Why cant I choose to play 2-3 maps only (in ranked mode)?

[Flunsi]

I'm willing to wait 10-15min for my favorite maps, but I dont want to play certain maps.
Also every second game is canceled in pre game because someone doesnt like the map.
I think this could be an easy fix, at least for team games.

[Moist Butt]

To put it simply, they already gave you the max number of bans. Read the bottom paragraph if you want to see explanation.

There are 7 maps for solo rank and you get to ban 3. That also means that the other player gets to ban 3 map so worse case scenario only 1 map can be played. If they added any more bans then you can see how it wont be possible to match games anymore. The same thing is true for team games because everyone gets to ban. You have to think of the worst case. There's a reason why there are 7 maps in solo and 9 in team games. This is to make sure that there is always one map that both parties agree to play on.

[Flunsi]

so in worst case, i dont play against some players, ever. who cares. 10 years ago i played ranked only black forest and never saw the arabia player. why isnt it possible now with even more player? just let me wait until there are enough players to play my maps.

[Moist Butt]

Originally posted by Flunsi:

so in worst case, i dont play against some players, ever. who cares. 10 years ago i played ranked only black forest and never saw the arabia player. why isnt it possible now with even more player? just let me wait until there are enough players to play my maps.

You can't compare the elo in HD to the elo in DE. The means of obtaining the elo are completely different. DE have standardized the elo system by actually adding matchmaking. You can easily manipulate the elo in HD like you said by playing only blackforest games or w/e. You can be 2k in blackforest, but in reality you would be much lower. You can't do this in DE ranked system. Sure, you can ban some maps, but ultimately you have to be able to play some other maps. The issue right now is ppl can dodge without punishment so there is a loophole. They should add punishment to dodgers not add more bans.

Okay sure age have grown, but what about the top 1% and bottom 1%? Playerbase in that area is still relatively low. What about non peak time? What about 10 years down the line and age player base have dropped to just a few hundred? You can't consider the avg case and it is entirely possible for queues to be hours(can be infinite technically) if they added more bans. From a coding point of view, what you are suggesting is a big no. What you are purposing is something that can lead to infinite queue time, although unlikely. So to be clear, the worst case would actually be infinite queue time.

[Flunsi]

i prefer a bad elo system in which i can play my favorite maps all the time over a good elo system in which i play my favorite maps only 20% of the time.

and if you feel you're waiting too long, you can always losen up the bans yourself.

[Moist Butt]

Originally posted by Flunsi:

i prefer a bad elo system in which i can play my favorite maps all the time over a good elo system in which i play my favorite maps only 20% of the time.

and if you feel you're waiting too long, you can always losen up the bans yourself.

You still can... Just dont play ranked lol. You can't be angry at the devs for following standard practices and standardizing the elo system. It just standard practice to consider worst case in CPSC and not have anything that can be infinite. Its not like they removed hosting and joining custom games or anything.

If you really only cared about playing maps you liked then you wouldnt even post this. This whole complain is really about i want only my favorite maps in the ranked map pools. This isn't an issue of ban as they can just rotate your maps out of the map pool. For example, number of bans isn't going to matter if they rotated all your favorite map out of the pool. So i really dont see the point of this post. If you want to play certain maps, then dont play ranked and host your own game.

[Flunsi]

i dont care about the elo. i dont want to climb by abusing the system. i just want to play my favorite maps with players the same level as me. this is neither possible in ranked games nor in unranked games. i'm not happy with this situation, because the last 20 years it was possible and now its not. (because hosted games are not ranked)

and there are a lot of players who think the same way like me. every time a game gets canceled in pre-game, there was at least one such player. if a good map comes, they play and if a bad map comes they say f**k this and press ALT+F4. last night it happend 4 times in a row. thats when i decided to write about this topic.

however, i see the problem and i dont have a good solution for it. i just want to raise awareness.

[Kinski]

Such a system would make the matchmaking slower and the elo rating kind of a joke because players specialised on only one map would have a big advantage on it while getting
destroyed by lower elo rating players on other maps.

And even though the game and its multiplayer scene is booming right now it dioesn't have to stay this way when for example AOE4 will be released.
And then nobody will find a match on their particularly most favorite map anymore.

[Creeping Death (VvvvV)]

totally agree , and the point is that we can "ban" a map by using the task manager to terminate the game before it can start. So the map ain't getting played no matter what you may try to say. And it's goes both ways so the ELO is still broken/a joke. I'm presuming the people who only want to play arabia or BF are clicking out when Megarandom or a nomad type map come up.

[Flunsi]

exactly.
someone who really hates to play black forest, wont play it. either with an additional ban or with the task manager. so elo is broken the same way. but in one way, 3-7 people are punished for nothing.

[Moist Butt]

Originally posted by Flunsi:

i dont care about the elo. i dont want to climb by abusing the system. i just want to play my favorite maps with players the same level as me. this is neither possible in ranked games nor in unranked games. i'm not happy with this situation, because the last 20 years it was possible and now its not. (because hosted games are not ranked)

and there are a lot of players who think the same way like me. every time a game gets canceled in pre-game, there was at least one such player. if a good map comes, they play and if a bad map comes they say f**k this and press ALT+F4. last night it happend 4 times in a row. thats when i decided to write about this topic.

however, i see the problem and i dont have a good solution for it. i just want to raise awareness.

Ppl should be punished for dodging and i agree a lot of ppl hate dodging. That doesnt mean a lot of ppl think we should add more bans tho. You don't see constant dodging in games like league because they actually get punished. If they dodge x amount of time, then they cant queue for x min and they also lose elo. The fact that there is no punishment in age for dodging is the main reason why ppl can dodge 4 games in 10min and not have an issue.

