Lol you guys know who you play with? Sometimes my allies don't even show up in Quickplay, sometimes I am lucky and they flicker - or when I have a really good day it shows normally, or only one flickersI dont play with ertug.
do you even sleep buddy?And the best thing is, they even said they use the multiplayer system from AoE4 ... so if they really use that what we are playing now on AoE2DE let's hope they at least address these problems in AoE4 then...
Age of Empires 4 is playable, needs “balance and polish”
The dev team is playing it every daywww.pcgamesn.com
Every time this topic is brought up I see the same uninspired arguments about the evil devs forcing you to play maps you don't want, as if they're having fun annoying you, or maybe as if you're so intelligent and worked out the perfect way to do it and they're completely clueless.
I'm going to explain it as best as I can. However I know I have problems illustrating things succinctly and I tend to write convoluted stuff, so my apologies in advance.
Games with a matchmaking multiplayer of a small-medium size (like aoe2) need the most people possible in the same player pool. This is done to avoid both long queuing times and matching against a player with a much different elo.
So imagine a matchmaking spectrum. On one end you have the "choose the map you will play". If you do this you're effectively dividing the player pool into as many chunks as there are maps. If there are 10 maps to choose from then that's 10 different player pools. If there are 30 maps to choose from then that's 30 different player pools.
To make it simple let's say there's only 1v1 matchmaking. I don't know the numbers but let's guess 500 players are playing multiplayer right now. Out of those let's say only 10% would give you an enjoying experience due to having a similar skill level. That's 50 players already. out of those 50 players let's say 90% are in a game and 10% are queuing for one. So effectively there are only 5 players of a similar skill-level queuing for a game at the same time, you being one of them. Only 5 adequate players. If you let those 5 choose the map they want they will never play together cause each of them picked a different map. So what happens is you either wait for a loooong time or you get matched against someone with a too different skill-level.
On the other end of the spectrum you have the "all players play all maps". So when you queue up the 5 adequate players will find each other instantly. Not only the queue time would be short but you will always be matched against an adequate player (similar skill).
The current solution, the one we have now, is a middle ground. The 5 adequate players queuing at any given time won't be split into 5 different pools, nor will they be in just one pool. The current system allows for some overlapping, so maybe out of the 5 adequate players you won't be matched up against a couple of them due to the map bans, yours and theirs. But it still leaves some of the adequate players free to play against you.
If you pick exactly the map you want there is no matchmaking system anymore cause there aren't enough players to support that.Im sure everybody gets that, however: I think one should have the option, if one chooses, to pick between faster queues (enable more maps) or have longer queues but only get that special map that you want.
Why does it have to be black and white? "Either play most maps, or dont queue at all?"
Why not allow people to choose for themself?
"I want to play only nomad/BF. I dont mind the longer queue time. As long as I get to play Nomad, or BF im happy.
I just really dont wanna be a part of the other maps. Its not me."
No more alt f4s (unless someone dislikes their team)
Everybody wins, no?
do you even sleep buddy?
If it's a serious question: True
If not: False
If you want to know my sleeping schedule: !onlyfans
Great post, but this point is actually incorrect. The banning system ENSURES that there will ALWAYS be at least ONE un-banned map. For example, if you queue by yourself for a 4v4, you get one map ban. If all eight players ban a separate map, you still have the ninth map left over, and that's the one you play. If you stack for a team game, your team gets more map bans, but there will never be as many bans as there are maps available.The current system allows for some overlapping, so maybe out of the 5 adequate players you won't be matched up against a couple of them due to the map bans, yours and theirs.
Hi BladeI don't mind the occasional alf-f4 but sometimes we get 5-6 In a row then the team goes to play among us. I don't know which is the worse. Among us is pretty bad.
If alt-f4 is removed the alt-f4ers would quit or go to lobby since they cleary will only play their preferred map. The time to find an actual game to play won't drastically change so what you present is a false dillemma.Every time this topic is brought up I see the same uninspired arguments about the evil devs forcing you to play maps you don't want, as if they're having fun annoying you, or maybe as if you're so intelligent and worked out the perfect way to do it and they're completely clueless.
I'm going to explain it as best as I can. However I know I have problems illustrating things succinctly and I tend to write convoluted stuff, so my apologies in advance.
Games with a matchmaking multiplayer of a small-medium size (like aoe2) need the most people possible in the same player pool. This is done to avoid both long queuing times and matching against a player with a much different elo.
So imagine a matchmaking spectrum. On one end you have the "choose the map you will play". If you do this you're effectively dividing the player pool into as many chunks as there are maps. If there are 10 maps to choose from then that's 10 different player pools. If there are 30 maps to choose from then that's 30 different player pools.
