Team Ranked makes no sense

[ShinkuroYukinari]

Picture this.

You're a 20sth y.o. Slavic man, enjoying a public holiday.
Feel like playing some team games, maybe climb the ladder.
Comfortably sitting at 1450 ELO, planning to get past the 1600 mark.

Queue up, wait 5 minutes
Game 1, teammate is 1000 ELO, opponents premade around 1500.
Obviously a loss.

"Oh well, ill try again"
Game 2, versing the same premade team, this time with a decent teammate
WIn barely.

"Ok, let's get a streak going!"
3v3, enemy team has 2100 ELO premades



Why is team ranked like this?

[gibson]

Cause the longer you( or your opponents/ teammates) are in queue the wider the parameters are in terms of who is acceptable to be on your team/ the other team. This is to prevent you from being in queue for 20 minutes till before getting a game.

[ShinkuroYukinari]

Cause the longer you( or your opponents/ teammates) are in queue the wider the parameters are in terms of who is acceptable to be on your team/ the other team. This is to prevent you from being in queue for 20 minutes till before getting a game.

I'd rather wait 10 more minutes than have a game be decided in the first second by the absurdity of QS matchmaking...

[gibson]

Okay, I don't care, I'm simply explaining to you the answer to your question.

[EAGLEMUT]

Cause the longer you( or your opponents/ teammates) are in queue the wider the parameters are in terms of who is acceptable to be on your team/ the other team. This is to prevent you from being in queue for 20 minutes till before getting a game.

I'd rather wait 10 more minutes than have a game be decided in the first second by the absurdity of QS matchmaking...

I think you can do this by cancelling and re-queuing before 7 minutes pass.

[Squamiger]

team is so much more fun with a premade, for everyone involved. just roll with a premade group, problem solved. its called team for a reason

[harcha]

team is so much more fun with a premade, for everyone involved. just roll with a premade group, problem solved. its called team for a reason

This is like saying "just find 2 friends bro"

[princeofcarthage]

When you said "this is obviously a loss" is where you lost the game. Nothing is obvious. You can win if you try. I know I have. When I was pr 24-26, with a same level team mate, we have won against pr 35-40 premade teams. On EP that is. Heck I and callen almost pulled of a win against h2o and Mitoe before callen resigned for no reason.

[ShinkuroYukinari]

Cause the longer you( or your opponents/ teammates) are in queue the wider the parameters are in terms of who is acceptable to be on your team/ the other team. This is to prevent you from being in queue for 20 minutes till before getting a game.

I'd rather wait 10 more minutes than have a game be decided in the first second by the absurdity of QS matchmaking...

I think you can do this by cancelling and re-queuing before 7 minutes pass.

Yeah, I think imma try doing that from now on. Should hopefully reduce the chances of getting games like this

team is so much more fun with a premade, for everyone involved. just roll with a premade group, problem solved. its called team for a reason

I usually fly solo, but I will admit that I had pretty great success with a recent premade Ethiopia with my France. I wonder where to look for some premade groups.

When you said "this is obviously a loss" is where you lost the game. Nothing is obvious. You can win if you try. I know I have. When I was pr 24-26, with a same level team mate, we have won against pr 35-40 premade teams. On EP that is. Heck I and callen almost pulled of a win against h2o and Mitoe before callen resigned for no reason.

I meant this more in the sense of "no surprises as to why we lost", but yeah, I get your point. I did have this one win in WOL which was in a similar vein, albeit those cases are extremely rare.
If anything i got reminded as to why having a backup batch of pikemen is good.

[Cleters]

I hope everyday when I connect that they announce ranked lobbies for team. The current system just don't work as it's designed for 1v1...

[gibson]

It’s not that it’s designed for 1v1, it works well for team if there’s a larger player base.

[minimoult21]

Why is @Guigs speaking Polish in the video?

[Guigs]

Why is @Guigs speaking Polish in the video?

Kurwa jebani

[Lukas_L99]

Why is @Guigs speaking Polish in the video?

Kurwa jebani

Playing inferno, of course.

[Cleters]

It’s not that it’s designed for 1v1, it works well for team if there’s a larger player base.

No, it's not searching large enough or needs more informations.

Let's give an exemple, if you are top 500, and the qs system search for you from top 300 to top 700 (which would be like 20% elo around, seems accurate). What would it change if there is 700 or 1 million players ? Nothing.

Thing is, teamgames needs too much things to coincide to work with that system. If you have 9 players at the same elo, 2 search 2v2, 3 search 3v3 and 4 search 4v4, nobody find a game and plays, and everybody stop without even knowing they could have played.