So i actually agree with you that dodging is an issue. The issue can be easily fixed by just punishing ppl. Age isn't that big to have a solution that you wanted. I wish I can only play ranked nomad too, but that isn't ever going to happen. Rts is a dying genre after all.

[Moist Butt]

Originally posted by 丂тяιкηιηє:

totally agree , and the point is that we can "ban" a map by using the task manager to terminate the game before it can start. So the map ain't getting played no matter what you may try to say. And it's goes both ways so the ELO is still broken/a joke. I'm presuming the people who only want to play arabia or BF are clicking out when Megarandom or a nomad type map come up.

That's my point. You said it yourself, ppl can artificially increase their amount of bans already so why would increasing ban fix this problem? The issue is that ppl arent being punished and the moment they punish ppl, then the amount of game dodge will drop significally.

[Creeping Death (VvvvV)]

Originally posted by Moist Butt:

Originally posted by 丂тяιкηιηє:

totally agree , and the point is that we can "ban" a map by using the task manager to terminate the game before it can start. So the map ain't getting played no matter what you may try to say. And it's goes both ways so the ELO is still broken/a joke. I'm presuming the people who only want to play arabia or BF are clicking out when Megarandom or a nomad type map come up.

That's my point. You said it yourself, ppl can artificially increase their amount of bans already so why would increasing ban fix this problem? The issue is that ppl arent being punished and the moment they punish ppl, then the amount of game dodge will drop significally.

Playing BF or Arena is punishment in itself. I'd still take the hit. I'm a nomad and megarandom player myself. Would like to see islands maps too but you know those games would never start.

And I would play in the custom games and not worry about elo but the customs have the same kick happy hosts that HD has. I've seen EU hosts go afk for 15 mins then come back and kick 6 / 8 people from the lobby.

So really a longer wait on matchmaking with more bans wouldn't be that bad.

[Moist Butt]

Originally posted by 丂тяιкηιηє:

Originally posted by Moist Butt:

That's my point. You said it yourself, ppl can artificially increase their amount of bans already so why would increasing ban fix this problem? The issue is that ppl arent being punished and the moment they punish ppl, then the amount of game dodge will drop significally.

Playing BF or Arena is punishment in itself. I'd still take the hit. I'm a nomad and megarandom player myself. Would like to see islands maps too but you know those games would never start.

And I would play in the custom games and not worry about elo but the customs have the same kick happy hosts that HD has. I've seen EU hosts go afk for 15 mins then come back and kick 6 / 8 people from the lobby.

So really a longer wait on matchmaking with more bans wouldn't be that bad.

from my experience, joining and playing custom game isn't really a problem. Even if it is, you can always host yourself. With that said, the real issue is that those games tend to be less competitive and games usually go 1 sided. Assuming ppl belong in their elo and ppl dont rq or dc, games tend to be quite close in ranked.

I already explained why adding more bans isn't practical and how it is just plain dumb from a coding perspective. Programmers often consider the worst case and further adding more bans can lead to infinite queue time. I am pretty sure that the amount of bans we get isn't random. In solo, each get 3 and there are 7 maps and in team each get 1 ban and there are 9 maps. I hope you can see where I am getting at.

I am confused why you think that adding more bans is a better solution than just punishing ppl in general. I understand that you are willing to play maps that you dislike, so i dont see why you are so against it.

[Creeping Death (VvvvV)]

Originally posted by Moist Butt:

Originally posted by 丂тяιкηιηє:

Playing BF or Arena is punishment in itself. I'd still take the hit. I'm a nomad and megarandom player myself. Would like to see islands maps too but you know those games would never start.

And I would play in the custom games and not worry about elo but the customs have the same kick happy hosts that HD has. I've seen EU hosts go afk for 15 mins then come back and kick 6 / 8 people from the lobby.

So really a longer wait on matchmaking with more bans wouldn't be that bad.

from my experience, joining and playing custom game isn't really a problem. Even if it is, you can always host yourself. With that said, the real issue is that those games tend to be less competitive and games usually go 1 sided. Assuming ppl belong in their elo and ppl dont rq or dc, games tend to be quite close in ranked.

I already explained why adding more bans isn't practical and how it is just plain dumb from a coding perspective. Programmers often consider the worst case and further adding more bans can lead to infinite queue time. I am pretty sure that the amount of bans we get isn't random. In solo, each get 3 and there are 7 maps and in team each get 1 ban and there are 9 maps. I hope you can see where I am getting at.

I am confused why you think that adding more bans is a better solution than just punishing ppl in general. I understand that you are willing to play maps that you dislike, so i dont see why you are so against it.

Actually no I don't like BF , Arabia , or Arena. BF and Arabia because I always get someone who never walls and in Arena team mates never leave their base then wonder why they have the enemy at their walls.

[Moist Butt]

Originally posted by 丂тяιкηιηє:

Originally posted by Moist Butt:

from my experience, joining and playing custom game isn't really a problem. Even if it is, you can always host yourself. With that said, the real issue is that those games tend to be less competitive and games usually go 1 sided. Assuming ppl belong in their elo and ppl dont rq or dc, games tend to be quite close in ranked.

I already explained why adding more bans isn't practical and how it is just plain dumb from a coding perspective. Programmers often consider the worst case and further adding more bans can lead to infinite queue time. I am pretty sure that the amount of bans we get isn't random. In solo, each get 3 and there are 7 maps and in team each get 1 ban and there are 9 maps. I hope you can see where I am getting at.

I am confused why you think that adding more bans is a better solution than just punishing ppl in general. I understand that you are willing to play maps that you dislike, so i dont see why you are so against it.

Actually no I don't like BF , Arabia , or Arena. BF and Arabia because I always get someone who never walls and in Arena team mates never leave their base then wonder why they have the enemy at their walls.

lol reread what i wrote. I never claimed u like those maps.