Vossn
the.bhami would not. encouraging toxic behaviour is the last thing we want in this community. especially autocratic behaviour like this. a BAN was pretty uncalled for.
Today's birthdays
Stop dodging please
-
Thread starter
Poseidon-69
- Start date
Honestly you're not wrong. Everyone prefers arabia but then:
1. pick Franks/Lithuanians/Britons/Mayans
2. wall up like crazy
3. follow the same build orders
4. always go for the same shitty disruptive meta (drush, maa rush, towers, laming, frank castle drops)
5. but arena players somehow are more clowny? At least they're honest with their intentions.
Juanpa77Well this system still allows accounts to have more than 1k ranked games with over 70% or 80% games arabia only.
Alt+f4 is not a big deal for 1v1 mostly because this, you get arabia 9 out of 10 games and is the map most of the users want to play anyway. Is quite clear Arabia is the most popular map for 1v1, however I am not sure for TG's. In voobly the biggest TG community was BF if I am not wrong and there are a lot of DE players who only play TG's, those players maps preference are diferent so at least I don't think there is a clear most popular map if we count all TG players. This results in more queues where arabia is banned by at least 1 user and when finally the eight players are matched the odds of a player who only wants to play arabia map is higher so more alt+f4.
And is literally no sense complain about the french guy. He has the right to ban arabia and to play with a premade, if you are a solo player and you don't want to play versus a premade with a random team, then make your own premade or don't play TG solo.
1v1 ladder Arabia should lock players into random civ picks I agree.
HelloWorldIndeed. I prefer other maps than Arabia in teamgames these days. It's just more or less the same civ all the single time. But in 1v1 I think it's okay. In teamgames, its meh.
Thanks to everyone dodging all the time i had enough time to read all the topic during my 1 hour queue and its not over yet. People talking about stack teams like if we did something bad is soooo wierd, what if you just want to play games with your friends ? sorry if most of my friends are 15+ 1v1s if that's what you call a stack. Anyway the issue isn't about the level skill gap btw players since I'm trying to find a TG in solo queue but its impossible since there is always an ***** who rather alt f4 3 times in a row instead of playing on a map which is not his lovely arabia (poor guy 
) so please i'm asking dodgers to play vs IA instead of being annoying and wasting everyone's time. Dodging like that should be punished like its probably on some other games.
) so please i'm asking dodgers to play vs IA instead of being annoying and wasting everyone's time. Dodging like that should be punished like its probably on some other games.
Degaussed
yes you are correct. If devs start punishing dogders, we will immediately see a rate of increase in play of maps other than boring ol' arabiaThanks to everyone dodging all the time i had enough time to read all the topic during my 1 hour queue and its not over yet. People talking about stack teams like if we did something bad is soooo wierd, what if you just want to play games with your friends ? sorry if most of my friends are 15+ 1v1s if that's what you call a stack. Anyway the issue isn't about the level skill gap btw players since I'm trying to find a TG in solo queue but its impossible since there is always an ***** who rather alt f4 3 times in a row instead of playing on a map which is not his lovely arabia (poor guy
Another patch without any statement from the devs regarding matchmaking. So sad.
Words from a top stacker, look at fornite or other modern games, if you have a party you should only face stackers, i guess you wouldn't play that much if you would face suomi or other super strong teams with your 1500 friends, that is the case for us the plebs facing stackers like you,the communication makes a huge difference even bigger than the skill gap.Thanks to everyone dodging all the time i had enough time to read all the topic during my 1 hour queue and its not over yet. People talking about stack teams like if we did something bad is soooo wierd, what if you just want to play games with your friends ? sorry if most of my friends are 15+ 1v1s if that's what you call a stack. Anyway the issue isn't about the level skill gap btw players since I'm trying to find a TG in solo queue but its impossible since there is always an ***** who rather alt f4 3 times in a row instead of playing on a map which is not his lovely arabia (poor guy
You want to have fun and so we all, but the active player base is not that big specially on mid and high level, so sorry to crush your dreams, you should wait longer queues with your team cause of the level and stacking, not being able to get a game every 7 mins crushing random guys and also playing the maps that your team want to.
