Seems proof to me that if the law is enforced, even if you don't agree with it, you'll start to abide by it.Yes, but many players, myself included, think the law is bad and changing it is much better than starting to enforce it. If it started to be enforced by time penalties or elo loss, I would stop alt+f4ing completely (I still only do it rarely and usually play the map I hate), but I would still advocate on forums to get the system (your law) changed and getting unlimited bans
Temporary bans after a natural crash or disconnection are fine to me, as long as your temporary ban is a reasonable length. Let's say it's 5 minutes. For something that occurs only rarely (unless others' are different than me), I think it's worthwhile and not too much extra time. For the guy that alt-f4s half their games, an extra 5 minutes each time really eats into their time and can act as a real deterrent.Do you know why is there 9 maps in the tg MM and 7 in the 1x1 MM? the reason is cause the system works this way; for tg each player can ban one map so even if the 8 different players banned a single different map then one map would be left to play, the same applies for 1x1, the current system works like that, so more bans or unilimited would break the MM, for example 4 bans available for everyone would have to rise the map pool to 33 maps in team games lol.
A temporary ban or time restriction would cause false positive when a natural crash or disconnection happens, since the game is full with crash reports on their official forums, that option can't be implemented being objective and fair.
So the solution has to be different to what this poll is offering, re writing the MM could be one, but honestly there is too much disparity, this would require a tg reset ladder, fixing inflation, points distribution, etc.
Creating a ranked lobby is by far the best solution.
Yes. DE first assigns a match based on ELO, and then looks at the bans to determine the map. If everyone uses 100% of their bans, there will always be one map left over.@SouFire So it finds a match without taking map preferences into account and then assigns a map afterwards?
That is correct, when i found that out then asking for more bans lost all sense.@SouFire So it finds a match without taking map preferences into account and then assigns a map afterwards?
Why not let player indicate the set of maps they are willing to play and change it so these are taken into account? I don't really see how this is making things a separate queue.
Well I see it now, you clarified it for me thank you. A valid concern but I think still ways around it if you allow player to indicate at what point in terms of search time they would be willing to compromise on their selection. Like for each map you would have a little selector labeled "consider" then options like "always", "after x min", "never."How can you not see that?
Now, the 8 highest players Q-ing for a 4v4 are matched together. The mappool for that match contains all maps no one has banned, which must be at least one (8 bans / 9maps).
In your suggestion, every player could have only one map he is willing to play. If these 8 maps are different, everyone is in his own "map-Q" and games gonna get way more unbalanced as they are already.
I do think it's not viable. People should really read this blogpost to understand the problems with matchmaking in such a small player base:Seems proof to me that if the law is enforced, even if you don't agree with it, you'll start to abide by it.
Temporary bans after a natural crash or disconnection are fine to me, as long as your temporary ban is a reasonable length. Let's say it's 5 minutes. For something that occurs only rarely (unless others' are different than me), I think it's worthwhile and not too much extra time. For the guy that alt-f4s half their games, an extra 5 minutes each time really eats into their time and can act as a real deterrent.
Sorry, I haven't read all the comments. What is the solution in your opinion?I do think it's not viable. People should really read this blogpost to understand the problems with matchmaking in such a small player base:
Why good matchmaking requires enormous player counts
Good matchmaking is an important part of creating an online multiplayer game. One thing you may not realise is that no matter how you build ...joostdevblog.blogspot.com
If there are just a few hundred people or a thousand queueing up concurrently, if you exclude lets say 5-15% (ALT+F4ers and normal crashes) the impact on queue times could be actually quite massive depending on the MMR. Not sure if these 5 Minutes will not go to the account of everyone with overall longer queue times. Which would be quite stupid as well and basically nothing won.
The only real solution here is to fix a bad design. Also for the sake of AoE4, as they use the same multiplayer basis and I assume the same matchmaking. If AoE4 has not much more players than 2DE, which could be the point (it gained really less traction judging by the actual followers on steam - around 20.000: https://steamdb.info/app/1466860/graphs/ ), it is screwed from the beginning on just on the basis of a relatively bad (in terms of replayability) designed multiplayer experience.
So they better fix it rather sooner than later if the Definitive Editions were a great testing of that platform. Because I don't think what we have right now, will really sustain any (new) AoE for a long-time...
Phew, where should I start?Sorry, I haven't read all the comments. What is the solution in your opinion?
Cause in MM every solution makes queuing times longer. The temporary ban is there as a deterrence. If it works well, once people are aware of it, in theory it should mostly never ban someone and hence make the queuing equal or shorter than before.
Thank you for taking the time.Phew, where should I start?
First lets get our overall mindset right: Reward positive behaviour instead of the penalization of bad behaviour. To give the incentive to get along with each other and not divide.
