AOE-II DE How Would you Rate the Currant State of AoE2 DE?

[flerdahl]

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)

• Devs ask pros for their opinions regarding balance because pros have most experience and the game balance is centered around that. Cool, nobody will complain because it's in everyone's best interest (Sorry John, we can't buff teutonic knights just for you, it will break the balance)
• Devs ask everyone (including casual players who play maybe once a week) to vote in the ranked mappool and then decide based on the majority. Like how is it fair? Mbl and Hera plays 1000s of games and they have to play from a mappool which is mainly decided by what the "majority" of lower elo prefers, something which is no fun at all for higher elos.

Devs cannot really weigh everyone's stance equally, it hurts some people a lot more than it does to a casual player. There are people whose livelihood depend around the game and if they can't enjoy the game, they have no other option but complain. Why do you think barely any pros queue Ranked TGs, but play Unranked Lobby Nomad, BF every chance they get? It's because the MM for TG is broken.

Yup, pros don't bother with ranked team games because they care about 1v1. Most people prefer to play reasonably balanced team games which is reflected in the player count and the amount of un- ranked lobbies have "soft" rankings applied.

I heard Hera mention the ranked teamgame ladder is crap on Masamora's podcast, otherwise they just complain about whatever the current OP civ is.

It would be super cool if influential people told the devs to do something about the "let people play competitive team games on the maps the like" issue rather than constantly whine about flemish revolution.

 

[Socksyy]

This actually never bothered me tbh.

What bothered me was the infamous 3-4 sc rush into a 12 min stonewalled base. Or even worse, the infamous click feudal at 8 min into seeing a fully walled opponent 10 seconds later.

Or the infamous china sneak ranges behind your base, meanwhile full stone walled at home min 12

 

[OGN]

The most obvious solution for me, keeping the current ranking system, is to base ONLY on the 1vs1 Elo to form the TGs teams and then to make them win or lose Elo ONLY on the one reserved for team games.

And impose more than 10 games of placement before having an ELO.

For example at least 30 games of placement to have the right to an ELO which will be more real than the one obtained after 10 games.

 

[kalpit00]

The most obvious solution for me, keeping the current ranking system, is to base ONLY on the 1vs1 Elo to form the TGs teams

1v1 elo is usually a lot more accurate than TG elo. The game has improved so much compared to voobly days that any 1200 in DE can consistently pull off a flank 21 pop archer build or a pkt 20 pop scout build, but they are miles behind in terms of decision making and mechanics of a 1600 elo player doing the same build and same opening.

I would like if they reworked TG elo again and set everyone's TG elo to their 1v1 elo. Actually would help a lot for 16-17xx 1v1ers who are stuck at low TG elo (can't even play TGs bc some 1100 will resign when doubled smh or someone drops every other game)

 

[Lokalo]

The most obvious solution for me, keeping the current ranking system, is to base ONLY on the 1vs1 Elo to form the TGs teams and then to make them win or lose Elo ONLY on the one reserved for team games.

And impose more than 10 games of placement before having an ELO.

For example at least 30 games of placement to have the right to an ELO which will be more real than the one obtained after 10 games.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Besides 30 games is quite a lot, 20 already would be 2x than what we have. Although my question is those placements must be 1v1? As there are so many players who never play a single 1v1, that it would be probably more whining about it than the forced maps to play. However I agree about at least initially giving 1v1 rating for those who have it as it's way more accurate, issue is most TG players do not have it, at least in lower elos.

 

[Potkeny]

Now imagine if Fifa asks every player who plays football what their stance is on Offside rule or VAR introduction

Fifa gets income from viewers -> they care about what viewers want. That's how rules change in big sports for tournaments, trying to make a better viewer experience, which of course includes making the refereeing fairer, but on the other hand also includes not making the match take 2x long if for example they allowed VAR for more (or every) situation, or introduced coach's challenge/etc.

Just like how in aoe2, the "income" is from the average players and the average stream/yt viewers (the two groups overlap, but are not the same, there are many many viewers who don't really play multi, or at all), so changing ingame balance and systems will be influenced by them too.

Remember the nomad big-yellow square thingy? Absolutely not needed for tournaments, or even high-level ranked play, but was needed for lower-levels, thus it was introduced, "forcing" tournaments to make their own version of nomad without it.

We don't know exactly how much TG ranked Q vs ranked Lobbies would be used, but the amount of effort into pressing a button vs reading the buggy, disappearing lobby-list, trying to find a balanced lobby which also doesn't kick you or some of your party members.. It might be less good than some thinks.

