Civ picking is destroying the AOE 2 DE ranked queue for long time fans

[throwaway1890]

Hello guys,

I will get straight to the point. I am sure you all know the standard procedure for queuing in AOE 2 DE. You queue, you can put preference random by hitting the random button ( red, with an question mark ) , so the system queues you with other players that also prefer random civs.

However, both in ranked team games AND in ranked 1v1s ( no experience for DM and other modes, Civ picking is the preferred method. Why is this bad for the game ?

To understand this, we need to dive into the history of AOE 2 ranked games: In voobly times, many different stages came and went away, the 1v1 hun war phase etc. I personally reentered the game around 5 years ago during the HD time. HD had many faults, but it revitalised the game, kept it alive and growing, together with the core community at voobly. For team games and 1v1s, there was a general ground rule, that could be changed if people wanted to and accepted the change, but generally speaking the rule was : PICK RANDOM CIV in the lobby.

Now, why did it come to this ground rule. This is something very new players just dont understand, and how could they… Picking Random Civ only enhances the fair play, and the general experience of the game, it makes the experience for ALL players better. Why is that ? Well for example, AOE 2 is a very diverse game, with lots of facettes, and was NEVER ment to be a one sided, stale and simple experience. Playing different civs and playing against different civs every game means you have to learn new build orders and face different strategies. You can never be sure BEFORE THE GAME what strategy you will use, because you dont know your civ yet and therefor your civ strengths.

In HD and Voobly times 5 years ago, the civs were even less balanced then now. Koreans were straight up only good at trush, and so on. You had to make due with the cards that you got dealt. Why did that make you a better player over time, than only using britons all the time, for example ? Because, like a chess player, you had to learn different openings and strategies, which is ofc better for understanding and managing your game than always playing the one and only opening and strategy that you know…

There is nothing wrong with trying to enhance your franks scout play, or your britains arc opening, and training with that civ for a long period of time.

There are many more reasons why the community back then was very outspoken about that rule, and enforced it harshly. IF you picked a civ, in most cases you would just get kicked out of the lobby.

Nowadays there are many more players, and that is good. I dont know the names of 90 percent of the players in my games, and that is good as well. I am happy for the game, the community, the developers, and the content creators.

However, the situation has become insufferable for many long time fans, that played the game long before the HUGE DE success. In a standard ranked 1v1 competitive I have a 90% chance to face a S Tier civ, and in ranked teamgames it is the same.

A standard 3v3 ranked, elo 2000 looks like this: Ethiopians franks britons vs britons franks ethiopians.

The magic is gone, the mystic energy that brought me back to the game again and again. Back then I could face a korean tower rush, a huns fc cav arc strategy, a celts maa feudal all in, UU strategies etc etc. Nowadays, in 1v1 it is wall to fc, or scout rush to fc, or arc rush to fc. Thats it. And it is the same for team games arabia.

In HD times, we would play 4v4 nomad all random, and you never knew what civ you would get. Nowadays, my favourite mode has lost all its magic. Persians, Malians or Spanish is ALWAYS present, sucking the magic right out of it.

The mindset went from: lets play on a fair and even leveled, fun stage together, to I want to win at all costs.
The asian gaming mindset took over completely ( IF I can choose, I will choose the civ that will make me win the most, because this is ranked and I want to win at all costs )

This mindset took over the community, and it has destroyed the competitive modes of DE completely for the core community, the long time fans that this whole project is built on.

If I face Franks and Ethiopians every time in ranked, the thrill is gone and the magic too. I know what strategies they will go for. I know what units they will go for. And if we are on the same skill level completely, they will win, because of their eco/civ bonuses, they will unfairly but they will win.

When commuting this you are faced with the following argument: You can choose your civ as well, and if you dont do that, you have to be the better player and you loose your right to complain, because this is competitive and we want to win.

This toxic and stupidous mindset dominates all other online competitive gaming areas EXCEPT AOE 2, at least it used to.

Why did the truest, most devoted fans of the game, the core of the core, choose the rancom concept for ranked games then? When they had nothing to proove, 20000 active players left in both voobly and HD, WHY did they choose this principle ?

Because it makes sense, because its the most fun way to enjoy the game, but foremost it is the most FAIR way.