Why don't you play vs IA with your friends instead you wouldn't complain then =)
Heard that DoTA has 3 hour ban, 6 hour ban and so on. I think this should solve the issue. Also, I would like to remove the "Dev Picks" where the maps are not always great.
Allow people to vote for maps in game, remove dev picks, just increase the amount of bans by 2 and implement penalty for dodgers.
The current matchmaking system looks like it's just 1% complete out of 100%.
Allow people to vote for maps in game, remove dev picks, just increase the amount of bans by 2 and implement penalty for dodgers.
The current matchmaking system looks like it's just 1% complete out of 100%.
Soufire your message is just stupid 11 don't blame us for having a strong team, thats not the issue, people dodging don't know who they are playing against and they dodge just because thats not the one map they wanted to play
SmashFascists
shm0wtI know I should just leave this alone, it's a conversation that's been had a thousand times at this point ... but really grinds my gears that every time people bring up the issue of queue dodging it gets met with a chorus of nonsensical whataboutism from certain posters on this forum. Any meaningful suggestions for correcting the actual problems with ranked gets buried in a cascade of imagined grievances from people who are determined to die mad that DE doesn't work like Voobly, and yet somehow aren't willing to play on Voobly (which still exists) or lobbies (which exist) but are determined to queue for ranked even though they don't want to play the ranked settings, and then come on here to whinge and whine about it as if they are somehow the afflicted party here. Imo none of this guff is actually relevant to the issue of queue dodging. Here's why.
Point 1: Stackers
If you always stack, then any advantage you gain from that will be reflected in your tg Elo. If stackers really do have an advantage then their Elo will be inflated relative to their skill level, meaning that if you always soloqueue for team ranked then you will only face stacks who are substantially worse than you in terms of skill level. This is a non-issue. Now I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate queue for stacks, or to some sort of algorithm that tries to always match stacks vs. stacks first whenever possible, but I do not believe it would actually make a big difference in most cases. If you keep losing in team ranked, it's not because you keep facing stacks. And it's not a reason to throw your toys out the pram and Alt-F4 whenever you think you're facing one. Although if you do do that, eventually your Elo might actually reflect your level of skill at the game.
Point 2: Civ pickers
This might be the overall most bizarre complaint that I've seen regarding team ranked and dodging. The simple fact is that most players do not want to be forced to random civs every game. You can tell this is the case because the devs allow players to vote for whether or not to play all random (majority rules) in every match, and in most matches most players choose not to force all random. Therefore, if the team ranked queue was changed to all random all the time, then more people would queue dodge, not fewer. How is it not obvious that people would load into a game, see they had rolled a "bad" civ, and alt-F4, far more frequently than those who only want to play random do now. (And just to be clear, I'm not saying that would be OK - if the queue was all random and people did queue dodge to get a better civ, they should still be punished. You shouldn't queue if you're not willing to play the settings.)
Furthermore, the same basic argument I made in point 1 applies here. If you always random, and this puts you at a significant overall disadvantage, eventually your Elo will reflect your skill level at playing random civs vs. people who always pick civs. If you keep losing team ranked it's not because people pick civs against you.
Point 3: Position pickers
This always gets brought up in the context of civ picking, and is at least a little bit more reasonable than the civ picking bugbear, since there's no democratic way to turn this on or off as there is with civ picking. (Now personally, I still think this is a really silly complaint, since without position picking big tg can be decided at minute 0 if one team gets an optimal setup for their civs and the other doesn't. Doesn't seem like I fun way to play to me but w/e.) However, all of the other points made above still apply. If civ picking was turned off, the players who currently get to pick positions would be more likely to alt-F4 to dodge bad positions. Again, not saying this would be justified, but it absolutely would happen. Additionally, again, if position picking is such a huge advantage, then by not picking your position you will eventually arrive at an Elo that reflects your ability to compete with position pickers at a similar Elo. If you keep losing team ranked it's not because people pick positions against you.
