AOE-II How would you like to improve match-making system?

[nimanoe]

I really like the idea of matchmaking, but as previously mentioned, the mappool is just bad.
I think Zaks idea could work, but I am afraid that it will lead to quite long times if you're not searching for BF or Ara (especially in team games). To prevent that, I like the idea of @buhanisson to rank the maps you want to play or to use bans.

Rotating mappool seems like a great addition as well, it would be nice to see some different maps every once in a while.

Another big problem is the civ picking, maybe it would be a good idea if you gain slightly less elo if you picked a civ instead of going random. That way people still have the option to pick civs, like most lower rated players most likely want to, but are incentivized to go for random civs.

 

[Gentle]

Another big problem is the civ picking, maybe it would be a good idea if you gain slightly less elo if you picked a civ instead of going random. That way people still have the option to pick civs, like most lower rated players most likely want to, but are incentivized to go for random civs.

Simple solution:

50% elo-modifier if u win a game with pick civ.
150% elo-modifier if u lose a game with pick civ.

U want to civwhore? Go ahead but u'll get less points if u win and lose more than if u just went random.

 

[Laskerf]

The only real problem with this matchmaking is that half the civs will never ever be picked in decent to high level games so it could get pretty boring after a while. Idk picking cumans on land and italians on water every game and never touch goths vietnamese khmer turks and friends

 

[Leyl]

Simple solution:

50% elo-modifier if u win a game with pick civ.
150% elo-modifier if u lose a game with pick civ.

U want to civwhore? Go ahead but u'll get less points if u win and lose more than if u just went random.

The problem with this is that i will not result in an consistent ELO system.

 

[asdfasdfasdf1]

I also find pick civs become very repetitive. perhaps it would be interesting if instead of picking between 35 civs, people pick between a randomized set of 3-7 civs. this would probably result in a lot of mirror matchups though (which I personally don't mind)

 

[Gentle]

The problem with this is that i will not result in an consistent ELO system.

It's already inconsistent with newer players getting a (slowly decreasing) modifier in first couple of games.

Same on voobly, a lot of games where: team A ELO gain =/= TEAM B ELO LOSS

 

[Springoftheking]

DE matchmaking works that at least I have get same level players in my games both 1 v 1 and team games. I like also map pool in team games. In 1 v 1 current map pool system is not fun. Highland, rivers and maybe couple other aren't fun maps for me. It is not nice that game enforce to play these maps much. I am not familiar with other games, like Star Craft, so I don't know are they good model for AoE 2. Also I don't think free civ picking fit well in 1 v 1. All civs are not equal. There are about 10 or little more good civs, which are most of time a bit better than others, so people just choose these. Mirror pick is the safest option, but is a kind of boring.

Personally I think 1 v 1 Arabia random civs are the best and competitive way to play AoE2 and it should be option to play.

 

[Springoftheking]

There should be some kind "Casual" rating ladder for more casual players, who want play Black Forest and Nomad for fun with ratings. This was possible in HD and Voobly and it's sad that ranked games in these maps aren't possible.

 

[Leyl]

It's already inconsistent with newer players getting a (slowly decreasing) modifier in first couple of games.

Same on voobly, a lot of games where: team A ELO gain =/= TEAM B ELO LOSS

Can't argue with that.

Still there would be a ELO deflation with every game, where at least one player would pick a civ. So eventually new players will be the highest ranked ones.

 

[buhanisson]

Another way to promote more variation in civs could be to allow players either their pick maps or civs. So some variation of: if you pick civ, you must go full random map. If you want to pick map, you have to go random civ.

A simple example system:
You must always pick a map pool of 5 maps for rated game. If you go mirror, you can instead go for 3 maps. If you go full random civ, you can go 1 map.

A bit more complicated example system:
For rated, you must choose a random civ pool of 3 favorite civs and a map pool of 5 maps. For each two civs you add to your civ pool, you can remove a map from your map pool. For each map you add to your map pool, you can remove two civs from your civ pool.

 

[Gentle]

Can't argue with that.

Still there would be a ELO deflation with every game, where at least one player would pick a civ. So eventually new players will be the highest ranked ones.

Chess also has ELO deflation iirc (due to variable K-factor). They modify ELO gain/loss based on some rating thresholds. If one player is below the threshold and the other above it will result in the same scenario as picking a civ in this proposal.

EDIT: Voobly also has deflation btw (2k+ trickle down when inactive)

 

[GhostOfYoda]

The problem with this is that i will not result in an consistent ELO system.

