt have nearly as much control as there are a lot more variables. So by breaking ELO down to 1v1, Team, and Unranked you can have more accurate elos (in theory). So 1v1 elo especially we are trying to limit the variables so everyone is playing the same group of maps with the same settings at a given time. The Lobby allows you to change all sorts of settings, and maps etc, so if those results counted for your ranked 1v1 ELO you would no longer have reliable rankings that would give you fair matchups anywhere.

At the moment lobby games and I believe quick play? Give you an “unranked elo” so in the lobby you can look at your opponents and ask them to have the same ranking. Additionally in the lobby you can see there 1v1 and team rankings to help you determine if your skill level and theirs are comparable. As the host of a lobby you can choose to kick out opponents you dont want to face, and if you’re joining, you can choose not to face an opponent.


I don’t get it that much.

I play PvP 1x1 why are there so few of those maps?
And why is size just a tinny.
I would also welcome a larger size 1x1 for example normal size