Question about maps

Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Question about maps

Post by momuuu »

Not even. Although somehow it doesn't even seem to make sense for some opposing parties that no-TP maps in their current state can legitemately be considered as having a negative influence on balance. That's basically the main reason why it is a popular map niche.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Question about maps

Post by zoom »

momuuu wrote:
Garja wrote:No. It would be a correct statement. Also another correct statement is that you believe there is one because you base balance only on the dominant meta, which is a very narrow minded approach to balance.

It's not "narrow minded" but smart. Balance as few factors as possible so that you can create the optimal result. Let me pose the following axioms:
- The balance team is failing to reach perfect balance. They are struggling to reach decent balance
- Balancing the game with no TP maps in mind too is harder
If you accept these axioms, then the conclusion is that the balance is better if there were no maps without TPs. Therefore, I don't think it's 'narrow minded' to suggest this approach to balance, but rather wise.

Also, I have another set of axioms for you:
- Otto is not a good civ on no TP maps, not even on RE
- Otto has been nerfed repeatedly on the EP
- At some point otto was close to being balanced on TP maps (if even slightly too strong). If say their winrate hovered around ~55% on TP maps, their total winrate bearing in mind that 1/4 maps is a no-TP map would be much lower than 50% yet they were still nerfed
I then conclude that the EP team does not consider no TP balance unless one can make changes that affect the no TP maps balance without messing with the TP maps balance too much. That is too say, the EP team balances with TP maps in mind.
A more conclusive way to reach consensus would to to ask @zoom
I don't think there's a definitive answer to that, as it has always been the ambition to make things as good as possible overall, but undeniably AoE3 is for some civilizations balanced by map(s), to no small degree. I would think there has been a relative focus on balancing according to TP access.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Question about maps

Post by Garja »

momuuu wrote:It's not "narrow minded" but smart. Balance as few factors as possible so that you can create the optimal result. Let me pose the following axioms:
- The balance team is failing to reach perfect balance. They are struggling to reach decent balance
- Balancing the game with no TP maps in mind too is harder
If you accept these axioms, then the conclusion is that the balance is better if there were no maps without TPs. Therefore, I don't think it's 'narrow minded' to suggest this approach to balance, but rather wise.

It's not smart but narrow minded. Your axioms are incorrect and therefore the conclusions.
- the balance team has consistently improved balance. Last patch iteration was a bit of a flop because it included too much funky stuff (e.g. Sioux sheaningans);
- balancing the game with no TPs is entirely possible. Regardless of the actual discussion behind this issue, I don't see you in the position to make this type of calls.
Also, I have another set of axioms for you:
- Otto is not a good civ on no TP maps, not even on RE ok
- Otto has been nerfed repeatedly on the EP units yes, eco no
- At some point otto was close to being balanced on TP maps (if even slightly too strong). If say their winrate hovered around ~55% on TP maps, their total winrate bearing in mind that 1/4 maps is a no-TP map would be much lower than 50% yet they were still nerfed overall they're nerfed on last patch. Before last patch they were overall buffed. Personally I don't think they were balanced, because abus were and are crap, while the mosque tech buffs don't cut it.
I then conclude that the EP team does not consider no TP balance unless one can make changes that affect the no TP maps balance without messing with the TP maps balance too much. That is too say, the EP team balances with TP maps in mind. You conclude wrong, especially because mosque buffs are to compensate no TPs.
A more conclusive way to reach consensus would to to ask @zoom Perhaps ye. I know for sure GS has a bias for TPs. Then again better way would be to ask the past balance team as it's obvious the current 2 person only team is failing big time and the EP will quickly lose legitimacy if more crap like the Sioux changes will be added.
Image Image Image
United States of America saveyourskill
Skirmisher
Posts: 160
Joined: Jun 22, 2015

Re: Question about maps

Post by saveyourskill »

oh damn son 2 person team
Got Badger Milk?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Question about maps

Post by momuuu »

Its better than a x person team where one of those persons is garja.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Question about maps

Post by momuuu »

Garja wrote:
momuuu wrote:It's not "narrow minded" but smart. Balance as few factors as possible so that you can create the optimal result. Let me pose the following axioms:
- The balance team is failing to reach perfect balance. They are struggling to reach decent balance
- Balancing the game with no TP maps in mind too is harder
If you accept these axioms, then the conclusion is that the balance is better if there were no maps without TPs. Therefore, I don't think it's 'narrow minded' to suggest this approach to balance, but rather wise.

It's not smart but narrow minded. Your axioms are incorrect and therefore the conclusions.
- the balance team has consistently improved balance. Last patch iteration was a bit of a flop because it included too much funky stuff (e.g. Sioux sheaningans);
- balancing the game with no TPs is entirely possible. Regardless of the actual discussion behind this issue, I don't see you in the position to make this type of calls.

