Ladder.

[AoeWololo]

For those of us who aren't super picky and don't particularly want to "grind" any specific map, the current system is preferable. I favorite Islands much of the time, but I'd rather wait two minutes and get Arabia than wait 20 minutes for an Islands match, only to play versus someone 300 Elo above or below me.

You could still select Islands along with other maps, then you don't have to wait for Islands alone. There is nothing to lose. You gain the opportunity to wait for Islands alone and reliably play it.

Microsoft has decided that those people are in the minority, or at least that the current system is the lesser of two evils as far as keeping people playing the game.

This is a fallacy. If the majority wants variety then an opt-in/max bans system would be perfect for facillitating that. Then you would not need to force variety.

For others who want to play 1 map and 1 map only, no matter the queue time, than unlimited bans is preferable.

*others who want control over maps. This doesn't necessarily have to do with the amount of maps selected.

It is beneficial on other aspects as well, reduce map dodging (less time in queue and less warped elo), better elo accuracy (players aren't thrown in random maps), make MM more inclusive (no more reason to play lobby or stay on other platforms), reduce hostility in community.

Needless to say, the current system values some preferences higher than others. Maxbans/opt-in respects preferences similarly. I don't find the former ethical.

 

[T-West]

Ideally these lobby people should be in MM

I think this is one of the key problems: that MM and lobby systems are completely separate and create different pools of players.

 

[LmScar12]

You could still select Islands along with other maps, then you don't have to wait for Islands alone. There is nothing to lose. You gain the opportunity to wait for Islands alone and reliably play it.

This is a fallacy. If the majority wants variety then an opt-in/max bans system would be perfect for facillitating that. Then you would not need to force variety.

That's not exactly true. What you do in the queue affects what other people get. Let's say for example you want to play Arabia only, you favorite Arabia and you (playing probabilities) ban Arena, MegaRandom, and Hideout. I favorite Islands, and I ban African Clearing, Arena, and Hideout. Now I have a 50% of playing Islands if I match versus you. If instead you had another ban and were able to ban Islands, we would be playing Arabia 100% of the time. And if in response I banned Arabia and Runestones to give me a chance at playing Islands, I couldn't play versus you and would have to wait longer to play.

 

[AoeWololo]

That's not exactly true. What you do in the queue affects what other people get.

You lose nothing in the sense of opportunity, the balance between maps does change as I said earlier.

Let's say for example you want to play Arabia only, you favorite Arabia and you (playing probabilities) ban Arena, MegaRandom, and Hideout. I favorite Islands, and I ban African Clearing, Arena, and Hideout. Now I have a 50% of playing Islands if I match versus you.

In reality people who want specific maps will dodge disliked maps so now you will have the added problem of having to queue again.

And if in response I banned Arabia and Runestones to give me a chance at playing Islands, I couldn't play versus you and would have to wait longer to play.

If I don't constantly have to be forced on disliked maps this is a huge time and effort save.

What often gets forgotten is that no matter how much you want something, it is not acceptable to force others into unfavorable maps to achieve this. That is not how you treat others around you. I'm all for encouraging variety (which the map pool does), however there is a clear boundary which has been crossed. As a result for 2 years we have a broken system and a lot of hostility in the community. On a positive note I think it's clear how the community has grown in numbers and how automating the experience along with presenting a map pool has increased variety of maps, I don't think we need to force anything.

 

[LmScar12]

You lose nothing in the sense of opportunity, the balance between maps does change as I said earlier.

In reality people who want specific maps will dodge disliked maps so now you will have the added problem of having to queue again.


If I don't constantly have to be forced on disliked maps this is a huge time and effort save.

What always gets forgotten is that no matter how much you want something, it is not acceptable to force others into unfavorable maps to achieve this. That is not how you treat others around you. I'm all for encouraging variety (which the map pool does), however there is a clear boundary which has been crossed. As a result for 2 years we have a broken system and a lot of hostility in the community. On a positive note I think it's obvious how the community has grown and how automating the experience along with presenting a map pool has increased variety of maps, I don't think we need to force anything.

With a MM queue, no matter what somebody is "forced" to do something. Whether that be the minority "forced" to wait a long time to get their map (alternatively, forced to play a popular map instead), or the majority "forced" to play an unpopular map 20% of the time. No matter what you can't please everybody, but in my opinion the current system is better than any proposals that I've heard, besides having ranked lobbies in addition to MM.

