Question about maps

[DaRkNiTe1698]

Is it possible to make two different categories for maps on the next version of EP?

I was thinking about TP ESOC MAPS and NO TP ESOC MAPS, because personally I don't like no TP maps at all (except Alaska) so I am bored to rehost every time I get a no tp map .

[Rikikipu]

Hi,
We could in theory, but neither Garja or I wanna do it

[momuuu]

Itd be great. Queue up for a practise germany vs dutch, get no tp map, instant rehost. Try to play a standard russia vs france, get no tp map, rehost. Try to play spain, get no tp map, resign. Why would you try to balance the game for all these maps.

[richard]

You could also develop specific build orders for no TP maps for the civs you mentioned.

[Rikikipu]

Nah it is assuming that the level of the players is exactly the same. And even with that, there are still windows to win games as germany vs dutch without TP, or as france vs russia which is by the way fine, or as spain on no TP map (although not great but still ok).
If you don't enjoy the game because there is a disadvantage that can make you lose (and I totally understand that games aren't interesting when you lose, I even heard that Goodspeed plans in the next patch iteration to remove the possibility to lose, so we won't have flame war anymore, neither caster lag/map/civ/mummy/patch fault after each game) I advice you to use the option to pick a map before.
If you still want randomness, idk man, roll a dice to pick the map. If it is still too important and your opponent want to be sure that you didn't cheat with a dice to choose a map, you can stream yourself rolling a dice. The good thing with this tip is that you can even make your own sets of maps !!

[momuuu]

I just don't see the point of no TP maps tbh. It's a nice change of pace every once in a while but it's basically the standard sort of map right now. It makes no sense to make "balanced maps" that are inherently inbalanced. It's not even more fun, since you're simply removing a core feature of the game.

[DaRkNiTe1698]

Itd be great. Queue up for a practise germany vs dutch, get no tp map, instant rehost. Try to play a standard russia vs france, get no tp map, rehost. Try to play spain, get no tp map, resign. Why would you try to balance the game for all these maps.

Yes, indeed everyone would definitely waste less time in rehosting

[momuuu]

If you don't enjoy the game because there is a disadvantage that can make you lose (and I totally understand that games aren't interesting when you lose, I even heard that Goodspeed plans in the next patch iteration to remove the possibility to lose, so we won't have flame war anymore, neither caster lag/map/civ/mummy/patch fault after each game) I advice you to use the option to pick a map before.

So wanting a somewhat determined map pool that is more balanced than the current one is a weird desire? That's not a legitemate thing to want at all? There's a big lack of logic.

[Rikikipu]

The lack of logic is that you randomly call some maps balanced. A balanced map is a map with same amount of resources per player.
Maps have never aimed at being "balanced" for the one hundred match-ups avalaible.
And this is not that you don't enjoy playing on no Tp maps that other people don't.
Last fake news you said (crooked jerom!) is that no tp maps aren't the standard maps at all now :
Percentage of TP maps in ESOC maps : 74%

[princeofcarthage]

Hi,
We could in theory, but neither Garja or I wanna do it

can I?

[momuuu]

The lack of logic is that you randomly call some maps balanced. A balanced map is a map with same amount of resources per player.
Maps have never aimed at being "balanced" for the one hundred match-ups avalaible.
And this is not that you don't enjoy playing on no Tp maps that other people don't.
Last fake news you said (crooked jerom!) is that no tp maps aren't the standard maps at all now :
Percentage of TP maps in ESOC maps : 74%

I don't see how I randomly call some maps balanced. It becomes quite obvious that it's impossible to balance civs on both no TP maps and TP maps, as the TP is a very strong and influential structure that changes how the game is played. Quite clearly we can see how civs like Dutch, Russia, India and British become much and much stronger on no TP maps while civs like Spain, Germany and ottoman become much weaker. Therefore I don't see the point of trying to create balanced maps (in terms of balanced resources) while also throwing off the general balance of the game in the process; then one might aswell make a map that occasionally spawns poorly, as the practical difference is nihil. If you're playing in a match up where having a TP available is of extreme importance (denying these match ups exist is beyond silly), then the random assignment of a no TP map is going to reduce your chances of winning just like the random poor map spawn reduces your chances of winning. The practical difference just seems absent to me, as it's a random factor that's reducing the balance in the match up.