You could make this more consistent rather than applying a flat percentage offset, treat the non-picking player as if they had, say 100-200 fewer points for purposes of calculating the points at the end of the map. Mathematically, this would be equivalent to saying that a civ-picking player at one elo has a 50% chance of beating a player 100-200 points better than them, if their rival goes random.

 

[HyunAOP]

Make it like tinder for both player and maps

Like the player you're gonna face? Swipe right.

Like the map as well? Swipe right.

Don't like either options? Swipe left.

Kappa

 

[AceW]

I was just thinking about the idea that there are different map pools people can choose from before entering the queue. And then you a paired with people chosing the same map pool.
smth like land maps (arab, steppe..), water maps (islands, ) , defensive maps (arena, hideout, hillfort..) and cancer maps (oasis, rivers..)

 

[Nick_]

Players really should have the option of what they want to specifically play in ranked.
I understand the reasoning behind wanting a ladder that tries to capture accurate overall ability but nobody really takes the ladder on voobly seriously so why would that change on D.E (especially with this map pool)

For instance, if you want the community to move, then allow players to play arena 1v1 only, bf players allow them to queue black forest in ranked only, ect.

Forcing players to play some of the least exciting maps isn't going to get them coming back (looking at you, mongolia, rivers, highland)

 

[GhostOfYoda]

Forcing players to play some of the least exciting maps isn't going to get them coming back (looking at you, mongolia, rivers, highland)

If anything, it's reminding us all why we never played these maps in the first place...

 

[Nicov]

Teams: green and me (blue) vs yellow and red. Gotta love these competitive maps.

 

[Turambar94]

I'm loving it. I only wonder if they're gonna rotate the map pool (and how often)

 

[Turambar94]

2. I don't like certain maps (Rivers). Would be nice to be able to choose a set of maps I want to play (minimum 3/4/5 maps).

It's funny how people want to turn the lobby into a freaking card game: "just let us choose 5 maps and 10 civs, we could also veto 3 maps each so then we can play rock-paper-scissors to decide the final matchup".

The current system is fine, and overcomplicating things just scare people away.

 

[JoshuaR]

Honestly, I think the ranked ladder should have MORE maps available, but the generation chosen based on a weight so that most of your games are the most played fun maps that AoE2 players enjoy.

For instance:
50% chance you will play Arabia or other well-liked land maps (Gold Rush, El Dorado, Land Madness, Valley, Prairie, Bedouins, etc.)
20% hybrid map (like Continental, Rivers, Coastal, Mediterranean, Baltic, Highland, Nomad, etc.)
10% water (like Islands, or those Rajas maps like Bog Islands or whatever names I'm forgetting)
Remaining 20% could be Anything else (or Microsoft could hold a community poll to add 10% chance of other "Liked" maps like Arena, and then the last 10% completely Random Map).

 

[AceW]

Is there any information if the map pool will be changed for whatever reason?

Or is it like "ok guys we developed this game and we are done here."?

 

[Moonspring]

Start with the basics, for now I cant even chat with or invite specific players. What I do now is I log in to voobly, chat with a friend there ,find his messed up username on steam or tell him my messed up username (everything normal is taken), then we can add friends, then I can send an invite. I just want a screen with all players online, add specific players as friend, double click their name, say hi, ask 14, invite to party.
When thats possible Ill get worried about maps.

 

[Elvaenor]

Start with the basics, for now I cant even chat with or invite specific players. What I do now is I log in to voobly, chat with a friend there ,find his messed up username on steam or tell him my messed up username (everything normal is taken), then we can add friends, then I can send an invite. I just want a screen with all players online, add specific players as friend, double click their name, say hi, ask 14, invite to party.
When thats possible Ill get worried about maps.

To be honest I don't see a problem with having steam friends instead of in-game friends. On your steam friendslist you can see if people are online, and invite them for a game. Of course you have to add friends again, but if they build in a list of players now you'll have to add everyone again as well so it's not too much of a difference. Also adding friends is a 1 time problem anyway.
Not saying I'm opposed to a general list of people who are online but I can certainly live without it. The only real advantage (which is still a good advantage) I see is that you can see in what lobby the pro's are playing, but the spec system has to be improved anyway.

 

[HyunAOP]

That explains why the maps are so uncommon (no arena, no nomad, but some uncompetitive maps like Rivers)

And they even made two clown civs yet can't play ranked arena

Poor Lithuanian and Cumans man!

 

[Marteens]

Let the matchmaking as it is, you can read on aoe forums some ppl enjoy that lol, but allow the grown ups to host their own ranked games under the settings they find suitable.

if only you could find games in the unranked lobby LUL