- That doesn't show my statement wrong. Perfect balance, where all civs has at least equal winrates, is nowhere close. Even if you consistently improve balance, that does not mean that perfection will definitely be achieved by any means. As it stands, and also based of many games receiving balance updates, often much more simplified in nature than aoe3 (with 14 unique civs), reaching perfect balance is only a theoretical possibility and practically not achevable.
- Balancing the game with no TPs and TPs is in theory possible, but in theory at best equally hard (by making the TPs an insignificant building). In practise, it's harder. There are more variables to consider and more dynamics to be aware off, and it thus becomes objectively harder.
Because it's impossible to reach perfect balance in practise, making the task easier will make the balance better. Because balancing for only one type of map is easier, it will improve the balance.

This is logically consistent, it's not even an opinion. You can doubt the truth of the axioms, but if you were to do that you'd have to understand english. You seem to be failing at that (also lol at doubting an axiom based on ridiculing the person's authority, do you even know how arguments work).

Anyways, I made a big mistake in playing chess with a pigeon. So you win garja.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Question about maps

Post by Garja »

You don't know balance win rates, so you can't tell. But ye, perfection doesn't exist so it's safe to say perfect balance is not a realistic goal. I didn't talk about perfect balance tho.
Blancing the game including all conditions it's rather easy in theory, harder in practice for sure. Surely it would be easier if it was me making the balance calls than let's say you. Because you can't take the challenge it doesn't mean that other more talented people and with more game knowledge and vision can't do it. Therefore there is no need to make the task easier, especially when that means to mutilate the game of a key aspect.

All you said was clearly your opinion. There is nothing bounded to definitions in anything you say. Everything is based on your partial perception of the current state of things. I doubt your opinion in the first place, then your supposed axioms based on that.
The pigeon is smarter than you but you can't even see that, what should I say.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France Rikikipu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1679
Joined: Feb 27, 2015
ESO: p-of
Location: In your base

Re: Question about maps

Post by Rikikipu »

momuuu wrote:I play on RE if I play at all so I don't give a shit. I always thought EP was a patch for the community, and if there's serious reason to believe some people would prefer this sort of map pool, then there's reason for EP to make that sort of map pool available. Instead of telling me to make my own custom map pool (why would I care) you could also not dodge the question.

@Hiddy_ I would prefer not to flame riki and I'm not even doing so, but he's just giving zero reasoning except that "he does not want it" and he won't even elaborate properly as to why.

This is not because you don't understand me that you need to say I have zero reasoning. You don't listen to anyone, even Marco told you that no-tp map balance wasn't even the topic.
Again, I don't want to do it because it is a matter of principle. The EP got to stick as possible to the RE Patch and I don't want to add any subjective point of view to map sets. Diversity is the treasure of this game. I'm against everything which limits this game. People already vetoes some civs when you play against them (Right now Otto, Iro, Sioux, Japan. India are banned from team games in RE), I don't want to give to people even more the ability to restrain this. It's a long term run where I think it is a benefit that randomness brings to people the opportunity to play on a map like Indonesia. Because if we make a TP map set, then the few ones who host TP set games are going to impose to the people who joins ther lobby to play on tp maps only. So it turns out that at the end that a consequent amount of people will veto no-tps maps during the tourney, because they will have more trained on tp maps, and then we are going to start having boring tourney games with a boring meta etc.
I know it can be strange, but for the health of this game, we reallly got to push the players a bit outside of their comfortable zone.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Question about maps

Post by momuuu »

Im pleased with that answer. It can be seen as a reasonable position, though Id favor another one. Unfortunately (for those that dont necessarily share your vision) you and garja have all the power.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Question about maps

Post by momuuu »

This would be the current distribution:
No TP (7/31)
alaska, bengal, cascade range, pampas sierras, thar desert, gran chaco, parrallel rivers

TP, not good for stagecoach (10/31)
adirondacks, bonnie springs, colorado, fertile crescent, florida, kamchatka, malysia, manchac, tassili, great basin

TP, good for stagecoach (8/31)
Arkansas, baja california, herald island, hudson bay, iowa, jebel musa, manchuria, wadmalaw

TP, stagecoach extremely good (5/31)
Arizona, high plains, klondike, mendocino, tibet

weird map where water is only viable thing (1/31)
indonesia

I see a direct conflict between no TP maps and maps good for stagecoach at least: Ports, Spain can do ATP and France and Otto are really good at it. Some civs also struggle contesting the TP line: Dutch and Japan, and to a lesser extend british. The natural split of the game appears to be that civs that take TPs are also good at stagecoach, and civs that don't really want TPs have a very hard time contesting stagecoach builds obviously. This presents serious problems in the extremely good stagecoach maps aswell as potential problems in the medium good stagecoach maps. Meanwhile, there's a problem on the no TP maps for TP civs (Otto, Germany, Spain, France, Ports especially benefit a lot from a trading post) versus natural no TP civs (Russia, India, Dutch, British, Aztec). You're thus in a rough position where on the one hand a group of civs is stronger on stagecoach maps (especially the great ones) while weaker on no TP maps, while on the other hand a group of civs can't benefit from stagecoach maps at all yet they are all weak on no TP maps.