Not to mention that I don't even see the points of no TP maps. As it is, it would be possible to balance around no TP maps somewhat, although it ultimately just makes the end result that much worse. But then what did you gain? What's so fun about no TP maps in a meta as settled as this one? Instead of having an extra choice to make (do I get a trading post or not) you don't have that choice. It "allows" for different strategies one could say, but what made those strategies unviable on a TP map to begin with? I suppose it could be interesting in match ups where both civs benefit equally from the presence of TPs (I struggle to recall a non mirror match up where I'd say this holds true, although there might be one), but is that worth forcing this map type, with all its downsides, upon anyone wishing to play a random map pool? As a gimmick map it is a nice change of pace, just like how one could enjoy playing on High plains or Indonesia, but this is a very frequent type of gimmick map (26% apperantly, I felt like it was slightly more and clearly should've made it clear that I was expressing a feeling by adding the word 'almost' to the sentence where I called them "standard") and is thus applied as if it is a normal sort of map while it clearly is not.

And then lastly, how is it justified to not add something that can logically be seen as an improvement to anyone that would ascribe to my presented arguments? It seems somewhat self-centered to not be willing to make a mappool that a good deal of people would enjoy because you personally do not agree with the value of this mappool. You even express it yourself, the fact that I don't enjoy no TP maps doesn't mean others doesn't and thus shouldn't mean the removal of the true random mappool. But then reversing the logic, why should you not liking a 'standard' map pool mean that others also don't like it? More importantly, why should your stance deprive people of the chance to have the type of mappool that they prefer?

[Rikikipu]

Answering to each paragraphs :

• TPs are not only the key parameter when it comes to balancing a MU. Things as Water, safe resources, size of the map are also big factors. So I don't see why we should particularly make a set for TP maps.
• Some strats are sub-optimal on no-TP maps and become optimal in TP maps, which means that you also got to adapt facing different strategies. That is why it is interesting strategically.
• I assume it is self-centered, I'm in war versus land tp semi-ff boomie meta. And to be honest it is going well, this tourney was more interesting and diversified strategically than some previous ones,

[Garja]

I don't see how I randomly call some maps balanced. It becomes quite obvious that it's impossible to balance civs on both no TP maps and TP maps, as the TP is a very strong and influential structure that changes how the game is played. Quite clearly we can see how civs like Dutch, Russia, India and British become much and much stronger on no TP maps while civs like Spain, Germany and ottoman become much weaker. Therefore I don't see the point of trying to create balanced maps (in terms of balanced resources) while also throwing off the general balance of the game in the process; then one might aswell make a map that occasionally spawns poorly, as the practical difference is nihil. If you're playing in a match up where having a TP available is of extreme importance (denying these match ups exist is beyond silly), then the random assignment of a no TP map is going to reduce your chances of winning just like the random poor map spawn reduces your chances of winning. The practical difference just seems absent to me, as it's a random factor that's reducing the balance in the match up.

It is a random call when you think in boxes like "this MU should be played this way". One key aspect about balancing (maps or in general) is to leave doors open for the players to adapt. AOE3 always had no TP maps. The fact that a number of narrow-minded and of questionable level players can't see the use of those maps is not a valid reason to delete this aspect from the game.

Also, on a side note, the TP/no TP condition is known before even starting the game and not subject to scouting, unlike resource placement.

Not to mention that I don't even see the points of no TP maps. As it is, it would be possible to balance around no TP maps somewhat, although it ultimately just makes the end result that much worse. But then what did you gain? What's so fun about no TP maps in a meta as settled as this one? Instead of having an extra choice to make (do I get a trading post or not) you don't have that choice. It "allows" for different strategies one could say, but what made those strategies unviable on a TP map to begin with? I suppose it could be interesting in match ups where both civs benefit equally from the presence of TPs (I struggle to recall a non mirror match up where I'd say this holds true, although there might be one), but is that worth forcing this map type, with all its downsides, upon anyone wishing to play a random map pool? As a gimmick map it is a nice change of pace, just like how one could enjoy playing on High plains or Indonesia, but this is a very frequent type of gimmick map (26% apperantly, I felt like it was slightly more and clearly should've made it clear that I was expressing a feeling by adding the word 'almost' to the sentence where I called them "standard") and is thus applied as if it is a normal sort of map while it clearly is not.