Yes sometimes you get a low tier civ, sometimes a high tier civ. But it had style nonetheless. That style is gone, replaced by efficiancy , and the overshadowing will to win at all costs.

Why do you think , do the top tier players all choose random civ in the lobbies with TheViper, MrYo, etc. (even in Membs BF lobbies) ? It IS the most fun way to enjoy the game, all long time core fans will agree with that, or most of them.

DE needs a ranked mode for players that wish to play ONLY random. This button is a VERY good thought, but it is too little to stem the tide. People should still be able to pick civ like they do right now, but people should also be able to play other players EXCLUSIVELY with random mode.

For example, a solution could be: the same button, but you get matched up ( lets say in a 3v3 ) with other players and NOONE is able to PICK civ, it is set to random and cannot be changed. I dont care waiting 10 Minutes longer, In HD with 5000 active players we had to wait 10 Minutes or more to get a full nomad lobby anyways. But it gave us so much more than these fake nomad games. Savage, DeezNuts and other players would have LAUGHED at you if you would have picked persians or spanish all the time.

Because the way it is now, is garbage. This civ picking has sucked the magic out of the game, it has made the game devoid of crazy, fun strategies. I dont want to play ranked nomad and face spanish all the time. I dont want to play arabia and face a franks or magyar scout rush all the time. I want the style, the love, and the diversity back. I want to face turks or huns or japanese and get surprised by creative, out of the box strategies.

I remember getting rushed by huskarls only in HD and I was awestruck and hooked, after many hours I learned a new, valuable strategy. I remember getting persian douched the first time.

Long gone are the times of creative plays, now is the time of the same old same old. Scouts pocket, archers flank, game after game after game. May the best Britons player win. What a sad and lifeless, grey state of an otherwise colorful game. This is NOT how the original devs wanted it to be played, I am sure.

sorry for the wall of text. I wrote so much because I loved this game and I still do. By the way, I was sometimes a toxic little ■■■■■ to other players. But the community in HD showed me so much love, so much respect, I try to be a better player nowadays, and I nearly never rent ingame.

It gives me no pleasure to write this, but if this continues, I will abondon DE after hundreds and hundreds of ours and go back to HD, and pay the price that comes with it. Yes, I thought about creating lobbies in DE but its not the same. I want my elo to change if I loose, I want ranked mode, but not like this. Not like this. And I KNOW I am not alone. I know the core feels the same.

This is not a developer problem. It is a community problem, and the community should talk about it and come to a conclusion. Because the DE game CAN NOT afford to loose its most important , most loyal fans. It would be just a hollow shell then. and after the success is gone, it will just be a dead shell.

If you have read this far, thank you for your time.

Please share your opinion on this topic

I wish you all the best and lots of love.

P.S.: I love the commitment, energy, work and love the community and the developers have put into AOE 2 DE. You guys are truly amazing. This is, for me, without a doubt, the best and wholesome big gaming community online at the moment right now, you guys never fail to amaze me with your awesomeness.

Take care, stay healthy and happy <3 one luv

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

The funny thing is, civ-picking (or any other ways of "try-harding") won't improve your win rate in ranked matchmaking. One can play casually competitive at x ELO and (long-term) 50% win rate or you can "try-hard" at x + 100 ELO with 50% win rate.

So basically, people trade a lot of fun of the game for 100 ELO.

 

[otw_Da]

Tryhards always tend to destroy what they "love". I can remember when back then alot of "tryhard players" in warcraft 3 startet using hacks to because "everyone is using it". Thats their small brain volume. Some use maphack - I need to because my life is only worth it because of my stats/elo.
It won't change. My advice. Go lobby. There are the people were play for fun.

 

[Please_dont_choose_goths!]

No, you are just bad.

 

[Paint]

It's the same in every competitive game.
First: People try to solve the game -> this is the fun part.
Second: Some people solve the game and dominate -> the meta at the top becomes stale but most people still have fun.
Third: The "solved" state becomes available for more and more players and it becomes about executing the known good strategies -> the game gets less and less fun, everyone is miserable.

Sometimes the game changes with a patch and it becomes fun again for a short time until it gets solved again, this takes longer if less information is available and more random elements are introduced. At the end the game gets killed by it's own success and the only way forward is to make a new puzzle and start from the beginning.

I had this happen to me in Magic the gathering and have seen it in many other games.