As for queue dodging, that's you flouting the system and receiving the penalty. It's up to you to weigh whether a queue ban or playing Islands is worse, but I can assure you that plenty of people play Islands rather than get a queue ban--enough that I know my percentage of playing Islands would go down significantly if unlimited bans were implemented, just as someone else's percentage of playing Arabia would go up.

 

[Bowserlord]

aoe4 has now ranked ladder

 

[AoeWololo]

With a MM queue, no matter what somebody is "forced" to do something. Whether that be the minority "forced" to wait a long time to get their map (alternatively, forced to play a popular map instead), or the majority "forced" to play an unpopular map 20% of the time. No matter what you can't please everybody, but in my opinion the current system is better than any proposals that I've heard, besides having ranked lobbies in addition to MM.

I already said the balance between maps would return to it's natural state, which is still more varied than it was on prior platforms. People like you think they have the inherent right to popular map queue times on niche maps. Imagine we're in a restaurant and you are forcing me to order the same niche dish as you so it get's higher priority so you can get your food faster. That is not something you can demand from the people around you.

As for queue dodging, that's you flouting the system and receiving the penalty. It's up to you to weigh whether a queue ban or playing Islands is worse, but I can assure you that plenty of people play Islands rather than get a queue ban--enough that I know my percentage of playing Islands would go down significantly if unlimited bans were implemented, just as someone else's percentage of playing Arabia would go up.

Sure you can punish others to the point that they have no other option. These discussions always amaze me, do you actually understand what you are saying? What else do you leave me to say than this is complete narcissist/autocratic behavior.

Yes percentage of islands would go down because it is artificially inflated, however on the bright side you won't face dodgers so this effect is mitigated.

 

[LmScar12]

I already said the balance between maps would return to it's natural state, which is still more varied than it was on prior platforms. People like you think they have the inherent right to popular map queue times on niche maps. Imagine we're in a restaurant and you are forcing me to order the same niche dish as you so it get's higher priority so you can get your food faster. That is not something you can demand from the people around you.


Sure you can punish others to the point that they have no other option. These discussions always amaze me, do you actually understand what you are saying? What else do you leave me to say than this is complete narcissist/autocratic behavior.

Yes percentage of islands would go down because it is artificially inflated, however on the bright side you won't face dodgers so this effect is mitigated.

It's not something you can "demand" from others around you to have to play Arabia >90% of the time either. Is it really the "natural balance" (a concept that I don't agree even exists) for Arabia to be 95% of MM matches, rather than the 60-80% it already is? Is it really that big a hardship for you to play a non-Arabia map 1 out of every 5 times? I already play Arabia 60%, but I'm not complaining about being "forced" to play Arabia the majority of the time.

At the end of the day, yes, it is an autocracy, but I am not the autocrat. That would be Microsoft/FE, who presumably decide based on business criteria, rather than any arguments you or I might make.

 

[LowEloNobody]

aoe4 has now ranked ladder

Doesn't AoE4 Ranked Ladder have 0 map bans? So literally the worst possible form of the current issue being discussed?

 

[AoeWololo]

It's not something you can "demand" from others around you to have to play Arabia >90% of the time either.

I demand nothing from you, you can play whatever you want. Are you really confused about this or being manipulative? Your pov is that you're too impatient to wait the appropriate queue times for maps like Islands. 90% arabia is a complete fabrication, the community is much more varied than that. You can even play 100% islands if you're willing to wait. If you select multiple maps without arabia you can get close to average queue times and not have to play arabia at all. Select multiple maps + arabia and you will probably play arabia type maps 70% close to how it currently is.

Is it really the "natural balance" (a concept that I don't agree even exists) for Arabia to be 95% of MM matches, rather than the 60-80% it already is?

Natural balance is decided by demand. You are just projecting your opinion on to others. Nice exaggerations.

Is it really that big a hardship for you to play a non-Arabia map 1 out of every 5 times? I already play Arabia 60%, but I'm not complaining about being "forced" to play Arabia the majority of the time.

Why keep mentioning arabia? This entire discussion I am asking for control over maps, this does not mean I only enjoy playing one map.

The fact that you are willing to play whatever at any moment does not mean that others should as well, warped logic.

At the end of the day, yes, it is an autocracy, but I am not the autocrat. That would be Microsoft/FE, who presumably decide based on business criteria, rather than any arguments you or I might make.

Thanks for admitting it. Sadly you support it which doesn't make you much better.

