We should make a poll concerning the number of map bans people would like in 1v1 Ranked Games

As many of you may know, there seem to be a lot of dissatisfaction with regards to the map pool and the current state of the 1v1 match making system concerning the maps.

From the people who just dislike the maps in the pool, to the people who would like to have an 1v1 Arabia only queue, and those who’d just prefer to have more map bans to better fit on the maps available, it seems quite obvious to me that something needs to change.

In the current system, there is a map pool of 9 maps, and you are allowed only 4 bans. This means you have to choose at least 5 different maps to play on. That is way too many to be enjoyable for most people. Especially when the map pool contains a lot of maps that many people actually dislike.

People log on this game to have a good time playing some rated games using the matchmaking system. How is it possible to have a good time when, 50% of the time or more, you are matched on a map you really dislike?

There are several ways in which we can address this issue.

The first and most obvious one, would be to increase the number of bans you can have. In my opinion, we shouldn’t have to choose more than 3 compulsory maps to play on. So, 9 maps in the pool, and 6 bans. To keep the same algorithm where the system first finds 2 players, then chooses a common map, you can have a pool of 5 maps, and 2 bans.
Three compulsory maps seems to be a well balanced solution, but you can as well go as far as making it 2 or 1 compulsory maps. That’s 9 maps / 7 bans for the former, and 9 maps / 8 bans for the latter. In that last one, the players choose exactly the maps they want to play on.

Another way is to create a separate 1v1 Rated queue for the most popular map of all, Arabia. Many people have been requesting this already, and it seems like a fair idea in my opinion. If this idea is implemented, you would have one 1v1 Rated queue for Arabia only, and one 1v1 rated queue for the complete 9 maps pool. (Note : the 1st idea above about changing the number of bans, could still apply to that 2nd queue.)

With that in mind, it could be interesting if we could have a poll inside the game, in which the current active rated game players choose the number of bans they would prefer. The poll could be placed on the Multiplayer section in the game, where players can answer it before they launch their first game of the day.

And the Poll could be, for example, like this one :

How many map bans would you prefer to have for 1v1 Rated games :

  1. Current system is fine. Pool of 9 maps. 4 Bans. At least 5 compulsory maps to play.

  2. Pool of 9 maps. 6 or 7 Bans. At least 2 or 3 compulsory maps to play.

  3. Pool of 9 maps. 8 Bans. At least 1 compulsory map to play. You choose exactly which maps you want to play on.

We could also have a Poll for the 1v1 Arabia only queue idea, to evaluate exactly how many active players would be interested by it.

Would you be interested in a separate 1v1 Arabia only queue, in addition to the current 9 map pool queue?

  1. Yes
  2. No

Why are there only options to increase the amount of bans? I would vote for less bans. One ban is fine for me.


I’d like a 1v1 ara queue as well, but I also saw two very good ideas for improving the current system:

  1. Option to pick a “favorite map”. If you and your opponent have the same, that gets played. If not, one of the non-banned maps is chosen at random as before. Since most people’s favorite map is ara, this would result in more ara (but if your favorite map is not ara, you don’t have to play it more)
    Advantage of this over more bans is that it works with the current matchmaking system. You can’t have more bans right now, because there might not be a map left to pick…

  2. “Random if enemy random” button. If both press it, you can play random vs random. If one player doesn’t, you get your civ pick


How is this thread really different to the thread i linked? Discussion would be the same. The goal of this thread is just to get into more 1v1 Arabia games. You even posted the idea of a poll to ask it the players what they want in that thread.

Don’t feel obligated to post if you think you have said all you needed already. In fact, I’d rather you not bring back the out-of-topic concerns that we already discussed in length in the other topic and which shadowed the original poster’s discussion on 1v1 Arabia ranked queue. Let’s keep this one spam-free. Thanks in advance :wink:

This topic discusses the implementation of a poll in-game to assess player preferences to see where we’re at. This topic discusses both 1v1 Arabia only queue AND standard queue with extended number of bans. The opening post mainly targets developers so that they can see the idea of a Poll without having to read through 30 posts of spam.