Point 4: The map pool
This is the closest thing to an actually valid complaint that I see come up in these threads, but that's not saying much. Like I get it, sometimes I'm pretty bored by a given map pool, and sometimes I queue for ranked and end up playing maps I don't think are very fun. I guess I should remember to vote for the map rotation more often 11. But fundamentally your team ranked Elo is a reflection of your overall skill at the game. It's not intended as a measure of your ability to 1-trick on your preferred map with very specific settings Fatslob style, it's supposed to reflect how skilled you are at the game overall so you can be matched with players of equivalent skill levels.
And to be clear, I don't have an issue with people who just want to 1-trick on a specific map with specific settings because they find it fun. But that isn't what the ranked queue is for. If you want to play BF only 4v4 all random no position picking no rush before 45 mins etc. then good for you. Make a lobby with those settings and find other people who want to play your way. But if you don't actually want to play competitively on a range of different maps, then don't queue for ranked games. It's really not complicated.
Point 5: But there should be more options/queues...
Some people are probably reading this post and thinking "shm0wt you *****, you're completely missing the point, we're not arguing that our preferred settings should be forced on everyone, just that players should be able to choose from a range of queues based on their preferences". Ok. Let's think for a minute about how that would work in practice.
As things stand, DE has 4 ranked queues: 1v1 rm, team rm, 1v1 dm, and team dm.
Let's add 2 soloqueue-only queues for team rm and dm. There are now 6 queues.
Let's add 4 all-random queues for team rm and dm, since we need separate all-random queues for stackers and soloqueue. There are now 10 queues.
Let's add 8 random-position queues for team rm and dm, all-random and civ picks, stackers and soloqueue. There are now 18 queues.
Now let's consider the maps. At minimum I'm guessing we'd be looking at Arabia only, Arena only, and BF only, in addition to the existing queue with a varied map pool. There are now 72 queues. (If you were to add say nomad and team islands, there would be 108.)
At time of posting there are around 23k players on steam playing DE. Compare that to DOTA 2 with just under 500k. DOTA has 3 ranked queues and the option to be matched vs. soloqueue players only, so effectively 6 queues in total. That's 10X less queues than would be needed to satisfy just the 4 most common complaints about the DE ranked queue, in a game with 20X more active players (and DOTA 2 has no meaningful single player content, so the actual ratio of active online players in ranked is probably even more skewed). If you think it's hard to find an actual game now with queue dodgers and crashes, it would become actually impossible if they split the queue into 50+ game modes with less than 500 players per mode. In that scenario Elo is essentially meaningless. There's no point in doing ranked matchmaking with tiny pools of players.
In reality, most of these modes would be DoA, or would rapidly become ghost towns almost immediately, as players migrate to the handful of queues which still have active players. And I hate to break it to you, but your preferred game mode most likely won't be one of the ones that makes it. More queues would realistically mean less choice for players, less variety in games you can actually play, and ultimately less people playing.
Personally I would love DE to grow to the point where it can support more queues. I don't personally care about all random or BF only but a separate 2v2 rank would be nice (I feel like my skill at 2v2s is pretty poorly correlated with my ability to play 3v3s and 4v4s personally) and I would be interested to try ranked EW. But we just aren't there yet, and maybe we never will be.
Point 6: What is the ranked queue anyway?
AoE2 is an incredibly diverse game with a lot of different ways to play, which is one of the game's biggest strengths. But it's also a game people play competitively online, and that means choices have to be made about what the competitive settings are. Those choices will never please everyone, but I think the current ranked queues do a decent-ish job of offering options to players who favour a specific kind of play whilst still having enough players in each queue to be competitive and keep matchmaking times somewhat acceptable. If you don't like the DE ranked queue, there are many other ways to play the game. There are many other games. Just go do something you actually enjoy instead of queuing for settings you don't want to play and then complaining to AoEZone about how the devs made you have a bad time.
