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

[Kaschperili]

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

I have to disagree. It is a classic case of a double standard. You want random civs but pick one map only.

Arabia is by far the most played map. Therefore most players who are advocating for random civs, by logical conclusion, are picking Arabia only.

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

I have to disagree. It is a classic case of a double standard. You want random civs but pick one map only.

Arabia is by far the most played map. Therefore most players who are advocating for random civs, by logical conclusion, are picking Arabia only.

Okay, that logic is so flawed, I don't know where to start to correct you.

First of all, I prefer random civs and don't play Arabia only. There are three maps I don't play (Arena, Socotra and Islands with its clones), anything else is fine; so that is that. By the way, saying "You" like that and just assuming (and instantly criticising as "double standard") the other's preferences is just reaally bad communication.

Secondly, you can't pick maps in matchmaking at all, you only ban a limited amount. I guess, what you mean are dodgers. Which are a problem, no doubt, but once again, that is a completely different topic. And just assuming, I would be a dodger, because I prefer random civs, is insulting nonsense.

On a more principled level: there are different properties of players, like "prefers random civ/prefers civ picking" or "prefers specific map/plays all maps"; I would heavily doubt that there is any large-scale correlation between these two properties. And even if there were, you can't draw "logical conclusions" about individuals based on statistic statements.

 

[Snizl]

[...]

On top of that demanding random pick in Arabia 1v1s is completely pointless, with there being only one civ thats played 9% (with 54% winrate) of the time, one 6% (with 51% winrate) on the time and every other civ below that frequency. So you will face a wide variety of matchups either way, and the same civ only in one out of 10 matches.

its much more of a problem for people who prefer playing other maps, where you have Indians on African clearing with (depending on elo bracket) up to 13% pick rate and up to 59% win rate, four lakes where Lithuanians have up to 17% pick rate etc.

 

[HelloWorld]

Okay, that logic is so flawed, I don't know where to start to correct you.

First of all, I prefer random civs and don't play Arabia only. There are three maps I don't play (Arena, Socotra and Islands with its clones), anything else is fine; so that is that. By the way, saying "You" like that and just assuming (and instantly criticising as "double standard") the other's preferences is just reaally bad communication.

Can you tell me a map which is more balanced for the civs than Arabia or Arabia clones like Runestones, Cenotes? Thanks.

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

Can you tell me a map which is more balanced for the civs than Arabia or Arabia clones like Runestones, Cenotes? Thanks.

No.
And how is that related to what I said?

 

[marco47]

There's a very charitable interpretation here that people who pick civ only have 1 or 2 hours a week to play, in my experience, when I face a person who picks civ and then go to their profile, they are more often than not frequent players, with 3 to 4 games a day playing exactly only 1 civ. I can't empathize with that.

I agree that there's no solution though, barred a random civ queue and a preferred civ queue.

 

[IvIaximus]

I am mostly picker, but I do not really play one civ. Usually Slavs, Celts, Poles, Magyars, Bohemians. In TGs also Italians, Byzzies, Teutons and Lithuanians. I pick what I enjoy and I would pick maps I enjoy as well if I could. Position pick I do not care that much.

 

[HelloWorld]

No.
And how is that related to what I said?

Don't you think Arabia players are usually players who prefer random civs and fun whereas in Arena, it's more about civ strengths and vs strong civs you can't even go aggro early, it's too easy to counter.

 

[Vossn]

I am mostly picker, but I do not really play one civ. Usually Slavs, Celts, Poles, Magyars, Bohemians. In TGs also Italians, Byzzies, Teutons and Lithuanians. I pick what I enjoy and I would pick maps I enjoy as well if I could. Position pick I do not care that much.

Pretty much the same. If people want to pick a civ, let them. A lot of reasons exist for that. And if they are just tryhards, so be it. That's no disaster.

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

Don't you think Arabia players are usually players who prefer random civs and fun whereas in Arena, it's more about civ strengths and vs strong civs you can't even go aggro early, it's too easy to counter.

I think the main reason for that is that Arabia has by far the most developed meta. For basically any civ, except maybe the new ones, its strengths and weaknesses are understood on Arabia. And one reason for that is, beyond the fact that it is just the most-played map, that random civ was the standard in voobly times.
And how can the meta be developed on other maps, if only some five civs are considered viable on the map and therefore picked all the time?

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

If I was playing ladder I would only be picking Japanese. UwU

 

[LeoMontero]

th situation is worse in DM.
i played on voobly where all TG were random civ. and now everybody pick civ. and always the same civs. the thing i dont understand is that a lot of people come from voobly, and they pick civ like the rest and doesnt complain. maybe a team has 2 or 3 times the same civ. its nonsense.

