DE ranked team lobbies (1v1 aswell?)

[Hazza54321]

Ok so i decided to make this thread as i think theres a general consensus that hosted team lobbies is superior to qs team and that qs team will quickly die off due to the dynamics of it and the waiting time whilst searching.
By the dynamics of team qs, i mean having stacked teams either play vs noobs or stacked teams playing vs someone soloqueing and 99% of games are kinda over at the start. Another would be cherry picking civs to avoid getting MU screwed, which results in the top 5 team civs constantly picked meaning the majority of civs arent used unless you want to put yourself at a disadvantage.
My main point would be that its easier to get fairer teams, civs and its more likely you will get a game earlier if its hosted (you have no idea if 5 people similar to your skill are gonna que for a 3v3 at the same time which puts people off searching), meanwhile if u see a hosted game with 3/6 people are more likely to join. This is just my opinion though this thread is just to hear your thoughts.

From people ive asked, people tend to agree about having 1v1 Qs exclusively ranked and have 1v1 lobbies unranked which i agree with but just wanted to hear your opinions.

[Kaiserklein]

Hosted team games definitely need to be ranked. 1v1 in qs only is okay if the balance is good enough

[CuCkO0]

I agree with the team games in lobby being ranked. Who wants to be waiting 5 minutes to find you you've got @CuCkO0 as a team mate. Eugh.

I do think they should all be ranked through lobby however, team as well as 1v1's. It's just such a shame we all know full well that it's just a gateway for ladder abuse. :(

[Hawk_Girl]

totally agree with everything. having 1v1 hosted games be ranked would be a mistake imo but team definately

[Hazza54321]

Thats the thing though its impossible to ladder abuse for team

[Kaiserklein]

I agree with the team games in lobby being ranked. Who wants to be waiting 5 minutes to find you you've got @CuCkO0 as a team mate. Eugh.

I do think they should all be ranked through lobby however, team as well as 1v1's. It's just such a shame we all know full well that it's just a gateway for ladder abuse. :(

Well, ranked hosted 1v1 brings other forms of ladder abuse, like cherry picking opponents, playing only favourable match-ups, playing on one map only, etc. I agree we don't want everyone to lame the top civ in qs to get pixel points though, which is why we have to hope we'll reach a good balance state.

[deleted_user]

RIP the dream @gibson

[aaryngend]

Thats the thing though its impossible to ladder abuse for team

Harder, but not impossible to abuse.
Look at LoL or SC2, these games also have no hosted ranked teamgame lobbies and they are doing more than fine by doing that.

My suggestion: Instead of moving ranked to hosted lobbies yet again, we should wait for a better UI first.
Don't forget that you can search for multiple setups at once (2v2, 3v3, 4v4) as long as your lobby parameters allow for it (4 people in a lobby can't search for 2v2, duh), which reduces queue times even further.

They could also change the ranked threshold so highly ranked teams are less likely to keep getting paired with newbies, creating unbalanced team pairings.

[dicktator_]

Qs games being rated only is great for 1v1 sup and not that great for everything else. Hopefully they keep it for 1v1 sup and allow ranked lobbies team/tr/dm

[Blastkiller]

With fast classified search at least the 3v3 deccan nr40 are not played but I confirm that it may take too long to find 1 game but especially in the future when the game may have fewer players

[aaryngend]

Also, if you open ranked to hosted lobbies, less people would search for teamgames in Quicksearch, leading to even less people using this feature, further splitting the ranked population.

[CuCkO0]

Well, ranked hosted 1v1 brings other forms of ladder abuse, like cherry picking opponents, playing only favourable match-ups, playing on one map only, etc. I agree we don't want everyone to lame the top civ in qs to get pixel points though, which is why we have to hope we'll reach a good balance state.

I was vague but, yes of course. Ladder abuse is ladder abuse.

I still like the idea of having the freedom to make that choice of hosting a ranked game though personally.

But times change I suppose. Probably me clinging onto legacy. We'll see what the future brings.

[Hazza54321]

Also, if you open ranked to hosted lobbies, less people would search for teamgames in Quicksearch, leading to even less people using this feature, further splitting the ranked population.

No ones gonna team qs when you can join ranked team lobbies which are just better in every way

[aaryngend]

Also, if you open ranked to hosted lobbies, less people would search for teamgames in Quicksearch, leading to even less people using this feature, further splitting the ranked population.

No ones gonna team qs when you can join ranked team lobbies which are just better in every way

No, they aren't. Ranked team lobbies have their downsides which you can't just choose to ignore.