 

[Paint]

Devs ask pros for their opinions regarding balance because pros have most experience and the game balance is centered around that. Cool, nobody will complain because it's in everyone's best interest

I think only asking pro player for balance is stupid because 99% of people play on a very different level and the game has different problems down there. Goths is like one of the most OP civ for sub 1000 Elo players and has been forever and all they did was making it even more OP. Balancing games only for the 1% will make the it less fun for the majority of people actually playing.

 

[OGN]

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Besides 30 games is quite a lot, 20 already would be 2x than what we have. Although my question is those placements must be 1v1? As there are so many players who never play a single 1v1, that it would be probably more whining about it than the forced maps to play. However I agree about at least initially giving 1v1 rating for those who have it as it's way more accurate, issue is most TG players do not have it, at least in lower elos.

Don't forget that we are talking about a ranked game, in other words a competitive format.

If a player doesn't want to have to play a few 1vs1 to find his real ELO, then he can play in the custom lobby.

30 placement games is the minimum in my opinion. It's like in poker, it's on volume that we can get real stats on a player's performance.

 

[archxeon]

A great analogy I thought of is Football. We have millions of football fans who love playing casually in parks and we never really care about offside or VAR. Now imagine if Fifa asks every player who plays football what their stance is on Offside rule or VAR introduction. Obviously a casual Joe playing in the park won't care, he will say No to Offsides so he can continue scoring goals by just waiting around the GK area 11, but the competitive game of football would be so wrong and exploitable if there's no offside or no VAR. Imagine

Just commenting on the analogy and not the overall topic.
VAR isn't accessible to casual players in Football so any rule changes won't affect them. Whereas map pool affects everyone who uses match making. This analogy only makes sense if people who don't use match making are also the voting majority (although possible, I think its unlikely).

 

[archxeon]

I'm super confused by your attitude on this. Part of their product is bad in a specific way, a lot of consumers complained about this thing, and your response is to say I either provide hard data on how many DLC sales they lose or I should kick rocks?

Stop apologizing for poor design and speak up for the players, please.



I like you podcast, but your stance of "just give up on this subject" is lame.

You had some good arguments. But these weren't necessary. He was just giving a different perspective. Kind of playing devil's advocate. That can also help to make you make better arguments.

 

[flerdahl]

You had some good arguments. But these weren't necessary. He was just giving a different perspective. Kind of playing devil's advocate. That can also help to make you make better arguments.

You are right. Masamora is the man.

 

[Paint]

The most obvious solution for me, keeping the current ranking system, is to base ONLY on the 1vs1 Elo to form the TGs teams and then to make them win or lose Elo ONLY on the one reserved for team games.

This is so stupid and easy to abuse that commentating on it feels like a waste of time but here we are.

1. Losing 30 1v1 games takes like 2h if you really want to, so everyone that knows how to make a family sharing steam account can just lose the minim required 1v1 games and then only play TG on that account boosting the Elo gained.
2. Many people only want to play TG and forcing them to play 30 1v1 games just to get matchmaking is stupid.
3. Some people are better at TG/1v1 so using one Elo for the other is not always accurate.

Also most people don't play the ranked ladder for competitive but to have fun by playing against opponents on the same level.

If you actually want good team games we need a way better lobby system that actually lets you find games with different rooms for:

• 1v1 Un\Ranked
• 2v2 Un\Ranked
• 3v4/4v4 Un\Ranked
• Tournament Games
• Free for all/battle royal/diplomacy
• Custom maps/Scenarios
• German, Chinese. Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian language lobbies

 

[OGN]

This is so stupid and easy to abuse that commentating on it feels like a waste of time but here we are.

1. Losing 30 1v1 games takes like 2h if you really want to, so everyone that knows how to make a family sharing steam account can just lose the minim required 1v1 games and then only play TG on that account boosting the Elo gained.
2. Many people only want to play TG and forcing them to play 30 1v1 games just to get matchmaking is stupid.
3. Some people are better at TG/1v1 so using one Elo for the other is not always accurate.

Also most people don't play the ranked ladder for competitive but to have fun by playing against opponents on the same level.

If you actually want good team games we need a way better lobby system that actually lets you find games with different rooms for:

• 1v1 Un\Ranked
• 2v2 Un\Ranked
• 3v4/4v4 Un\Ranked
• Tournament Games
• Free for all/battle royal/diplomacy
• Custom maps/Scenarios
• German, Chinese. Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian language lobbies

Except:

To lose 2 hours (and still it is to be proved) will dissuade more than one.

If some people don't want to play in 1vs1 to be competitive, in this case they can go to Personalized Lobby.

