The lobby tab is just a snap shot when somebody is whoring their settings to accidental passersby. It can never compete with a well designed matching systemI wish there was a system where you could go and make a game with whatever settings you like, then when someone else who wants to play those settings sees they can join the game then you can play each other on any map you desire, man that would be nice
On the other hand, CS:GO's matchmaking is so bad that I think it's the only game (?) out there where offering a 3rd party matchmaking system is actually a viable business model (ESEA; FaceIt; etc.)...ironically you can actually choose the map you queue for in CSGO matchmaking
On the other hand, CS:GO's matchmaking is so bad that I think it's the only game (?) out there where offering a 3rd party matchmaking system is actually a viable business model (ESEA; FaceIt; etc.)...
agreed, im a constant alt f4 player, even i have to resign at min 5 sometimes,I don't want to be forced to play maps i do not likeThe whole argument behind making players play from a pool of maps is so non sensical. If you want the player ELO to be an accurate representation of their overall skills on every single map type, then why let players choose the civs?
If you want an accurate ELO, make players play random civs all the time. Anyone can become good picking Franks, Gurjaras on Arabia and Italians on water maps. But can they play Burmese on Arabia or Aztecs on water map.
If you allow players to pick the civ, allow the players to pick the map. Sure, the queue times will be longer but that's what you get. If you want to play coastal forest you need to wait, why forcing Arabia players to play coastal forest because one guy wants it. THIS IS BULLSHIT.
And this is even worse in TG, if 7 players favourite Arabia and one f***er comes and bans Arabia and favourites Islands, all 8 players have to play Island. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Absolutely illogical. You don't have to be a genius to understand how flawed this system is. Giving veto to players is just not right. This is just common sense. If you are going to have a map pool system, have a weighted system instead of a veto one. If majority wants to play a certain map, that map should be picked.
In fairness ranked lobbies don't exist for RMI wish there was a system where you could go and make a game with whatever settings you like, then when someone else who wants to play those settings sees they can join the game then you can play each other on any map you desire, man that would be nice
Yeah it's a fair point, I think just having a "lobby ranking" (like the unranked-ranking they had for a while) would basically solve the issueIn fairness ranked lobbies don't exist for RM
Well sure it is possible, but feel like is more likely that those who choosing maps do not play or play very little or are attitude of "you have to play everything and be well rounded player" so pushing such trash maps.Is it possible devs are pushing maps that might prop up unpopular/low %win civs? This could shape the perception of said civs and reduce pressure to rework aspects of these civs.
Well I don't think that would solve much, is similar to DM, it seems nice, but without discord is hard to find games often. It was for a while what I was doing, playing ranked and asking some opponents that I enjoyed playing against and talking after game asking if they want to exchange discord and play some to practice off ranking was working much better. As for now I sometimes want to play DM, but then I can't be in queue and in the end even if i would preffer to play DM game, I end up queing RM and EW just bcuz its much easier, you don't end up waiting 10min without finding a game and so on, not to mention all the your elo too high or too low thing. This works better if there is either queue either lobby, if there are both I think it doesnt work as good as most will stick with queue.Yeah it's a fair point, I think just having a "lobby ranking" (like the unranked-ranking they had for a while) would basically solve the issue
Obviously with lobbies where you can have any settings or any players the ranking isn't going to be comparable to ladder ranking so I think they should be separated, but having some idea of skill would be handy to stop people using it to just boost their ranking (and you can always look at their 1v1 or TG ladder ranking too)
I am 1500 elo and matchmaking for me is already so bad that I got fanjita and rubenstock in subsequent games. If DEs matchmaking cant create balanced games with the amount of players that it has for a low to mid level player like me then it definetely isnt the superior system.The lobby tab is just a snap shot when somebody is whoring their settings to accidental passersby. It can never compete with a well designed matching system
Preferentially matching persons with similar settings may require more computing resources, but otherwise shouldn't be difficult...
Well honestly this info alone says nothing for people like me, who never played voobly and doesn't know how many people play there. I mean if those like 50 ppl keep playing against each other again and again sure they know how to make teams between each other and have balanced gamesMeanwhile there are like 3 to 5 teamgames hosted on voobly at the same time on weekdays and those games are more way more balanced 11