Maybe could we see map before picking civ ?

[big_bada]

Soooooooooooo i'll bring it again , but i don't get why cant we fucking see the map before we need to start a game ??? what s the fucking point of getting rekt even before the game start because the map is borneo or indonesia , its just stupid and not competitive. If you add that to the fact that 100% of matches are inca or ottomans what is the point of even looking for a 1v1 QS ?

I would add , what is the point of even lauching this game since even the team QS is pathetic but that's not the point of the topic

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye, QS should put you in a lobby where you have to play (else you lose points), but you know the map and both have to pick civs.

[Nemo]

Why not just give player like 3 bans on his own civ, 3 bans on his opponent's civ and do a random matchup from the leftovers? Plus strict map pool with possibly couple of bans as well. It would promote diversity and create ladder environment, slightly different from the tournament one. All of this could be done from the lobby level, before you even click into the game so that you don't have to waste time before each game and it eliminates most of unfair advantages. Sure, it would be a bit more random, but hey, ladder in majority of games is supposed to be fast-paced, across-the-board test of skill that compares players over big sample size.

[Nemo]

Additionally, it would help to offset possible balance problems and 'broken' civs in case of any future patches

[n0el]

I agree and as I’ve been posting in every beta, just make the matchmaking look like aoe2. Small map pool, unique for different game modes, map bans, change civ when you connect to the lobby.

[chronique]

Why not just give player like 3 bans on his own civ, 3 bans on his opponent's civ and do a random matchup from the leftovers?

Cause if they do that, i will stop playing this game lol.

Imagine if i can't play spain lol, very bad idea.

[Jaeger]

Ye, QS should put you in a lobby where you have to play (else you lose points), but you know the map and both have to pick civs.

So what happens if players can't agree on civ? Is it blind pick for both after 1 minute or something?

[Cocaine]

Additionally, it would help to offset possible balance problems and 'broken' civs in case of any future patches

Blanty krence bo poto mam rence

[gibson]

Ye, QS should put you in a lobby where you have to play (else you lose points), but you know the map and both have to pick civs.

So what happens if players can't agree on civ? Is it blind pick for both after 1 minute or something?

Yea short countdown timer to blindpick if nothing is agreed with.

[n0el]

Ye, QS should put you in a lobby where you have to play (else you lose points), but you know the map and both have to pick civs.

So what happens if players can't agree on civ? Is it blind pick for both after 1 minute or something?

You are blind picking against the map. You can’t see their civ.

[lemmings121]

In beta I even suggested to copy aoe2 matchmaking (random the map, then pick civ). But now, im not that sure its a great idea. Wouldn't it be boring to get highplains then indonesia and imediatelly be forced into oto then port mirror, and you just have to play that mu or be in a disadvantage? Like, soon a meta develop and you always see the same civs on each map.

Idk, maybe old blindpick random qs isnt the most fair, but is kinda fun.... Im divided in this question, idk if I want it changed or not....

[n0el]

In beta I even suggested to copy aoe2 matchmaking (random the map, then pick civ). But now, im not that sure its a great idea. Wouldn't it be boring to get highplains then indonesia and imediatelly be forced into oto then port mirror, and you just have to play that mu or be in a disadvantage? Like, soon a meta develop and you always see the same civs on each map.

Idk, maybe old blindpick random qs isnt the most fair, but is kinda fun.... Im divided in this question, idk if I want it changed or not....

IDK, I thought about that. I think you'd see some creative counter stuff then.

[Jaeger]

Ye, QS should put you in a lobby where you have to play (else you lose points), but you know the map and both have to pick civs.

So what happens if players can't agree on civ? Is it blind pick for both after 1 minute or something?

You are blind picking against the map. You can’t see their civ.

Your option seems better; and just see the map, not even the opponent. It'd be annoying to potentially have a civ dance every time you play.

[Jaeger]

In beta I even suggested to copy aoe2 matchmaking (random the map, then pick civ). But now, im not that sure its a great idea. Wouldn't it be boring to get highplains then indonesia and imediatelly be forced into oto then port mirror, and you just have to play that mu or be in a disadvantage? Like, soon a meta develop and you always see the same civs on each map.