At the early stage of aoe4 when the game still had dozens of thousands players, we had the same problem with my mates in 2v2 once we reached top 100, it was impossible to find a game fast. I think it was because most of the players in top 200 were mainly playing 1v1, and rarely teams, so our range of opposants wasn't searching a lot.

[ShinkuroYukinari]

It’s not that it’s designed for 1v1, it works well for team if there’s a larger player base.

No, it's not searching large enough or needs more informations.

Let's give an exemple, if you are top 500, and the qs system search for you from top 300 to top 700 (which would be like 20% elo around, seems accurate). What would it change if there is 700 or 1 million players ? Nothing.

Thing is, teamgames needs too much things to coincide to work with that system. If you have 9 players at the same elo, 2 search 2v2, 3 search 3v3 and 4 search 4v4, nobody find a game and plays, and everybody stop without even knowing they could have played.

At the early stage of aoe4 when the game still had dozens of thousands players, we had the same problem with my mates in 2v2 once we reached top 100, it was impossible to find a game fast. I think it was because most of the players in top 200 were mainly playing 1v1, and rarely teams, so our range of opposants wasn't searching a lot.

Honestly, I feel like aoe3 matchmaking just picks random folk within a margin(which clearly goes up to Jupiter after 5 minutes) and shuffles them without even trying to fine-tune based on ELO, or accomodating for premade teams.

[Squamiger]

I hope everyday when I connect that they announce ranked lobbies for team. The current system just don't work as it's designed for 1v1...

just curious, why do you care about having ranked lobbies? casual lobbies already exist, there's nothing stopping you from making premade games there and arranging teams if you want. all this would do is kill team quicksearch, which is one of the best features of DE

[Squamiger]

I usually fly solo, but I will admit that I had pretty great success with a recent premade Ethiopia with my France. I wonder where to look for some premade groups.

just add people you've played with who you like, or post in the drongo / royal / samrev discords, you'll definitely find someone wanting to team

[gibson]

It’s not that it’s designed for 1v1, it works well for team if there’s a larger player base.

No, it's not searching large enough or needs more informations.

Let's give an exemple, if you are top 500, and the qs system search for you from top 300 to top 700 (which would be like 20% elo around, seems accurate). What would it change if there is 700 or 1 million players ? Nothing.

Thing is, teamgames needs too much things to coincide to work with that system. If you have 9 players at the same elo, 2 search 2v2, 3 search 3v3 and 4 search 4v4, nobody find a game and plays, and everybody stop without even knowing they could have played.

At the early stage of aoe4 when the game still had dozens of thousands players, we had the same problem with my mates in 2v2 once we reached top 100, it was impossible to find a game fast. I think it was because most of the players in top 200 were mainly playing 1v1, and rarely teams, so our range of opposants wasn't searching a lot.

Because you don't understand how it works lol. It doesnt search from top 300 to top 700, but rather from +/- 100 elo(maybe not this number exactly, but somewhere close to it) from what your elo is, than it extends to +/- 200 elo, +/- 300 elo etc. What server you're closest to is also taken into consideration, so even if you are within the first elo bracket from someone if they're on the other side of the world you can't match with them til like 4 minutes. All good things that have a demonstrated history of working well in games with a large player base, not so good with a player base aoe3 size.

[Vladimatt]

Ranked team queue seems to be a coinflip most of the time, as a solo player you'll have a better experience in casual team lobbies, or just doing ranked 1v1s. This probably wouldn't be a problem if the ranked teams queue was more populated but eh stagnant player count is unfortunately something we have to deal with as aoe3 players. Which is a shame too, it's interesting to look at some of the design philosophies of this game that the original ensemble devs had in 2005, I truly believe the game was balanced and optimized around 3v3 play, it's the game mode with the most diverse strategies and varied builds, many cards are viable and civs can play to their strengths easier, you get to see royal guard units and even see some imperial fights if it's a real stalemate.

[Cleters]

I hope everyday when I connect that they announce ranked lobbies for team. The current system just don't work as it's designed for 1v1...

just curious, why do you care about having ranked lobbies? casual lobbies already exist, there's nothing stopping you from making premade games there and arranging teams if you want. all this would do is kill team quicksearch, which is one of the best features of DE

Team quicksearch is totally dead, nobody plays it anymore. Just go in the obs mode, it's 80% 1v1, 15% 2v2 and 5% 3v3. It was like 70% team 30% 1v1 early DE, and we all know there was more teamplayers in AOE3 history than 1v1 players.