If i will summarize your first post, it will be the same as that other thread. That thread is just to discuss the pros and cons from having more control over de match you play in MM by increasing the number of bans or having a seperate 1v1 Arabia queue. Let me say it which your words:

That other thread is to

Even the idea of having an ingame poll about this (which you mentioned at the end of your first post) is already posted by you in that thread too. So i really don’t know which part of this suggestion is really new? Everything is already said in that thread. The discussion in this thread will be just a repeat of what already been said in that other thread. So i dont think that linking to that other thread is out-of-topic. If you want my opinion about your idea in the first post: Just have a look at that other thread. We already discussed these points.

Also: Let’s keep this one spam-free?! Does this imply you call my post spam?! I know we have a different opinion about this subject, but don’t call my post spam for that reason. Part of the code of conduct is “Treat all forum members with courtesy and respect.” Just calling a different opinion spam isnt really respectful. Please have some respect to different opinions, even if you fully disagree with that opinion.

I have a question. Why is it that there are apparently like 50 different maps available, but for the ranked ladder you can only play like 12 of them? It seems like one solution would be to allow more maps and more bans. I for one can’t stand Hill Fort, but it just so happens that I hate nomad more, so I use my one and only ban on Nomad. Can’t we just increase the number of maps? And what happened to Fortress?

1 Like

Some of the maps are not really popular. If you add more maps, some of the current maps will be played even less. If you have more bans and just only want to play a unpopular map, you will have very much waiting time. I dont think that is great.

The current system of just refreshing the map pool every month will fit better. Since you can easily play a single map for a month, more players just wanna try out a map. After the month, they get a refreshed map from the monthly rotating. I dont think increasing the number fo maps is really the way to go. Maybe we can have a slight increase of number of maps every month, but dont add all 50 maps within the game to the MM system. I dont really think that will work.

Note: An option for me can be swap out MegaRandom for full random. Full random will pick one of the maps within the game at random. I think that will be a better map than the current MegaRandom.

You mean Fortress like regicide fortress? I hope the devs will add queues for other game mode (other than RM or DM) to MM too. Regicide, KotH, Empire Wars, …

This option is an interesting idea for sure, and implementing it would already improve the system. However, I don’t think it completely fixes the issue because it would allow people to play on their favorite map only if the matched player also chose that map. You can be matched with a player who didn’t favorite that map. Meanwhile there could be other people in the system, playing at the same time as you, and who have the same favourite map, but who didn’t get matched with you.
Unless the algorithm prioritizes matching people with same favorite map together, there’s still much room for improvement.

As for the current matchmaking system, you can keep the same kind of algorithm and still allow people to “choose” to play only 3 maps, by lowering the number of maps in the pool to 5 and allowing 2 bans. This way you’d still always have a common map with a matched player.

You can also change the matchmaking system and add a matching criteria based on map picks.
Currently the system just matches players based on their ELO. It could match players based on their ELO and the chosen maps. In that system, if 2 given players do not have any maps in common, they can’t be matched against each other. But that’s a good thing : those two players just don’t enjoy playing on the same maps. If they are forced to play against each other, one of them is not gonna enjoy his time because he will be matched on a map he dislikes.
Edit : that being said, realistically most people will at least have Arabia in common so most people will be able to be matched against each other at least on Arabia. Those who ban Arabia will have less players to be matched against, but that’s just a consequence of not wanting to play what most people are fine with playing.

For 1x1 6 bans out of 9 maps should be the norm, every time they add another map that no ones wants to play and forces you to ban that maps additionally to ur previous maps, hillfort a cancerous map, terrible design, not berries and not consistency with the gold placement, you might have wood in the back or you may not.

Megarandom is fun when going random civs, now it is all about mongols.