 

[b1gwalt]

I will get straight to the point. I am sure you all know the standard procedure for queuing in AOE 2 DE. You queue, you can put preference random by hitting the random button ( red, with an question mark ) , so the system queues you with other players that also prefer random civs.

Hmm... is this true? I was certain that the random shield icon had nothing to do with matchmaking. Same with map - your map preference doesn't help you find a game. It only helps once you already IN a lobby, do decide which map you are going to play. Map bans are the only thing that influence who you will queue into as far as I am aware.

Anyway, your wider point about civ picking is probably true, but I think these things are often over-exaggerated. I pick a civ and put the shield on, and I would say its no more than half the games I play that are with the civ I picked (it is exactly 5 out of my last 10 games). This is at 1500ish ELO though so maybe your mileage varies.

Not sure what there is to be done about it, other than having a forced random civ queue as you mention, and then before you know it we're trying to balance 5 or 6 different queues (forced map, random open map, random closed map, random water map, pick civ, random civ etc.).

 

[_Donatello_]

I agree random is more fun, but I think outside this forum the majority of players don't got time to learn 40 civs, they got a few hours every week if even that and want to play what they know and not loose because they got a civ they don't know at all.

Random maybe ok for boomers if they could pick random archer civ or random cav civ, but for majority its to much to master all civs

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I agree random is more fun, but I think outside this forum the majority of players don't got time to learn 40 civs, they got a few hours every week if even that and want to play what they know and not loose because they got a civ they don't know at all.

Random maybe ok for boomers if they could pick random archer civ or random cav civ, but for majority its to much to master all civs

There is also at least 15 if not 20 too many civs.

 

[andae23]

I think we're well past the point where we can go back to a state where going random is the norm. If you force all RM players to play random civ, 80% will quit immediately, followed by the remaining players since the ranked queue is now dead.

 

[Badfish]

There is also at least 15 if not 20 too many civs.

And more on the way!

 

[AoeWololo]

The devs are actively destroying the random civ feature by adding so many, for a casual player it's not possible anymore to remember what they all stand for. Personally I don't even remember all the civ icons.

The game becomes more and more playing your own strengths and less adapting.

They used to say that there were enough civs, well I figure that now they have chosen job security above the quality of the game.

 

[Tendo]

You will never make evryone happy with matchmaking, atleast with such a small community.
Some like Random Civs, some prefer Civ-Pick.
Some like diverse Mappool, some prefer to queue for a single map.

The reason why Pro Players go random Civs is because they play hundreds of games per month so ofc it would get boring to always play the same, but the majority is proly made of ppl only playing a small amount of games.
And they just prefer most of the time to play a civ they know about.
Of course it's better for your understanding to play random civ, but most don't rly care about that.

For me it's quite simple, I enable Random-Civ and pick a strong Civ at the same time.

 

[Faultier321]

Its not only the matchmaking/civ picking, but also the civ design that is uggerinf from this. Compare Koreans now vs Koreans 5 years ago; yes the old Koreans were the most annoying thing to play against, but they had a decent winrate of somewhere between 45-50% I think.

Koreans mangonels used to have +1 range ffs

 

[Biz]

it is 100% a developer problem

they're the ones who refused to put a random civ queue. they're the ones who shoved position-pick into the game. they're the ones who decided to reveal the map so that everyone has perfect information for picking the civ

they claim that civs are balanced because they are good in some settings and weak in others, but you never have to play a civ in its weak settings. beacuse they show you what the settings and spawn positions are before you pick civ, we just play mirrors of overpowered civs

they also don't balance the civs for their own ladder settings and fill it with 1-dimensional maps, so there aren't a lot of good options. most maps should at least have the basic spread of resources and terrains so that all the civ bonuses are relevant and civs can play towards their strengths, but their map pool is garbage

 

[The Bloodless]

Just go random anyway and take a few more losses until your Elo adjusts. Yes, you still face many similar civs, but at least you're playing a greater variety of civs now.

I am lucky to face random civ 90% of the time in ranked queue, team games or 1v1. I think lower level it's a big issue though

 

[Vossn]

As was previously mentioned, there are a lot of civs in the game nowadays. There are too many for a mere mortal with limited time such as me to just jump in, and expect that I can play them all well. Instead I chose to start with one civ(Koreans) to learn how to play, and slowly add civs when I get better. I'm now at 10 civs.