The current meta can be considered settled only because
1) the current level of players is somehow mediocre when it comes to game/strategy knowledge, so that most of players just copy what others do and tend to uniform to a certain standard;
2) players tend to spend more time debating on forums than actually playing the game, trying out new possibilities;
It's funny how each EP iteration introduce so many big changes and yet the vast majority of players take so much time in figuring out new abusable possibilities.
Anyway, no TPs maps not only allow different strategies but also promote different type of games. One reason for which those strats are not viable on TP maps is that the TP overrules their viability. Certain strats become viable because both players can't build a TP (and not just because one side decides to not take it).
And of course it is worth. Why do you even rhetorically ask that when the answer is yes. Most of players enjoy diversity and the game itself is based on diversity.
A standard no TP map is in no way gimmick map like Indonesia. It takes a saloon, extra coin crates, and a catamaran to make Indonesia a gimmick map. HP is not a gimmick map in w/e way you look at it.
A standard no TP map is a normal map. In fact, from a balance pov, it depends largely on which civ you use. For some civs the standard is no TP, so when the other civ can take one they're disavantaged. It's not written anywhere that TP is fair but no TP is not. It all depends from which civ is the pov.

And then lastly, how is it justified to not add something that can logically be seen as an improvement to anyone that would ascribe to my presented arguments? It seems somewhat self-centered to not be willing to make a mappool that a good deal of people would enjoy because you personally do not agree with the value of this mappool. You even express it yourself, the fact that I don't enjoy no TP maps doesn't mean others doesn't and thus shouldn't mean the removal of the true random mappool. But then reversing the logic, why should you not liking a 'standard' map pool mean that others also don't like it? More importantly, why should your stance deprive people of the chance to have the type of mappool that they prefer?

Ascribe? I think you misused the word there.
Anyway, making a separate rated map pool has one big drawback which is that rated map pool are limited in numbers by the original game. However, you can make countless custom map pools if you want to.
The other reason is indeed a map maker bias but I wouldn't call it self-centered or at least not more self-centered than your request. I believe map makers are there also to preserve the good things about this game and no TP maps is one of those.

[gamevideo113]

If you don't want to play on a non TP map just pick a TP map before the game. I am not against the idea of a TP map pool but i don't see the need for it.

[princeofcarthage]

To be fair civs should be balanced on a non tp map first and then boosted fairly by means of a tp. TP is an additional feature of game which is available only on some maps and if a civ requires tp to play then it is unabalanced cuz it requires some additional feature which is not available everywhere or in baseline game, choice shouldn't be weather I tp or not it should be which deck I choose cuz its a tp map and thus making certain strategies viable.

[momuuu]

Garjuing: arguing the entire playerbase is wrong because they don't know how to play and then consider that a good argument in an unrelated case, while in the process claiming that a person that has achieved similair things in tournaments is inferior to yourself.

[momuuu]

To be fair civs should be balanced on a non tp map first and then boosted fairly by means of a tp. TP is an additional feature of game which is available only on some maps and if a civ requires tp to play then it is unabalanced cuz it requires some additional feature which is not available everywhere or in baseline game, choice shouldn't be weather I tp or not it should be which deck I choose cuz its a tp map and thus making certain strategies viable.

Why should it be like this? Why is the TP defined as "an additional feature of the game". Why are any of the statements you make logical? I don't see it.

In fact, balance wise TP maps have always been important. Ottoman as a civ could not have been created without TP maps in mind. The fact of the matter is that the TPs are a sufficiently important building that it becomes realistically impossible to balance for both scenarios. While you can claim to balance with no TP maps in mind, that would be an extremely radical idea for the balancing has always been done with TP maps in mind and TP maps are at the very least considered the norm.