Idk, maybe old blindpick random qs isnt the most fair, but is kinda fun.... Im divided in this question, idk if I want it changed or not....

IDK, I thought about that. I think you'd see some creative counter stuff then.

Well we didn't really see it in tournaments, I'm afraid same thing will happen in QS.

[bart331]

This Will nvr work, game search Will take forever, ook Will disconnect from their match in lobby.

Whats wrong with current setup? Pick a civ and have fun! One of the best things of AOE3 is the variety in civs and with the variety in maps it means every game can become totally different. And please praise the current balance and the ability to find a game, it used to be wat worse

[_DB_]

I've a stupid question. But why are people so bothered about the map, opponent civ?

What's the point of the learning the game if you are going to shit your pants seeing an Ottoman opponent on New England?

Agreed there are bad matchups. Some MUs are horrible. But it makes no sense for people to avoid the bad matchups altogether. You came online because you want to play, you want to learn, and enjoy. It is supposed to be a relaxation routine. Winning is overrated.
You hate losing after playing a match? Normal and understandable.
You love winning after playing a match? Normal and understandable.

You hate losing and love winning even before you began the match? You need help. Change this perspective.

Think AoE 3 as if it is real life. In real life, you get bad problems, unfair matchups, bad people, bad places. You can't even choose them. There is no point running away.

[[Armag] diarouga]

You hate losing and love winning even before you began the match? You need help. Change this perspective.

You don't have to love winning before the game begins, but it's normal and understandable to hate losing even before you began the match.

[Rohbrot]

Why not just give player like 3 bans on his own civ, 3 bans on his opponent's civ and do a random matchup from the leftovers?

Cause if they do that, i will stop playing this game lol.

Imagine if i can't play spain lol, very bad idea.

You play france and haudensanouen also

[chronique]

You play france and haudensanouen also

Not france (i just know how play them but they are boring), but i like dutch, i played them recently and i have a good feeling.

[Black_Duck]

You play france and haudensanouen also

Not france (i just know how play them but they are boring), but i like dutch, i played them recently and i have a good feeling.

Is that one of those good feelings in your trousers?

[Rohbrot]

You play france and haudensanouen also

Not france (i just know how play them but they are boring), but i like dutch, i played them recently and i have a good feeling.

Is that one of those good feelings in your trousers?

@Black_Duck amazed how u get the sentence from @chronique to ur dirty jokes

[chronique]

Lol pls stay on topic

[Black_Duck]

I've a stupid question. But why are people so bothered about the map, opponent civ?

What's the point of the learning the game if you are going to shit your pants seeing an Ottoman opponent on New England?

Agreed there are bad matchups. Some MUs are horrible. But it makes no sense for people to avoid the bad matchups altogether. You came online because you want to play, you want to learn, and enjoy. It is supposed to be a relaxation routine. Winning is overrated.
You hate losing after playing a match? Normal and understandable.
You love winning after playing a match? Normal and understandable.

You hate losing and love winning even before you began the match? You need help. Change this perspective.

Think AoE 3 as if it is real life. In real life, you get bad problems, unfair matchups, bad people, bad places. You can't even choose them. There is no point running away.

No point wasting your time either, not that im for seeing map

[macacoalbino]

In beta I even suggested to copy aoe2 matchmaking (random the map, then pick civ). But now, im not that sure its a great idea. Wouldn't it be boring to get highplains then indonesia and imediatelly be forced into oto then port mirror, and you just have to play that mu or be in a disadvantage? Like, soon a meta develop and you always see the same civs on each map.

Idk, maybe old blindpick random qs isnt the most fair, but is kinda fun.... Im divided in this question, idk if I want it changed or not....

Just make it like SC2, make your vetos, chose your civ and go.

Edit: the idea to copy age 2 would be terribad. Imagine being forced to play against 2-3 meta civs everygame because they are good in the map given to you...
I'd be down to have something like a 10 map pool with 3 vetos each side to avoid playing stupid 10 TP maps with dutch or heavy water map with France for example