I wish you were a bit more optimistic towards the alternative, realistic in your reasoning and considerate of others.

 

[NextLever]

DayZ mod was the most intense game I ever played when it came out. When they allowed custom servers, ie when people were "allowed to play what they want to play", it went to complete ****. If I was the devs, I wouldn't want my game to be almost Arabia only either.

 

[LmScar12]

I demand nothing from you, you can play whatever you want. Are you really confused about this or being manipulative? Your pov is that you're too impatient to wait the appropriate queue times for maps like Islands. 90% arabia is a complete fabrication, the community is much more varied than that. You can even play 100% islands if you're willing to wait. If you select multiple maps without arabia you can get close to average queue times and not have to play arabia at all. Select multiple maps + arabia and you will probably play arabia type maps 70% close to how it currently is.


Natural balance is decided by demand. You are just projecting your opinion on to others. Nice exaggerations.


Why keep mentioning arabia? This entire discussion I am asking for control over maps, this does not mean I only enjoy playing one map.

The fact that you are willing to play whatever at any moment does not mean that others should as well, warped logic.


Thanks for admitting it. Sadly you support it which doesn't make you much better.

I wish you were a bit more optimistic towards the alternative, realistic in your reasoning and considerate of others.

That "I can play whatever I want" is only true if I can't play whenever I want. Those are your two options, basically:

• Play whatever you want, but you have to be flexible on when you play. You can ban any number of maps, but you might have to wait a long time. This is what you prefer.
• Play whenever you want, basically immediately, but you have to be flexible on what you play. This is the current system and the one I prefer.

You want control over maps, I want control over time. If you give to one you take away from the other.

 

[vince]

That "I can play whatever I want" is only true if I can't play whenever I want. Those are your two options, basically:

• Play whatever you want, but you have to be flexible on when you play. You can ban any number of maps, but you might have to wait a long time. This is what you prefer.
• Play whenever you want, basically immediately, but you have to be flexible on what you play. This is the current system and the one I prefer.

You want control over maps, I want control over time. If you give to one you take away from the other.

tbh if a persons only concern is time and not the map, then they should be fine with playing the maps everyone else is choosing to play. so if everyone is simply playing arabia, then a player shouldnt have any issue finding an arabia game to jump into quickly. but if they dont want to play arabia, then they are in the exact same boat as the ones you claim "want control over maps"

 

[LmScar12]

tbh if a persons only concern is time and not the map, then they should be fine with playing the maps everyone else is choosing to play. so if everyone is simply playing arabia, then a player shouldnt have any issue finding an arabia game to jump into quickly. but if they dont want to play arabia, then they are in the exact same boat as the ones you claim "want control over maps"

Well I said I can "be flexible", not that I "don't care." I'd like to play Islands, but I'd rather play now with a 30% chance of it being islands than 30 minutes from now with 100% chance of Islands.

 

[IYIyTh]

DayZ mod was the most intense game I ever played when it came out. When they allowed custom servers, ie when people were "allowed to play what they want to play", it went to complete ****. If I was the devs, I wouldn't want my game to be almost Arabia only either.

Honestly one of my favorite games. The biggest problem w/ DayZ were the patches that baked in bugs like handbug. I would call handbug "villager and military pathing," in DE.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

The current system is much better then the old voobly system. We are finally saved from being only able to play BF team games or arabia games. That meta was a really stale meta. Now we can easily play multiple different maps, which is much more enjoyable to me.

 

[AoeWololo]

The current system is much better then the old voobly system. We are finally saved from being only able to play BF team games or arabia games. That meta was a really stale meta. Now we can easily play multiple different maps, which is much more enjoyable to me.

You should be comparing to an automated mm system with limited open map pool, which is beneficial in every way to encourage variety. If you argue that on previous platforms many wanted variety however the system forced them into a narrow path then these changes should be adequate. Even the current lobby in DE reflects the wide interest in variety, no need to force anything. Supporting this overreaction is beyond reason, it is destroying the experience for others. Currently if you want to find a fair match however don't agree with this narrow vision that you should be willing to play any map at any moment you simply get bullied out of the game with insane punishments.