Point 7: What should be done about dodgers?
Players should be penalised for repeatedly disconnecting during the first 5-10 minutes of a ranked game. Simple as. This would of course require the game to be stable enough that people don't randomly dc all the time because their game crashed. Which seems like it should be achievable, and is more important than queue dodging anyway. But that's the only solution. Temp ban or low priority queue for people that abuse the system. It's pretty straightforward. And if MS weren't avaricious cowards who are too worried about scaring away customers by imposing penalties for bad behaviour, they would have done that from the start. Maybe they still will but I'm really not optimistic.
Point 1: Stackers
If you always stack, then any advantage you gain from that will be reflected in your tg Elo. If stackers really do have an advantage then their Elo will be inflated relative to their skill level, meaning that if you always soloqueue for team ranked then you will only face stacks who are substantially worse than you in terms of skill level. This is a non-issue. Now I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate queue for stacks, or to some sort of algorithm that tries to always match stacks vs. stacks first whenever possible, but I do not believe it would actually make a big difference in most cases. If you keep losing in team ranked, it's not because you keep facing stacks. And it's not a reason to throw your toys out the pram and Alt-F4 whenever you think you're facing one. Although if you do do that, eventually your Elo might actually reflect your level of skill at the game.
Point 2: Civ pickers
This might be the overall most bizarre complaint that I've seen regarding team ranked and dodging. The simple fact is that most players do not want to be forced to random civs every game. You can tell this is the case because the devs allow players to vote for whether or not to play all random (majority rules) in every match, and in most matches most players choose not to force all random. Therefore, if the team ranked queue was changed to all random all the time, then more people would queue dodge, not fewer. How is it not obvious that people would load into a game, see they had rolled a "bad" civ, and alt-F4, far more frequently than those who only want to play random do now. (And just to be clear, I'm not saying that would be OK - if the queue was all random and people did queue dodge to get a better civ, they should still be punished. You shouldn't queue if you're not willing to play the settings.)
Furthermore, the same basic argument I made in point 1 applies here. If you always random, and this puts you at a significant overall disadvantage, eventually your Elo will reflect your skill level at playing random civs vs. people who always pick civs. If you keep losing team ranked it's not because people pick civs against you.
Point 3: Position pickers
This always gets brought up in the context of civ picking, and is at least a little bit more reasonable than the civ picking bugbear, since there's no democratic way to turn this on or off as there is with civ picking. (Now personally, I still think this is a really silly complaint, since without position picking big tg can be decided at minute 0 if one team gets an optimal setup for their civs and the other doesn't. Doesn't seem like I fun way to play to me but w/e.) However, all of the other points made above still apply. If civ picking was turned off, the players who currently get to pick positions would be more likely to alt-F4 to dodge bad positions. Again, not saying this would be justified, but it absolutely would happen. Additionally, again, if position picking is such a huge advantage, then by not picking your position you will eventually arrive at an Elo that reflects your ability to compete with position pickers at a similar Elo. If you keep losing team ranked it's not because people pick positions against you.
Point 4: The map pool
This is the closest thing to an actually valid complaint that I see come up in these threads, but that's not saying much. Like I get it, sometimes I'm pretty bored by a given map pool, and sometimes I queue for ranked and end up playing maps I don't think are very fun. I guess I should remember to vote for the map rotation more often 11. But fundamentally your team ranked Elo is a reflection of your overall skill at the game. It's not intended as a measure of your ability to 1-trick on your preferred map with very specific settings Fatslob style, it's supposed to reflect how skilled you are at the game overall so you can be matched with players of equivalent skill levels.