I'm currently playing nilla everyday instead of DE, because with 20 pr30+ on nilla we can have game when we want thanks to lobby, you host + there's a friendlist to see who is connected, who is in game or not, which is impossible in team on DE exept if you add everyone on steam + every smurf account and harass them everyday all together... which I won't do.

Basically, ranked teamlobbies just makes you host and everyone at the lvl of the host join = op game for teamplayers.

[Cleters]

It’s not that it’s designed for 1v1, it works well for team if there’s a larger player base.

No, it's not searching large enough or needs more informations.

Let's give an exemple, if you are top 500, and the qs system search for you from top 300 to top 700 (which would be like 20% elo around, seems accurate). What would it change if there is 700 or 1 million players ? Nothing.

Thing is, teamgames needs too much things to coincide to work with that system. If you have 9 players at the same elo, 2 search 2v2, 3 search 3v3 and 4 search 4v4, nobody find a game and plays, and everybody stop without even knowing they could have played.

At the early stage of aoe4 when the game still had dozens of thousands players, we had the same problem with my mates in 2v2 once we reached top 100, it was impossible to find a game fast. I think it was because most of the players in top 200 were mainly playing 1v1, and rarely teams, so our range of opposants wasn't searching a lot.

Because you don't understand how it works lol. It doesnt search from top 300 to top 700, but rather from +/- 100 elo(maybe not this number exactly, but somewhere close to it) from what your elo is, than it extends to +/- 200 elo, +/- 300 elo etc. What server you're closest to is also taken into consideration, so even if you are within the first elo bracket from someone if they're on the other side of the world you can't match with them til like 4 minutes. All good things that have a demonstrated history of working well in games with a large player base, not so good with a player base aoe3 size.

Well, you don't understand how it works neither, I have the ladder exemple to explain the problem, but i could do the same with an elo range, it's impossible to have 1M players within 200 elo, it will basically be the same whatever the playerbase is superior to like 1000 players.


The game is not working well at all lol, so your statement is just wrong. For teams I mean, totally agree the system is good for 1v1 (as long as devs are here, you will welcome cheaters in few years without possibility to host ranked 1v1 neither, and everybody will leave). Everybody stopped because it's impossible to find a game.

[Cleters]

For everyone thinking it's ok, just look how many 3v3 are being played right now : 1, only 1
And only 3x 2v2

If I want to play right now, basically it's impossible exept if I agree to play lower player with 7+ waiting and have no fun.

Sorry for the kind of spam but god that makes me mad. I rather play with maphackers on nilla than DE because i just dont want to waste 3 hours for nothing, everybody I know as teamplayer are upset about the situation on DE and there's people defending it when we can clearly see that there's like 20 players in teams at a time lol

You all seem to forget to take in consideration that before DE people weren't that stubborn about being a 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3 players. Here on DE you are forced to choose and you have no way to adapt if opposants don't show.

RE : You host a 1v1 and nobody join for 20 mins ? Fk that I'll join that 3/4 2v2 lobbies at my rank and have fun.
We're 4/6 and they're 2/4, pm they to join us and we play

DE : 7 mins unfun games all day long go brrrrrrr

[gibson]

Considering nothing you said has anything to do with what I said(or even makes sense), I still think you have 0 clue what you're actually talking about. You don't even know how to use the filters properly. The system they use very obviously works with a large player base.

[aaryngend]

Well, you don't understand how it works neither, I have the ladder exemple to explain the problem, but i could do the same with an elo range, it's impossible to have 1M players within 200 elo, it will basically be the same whatever the playerbase is superior to like 1000 players.


The game is not working well at all lol, so your statement is just wrong. For teams I mean, totally agree the system is good for 1v1 (as long as devs are here, you will welcome cheaters in few years without possibility to host ranked 1v1 neither, and everybody will leave). Everybody stopped because it's impossible to find a game.

There are roughly as many 1v1 players as there are team players (just check the leaderboard).
The thing is that 'Ranked Team' features the 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 game modes. 1v1 only has 1 mode.

It takes 3 1v1 games to populate a 3v3 game (6 vs 2 players). It's faster to get a game too. So it shouldn't surprise you that there are more 1v1 games at any given time compared to team ga mes.

I still think there are enough Team Players, there only aren't that many if your rating is too high (1800+). Even worse at 2000+.
Queueing solo has always sucked. Idk why you bother to schedule games on the legacy game but not on DE?

Because there is no ingame FL that tells you who is online? You can't take a proper look at the Game Browser without quitting the Ranked queue?