My idea of it goes more into the direction of the second option in the poll.
- let people chose from map categories they want to play and create map pools based on this
- open, closed, water, nomad, megarandom, custom (unranked)
- give each category a different weight when calculating overall MMR (for tournaments)
- let everyone create their custom map pool for an unranked rematch option. a new game could be created from the losers' custom map pool
- rematch option includes that you go back in to the same lobby after each game, so 1 lobby -> n game-ids
- give an option while queuing up in ranked to automatically create a public lobby in unranked in parallel and watch both for incoming matches, ask what should be done if your queue time is long. do you rather want to switch to the unranked lobby system into the already created lobby or do you want to change settings (propose settings to the player that would find him a match easily with estimated queue times)
- create a better lobby system as a support of the matchmaking system not as a replacement. lobby and matchmaking should go hand-in-hand and support each other, not compete with each other.
- and so on...
[1:35 PM] simonsan: basically for a discord it might be cool to implement a matchmaking bot, that looks up ratings at aoe2.net
[1:35 PM] simonsan: where you can queue up. but you wouldn't really need to be on the same discord for it
[1:35 PM] simonsan: so it can be a cross-discord server matchmaking
I'm an adventurous dude, I wouldn't mind a system revamp at all. Looking at it realistically though, I don't see it happening.
That's super cool, good luck with the project.Another idea I had right now: most people in the community have Discord!
The bot can be the basic backend and a frontend could be created where people can also queue up with our own system. A bit like ncZone with a bit more automation. Would be cool I think, I think I will ask around if someone is eager to create this project in cooperation.
A basis could be either the original NC-Zone code:
GitHub - teheru/nczone: A match making plattform written primarily for Age of Empires II.
A match making plattform written primarily for Age of Empires II. - teheru/nczonegithub.com
or a go backend?
GitHub - googleforgames/open-match: Flexible, extensible, and scalable video game matchmaking.
Flexible, extensible, and scalable video game matchmaking. - googleforgames/open-matchgithub.com
or rust?
GitHub - goto-bus-stop/playage: Aspiring cross-platform Age of Empires 2 multiplayer client.
Aspiring cross-platform Age of Empires 2 multiplayer client. - goto-bus-stop/playagegithub.com
I'll also ask the ncZone people for sure, what they think about it and if this is something they could imagine doing with their already existing platform.
Oh, for sure, the small player base makes Other Games' solutions not as obviously viable for AoE2. That's why my suggestion is the temporary ban/delay for a short while (say 5 minutes) and otherwise keeping the current system, which only has two pools to queue in. I don't believe the problem is as high as 5-15% crashes, and I believe that a short delay/ban from the queue will act as a sufficient "stick" to alter disruptive behavior. In the end, it should shorten queue times. Or at the very least, knock out the disruptive player for five minutes while you re-queue and meet someone who won't waste your time.I do think it's not viable. People should really read this blogpost to understand the problems with matchmaking in such a small player base:
Why good matchmaking requires enormous player counts
Good matchmaking is an important part of creating an online multiplayer game. One thing you may not realise is that no matter how you build ...joostdevblog.blogspot.com
If there are just a few hundred people or a thousand queueing up concurrently (or even just 40 at times), if you exclude lets say 5-15% (ALT+F4ers and normal crashes) the impact on queue times could be actually quite massive depending on the MMR. Not sure if these 5 Minutes will not go to the account of everyone with overall longer queue times. Which would be quite stupid as well and basically nothing won.
The only real solution here is to fix a bad design. Also for the sake of AoE4, as they use the same multiplayer basis and I assume the same matchmaking. If AoE4 has not much more players than 2DE, which could be the point (it gained really less traction judging by the actual followers on steam - around 20.000: https://steamdb.info/app/1466860/graphs/ ), it is screwed from the beginning on just on the basis of a relatively bad (in terms of replayability) designed multiplayer experience.
So they better fix it rather sooner than later if the Definitive Editions were a great testing of that platform. Because I don't think what we have right now, will really sustain any (new) AoE for a long-time...
Because lobby games are unranked...For those supporting unlimited bans, I’m genuinely curious why don’t you just create a lobby?
Nomad should be a set map within "Hybrid" rather than its own separate category and Arena should not be a set map for TG but I am nitpicking a bit.I was considering the 4 map pool ladder for RM and I'm starting to like the idea as a good compromise. Here's a proposal for how it could be implemented.
So we have 4 ladders for the 4 genre's of maps: open, closed, nomad and water.
Each of these ladder's has a mappool that has 1 (or 2) Staple maps. Maps that define the genre. These maps will always be there.