And to be clear, I don't have an issue with people who just want to 1-trick on a specific map with specific settings because they find it fun. But that isn't what the ranked queue is for. If you want to play BF only 4v4 all random no position picking no rush before 45 mins etc. then good for you. Make a lobby with those settings and find other people who want to play your way. But if you don't actually want to play competitively on a range of different maps, then don't queue for ranked games. It's really not complicated.
Point 5: But there should be more options/queues...
Some people are probably reading this post and thinking "shm0wt you *****, you're completely missing the point, we're not arguing that our preferred settings should be forced on everyone, just that players should be able to choose from a range of queues based on their preferences". Ok. Let's think for a minute about how that would work in practice.
As things stand, DE has 4 ranked queues: 1v1 rm, team rm, 1v1 dm, and team dm.
Let's add 2 soloqueue-only queues for team rm and dm. There are now 6 queues.
Let's add 4 all-random queues for team rm and dm, since we need separate all-random queues for stackers and soloqueue. There are now 10 queues.
Let's add 8 random-position queues for team rm and dm, all-random and civ picks, stackers and soloqueue. There are now 18 queues.
Now let's consider the maps. At minimum I'm guessing we'd be looking at Arabia only, Arena only, and BF only, in addition to the existing queue with a varied map pool. There are now 72 queues. (If you were to add say nomad and team islands, there would be 108.)
At time of posting there are around 23k players on steam playing DE. Compare that to DOTA 2 with just under 500k. DOTA has 3 ranked queues and the option to be matched vs. soloqueue players only, so effectively 6 queues in total. That's 10X less queues than would be needed to satisfy just the 4 most common complaints about the DE ranked queue, in a game with 20X more active players (and DOTA 2 has no meaningful single player content, so the actual ratio of active online players in ranked is probably even more skewed). If you think it's hard to find an actual game now with queue dodgers and crashes, it would become actually impossible if they split the queue into 50+ game modes with less than 500 players per mode. In that scenario Elo is essentially meaningless. There's no point in doing ranked matchmaking with tiny pools of players.
In reality, most of these modes would be DoA, or would rapidly become ghost towns almost immediately, as players migrate to the handful of queues which still have active players. And I hate to break it to you, but your preferred game mode most likely won't be one of the ones that makes it. More queues would realistically mean less choice for players, less variety in games you can actually play, and ultimately less people playing.
Personally I would love DE to grow to the point where it can support more queues. I don't personally care about all random or BF only but a separate 2v2 rank would be nice (I feel like my skill at 2v2s is pretty poorly correlated with my ability to play 3v3s and 4v4s personally) and I would be interested to try ranked EW. But we just aren't there yet, and maybe we never will be.
Point 6: What is the ranked queue anyway?
AoE2 is an incredibly diverse game with a lot of different ways to play, which is one of the game's biggest strengths. But it's also a game people play competitively online, and that means choices have to be made about what the competitive settings are. Those choices will never please everyone, but I think the current ranked queues do a decent-ish job of offering options to players who favour a specific kind of play whilst still having enough players in each queue to be competitive and keep matchmaking times somewhat acceptable. If you don't like the DE ranked queue, there are many other ways to play the game. There are many other games. Just go do something you actually enjoy instead of queuing for settings you don't want to play and then complaining to AoEZone about how the devs made you have a bad time.
Point 7: What should be done about dodgers?
Players should be penalised for repeatedly disconnecting during the first 5-10 minutes of a ranked game. Simple as. This would of course require the game to be stable enough that people don't randomly dc all the time because their game crashed. Which seems like it should be achievable, and is more important than queue dodging anyway. But that's the only solution. Temp ban or low priority queue for people that abuse the system. It's pretty straightforward. And if MS weren't avaricious cowards who are too worried about scaring away customers by imposing penalties for bad behaviour, they would have done that from the start. Maybe they still will but I'm really not optimistic.