To make it simple let's say there's only 1v1 matchmaking. I don't know the numbers but let's guess 500 players are playing multiplayer right now. Out of those let's say only 10% would give you an enjoying experience due to having a similar skill level. That's 50 players already. out of those 50 players let's say 90% are in a game and 10% are queuing for one. So effectively there are only 5 players of a similar skill-level queuing for a game at the same time, you being one of them. Only 5 adequate players. If you let those 5 choose the map they want they will never play together cause each of them picked a different map. So what happens is you either wait for a loooong time or you get matched against someone with a too different skill-level.
On the other end of the spectrum you have the "all players play all maps". So when you queue up the 5 adequate players will find each other instantly. Not only the queue time would be short but you will always be matched against an adequate player (similar skill).
The current solution, the one we have now, is a middle ground. The 5 adequate players queuing at any given time won't be split into 5 different pools, nor will they be in just one pool. The current system allows for some overlapping, so maybe out of the 5 adequate players you won't be matched up against a couple of them due to the map bans, yours and theirs. But it still leaves some of the adequate players free to play against you.
Have in mind that in many occasions in life when you see a very simple solution to a given problem and can't understand why the hell the people in charge don't fix it...you could be falling into some kind of Dunning-Kruger effect. You're overestimating your intelligence and downplaying other's.
Hey, we all do it, no biggie. See it, accept it, learn from it and carry on.
There is already a problem with long queuing times and matching against players with too different of a skill-set. Letting everyone pick the map would make it MUCH worse.
The way I see it people doing alt+f4 are most times being selfish and entitled. You're switching the focus from the actual problem to your made up "evil devs force me". You're lying when saying the solution is as simple as picking the map. You're also worsening things by making people queue and queue endlessly.
So you're identifying the wrong causes and giving the wrong solutions while also being selfish and wasting other people's time.
------
Is there room for improvement? Probably so. It'd be strange if they already found the perfect way to do it. Furthermore I don't think there is a perfect way. The more you go towards one end of the spectrum or towards the other end... the more problems arise. So it is really tricky to find a middle ground, and I'm sure that's exactly what the devs want to find. They're not trying to annoy you and they're definitely not forcing sh*t on you. Mr Gates isn't behind you with a shotgun forcing you to play aoe2. When I'm playing a Battlefield game I know I will have to rotate between maps I love and maps I don't like so much. Surely I don't think the devs are forcing me to play **** maps, that's just a ridiculous and narrow way of thinking. They implemented the system as best as they could, full knowing that it isn't as simple as letting everyone play any map.
Now... another issue is companies being greedy, not giving enough resources to devs, etc... That's just the economic system way most people agree with and a whole different topic. By all means feel free to demand proper work on the game you like and the broken stuff to be fixed. My post isn't siding with the company in the slightest.
If you pick exactly the map you want there is no matchmaking system anymore cause there aren't enough players to support that.
Besides you already have a lobby system to go to right? There you can pick the settings and wait as long as needed.
If what you want is for those matches to count for elo or maybe a better or more robust lobby system then you could ask for that. However if the Devs incentivize people to go to lobbies the matchmaking system would crumble as already stated. It seems clear though, they don't want that, they chose matchmaking.
DE is mainly matchmaking, it's been over a year and people still haven't gotten over it. I totally understand it, everyone's been playing on lobbies for 20 years and so many are used to their maps and don't want anything else. But come on man, it's been long enough already to move on.
Luckily you can still play on Voobly if you consider DE to be inferior.
If the devs change MM to choose your maps instead of banning, everyone would be happier, no more boring maps, waiting time would be just fine, i have seen that one guy banning arabia forces all the solo players to play freaking nomad which is plain absurd.
I don’t think you are quite right on what would happen there. The narrow minded players that only want to play 1 map without any variety will be happier. But everyone who liked some diversity (and I think that might be the bigger part - at least for TGs) will have way longer queue times and that might lead to a sad scenario where all diversity dies and we are back to the state where you will have to chose from only Arabia, Arena or Nomad. And losing the diversity would be a step back imo. There is a reason why most tournaments feature a variety of maps: because it is a big part of the beauty that age has over other games.
When I'm playing a Battlefield game I know I will have to rotate between maps I love and maps I don't like so much.
Narrow minded players? sorry to tell you that we don't play for you or are willing to play socotra or wolfhill cause open minded aka noobs want toplay those CraZY maps, because they think it is fun,fun is enjoying the things of the game that you like, not being forced to play something you don't want, if you aren't willing to wait for other open minded players as you call to play the settings you want, then don't expect that forcing others is going to work.as mich as i think it
I don’t think you are quite right on what would happen there. The narrow minded players that only want to play 1 map without any variety will be happier. But everyone who liked some diversity (and I think that might be the bigger part - at least for TGs) will have way longer queue times and that might lead to a sad scenario where all diversity dies and we are back to the state where you will have to chose from only Arabia, Arena or Nomad. And losing the diversity would be a step back imo. There is a reason why most tournaments feature a variety of maps: because it is a big part of the beauty that age has over other games.