Just a “like” or “dislike” option cannot prevent players from entering maps they dislike. Players should be allowed to block almost all maps, or even only leave one map. (This is also the case in many games.)
Regarding matchmaking time, it’s completely unnecessary to worry. If a player finds the matchmaking time too long, they will definitely unblock some maps. This is entirely a matter for the player themselves. Whether to “enter their preferred map” or “enter the game faster”, players will weigh the pros and cons on their own. Please allow us to make our own decisions!
If you are still concerned about not having enough players to form a game, add a condition: “If you aren’t enters the game within 5 minutes, a map will be randomly selected.”
voted yes, even though i disagree with some of the suggestion. if you force MM to select maps based on individual preferences, time to find a match will be shit. what is needed is that MM actually filters out most disliked maps when MM lobby is created. if possible people get to play map with 0 dislikes from all 20 players and if not they get to play map with lowest number of votes. you could also possibly alter MM algorithm to replace those few players who dislike the map with players who dont dislike it.
it only leaves question of player who cant find a match whether to have him infinitely wait till he finds a match or to match him with whatever is available after certain time limit.
How does this current system even work ? Lets say theres 19 people that havent bothered at all with the “favored” system and 1 guy who hates everything.
Does it pick randomly something because 19 doesnt care and 1 just hates everything regardless being the onlyone even using the system ?
Yes, the current preference system needs to be improved. Right now it is purely cosmetic, ffs you can’t even dislike reverse d-day because “it’s a variant not a unique map”!
this represents big problem for game. if everyone gets to choose their campaigns, then you will get some campaigns dead on one side. i know that i would ban pacific if i had a chance and if many other players did the same that could lead to japan playing against few players and mostly bots.
i am ok with people banning most maps, but they would need to leave few maps from every campaign so MM can work its magic for everyone.
Seems more like a map design problem, one that could be fixed with some effort if devs focused on issues that Actively Mattered, rather than adding things like ray tracing. We still don’t have basic features like a lobby chat in a game that is supposed to be team based!
the map selection issue is fixed with a plain and clear explanation in huge fonts in the map selection screen.
if the player bans 100% of the maps, he will get 0% matchmaking. if the player bans 0% maps, he will get 100% matchmaking. player choose and tune his own matchmaking, and therefore his own waiting time, at his own will and responsability.
thats how maps in multiplayer games evolve. when developers see a map have extremely low participation, either they decide to fix it to the players likings, or leave it to rust unused and forget about it.
if you asked me, i would ban conquest from the game(alongside assault).
you remember old campaigns? where you had 2:1 players in tunisia for allies, just for it to switch to axis advantage after paratrooper update or moskva where soviets had playerbase advantage or berlin where germany had advantage or any other campaign with its faction swings?
just look at premerge(period 1 and period 2) allied to axis or axis to allies ratio.
so you want consistent one sided battles instead? game being inconsistent with its playerbase is much better option than having constant one sided battles.
Don’t skew my words I don’t want to be bounced around campaigns if I want to fight in the pacific, I should only have to fight Pacific I never said anything about one sided battles that’s a balancing issue and skill issue.
and how will you guarantee that both sides will have enough players for one side if players can ban whole campaigns? you will just set back game to 3 years ago with its skewed balance for certain campaigns.
a possible solution: match doesnt start untill each side has at least X players. its up to your own choice to wait for 2 hours for 1 exact game you want, or 10 seconds for any map in the game, or 3, 4, 5 minutes if you feel like making a selection of maps to your liking. if you choose the top dog, you wait longer. if you choose the underdog, you wait less.
this is not a system to my liking, cause i like to see bot squads pushing the objective, running around like headless chickens and sometimes surprise everyone (even themselves id think) by capturing a point and winning a match by their own, but at least we could select the maps we want.