Last edited:
HungryHungryHussarsI agree with almost all of what you wrote, but it's an exercise in futility to present detailed solutions until the devs indicate any willingness to even acknowledge that a problem exists to begin with.
you are misunderstanding how the technology works
you don't queue for 1 mode at a time. you queue for all the ones you tolerate, and then play whatever one it finds first
the single map pool idea was not terrible (in a naive idealistic sense), but it stops being useful if people can dodge games
at the very least, we need to separate the no-rush & arabia-only groups, so that they aren't alt+f4ing each others games (and everyone else's games in the process)
i also think quality of individual games would improve if the ratings are more map-specific, but that might be a separate topic
It'd be ok if you were playing on your main and not on your 28++ smurf. Zero fun playing against someone so obviously better than I am.
You'd lose elo if you do that, so I don't understand your point.
I don't understand those who want to force us to play maps we don't like, why does it hurt you if I have unlimited bans? That my elo will be artificially high? Again, how is that different from people who pick the same civ on Arabia every single game?
And if the queue is too long as a result, the solution is easy, unban more maps. Give me the freedom to decide for myself. Unlimited bans--->shorter queues for those who want to play Arabia without having to suffer from alt f4, queues will be longer for me but with the understanding that I will get to play the maps I like.
That guy's long post lost all his sense when he said that people would alt f4 when seeing a bad civ, would anyone tell him that for 20 years we were playing random civs, all the team games on different platforms, only tournaments had pick civs 11
They are just angry cause they can't have fun with their friends crushing noobs, for example while sitaux wrote his last post his team destroyed at least 5 teams 400 elo or more below their ranks, it was humillating for the other team, but that is what he meant for having fun, don't you dare to alt f4 and stop their entertainment, in fact if you browse any of their profiles they stomp 8 awful teams vs 1-2 games vs kellar's or the chileans team daily, i am not against them playing together, but i am against a system that forces others to play vs them just because they have been waiting +7 mins.
It is not only map dodgers, they can't think or they don't know how, people also alt f4 for bad allies and the system forces you to play with them, the tg ladder is broken and reflects nothing but game activity, we are just tired of that, the sum of terrible maps and awful teams is what has caused this phenomena to increase.
We can all agree that they need to fix the ladder, fix elo distribution, elo boost, improve MM matching paremeters, change the map rotation system, no more voting and no more devs pick, just 3 fixed common maps and the rest random, you should only mark the maps you are willing to play, nerf premade teams by giving them less points per winning to prevent inflation cause of stacking or just pair them vs only premade teams but i don't think this is any good for lower levels, on a working and fair MM plus a not crashing game i would also agree on punish alt f4, but since we don't have any of those i can't really blame anyone for leaving the game during the queue.
Yeah but these things take work and why do that when you can churn out a shitty low effort DLC that will sell at least a little bit because you know all the pros and popular content creators will normalize it existing rather than telling their viewers to not waste their money rewarding your bad behavior?
So in one post you say Civ Picking is good, because it's what people want (as evidenced by the fact it's in the game) and you say Map Picking would be bad because it's against what the ladder is.
Rranked Elo = overall skill, except for civs, because that's what people want.
How can you not see the irony in this?
HongeyKongSimilar to "adpting with random civs" , "picking the right civ on a certain map" can also be considered as a skill / game knowledge.
Meanwhile...... "Picking the map you are good at"......
Time
Your time
G M T
Your zone
AoE Live Streams
DE Top 5 RM 1v1
Hera 2644
_Barles_ 2639
Villese 2617
GL.TheViper 2602
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 2594
DE Top 5 RM Team Game
2583
痛大师 2245
HGB_AOE 2181
chaos_2_win 2009
正义的威震天 2008
DE Top 5 Empire Wars 1v1
[aM]_MbL40C_ 2053
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 2031
Hera 1999
Yo 1964
CDUB.dogao 1935
DE Top 5 Empire Wars Team Game
mYi.Sitaux 1752
__BadBoy__ 1726
ELEOS | ElNoniro 1690
Lauth3 1687
BlackRock 1668
Muhammed__