4 lakes is a disaster as map, there is not a certain build order for that map, even pro players take bad decisions for that map and how to blame them, the fear is real if you know the other is fish booming, so everytime is about sneaking vills to make docks, if pro players struggle with that map imagine lower levels.

Islands, come on, no one liked that map before, why would they like it now?

Nomad in 1x1 is a permanent ban for most players, why haven’t they removed that map after several patches?

Arena is fun at lower levels, at certain level it is all about monks, castle push and fast imperial, the devs shouldn’t be pushing maps that can be won by market abuse and 3 farmers, because i remember cysion saying that they want more complete players in the ranked list, abusing market with no eco behind is not a representation of skills. Until they fix monk randomness conversion rate the map shouldn’t be there or make an arena map with the same resource placement but with palisade walls.

I am afraid they would go back to alpine lakes or some other map that would use one of ur 4 bans, so at least give us more bans, so we can have a good game in our limited time to play ranked.


BlockquoteSome of the maps are not really popular.


Some of the maps were very popular and are still not available. For example Yucatan. I used to play this all the time back in the day with AOE 2. Now it is not available, except if I play unranked perhaps. A lot of the current maps I do not like them, but I would see them less if there were a larger map pool. And I do not understand why they replaced Fortress with Hill Fort. Hill Fort sucks, and is definitely harder to play than Fortress.

It would be nice if they opened it up to some kind of poll before they made decisions on: These are going to be the only maps people can play.

Source? Cysion is still part of the dev team? I knew he was on of the people behind FE.

The current MM system is a better system to ask for complete players. I do also like that part of MM. On the other side i am not really sure if you can change some behavoir after 20 years. Most players just love Arabia and wanna play only Arabia. So i really like they encourage players to be more complete players, but i also think players should have more control over the maps/settings they like to play.

Hideout is replaced by Hillfort in the map pool. Fortress was never part of the map pool. I do like Hideout more than hillfort.

I also like Yucatan, but this map was never played that much. At Voobly 0,6% of the games was played on Yucatan. You can really say that map is popular. I wouldnt mind if they put Yucatan in the map pool. When i played that map, i was mostly focused on booming, not rushing, so i dont really know if i still would enjoy the this map. I also think Mongols will be the top pick, because of all the wild life.

Arabia, BF, Nomad and Arena were the only maps with a pick rate above 1% at Voobly.

I made the following thread for suggestion of maps in the map pool:

Maybe you can add your suggestion! I think both suggestions will be goood!

Cysion is still part of Forgotten Empires who are the main team working on Definitive Edition.

1 Like

I think the main issue is player number.
Right now I have to wait between 1 and 10 minutes when I queue up with my friends for a teamgame. If you split the ranked que into different map pools the wait times are going to increase. That is not something the devs would do.

What I would like to see in the map pool:
11 maps with 5 possible bans

1-4: the essential maps that never rotate:
Arabia, Black Forest, Arena, Nomad

map types that rotate with similar maps:
5 - Gold in the middle type map
(Golden pit, Gold rush, El Dorado…)
6 - defensive map
(Hideout, Hillfort, Fortress…)
7 - water style map
(Islands, Mediterranean, Coastal…)
8 - Random style map
(Mega Random, Slightly Random, Full Random…)

creative choice maps:
9 - fan favourite
(the non essential map that was played the most last patch)
10 - user choice
(The Devs make a survey in-game and give 5 maps. The players can choose their favourite to be implemented on the next rotation)
11 - Devs choice
(The Devs choose map number 11 according to what they thin is missing from the mappool)

This would be my favourite (and realistic) best way for map rotation (for now).
(Of course, if the player numbers keep increasing the Devs will have the option to split the que into different mappools…)

Sorry I didn’t mean Fortress. I mean Hideout. Apparently they replaced Hideout, which I liked, with Hill Fort, which I and most people cannot stand.

There are 200 maps. Devs decided to create a monthly map rotation – this will happen once in a while. Maps that “you” like will get replaced by maps someone else like. Its life.

