Vikings were actually ranked around 5~8th in AOC arabia.If Vikings are not strong on water but are picked on pure land maps there is something undeniably wrong about the game balance.
Vikings were actually ranked around 5~8th in AOC arabia.If Vikings are not strong on water but are picked on pure land maps there is something undeniably wrong about the game balance.
You can't devide the queue further because of the small playerbase, otherwise the waiting time will be the biggest downgrade of this game, as well as civ banning. Banning nearly all maps or civs will result in the opposite of fun.
In my opinion, there should be an incentive to play random, like winning a little bit more mmr or losing a bit less.
Im pretty sure arabia-only is the minority, there are way more players out there than voobly MS, just saying...imagine how crazy the aoe world would be if you could decide the map you would like to play and not get tortured by the fetish of a small minority...
Vikings were actually ranked around 5~8th in AOC arabia.
So...... Should Italians not be be strong on water when they are kind of **** on land?I would be the last person to make the foolish assertion that AoC was a well balanced game.
(1) There are platforms other than voobly.just saying that we have 20 years of data what people actually hosted when they had the choice.
great lineup of straw men, one more and u can start a straw men basketball team.(1) There are platforms other than voobly.
(2) Being the most played map doesnt mean its the most liked map.
(3) Being the most played map doesnt necessarily mean the map is being played by the most people.
(4) Even if arabia really is the most liked map, doesnt mean people prefer arabia-only over map pool.
great lineup of straw men, one more and u can start a straw men basketball team.
I am not even saying that everyone should be forced to play Arabia, or the map I want to play. i say let people decide what they want to play. by either allow amount of bans= amount of maps in mappool -1 or bury this failing system (regarding cheaters and tg-queue) and give us ranked lobby. the running system is only beneficial for people who have to force their favorites on others. which is bonkers and selfish to the max.
imagine how crazy the aoe world would be if you could decide the map you would like to play and not get tortured by the fetish of a small minority...
Im pretty sure arabia-only is the minority, there are way more players out there than voobly MS, just saying...
just saying that we have 20 years of data what people actually hosted when they had the choice.
the running system is only beneficial for people who have to force their favorites on others. which is bonkers and selfish to the max.
If they remove arena I gb to voobly/hd 100%I think the 1vs1 map pool should always be like:
1) Arabia
2) A not so easy walling land map like Land Madness, Serengueti
3) A map with fish but not direct water war like Cross
4) One direct water war map like Mediterranean, Islands and the variations
5) Just one Arena (this incluides only arena, or hideout or some other ****)
6) A nomad kind
7) A map with lot of gold, not necessarily easy to wall like Golden Pit
8) Some randomizer, not always the same (MR, maybe Ultranrandom). Delete Highland variations ffs
9) Some **** map everybody may hate and probably unbalanced but at least allows some thinking
Banning one enemy civ
There are enough games with a matchmaking queue where you have unlimited bans. I also have never seen a game where the maps the matchmaking forces are so different from the maps that are being played on tournaments. Then there also isn't a place in DE where you can only play the maps you like since the lobby is so bad. Unless you play only with people you know, something pro streamers now often do for TG. The game is out for a few months and complains have been there since it's release. Its safe to say that these things will never be fixed so the best we can hope for are more/unlimited bans.This is the system, that has been acknowledged in nearly every esports title by the vast majority. I believe you have no idea what matchmaking is about if you calling it failed, or you're just blind to the benefits it brings, if you reduce this system to force peoples favourites and being selfish.
I dont think free map / setting / opponent picking is a good idea when tourneys are seeded based on ladder eloThere are enough games with a matchmaking queue where you have unlimited bans. I also have never seen a game where the maps the matchmaking forces are so different from the maps that are being played on tournaments. Then there also isn't a place in DE where you can only play the maps you like since the lobby is so bad. Unless you play only with people you know, something pro streamers now often do for TG. The game is out for a few months and complains have been there since it's release. Its safe to say that these things will never be fixed so the best we can hope for are more/unlimited bans.
u r comparing apples with oranges and u can not even read. i explicit wrote "failing (regarding to cheaters and tg-queue)".
furthermore, lobby system has at least the advantage that u can, to some degree, police urself.
and since there is no other rts game with a massive variety on maps as aoc. ur comparison therfore random.
additionally the lobby system worked so well for aoc that it is the longest lasting rts game out there.
but however i am tired to argue with bots. cya
With every answer you show that you dont really understand matchmaking. Cheater and matchmaking are 2 different things. MM is just a comfortable way to play the ladder and give people easy access to players all over the world. Connecting cheating to it just shows you'll take anything to prove your point, not matter how ridiculous it sounds. Do cheater abuse the easy way? Sure, but it's still no argument against it, only because idiots abuse something good (a general rule in life btw).The problem here is clearly not matchmaking, but a missing anti cheat software.
Failing tg-queue? Its something that can be easily fixed, as it works in every other rts game. And by the way, nobody forces you to play matchmaking. You are still free to open lobbies and play with whomever you want, on whatever map you want.
But since you are still complaining, i believe you're just angry, that the majority likes matchmaking.
Now who is being selfish in wanting to play only those oppoents you can choose on a map you can choose? Double standards at its best.
I highly doubt it. Every rts game ( I played most of them) has tons of fanmade maps. And did i miss a general rule about allowing the comparison of games based on a specific amount of maps? What kind of an onesided bs argument is this? The main idea in different civ preferences and playstyles is still the same in every rts game.
Thats not a valid point. Only because something worked in the past, doesn't mean it can't get better. How many posts were here already saying 2020 is the best aoe year ever in terms of tournaments and viewer numbers? What do you think was responsible for this? Microsofts decision in making AoE more appealing for the masses with new graphic and a mm system.
:3
Therefore i say this again: Nobody forces you to play mm, if you dont enjoy it. But still here you are, demanding to bury this failing system or to give you the option to change mm into your lobby in banning every map but one, ignoring the fact, that the majority likes this mm system, as proven in actual player numbers and in any other game.