

i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
I can see what you're saying, but I don't think the difference in people's perception of the game's state is due to a lack of awareness of these issues. I expect it's mostly due to:![]()
![]()
i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
Well this voting system is terrible to begin with. There might be true that there are more players that like closed maps than anticipated before, however there are few big factors to concider.It's playing arabia (and open maps) only, that's why ingame voting helped making the mappools less closed! Kappa
Just add automatic ballistics like AoE4, EZ![]()
![]()
i just watch clips like this and wonder how anyone can vote 10,9,8 etc. Most people just arent playing/watching the same game as me
Yeah, 1v1 ara huns with 200 ping all day was definitely a 9 of 10 gaming experience ...Well aoe2/aoc was an already 9 of 10 game
It was. Like Ra would say, big plays, big balls, no walls.Yeah, 1v1 ara huns with 200 ping all day was definitely a 9 of 10 gaming experience ...
Be able to play ranked games on maps they like. That's the user requirement, beyond that it's the responsibility of the developers to find the solution.What exactly are the demands of the majority of the community?
And how do you know that's in fact the majority if we don't have access to any data on these things?
This actually never bothered me tbh.The infamous hill patrol with ca
Be able to play ranked games on maps they like. That's the user requirement, beyond that it's the responsibility of the developers to find the solution.
Unranked was only more popular because the ranked teamgames stink. Also a ton of these unranked lobbies have a "soft" ranking required. How many noob/noobish arena/BF 4v4s are there? A ton! All of these players would be better served by having the ability to just play ranked BF/Arena 4v4 games over and over. Instead these players resort to unranked lobbies and classify it as "noob", "noobish", 1000+, 1200+, etc. This is users trying to bypass poor system design.These numbers sadly are not tracked anymore, but when they still were, the "unraked" ladder was by *far* the one with the highest number of entries.
I think 170k was the last public number, compared with 70k for TG and 40k 1v1.
Of course there will be overlap, but it's not at all clear to me that the majority of the community wants to play ranked.
Lots of people ask for ranked lobbies as a solution to ranked matchmaking, would that help them in this use-case?All of these players would be better served by having the ability to just play ranked BF/Arena 4v4 games over and over.
Lots of people ask for ranked lobbies as a solution to ranked matchmaking, would that help them in this use-case?
Again, that's just an assumption.
In my experience, unhappy customers usually just stop using the product as opposed to looking for alternative ways to use it.
I think a more reasonable explanation would be that a lot of folks dislike the pressure of playing rated.
There are a bunch of reddit posts talking about "ladder anxiety" which seem to support this idea.
This is obviously just anecdotal, so I'm not going to present it as a fact.
Which is why we need data.
As far as the devs are concerned, DE is a massive success.
The player base has exploded since the Voobly/HD days.
It's obvious Microsoft is also happy with the performance of the product as they keep investing in new DLC's, they keep investing (for our community standards-) unheard of amounts of money in tournaments, etc.
In this context, if you want to convince the devs to change something as fundamental as the Matchmaking system, you have to give them a very good reason to do so.
And that's where data comes in.
My guess is they have good data that indicate the vast majority of players are indeed "happy enough" with the system as is.
"In this context, if you want to convince the devs to change something as fundamental as the Matchmaking system, you have to give them a very good reason to do so."
You are joking right? You expect the consumer to gather proprietary data on a product then provide that information back to the vendor? What are you actually saying here? We don't need data to prove to them, it's their job to listen to the consumer and make a better product or lose sales.
Stop apologizing for poor design and speak up for the players, please.
your response is to say I either provide hard data on how many DLC sales they lose or I should kick rocks?
No, my response is to suggest the devs already are in possession of such data and based on it they've decided it's not worth taking the risk of completely overhauling a system that as far as they are concerned *is* working.
Indeed, It's just a guess.You don't know that.
I like you podcast
That would be incredibly wrong and biased by the devs, in my opinion if they actually think that "majority" of playerbase is satisfied with the current MM system. Majority doesn't just mean pure numbers when in comes to certain aspects of the game - because obviously there will always be more casual/lower elo playerbase compared to hardcore/cream of the crop. And matter of fact is, you will never find the casual players as deeply invested into the aoe scene as hardcore members of the community, so there needs to be a certain weight associated with say a high profile player like Viper's stance to a LEL John who plays "TGs noobs only every saturday" (Sorry to all John's out there)No, my response is to suggest the devs already are in possession of such data and based on it they've decided it's not worth taking the risk of completely overhauling a system that as far as they are concerned *is* working.