[Zutazuta]

I like the idea of having the QS queue work as it is currently implemented, but in practice, I don't think there are enough evenly skilled players searching at any given time to make it work in a competitive way. Maybe with a good interface as suggested (where you can see who is currently slotted into the queue, etc.) you could find a balanced method that fixes the current problems with ranked team games.

[gibson]

QS team only would be great if the player base is big enough.

[wingman2]

Hosted team games must NOT be rated because this will kill the quick search. And team quick search is the best part of DE because players on TAD were always unable to host team games because of whining about ranks, kicking and restrictions on only 3v3 dekkan games. TAD was actually a kind of lobby simulator for me in the past. Waiting 1-2h for a 15 min game :))

Instead they should add more features to the quick search to surpass its current limitations.

[Mitoe]

I’ve played about 50 games of team quick search since DE launched. Not a single time have I encountered a player of similar skill. 95% of the time it is me and my teammates sitting in queue for 7-8 minutes before getting paired against complete newbies, at which point we ruin their night while talking about stuff completely irrelevant to the game.

I don’t think team quick search works at a high level, but it seems good for lower levels where you can find games more quickly and fairly.

Edit: actually I did meet one other good player when they were intentionally trying to snipe me and my teammate while streaming.

[wingman2]

I’ve played about 50 games of team quick search since DE launched. Not a single time have I encountered a player of similar skill. 95% of the time it is me and my teammates sitting in queue for 7-8 minutes before getting paired against complete newbies, at which point we ruin their night while talking about stuff completely irrelevant to the game.

I don’t think team quick search works at a high level, but it seems good for lower levels where you can find games more quickly and fairly.

Edit: actually I did meet one other good player when they were intentionally trying to snipe me and my teammate while streaming.

You need a higher team ELO to get good games in qs and you seem to be only at ~1550 currently. I don't know why you argue that you hadn't a single competitive game yet. I have seen you losing a 3v3 team game on stream. I think the problem is rather the current buggy ELO system and not the quick search itself. Because I had some nice games until after the first update when ELO broke (2/3 of wins don't count since then and you can't really rise your ELO anymore).

[aaryngend]

I’ve played about 50 games of team quick search since DE launched. Not a single time have I encountered a player of similar skill. 95% of the time it is me and my teammates sitting in queue for 7-8 minutes before getting paired against complete newbies, at which point we ruin their night while talking about stuff completely irrelevant to the game.

I don’t think team quick search works at a high level, but it seems good for lower levels where you can find games more quickly and fairly.

Edit: actually I did meet one other good player when they were intentionally trying to snipe me and my teammate while streaming.

That's always a problem at high elo, unless the playerbase is bigger than Kim K's derrière.
Why don't you host and play team games with people you know then? No rank points that way but... the game itself is the same and you get your more or less even-strength games

[Mitoe]

I mean I didn’t play any games for a week. Last week when I was playing I was ranked top 10. I don’t see why having a higher team elo would increase my likelihood of getting competitive games—it seems quite the opposite actually.

I lost a 3v3, yes. I’ve lost a few games. But I’ve also been teaming with an IRL friend who has literally played less than 40 games of AoE3 ever in almost all of my games, and still win almost all easily. Almost all of my losses are from DCs rather than actual losses.

I suppose you could say that a handful of games I played were competitive in the sense that it was questionable whether I would win or lose. But if you look at the actual ranks of the players in the games it has never been fair a single time.

@aaryngend Well, the friends system is essentially non-functional so... cant really do this plus unrated is just kinda... boring, IMO.

[deleted_user]

Paradoxical is one of the top team players in the world.

[skandertayebi]

Ranked team lobbies will lead to death of team qs. Also "top" team players would just seperate themselfs out of qs into a never ending loop of the same 10 players playing together in lobby. Despite the fact that this would hurt our community, quick search is the best available option for match making because no one is able to cherry pick any MUs or opponents.

[Mitoe]

Maybe part of the problem is that there are no search options in the matchmaking system. Like the old quick search would let you select the PR range to search, so you could at least guarantee that you’re not going to waste your time vs someone 15 PR lower than you if you want.

If there were more options like this that would probably help a lot. I at least would be willing to sit in queue for 15-20 minutes if it meant I could get a game vs players of equal skill rather than people brand new to the game. And at a higher level you would just keep going back into the queue like you do in lobbies on ESO.

Maybe that’s the solution? It would also help prevent lower players from getting paired vs unreasonably high level opponents.

[Zutazuta]

Yeah, they just need a better interface/configurations honestly. Even RE QS for example let you limit it to similarly skilled players, showed how many people were currently in the party for that queue type, etc.