One ban means we already up to 32 maps banned in a given lobby. Upping that to three per player would be 96 maps banned, which obviously isn’t viable.
I would love to see unlimited, or at least increased Likes/Dislikes though. They don’t seem to affect matchmaking and as has been said this would make their main role of providing feedback much more useful/representative.
What you’re saying doesn’t really make any sense. It’s like you’re assuming that every player in the queue needs a map that none of them have banned. Allowing players to ban more than one map won’t make much difference. A little yes, but not much.
I agree, I would rather give them more information to run off of. Maybe include a section for removed maps and allow us to tally up those as well. Some may come back if enough people are allowed to voice how much they liked them.
Nope, it’s already been stated multiple times by Gaijin the current system already greatly affects map selection.
I think it is just… easy cop-out on their end.
Since, I think it would not be too difficult to implement, just a bit tedious.
But of course, in their eyes, it is just needless effort.
maybe a vote ban? The maps with the most dislikes for each team are banned.
I’d love to be able to ban Sands of Sinai, Campania, Carpathia all at once. Hate all of those maps.
Already exists, 3 dislikes across both teams is the same as a ban.
oh, I didn’t knew this. But I think one ban for each team would be nice.
Add map bans to sim ground please.
Then they need to revamp the system, it would make much more sense to have the player (s) wait until the next match that the particular player doesn’t have banned instead of factoring in an entire lobby if bans.
Heck, if anything, giving near unlimited map bans would boost sales of premium account a lot.
Easy money for the devs, from my point of view.
You would never be able to match players up.You would wait forever for a game.
The ban-happy folks would. Don’t worry about the regular folks.
After all, since they spend actual money on this, shouldn’t they have more options for them?
Like, yeah, they would be spending a while in the queue with maxed settings… But I think it should be a problem on their side. Or, well, why not introduce bots, for these occasions?
Speaking of settings, what actually determines what sort of map is going to be selected?
The first player who went to battle?
Matchmaker, after checking what the group likes/dislikes/bans are?
Or some other combination?
You all would because there are only so many people in a game and you would have to match those who have about ten maps banned with others
I think the Chinese already have ; )
I have no idea and I can understand why they dont run every map they have on a strict rotation one after the other and have zero bans.Would take you most of the day to get through all of them and the various versions.
This is tied to how the matchmaker works though.
So basically, we both have no idea how matchmaker works…
I remember the Dagor engine went open source some time ago. I wonder if folks who took a look at it can… at least tell us how it worked there. Here’s even a link to the news:
With that, we could possibly extrapolate to how it works now.
If not…
Well, it’s just speculation, then.
Either way, I am more optimistic about possibility (though I will admit that the change is unlikely, but either way if there is will, there usually is a way).
So, I am going with the assumption that map and it’s type is selected by the server, which gets players into a group for a match, checks selected vehicle nationalities, BRs and map likes/dislikes/bans, and then splits the players into 2 teams and chooses the map type.
Around… 20 %? of players have spent money, and thus likely to have premium account, which would make it that they are the ones deciding which maps are usually encountered.
And, if all the premium players who got into the server’s matchmaking process have same (or similar) map bans (at the very least, 1 map which is not banned by either), then all is fine and dandy. If of course 1 player has banned 1 half of maps while the other banned the other half, obviously no map is eligible, and thus matchmaker… hangs up, in worst case scenario (and looking at how recently we had an issue with a certain security company, that resulted in BSODs in some important places, I tend to think that WT’s servers may not be programmed that well. I may be wrong, though).
But if it was made rationally, then it would simply check for others trying to enter a match, and replace one of the premiums with the one that is not too picky about the maps.
I tend to think that it is just “easy excuse” that is given to us. While the possibility of this suggestion, while tedious to implement, is very much possible.
Heck, even Enlisted, a cousin (if not brother) of Warthunder uses bots, so… Warthunder is missing out.
We only know what the Devs have said.I dont make things up or pretend to know.
Yeah, the argument from Gaijin is: Long q times - but if I chose the long waiting time instead of playing maps that I just absolutely hate, well thats my thing I guess…
I have kind of come to the conclusion that a map is a map ,you don’t know them to start with then after a while you do. Biggest issue I have is how stupid the game feels playing WW2 vehicles on a modern map.
I built up my pilots and saved up enough over the years to have 8 slots. I just bail on the map leaving my team down one. Since I have multiple aircraft at top tier, I can do this 4 or 5 times without needing to worry about having a plane to jump into. All they are doing is hurting the teams that re down a player. If you don’t like the map, jump out and get in something else. Its only 5 min ban, by the time your next match is over your plane is back and it doesn’t matter.