 

[edie]

Like 10 days I returned to Aoe, and it’s hard to keep motivation keep playing or trying as a player who enjoy only one map or one type of map

80% of my games aren’t arena
80% of my arena game are pick civ

For someone who want to play only arena this is frustrating

At least if in the choice pool we have many others maps options pick/ban, like I would be fine having 5-6 arena type maps open, just a fc map, no matter what even Black Forest, hideout, fortress, oasis, mongolia, Yucatan etc

But with the current system, I also often met opponent that are frustrated as me, when they get arena or others maps and wanted to get Arabia etc, I mean this isn’t only a problem for arena whore like me but seems to others aswell

I tried bans différents map to get more chance blabla no joke doesn’t change that I almost never get arena and even less arena random civ

Im trying to get used to this system but I must admit, it’s colding me a lot

How am I supposed to get back in shape in arena if I never get to play the map, don’t tell me play lobby game blabla, almost none do that, there is no points to win, no money, I posted several msg to find ppl except few exception I never get opponent like that and even if we do it’s not normal to do this to play the game, at this point I feel like just asking the arena ppl to get back on voobly to play between us there I did read they made patch in voobly so it’s look like de

Anyway I really hope they will change or improve the système, like add more maps or I don’t know or hope that my mental get used of not being able to play what I want to, if not I don’t see myself forcing me to play a game where I simply don’t enjoy 80% of my games

 

[Spring_]

I also thought about getting people onto voobly.

The whole thing is just so counter productive though we shouldn't have the burden of finding players and actively leaving the ladder if we want to play someone at competitive level on a map we desire to play.
The ratio of map you want to play vs map you don't is really really terrible aswell as your saying and any dodge gets you hours of ban time on the ladder. My last one I had 3 days no playing and then I dodge 1 map and got 4 hour ban. lmao, like... its one of the main reasons I don't even try aoe4 anymore (same problem) and my aoe2 playing has gone way down in hours.

Dev team has been punishing players for their feedback for a couple years now its so sad. tbh most the time I don't think the dev team even understands that its creating problems out of thin air. Que times arn't shorter if a small percentage of players get to play on maps vs a competitive (similar ranked enemy) thats how the ladder is supposed to work. And if for some reason there is 90% arabia+arena single map players and it would cause a huge que time issue for people queing variety then TAKE A HINT AND MAKE BETTER MAPS lol

 

[Shakal]

Like 10 days I returned to Aoe, and it’s hard to keep motivation keep playing or trying as a player who enjoy only one map or one type of map

80% of my games aren’t arena
80% of my arena game are pick civ

For someone who want to play only arena this is frustrating

The ironic thing is, when there was hot discussion (here, on reddit and official forums) about this system and dodge penalty, many Arena players defended the current system because they didn't want Arabia players to play only Arabia.

Anyway, I totally agree with your post, players should be to able to choose what map they want to play. Sadly, I don't think devs will make big changes now as they introduced penalty for dodging just few months ago.

 

[Spring_]

The ironic thing is, when there was hot discussion (here, on reddit and official forums) about this system and dodge penalty, many Arena players defended the current system because they didn't want Arabia players to play only Arabia.

Anyway, I totally agree with your post, players should be to able to choose what map they want to play. Sadly, I don't think devs will make big changes now as they introduced penalty for dodging just few months ago.

once i saw it implemented on aoe4 i knew the fight was over.

 

[Darknoob]

The ironic thing is, when there was hot discussion (here, on reddit and official forums) about this system and dodge penalty, many Arena players defended the current system because they didn't want Arabia players to play only Arabia.

Anyway, I totally agree with your post, players should be to able to choose what map they want to play. Sadly, I don't think devs will make big changes now as they introduced penalty for dodging just few months ago.

Yes its cause before the punishment, on some lvl, the chances of playing arena or a closed map was pretty much 0%. Now we are thriving at a staggering 10-20%. (With the help of sniping eachother). Clowns dont understand the arabia-players complaints cause they play what they want about 90% of their games, a scenario we can only dream of. We hoped the punish system would fix the issue and on some lvl it did. Still not perfect but now we get slightly more closed map games than before.

 

[Spring_]

I mean they even made arabia a DIY arena again. part of the problem is they even ruined the arabia experience when you actually do get it.

 

[LowEloNobody]

I mean they even made arabia a DIY arena again. part of the problem is they even ruined the arabia experience when you actually do get it.

You'll be walling minute 3 regardless of how they make the map so just let the rest of us enjoy having more than 6 trees in peace

 

[Spring_]

You'll be walling minute 3 regardless of how they make the map so just let the rest of us enjoy having more than 6 trees in peace

devs love players like you who talk **** to anyone who disagrees with their bad implementations.