A lot of the fun to me comes from getting to know the civs, because all civs play slightly different, and have different options. I wouldn't want to play random civ, since if I don't know the civ all too well, I would just do the little I know of it --> Scouts->knights for all knight civs, M@A->Arch for all archer civs, etc.. It is true that this may learn me a bit more about how to play against certain lower-power civs than how I do it now.

What I do now, is make a couple of different openings for the civs, as well as think of the different options they have in different stages of the game. This way, I can play to the civ, the map, and the opponent's civ, instead of roughly guessing, "this civ is good at knights, so a scout->knights will be what I will do".

Aside from that, the civs I face at a 1.4k level, often are quite varied. Sure, a lot of civs you see barely. But that has also to do with the fact that there are waay too many civs in the game. I never have random enabled.

 

[uberkerl]

So basically, people trade a lot of fun of the game for 100 ELO.

I think you underestimate how much 100 Internetpoints are worth for some people. in centimeters.

 

[_Ra_]

Maybe people who pick find it fun to play a specific civ, and don't want to play all 73 stupid civs that exist now?

 

[kw1k000000]

Pick civs and pick positions has ruined the joy of aoe2 TGs

It's OK to have these for tournament but for random ranked games, random civ and position is so much more interesting

 

[lecracheursagacite]

And more on the way!

Please tell me this is a joke.

Maybe people who pick find it fun to play a specific civ, and don't want to play all 73 stupid civs that exist now?

This is an excellent point. There are so many dumb civs added you don't necessarily want to go random because there is too great a chance of getting something you don't like.

 

[Tocaraca]

When it comes to team games I 100% agree. Britons + Franks or Ethiopians + Franks every game doing the exact same strategy every single time; knights and xbows. It really turns me off team games. Nomad and Arena TGs can still be fun since I run into more weird strats, but they are also unfortunately plagued by civ pickers who go Celts/Teutons halb+SO every game, in my limited arena TG experience (or Spanish for nomad)

1v1s, however, don't have much issue with civ picking imo. Most players between the 1700 and 1900 level (where I play) allow random civ, and they don't always pick the exact same civs... I know one guy who plays nothing but Indians, and the rest of the civ pickers do come in varieties; Mayans is obviously the most common, followed by Mongols or Chinese, then Britons, Vikings, and Aztecs, but I also see Lithuanians, Magyars, Franks, Huns, Ethiopians, Tatars, Poles even. That's 12 civs, which is enough to provide a fairly varied gameplay experience. I also often like to pick my own civ if I am feeling inspired. If I'm a little bit tilted (or extremely tilted as I often am, although I should leave this part out since you should always take a break if you are extremely tilted) then I don't want to play random because I can't be arsed to play as a civ that I am dogshit at. I am competitive, I care about my rating, and getting shitty matchups because of RNG feels like a waste of time and an elo steal.

 

[HelloWorld]

Just go random anyway and take a few more losses until your Elo adjusts. Yes, you still face many similar civs, but at least you're playing a greater variety of civs now.

I am lucky to face random civ 90% of the time in ranked queue, team games or 1v1. I think lower level it's a big issue though

Exactly, at less than 1900 or 2k, I almost see same civs all the time, but after 2k people almost everyone goes random.

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

Exactly, at less than 1900 or 2k, I almost see same civs all the time, but after 2k people almost everyone goes random.

Now that's very roughly about 1% of players active in the ladder; for us plebs waaay below that, civ-picking can be an annoying thing, even in 1v1 (but it is, of course, far more blatant in TG).

There is obviously nothing wrong with what has been described above, to pick a civ several times to learn it and then to move on to the next one; what's annoying are the people who play franks or britons only all the time, who have just learned one build up to mid castle age and execute that over and over again.

Although, at least in my personal experience, that has become better in the last months; and victories against those franks scouts -> full wall -> fc -> knights on arabia 1v1 are, of course, especially sweet ...

 

[Kaschperili]

The Arabia only slaves are destroying the game too. Why glorifing random civs but only playing one map all the time?

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

The Arabia only slaves are destroying the game too. Why glorifing random civs but only playing one map all the time?

Classic whataboutism.
And anyway, has anybody in this thread, who is advocating for random civs expressed to want to play arabia only?