 

[SouFire]

th situation is worse in DM.
i played on voobly where all TG were random civ. and now everybody pick civ. and always the same civs. the thing i dont understand is that a lot of people come from voobly, and they pick civ like the rest and doesnt complain. maybe a team has 2 or 3 times the same civ. its nonsense.

Good luck going random civs vs britons, mayans, indians and franks, getting aztk and inca pocket with celts and bulgarians as flanks.

You are forced to counter pick or mirror the civs and yet the aoe believers claims we have the best balance ever, despite it is the same thing for all maps.

 

[vince]

And how can the meta be developed on other maps, if only some five civs are considered viable on the map and therefore picked all the time?

by beating them regularly with one of the other 34 civs

 

[just_sum_guy]

DE has really lost the sense of community. Everyone picks civs. Everyone is a try hard. No GG or GLHF. It's cut throat out there now.

 

[_The_Deep_One_]

There are two different speeches between TGs and 1v1s.
In TGs the problem is that playing archers - scouts (on Arabia) is just too strong compared to other strategies and if you go random, there are some chances that you'll get Incas as pocket and also if your opponent pocket go random and get Japanese (for example) he can easily kill your flank because he has too much mobility for you. A really good thing could be playing not the best civs in the game but some such as Byzantines as flank or Burmese pocket instead of playing Franks, Britons, Mayans, Ethiopians every game.

In 1v1 I know that can be frustrating to play against same civs all the time but there is also an advantage for you. There are a lot of players that reach an elo just using 1 civ and 1 strategy all the time and I'm not talking about Hoang or Morg but players between 1500-1800 elo that play for example Franks full wall scouts - kts - siege everygame or Mayans - wall 2 ranges or runestones without making a skirm or a pikeman for hundreds and hundrends games. Well in these case you can be sure that they will never improve anything about the game while you are forced to focus and getting better by killing better civs than yours. Ofc I agree that it's a really s**t making 10 games in a row against same civs

 

[Saeda]

DE has really lost the sense of community. Everyone picks civs. Everyone is a try hard. No GG or GLHF. It's cut throat out there now.

I do come across this some of the times, but I have far more experience with the opposite. I try to be talkative and friendly during my games, especially when I make mistakes and laugh about them myself, and it usually sparks conversations during, but especially after the game. Unless there's an obvious language barrier (I rarely get responses by Chinese players), it almost always ends up being a friendly game, far beyond glhf or gg, precisely because I say more than that myself.

Yes, there is a lot of civ picking. I honestly don't mind it, my win rate vs Franks is 70% for example. But if you otherwise feel the ladder is too cut throat or unfriendly, while I experience mostly the opposite, maybe try to be the player you want your opponents to be? You might get much better responses, I know it works in my case.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I do come across this some of the times, but I have far more experience with the opposite. I try to be talkative and friendly during my games, especially when I make mistakes and laugh about them myself, and it usually sparks conversations during, but especially after the game. Unless there's an obvious language barrier (I rarely get responses by Chinese players), it almost always ends up being a friendly game, far beyond glhf or gg, precisely because I say more than that myself.

Yes, there is a lot of civ picking. I honestly don't mind it, my win rate vs Franks is 70% for example. But if you otherwise feel the ladder is too cut throat or unfriendly, while I experience mostly the opposite, maybe try to be the player you want your opponents to be? You might get much better responses, I know it works in my case.

This is also what I experienced when I used to play 1v1s on ladder.

 

[Snizl]

I do come across this some of the times, but I have far more experience with the opposite. I try to be talkative and friendly during my games, especially when I make mistakes and laugh about them myself, and it usually sparks conversations during, but especially after the game. Unless there's an obvious language barrier (I rarely get responses by Chinese players), it almost always ends up being a friendly game, far beyond glhf or gg, precisely because I say more than that myself.

Same, I'm a grumpy ass, so it happens relatively rarely to me, but still probably one in 20-30 games I have a conversation that goes far enough that the opponent asks me if I would be interested in playing team games together.
I must also say, though that the more inexperienced people are in the settings the more frequently this happens. On arabia I have the least conversations, on Megarandom there often are remarks about the shortage of food i.e.
Admitting your own short comings often helps too, people are generally friendly. If you are noticing its gonna be a bad civ matchup in the beginning and end up losing it often leads to a conversation what you could have done better for example. Most games I lose I'm a salty ass, and leave without a "gg", so I can only imagine how much sense of a community you could get out of this game if you were actually trying...

 

[HelloWorld]

Only way to overcome civ picking, pick Mongols and lame, if they ask why, tell them you picked a civ.