[momuuu]

Answering to each paragraphs :

• TPs are not only the key parameter when it comes to balancing a MU. Things as Water, safe resources, size of the map are also big factors. So I don't see why we should particularly make a set for TP maps.
• Some strats are sub-optimal on no-TP maps and become optimal in TP maps, which means that you also got to adapt facing different strategies. That is why it is interesting strategically.
• I assume it is self-centered, I'm in war versus land tp semi-ff boomie meta. And to be honest it is going well, this tourney was more interesting and diversified strategically than some previous ones,

I find no-TP maps somewhat interesting as a change of pace, but I also find that in the current random map pool you get a no TP map with such frequency that it is not a change of pace anymore. It's true that there are many parameters when it comes to balancing a mu, although one must admit that the viability of water is often not present (fortunately, balancing would be harder then), that the amount of safe resources is relatively consistent and that the size of the map doesn't seem to matter much at all. Out of all these factors, the TP line is by far the most important part.

In the last point you outline a core problem with the current EP setup: Mapmakers can dictate the meta on their own and are never properly adressed. You're basically trying to have a war with the patch team, that's not a great state of affairs is it. I would like to see the patch team and the mapmaker team cooperate in their vision and create a balanced map pool in that sense. I have before clearly adressed a much more structural problem towards the semi-ff/boom meta that revolves around actually considering the effect of the maps in the balance and have also suggested different sort of maps. But I do not see how creating a large number of inherently inbalanced maps to be a good solution to any problem.

[richard]

To be fair civs should be balanced on a non tp map first and then boosted fairly by means of a tp. TP is an additional feature of game which is available only on some maps and if a civ requires tp to play then it is unabalanced cuz it requires some additional feature which is not available everywhere or in baseline game, choice shouldn't be weather I tp or not it should be which deck I choose cuz its a tp map and thus making certain strategies viable.

Why should it be like this? Why is the TP defined as "an additional feature of the game".

It is because on a TP map you also have the possibility to not build a TP.

[princeofcarthage]

To be fair civs should be balanced on a non tp map first and then boosted fairly by means of a tp. TP is an additional feature of game which is available only on some maps and if a civ requires tp to play then it is unabalanced cuz it requires some additional feature which is not available everywhere or in baseline game, choice shouldn't be weather I tp or not it should be which deck I choose cuz its a tp map and thus making certain strategies viable.

Why should it be like this? Why is the TP defined as "an additional feature of the game". Why are any of the statements you make logical? I don't see it.

In fact, balance wise TP maps have always been important. Ottoman as a civ could not have been created without TP maps in mind. The fact of the matter is that the TPs are a sufficiently important building that it becomes realistically impossible to balance for both scenarios. While you can claim to balance with no TP maps in mind, that would be an extremely radical idea for the balancing has always been done with TP maps in mind and TP maps are at the very least considered the norm.

Because its possible to play the game without tp doesn't work other way round. How it is logical that you want to balance the game on some feature which can simply be deleted? Isn't it more logical to balance the game on the most basic playable version and then balance the buffs given by certain features such as TP fairly across all civilizations thus creating a scope of interesting map based strategies while standard game play being still viable. If having tp as certain civ gives you huge advantage then isn't it unfair to other civilization for whom TP doesnt affect much?

[momuuu]

To be fair civs should be balanced on a non tp map first and then boosted fairly by means of a tp. TP is an additional feature of game which is available only on some maps and if a civ requires tp to play then it is unabalanced cuz it requires some additional feature which is not available everywhere or in baseline game, choice shouldn't be weather I tp or not it should be which deck I choose cuz its a tp map and thus making certain strategies viable.

Why should it be like this? Why is the TP defined as "an additional feature of the game". Why are any of the statements you make logical? I don't see it.

In fact, balance wise TP maps have always been important. Ottoman as a civ could not have been created without TP maps in mind. The fact of the matter is that the TPs are a sufficiently important building that it becomes realistically impossible to balance for both scenarios. While you can claim to balance with no TP maps in mind, that would be an extremely radical idea for the balancing has always been done with TP maps in mind and TP maps are at the very least considered the norm.

