Dear Devs: Just let me choose the Map i want to play: Whats so hard to understand here?

[Please_dont_choose_goths!]

Its 2022 and we still cant chose the map we want to play.

 

[jetseLinkinPark]

Wow he did it.

He posted something sensible, what a day to be alive.

Full on agree though, and no, unranked is not an option.

 

[Faraday]

You can choose the map you want but not for ranked games.

Ranked games need to suit some rules

I can't play a Match Making in CS go 15v15 at fy_pool_day.
I can't play League of Legends ranked games in the way I want.

I support the ranked map pool system in that regard

 

[Crawsack]

I agree, I have limited time to play, all I want is balanced teams on the map I'd like to play. Why should I have to play a map I don't like? The whole game is for fun, and the whole point of elo is to created balanced matchups. I don't want to play megarandom, or whatever weird maps people want.

 

[SouFire]

Things were done by frustrated little men who could never play their maps back then on voobly or even game ranger, those little men got the power and fully control of aoe2, as sad as that sounds they have limited our freedom and implanted their ideals of how we are supposed to play a game we already knew for 20 years.

For casuals playing any map is fine and for stackers as they have superior team work and communication, but for the rest it has been nothing but pure hell, you ended up you day after work and took of 2 hours exclusive for playing and favorite arabia or even arena just to end up playing 3 megarandom maps and one black forest and maybe one islands just to finds out you allies are 300 point below you vs enemies 400 points above ur team, you decide to keep playing just to see your ally resigning cause he got destroyed by his own guy and claimed he got 2x1 cause he saw 2 ships when he already lost the fight to his own guy cause he got to feudal 2 mins later.

I don't understand that silly logic of forcing players to play maps they don't want to play, it has been 3 years of forcing players to play those nasty maps but somehow they haven't learned the most basic build orders, so their beloved system is not working as intended.

There is no need to keep fighting whether if you like the system or not, we could all be happy if they just change the system and allow players to queue exclusively for 3 maps they want to play and take as priority the preferred option, some unpopular maps would get dusted but that seems the way to go, we can see how such system destroyed aoe4 active player base, the only reason we have withstanded the system is mainly cause we were a consolidate community but deftly those setting are not inclusive but exclusive as i have pointed out in previous topics about it.

 

[AkeNo]

Is it possible to have like a fill mechanic?
Like, if you queue up for a game and favor Arabia for example but you don't get that map you play on the map that was chosen, let's say Islands. After you completed a game on that map your next 2 times you queue up and favor Arabia it will give you Arabia guaranteed.
Wouldn't that be a decent compromise of random maps and maps you want to play?

 

[willdbeast]

I 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

 

[Tiekel]

I 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

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...

 

[Snippy]

Its 2022 and we still cant chose the map we want to play.

But if everyone could play what they want, then it would be impossible for me to force them to play Migration

 

[ninja14]

I can't play a Match Making in CS go 15v15 at fy_pool_day.

ironically you can actually choose the map you queue for in CSGO matchmaking

 

[MaSmOrRa]

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.)...

 

[ninja14]

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.)...

its not the matchmaking which is bad, Valve's anticheat (non existent) is the main problem.

Btw you can pre-select the maps you queue for on faceit also if you have premium which most serious players take.

 

[The_Nerdman]

The 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.

 

[Potkeny]

If majority wants to play a certain map, that map should be picked.

Weight the chance to get the favorited map, same with civ-picking vs random civ (if equal, 50%).

I would love to see that system, so much crying to read :D

 

[menonation]

The 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.

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 like

 

[ninja14]

sometimes,I don't want to be forced to play maps i do not like

Noone should be yet here we are

 

[TheCapybara]

Nobody is forced to play a map they don't want to. If you don't want to play it, don't queue up for it.

 

[Lokalo]

It boggles my mind devs started adding such trash maps as Fort Hill as their choice. Do they even play the game? That I really enjoy as 2v2, but 1v1 is just way too civ dependant unless you want to tower rush every second game. I understand arabia and arena there, I hate islands, but can understand they want to put one trash water map, but they like to put some nonsense maps where one or few civs are just so much better that makes no sense to add it to the ranked map pool.

 

[DanMT]

I 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

In fairness ranked lobbies don't exist for RM

 

[Russeljones]

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.

 

[willdbeast]

In fairness ranked lobbies don't exist for RM

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)

 

[Lokalo]

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 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 just that everyone have different opinion and taste of maps, although arabia always was by far most played map and I think player base is also much older in average nowadays. Which means, that many people do not play much due children and blah blah. So it also has huge effect, for example I play probably 30 games per month, maybe even less, where sometimes i play 5 games per day, then have a week without a single game etc. I'm too lazy to learn new build order for arabia so I usually do always same build order and devs think Im gonna learn it for water or nomad, no fking way lol.

However when I was young, I had very different idea, I liked to learn new build orders, remember learning some dumb strats like "klew" (?) was like 14:30 or 15:30 castle age EW spam with mayans having terrible eco, however back then such castle age was concidered way faster, it didnt really work in higher elo, but still had fun learning and doing such stuff, but back then I had tons of time and no stress in job and so on. Now I just want to enjoy my few arabia games.

 

[Lokalo]

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)

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.

 

[Zbyszek]

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...

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.
Either you increase the amount of players which is unlikely
or they improve matchmaking but we know how incompetent they are
or they increase queue times which is also unlikely

Meanwhile 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

 

[Lokalo]

Meanwhile 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

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 games