Open = Arabia
Closed = BF + Arena
Nomad = Nomad
Water = Island
Then each pool contains 2 Classic maps that closely follow the genre. These maps can be rotated out for others every now and then. Examples:
Open = Acropolis, Golden pit/hill/clump
Closed = RF
Nomad = Bedouins, LN
Water = TI, Rooster
Then each pool contains a further 2 more maps that losely follow the genre, the SO (Somewhat Outlandish) maps. These maps can also be rotated out for others every now and then (could be put to a vote). Examples:
Open = (not)Socotra, Budapest
Closed = That snake map from HD, Michi
Nomad = Pilgrims
Water = Bog islands
We end up having 4 ladders, with a 5/6 mappool each. 2 bans per queue because not everyone will want to play the SO maps (or maybe some dont want the Staple map all the time).
Ofcourse you can queue in multiple ladders. Just the same as you can now queue in several queue's on 4 different ladders already (rip CS). Open and Closed, Open and Water, Closed, Nomad and Water, etc.
(I know this is not a system easily implemented and thus not entirely likely to be done by the devs, but hey, a man can dream right?
yes, of ARABIAVIRUSCan wel call it Pandemic pls
sorry for the late answer, i was quite busy recently.Nobody is "forcing people into something they do not like". We never forced the alt+f4ers to search for the game. If you press search for the game, you are agreeing to the system (bans/favourite and playing the rest). If this was the only way they can play this game, it is still not "forcing" but could be "understandable". But as I said multiple times, there is another solution = lobby. People who are saying it's "impossible" to make a balanced lobby game in their ONE MAP preference clearly hasn't tried because it can easily happen. Probably takes similar, or less, time than alt+f4ing your way into that map.
I said did this in a different post before and got an alt+f4er to agree so here's it is:
This is an exaggerated metaphor: There are laws. Some laws, when you break them, other people suffer For example, parking at a firetruck spot, or just cutting the line at a grocery store. You break them for YOUR convenience or your "beliefs", but you are having a negative impact on other people while you are doing this.
By searching for the game, you've accepted the "law" (bans/favourites and playing the rest). By alt+f4ing, you are breaking it and making 7 other people wait extra 10~20~30minutes.
Yes you may not like the law, but that doesn't mean you can break them, ESPECIALLY when it has effect on other people. Right now, the problem is that there are no consequences when you break the law. Please give bans/ELO loss etc for these selfish people. The part that makes these people even more selfish is that nobody forced these people to queue for the game, unlike the law, where if you are born in that country, you kind of have to. So even worse!
Remember this is a metaphor and please don't come at me saying silly things like YOU CAN'T COMPARE A VIDEO GAME TO REAL LIFE. As I said, it's a metaphor, an exaggerated one but has the same principle.
Just got alt+f4ed 3 times, had to wait for whoever was alt+f4ing to get their Arena game. Always takes longer to get a game than play one 11.
I'm sure another no brain person will say WELL YOU AREN'T PLAYING ARENA EITHER. Nope, but I'm following the rules. I get the bans, I use them and the ones I couldn't ban, I should play it because when I search for the game, that's what's agreed upon implicitly.
Alt+f4 = Selfish. Accept it.
1. You need to know the difference between a need and a want. Eating, drinking etc are needs. Without them we cannot survive. Playing ranked game is a want. One WANTS to play in a ranked system and nobody forced them to do it in the first place. There is a ranked system that's in place and you don't need to click on it to survive.sorry for the late answer, i was quite busy recently.
first: in the ranked system, which we are talking about, people are possibly forced to play maps they do not want to play. so if people want to play ranked, "they are getting forced into something they do not like." that is just a true statement. of course, in a broader sense i am not forced to do anything else than to eat, drink, defecate, sleep. that i have technically options outside of the ranked system to make my own luck is true as well, but we are talking about ranked tg, its technicalities and how it could be improved. so in this system people get forced to do stuff they might not like.
second: we could indeed address the problem "altf4" (which i never denied that it exists) overall through several options. a) lobby ranked system like voobly days b) more map bans/change of queue times c) rumbling in forums that altf4 is morally bad and people must be shamed! d) punish players that drop from queue, which comes with a backpack full of other problems (since de crushes all the time)
-> i personally think a + b sounds kind of reasonable and might be worth a try, but you are apparently convinced c + d is the solution (correct me here if i am wrong).
third: your "law" example is not doing you the favor u think it does. laws need change all the time. if a law is unfair or does not work (in a sense that the society is functioning well) it must be changed. not be enforced no matter the costs.
He's not wrong about that. It is by definition, selfish. You can argue all day about if that matters, but there's really no room for debate on if that is selfish or not.If you don't do exactly what I want you're the selfish one.
What a juvenile way of thinking.