The TGs today are not balanced at all, most of the time nobody has the same level. As an example today I tagged with 1K3 1K5 1K6 ( I am 1K7 )

The lobby for ranked is what we had for years on Voobly. And when we reached a certain level (let's say decent) it was often more than 30 to 40 minutes of waiting to fill a lobby with players of the same level and avoiding smurfs.

So I maintain that my solution is relevant. It's up to Microsoft to do what's necessary to avoid multi-accounts.

 

[kalpit00]

I don't mind any solution in which we can queue with players of same elo in TGs. That's all that matters, that's it. Why on earth would I want to be matched in a TG comprising of equal "Average" elo amongst the team. I want a 4v4 of all players at the same level as me, not spread around a large range.

A 4v4 where there are players ranging from 1200-1700 is not fun at all, for neither parties. But a 4v4 of players from 1500-1700 is a lot of fun. And the problem is that this elo disparity just keeps growing the higher elo you get.

In voobly we had the iconic 2k+ lobbies, where all the 2ks played as and when spot was available. Nowadays, we don't have the issue of waiting longer than 6 mins due to MM, but why is MM logic so senseless to match 2ks with 1600s or worse? With the number of players we have in DE, it should not really be that hard to find a pool of 8 1900-2100 players, or something along [-100, 100] elo range on either side (For the cream players, yes they would just need to be matched in an elo range of something like [2300+] or even occasionally matched lower simply because we are getting to top 100 and not everyone queues at same time)

 

[Paint]

dissuade

????

 

[Potkeny]

????

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissuade ?

 

[GosBanyat]

Except:

To lose 2 hours (and still it is to be proved) will dissuade more than one.

If some people don't want to play in 1vs1 to be competitive, in this case they can go to Personalized Lobby.

The TGs today are not balanced at all, most of the time nobody has the same level. As an example today I tagged with 1K3 1K5 1K6 ( I am 1K7 )

The lobby for ranked is what we had for years on Voobly. And when we reached a certain level (let's say decent) it was often more than 30 to 40 minutes of waiting to fill a lobby with players of the same level and avoiding smurfs.

So I maintain that my solution is relevant. It's up to Microsoft to do what's necessary to avoid multi-accounts.

it would dissuade more legit players than cheaters. People that want to play TG with matchmaking would just never play the 30 1v1 games, it's ridiculous

 

[thekingfc]

8 IFF they improve the way one can select different types of military units during a battle through keyboard shortcuts.

 

[kalpit00]

8 IFF they improve the way one can select different types of military units during a battle through keyboard shortcuts.

How would that work? A hotkey for "Select all ranged units", "Select all infantry units" etc? Also wouldnt this hotkey select units from all over the map? I don't find double right clicking units difficult, in fact it's a lot easier to micro like this. I currently have no unbinded keys left, all of my hotkeys do something or the else, whether it is a formation, military stance or a go-to building or Select-all-building.

 

[OGN]

it would dissuade more legit players than cheaters. People that want to play TG with matchmaking would just never play the 30 1v1 games, it's ridiculous

The problem is there. If people do not understand that Ranked = Competitive and therefore performance the problem will not be solved.

If some people don't want to play 30 placement games and then have much cleaner team games, then they should be directed to the personalized lobby.

 

[thekingfc]

How would that work? A hotkey for "Select all ranged units", "Select all infantry units" etc? Also wouldnt this hotkey select units from all over the map? I don't find double right clicking units difficult, in fact it's a lot easier to micro like this. I currently have no unbinded keys left, all of my hotkeys do something or the else, whether it is a formation, military stance or a go-to building or Select-all-building.

Yes, exactly like that. Hotkey for ranged units, for siege, for mounted units, etc, that are on screen. It would help a lot in a battle. A double-click is slower for sure. And also at the moment you always have to add new created to units to control groups.

 

[Paint]

Ranked = Competitive

Nope. Ranked = Auto Balanced Casual.

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

Nope. Ranked = Auto Balanced Casual.

Probably both concepts apply, but at different levels.
At higher levels, people understand ranked matchmaking as a competitive platform, while at lower levels it's something like quickplay with a slightly bigger incentive to try your best and win.

 

[Paint]

Probably both concepts apply, but at different levels.
At higher levels, people understand ranked matchmaking as a competitive platform, while at lower levels it's something like quickplay with a slightly bigger incentive to try your best and win.

Exactly different people want different things out of quick play and changing it in a way that makes it only usable for some people is bad.

 

[OGN]

Nope. Ranked = Auto Balanced Casual.

False.

The goal of ranked, whatever the game is, is to play for elo or rank. The goal is to play to improve it, to play with stronger players of the same level.

Not understanding such a simple thing is very serious.