Some websites show statistics for bans. Hideout was on the pool for 2 months and on the second month the number of bans increased - which must be why it was replaced. I am sure Hillfort draws more bans than Hideout, so I would not be surprised to see it removed next rotation.

I am in favor of up to 8 bans - map pool is a great idea and should bring more diversity, but the meta is too stale in most of them because of resouces imbalance and after playing 2-3 games you already saw all you had to see. Mongols on MR/Scandinavia/Serengetti, Spanish/Mayans/Burmese on Hillfort/Hideout, Japanese in Four Lakes.
Add to the above that the other maps are all closed maps (except Arabia or Nomad - that no one plays) and the current bans are not enough after a few games.

Playing 3 Arabias in a row prove to be more diverse than playing a sequence of Serengetti, Hillfort and Four Lakes. Even though they play differently between them, every Serengetti game is the same. Every Hillfort game is the same…

1 Like

I like the idea of a more systematic approach towards map rotation. Maybe some sort of this was introduced with splitting the pools for 1v1 and tg. But I guess we will see how that continues. Still, the categorization of the maps would be highly contested.

For instance, I would completely disagree on labeling bf and nomad as essential maps. Although many people like them, also many people hate them and they certainly don’t feature the most competetive settings (along with popularity the main criteria for the ranked map pool imo). If it was up to me, I’d go with ara, arena, gold rush and cross. Other people will have other choices, making fixed maps quite a delicate matter.

Also a pool with 11 maps should feature at least one (standard-type) hybrid map which isn’t included in your list.

Do you have a link for that? I can only see the play rate (which isn’t exactly the same as a ban rate) and only within the current patch.

You are correct, its play rate.

If devs dont want to change much, I believe they could take a look at the map pool and think that:

Arabia, Serengetti and Four Lakes are top 3 current pool, which should indicate the playerbase prefer open maps, specially land.

Arena, Hillfort and Golden Swamp are the middle, cool. I believe these are the maps where the bans shoudl be targeted at depending on your preference / what you feel like playing. Again, land maps have a better play rate.

Mega Random, Nomad and Islands are the least played maps - two of them seem to be fixed on the rotation, which I don’t get considering even if all three are added they still see less play than any of the top3 for this rotation – and Serengetti is a “civ win” map for Mongols. Islands “full” water map, which I reckon we should have once in a while. I believe these 3 should be in a rotation of their own. Using a ban on one of them is fair. Three bans suck.

I would have:

Fixed Arabia
Fixed Arena
Monthly Rotation: MegaRandom/Nomad/Islands
Monthly Rotation: Open Land Map I
Monthly Rotation: Open Land Map II
Monthly Rotation: Open Land Map III
Monthly Rotation: Closed Land Map I
Monthly Rotation: Open Hybrid Map I
Monthly Rotation: Open Hybrid Map II

1 Like

I agree with you you somewhat on your map preference but consider this:
Arabia, Arena, Nomad and Black Forest are the only maps with a playrate above 1% on voobly (and have been pretty much for 10 years). There has always been a small community of players that almost exclusively play on one of these maps.
That is why the Devs consider those maps essential and do not rotate them.
Similarly there is a part of the community that wants to go all random every game (random civ and random map). In my opinion this is why Mega Random is also always in the rotation.

Now, something that would be cool (but unlikely to be implemented) would be an evolving Mappool depend on Elo.
Imagine this: when you reach 1250+ Elo (1v1) you reach the “advanced” rank and your Mappool becomes the “advanced” Mappool when you play against other 1250+ Elo players.
In this (for example) Black Forest gets replaced by Yucatan.
When you reach 1500+ Elo (expert rank) Yucatan gets replaced by cenotes.
When you reach 1750+ Elo (pro rank) cenotes gets replaced by Sahara.

Since many beginner player (on average) prefer closed maps and more advanced player (on average) prefer more open maps this would be a good solution for everybody (on average).

What do you think?

First Mountainpass game - vill fight, gg min 2. Free puntos. RNG Maps suckkkk!!!