Because its possible to play the game without tp doesn't work other way round. How it is logical that you want to balance the game on some feature which can simply be deleted? Isn't it more logical to balance the game on the most basic playable version and then balance the buffs given by certain features such as TP fairly across all civilizations thus creating a scope of interesting map based strategies while standard game play being still viable. If having tp as certain civ gives you huge advantage then isn't it unfair to other civilization for whom TP doesnt affect much?

You're balancing around features that can all be deleted. At some point we draw a line and decide that we're balancing some set of features. You can't build up balance from nothing and then add features in order to end up with a balanced game. If you take a look at the efforts of the EP team they balanced the game with trading posts in mind: Otto was nerfed, Iroquois' inherent ability to get a starting TP was removed, Germany and France received minor nerfs, Dutch received buffs, it was considered to buff Russia. It was the starting point and ends up being a logical starting point, for I would argue balancing the game with a minimal amount of changes is best done with TP maps in mind.

Without changing many aspects of the game, it is not possible to end up with a balanced game if you consider both types of maps. Trading posts are too influential as a building. Now the effect that the entire switch to balanced maps has had, and the fact that TPs might force an unfun meta (or at least one that isn't consistent with the original game) is something I strongly agree with. Solving that by creating a very inconsistent set of maps doesn't at all seem like a wise decision to me. Rather, nerfing trading posts slightly (nerf starting TP please), or nerfing defensive options a tiny bit, would give a much better result in the form of a similair meta to RE and a consistent and balanced mappool. The anomaly of a no TP map is fun, but at this point we're not looking at anomalies anymore.

[richard]

Try to play a standard russia vs france, get no tp map, rehost.

(Why) do you want to play standard russia all the time?

[momuuu]

Try to play a standard russia vs france, get no tp map, rehost.

(Why) do you want to play standard russia all the time?

Because I prefer playing a full force france with all the struggles that come with it over a handicapped france with simply fewer options to go for.

Anyways, to me this is all beyond the point: Why would you force a specific mappool upon a community if a significant part of that community is interested in having a different sort of mappool available too.

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

To be fair civs should be balanced on a non tp map first and then boosted fairly by means of a tp. TP is an additional feature of game which is available only on some maps and if a civ requires tp to play then it is unabalanced cuz it requires some additional feature which is not available everywhere or in baseline game, choice shouldn't be weather I tp or not it should be which deck I choose cuz its a tp map and thus making certain strategies viable.

Why should it be like this? Why is the TP defined as "an additional feature of the game". Why are any of the statements you make logical? I don't see it.

In fact, balance wise TP maps have always been important. Ottoman as a civ could not have been created without TP maps in mind. The fact of the matter is that the TPs are a sufficiently important building that it becomes realistically impossible to balance for both scenarios. While you can claim to balance with no TP maps in mind, that would be an extremely radical idea for the balancing has always been done with TP maps in mind and TP maps are at the very least considered the norm.

Because its possible to play the game without tp doesn't work other way round. How it is logical that you want to balance the game on some feature which can simply be deleted? Isn't it more logical to balance the game on the most basic playable version and then balance the buffs given by certain features such as TP fairly across all civilizations thus creating a scope of interesting map based strategies while standard game play being still viable. If having tp as certain civ gives you huge advantage then isn't it unfair to other civilization for whom TP doesnt affect much?

You're balancing around features that can all be deleted. At some point we draw a line and decide that we're balancing some set of features. You can't build up balance from nothing and then add features in order to end up with a balanced game. If you take a look at the efforts of the EP team they balanced the game with trading posts in mind: Otto was nerfed, Iroquois' inherent ability to get a starting TP was removed, Germany and France received minor nerfs, Dutch received buffs, it was considered to buff Russia. It was the starting point and ends up being a logical starting point, for I would argue balancing the game with a minimal amount of changes is best done with TP maps in mind.

