What's the rationale behind limiting the bans for team games?

Why is there a limit on the number of maps we can ban when we queue for team games? Can someone with some sens of fun at the devs team please make this matchmaking fun and easy. Let people queue for what they want. The current matchmaking is a huge ■■■■ block. It’s anoying and off puting.

1 Like

I think it might be to keep the matchmaking as easy as possible.

Right now the number of bans for each setup (1v1, 2v2…) is the highest possible number, so that it’s impossible for any group of players to have every single map banned. So the system can just focus on matching players by using their rating, because there will always be at least 2 maps which are not banned by either of the players. If any game mode had more bans, it would be possible that every single map is banned, so that matchmaking would need to take that into account too and can’t just match any players.

I totally agree that the current solution is not perfect and I would like to see it improved with more bans (and more maps) - but I think what we have right now at least makes some sense with the argument above.
So maybe it is just the current solution, because it was easy to implement, while more preferable solutions will need a change in how matchmaking works - that takes more time thought and will then probably come once other high priority things are fixed.


I really dont understand your argument. If I solo queue for a 4v4. I can’t ban anything and it’s anoying…

I think I udnerstand it. The high numer of players the hard it’s gonna be to match us all for the same map and the slower it’s gonna be to find matches. I guess it makes sens. But still, I think a 2 bans for 4v4s wouldn’t impact the matchmaking speed that match. It would still leave us with 6/8 maps to queue for.

Yeah it is.

But if you had 1 ban for 4v4, you’d have 8 players having 1 ban each - so if things went really bad it would be possible that the system matches 8 players together and every single map is banned - what to play then?
That’s why I think they designed it the way it is right now (so there’s no chance to have such a situation and the system can just match whatever players are avaliable).

Again: I am NOT saying that this is a good system. I think more bans would be way better and I hope they implement that soon. I’m just trying to give an explaination why I think it currently is the way it is.

Not quite yet :wink:
But maybe this text above helps^^


Yeah, I get it. It’s a hard thing to balance. There’s too many maps for matchmaking to be perfect.

Instead of bans, players should just select maps they are willing to play. It’s the best solution. It’s a democratic solution. Nothing is forced on players and will maximize fun for everyone. If you want to play more quickly you can select all maps. If they want to encourage players to play different maps, they should do it with things like tournaments for those maps or they should allow more ELO awarded for winning on maps you don’t play frequently or less ELO lost. For example, if there is a map that you play less than 10%, allow for a 1.5x ELO multiplier and maybe you only lose 0.5x if you lose on the map. Right now forcing players to play in a way they don’t like sucks.


That is not true.

There are people (like me and many I know) who que up with friends (and are in ts or discord).
Then you have 1 party leader who bans for all so in a 2v2 or 3v3 there is only 1 ban for my team…

To have none in a 4v4 makes no sense at all…
And when I queue up on my own for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 (like I did this week once when I just wanted a quick match) you cannot ban any map not knowing what will come… I got a 1v1 then and couldnt ban b4 (which was fine for me) but it jsut makes no sense. If I didnt wanna play one map I should be able to ban it.

1 Like

Your examples just show that there would be still room to play with in some situations - but it doesn’t show that anything I wrote is “not true”.

In the end it’s not important anyway, because what I wrote is still just a guess.