Without changing many aspects of the game, it is not possible to end up with a balanced game if you consider both types of maps. Trading posts are too influential as a building. Now the effect that the entire switch to balanced maps has had, and the fact that TPs might force an unfun meta (or at least one that isn't consistent with the original game) is something I strongly agree with. Solving that by creating a very inconsistent set of maps doesn't at all seem like a wise decision to me. Rather, nerfing trading posts slightly (nerf starting TP please), or nerfing defensive options a tiny bit, would give a much better result in the form of a similair meta to RE and a consistent and balanced mappool. The anomaly of a no TP map is fun, but at this point we're not looking at anomalies anymore.

Not really I am talking about balancing the game on the most basic version, stage from where you delete anything else it basically changes core game and couldn't no longer be defined as aoe 3. Removing TP certainly can't be considered that stage... what you are saying is just your point and what you like and trying to force that on others. I think the community already spoke and its you all alone here. Current stage allows players the CHOICE to choose what they want, tp or no tp and thats the way it should be

[Garja]

In fact, balance wise TP maps have always been important. Ottoman as a civ could not have been created without TP maps in mind.

Ok.

The fact of the matter is that the TPs are a sufficiently important building that it becomes realistically impossible to balance for both scenarios. While you can claim to balance with no TP maps in mind, that would be an extremely radical idea for the balancing has always been done with TP maps in mind and TP maps are at the very least considered the norm.

So wrong. TPs were never considered that important before people started to make them in age1. And even now you can totally balance the game with no TP maps in mind.

You're balancing around features that can all be deleted. At some point we draw a line and decide that we're balancing some set of features. You can't build up balance from nothing and then add features in order to end up with a balanced game.

Actually we're trying to balance the game with all features included. Still his approach makes sense. We balance the game starting from the basics and then we add layers of variables and try to have a reasonable range of balance.

If you take a look at the efforts of the EP team they balanced the game with trading posts in mind: Otto was nerfed, Iroquois' inherent ability to get a starting TP was removed, Germany and France received minor nerfs, Dutch received buffs, it was considered to buff Russia. It was the starting point and ends up being a logical starting point, for I would argue balancing the game with a minimal amount of changes is best done with TP maps in mind.

To be honest it isn't really about TPs. Otto and Iro are strong for various reasons on the RE patch. Japan/India/China are follow up civs on RE and they don't need TPs.
It is undeniable that starting TP is quite good but Iro are top civ even on non TP maps on RE.
Also please note how all those nerfed civs are now on the weak side (well not Germans and Fre I guess, they haven't been nerfed that much) while the traditionally non TP civs are in fact the best ones (Brits, Dutch, India).
In addition to this there is the fact that there isn't even a clear line that separates the 2 group of civs. Brits benefit from starting TP too, Dutch can drop one TP if opponent stagecoaches, Russia generally make TPs when available, etc.
In general, EP balance isn't necessarily correlated to TPs, and more importantly it shouldn't. Dependin on TPs means balancing over specific builds which is not a good long term approach. A good balancing approach is to balance civs according to their general features that can produce builds.

Without changing many aspects of the game, it is not possible to end up with a balanced game if you consider both types of maps. Trading posts are too influential as a building. Now the effect that the entire switch to balanced maps has had, and the fact that TPs might force an unfun meta (or at least one that isn't consistent with the original game) is something I strongly agree with. Solving that by creating a very inconsistent set of maps doesn't at all seem like a wise decision to me. Rather, nerfing trading posts slightly (nerf starting TP please), or nerfing defensive options a tiny bit, would give a much better result in the form of a similair meta to RE and a consistent and balanced mappool. The anomaly of a no TP map is fun, but at this point we're not looking at anomalies anymore.

It is entirely possible to balance the game on both type of maps and it shouldn't even be that hard.
For example just by buffing xbows French could play vs Russia in colonial. Same thing for Germans (well maybe reverting ulhan and dopp changes as well).
Anyway, there is no point in arguing over and over when you consider no TP an anomaly when it is just a map feature like water, layout, etc.

Why would you force a specific mappool upon a community if a significant part of that community is interested in having a different sort of mappool available too.

Exacly, why do you want to force a specific map pool with TP only maps?