Here's an obvious problem: You can try to perfectly nerf stagecoach, but that's extremely hard and forces you to move away from what RE was. You can meanwhile try to optimally buff civs that are weak on no TP maps. Again, you will be introducing more changes and move further away from RE and again this is much harder. Accidental changes might be found that are good (otto church for example) but overall you're facing a big struggle. I would openly wonder how you can make germany balanced on no TP maps: You'd probably have to give them a buff to dopps or bows, so that a colonial agenda becomes a viable strategy against all civs. Basically, since there are civs unaffected by no TP balance, this would have to become a viable strategy for all maps. Then, there ends up being no garantuee that this strategy actually fills some weaknesses a civ used to have on TP maps. You then might face that, even without directly buffnig the go-to TP strat, you've buffed a civ by introducing a new viable strategy. Then, in return, you have to nerf the good TP strategy a bit because in combination with the no TP strategy the civ has become too strong. You obviously can't nerf the no TP strategy, as your initial goal was to make the civ balanced on no TP maps. But, then the result quickly becomes that you're nerfing a strategy that in isolation was actually balanced, and then there is a good probability that this strat will, in a fair bit of match ups, be overtaken by a no-TP strategy. For example, Germany might become quite a bit better against India with a bow buff (and other match ups, the bow buff would have to be quite significant to make germany balanced on no TP maps) so we're forced to nerf their fortress agenda. But then you face the risk that germany starts doing a bow pike rush in match ups that are already fair otherwise (dutch, british, otto, japan, aztec are match ups that come to mind with a significant bow buff) and then what you've done is essentially eliminate or vastly reduce TP dependance for a civ to balance it on a no-TP map.

If you were to try this for all civs, I personally think this will happen a lot of times. You will end up changing civs towards no-TP civs and reducing variety between civs a bit. Then one has to start wondering if this extreme split of maps ended up giving more variety when you try to balance it. As already said, stagecoach would also have to be reduced in strenght by a lot, even if you don't nerf the normal TP strat of civs: The same argument applies, the viability of stagecoach might fill holes in match ups, even if it is as a whole balanced, and thus one needs to nerf this strategy (as the TP strat is already balanced and that's the goal in this example) to the point where it as a whole might not be viable. One can easily see how, even if you try really hard, the ideal of balancing the game for no TP maps, TP maps and Stagecoach maps quickly spirals into an unsolvable (or at least, very hard) problem. Now add to that that it has already turned out to be extremely hard to get the TP maps balanced properly (theres not even consensus within the community on balance, only generic outlines) and you can see how complicating the balancing process by an extreme amount probably isn't a wishful thing to do.

I would like to argue the patch team is aware that balancing no-TP maps and stagecoach maps is probably not a goal that can be achieved in practise: Dutch has received multiple buffs even when they were probably a fine civ on no TP maps, Brits are not being nerfed even though they're OP on TP maps (and even fine on no-TP maps), Otto and Iro have mostly received nerfs even though these aren't the best of civs on no TP maps either, germany has received nerfs that specifically made their performance on no TP maps worse even though there was an alternative to target only their TP build (by nerfing the age 3 shipments). In the end I think very few balance changes are justifiable for no-TP maps, except for the Otto church buff. I'd argue that the patch changes have been in line with the attitude of balancing for the TP maps.

With that being said, I expect that the balance will continue to be much better on TP maps, of the no stagecoach and good stagecoach variant (18 maps total). For balance purists like me it would be nice to have a mappool with these 18 maps. In the end, I might still play no TP maps but then I, and hopefully others, will be aware that these maps are not intended to be balanced. Those that prefer a balanced but random map pool (with 18 maps, theres still a lot of variety so hosting on just one map is very different from using this map pool) would then be granted the ability to play on their balance purist map and probably have more fun doing so. In the end, this would also alleviate a lot of criticism towards maps, I suspect, and towards balancing (looking at Dutch's role here for example).
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 817
Joined: Apr 16, 2017
ESO: HUMMAN

Re: Question about maps

Post by HUMMAN »

You keep talking about balance but even diarouga lost to cheesy builds of aizamk. With 14 civs different maps game will never be balanced, actually few games are perfectly balanced. Important factor is if skill outpowers balance issues, and i think it is satisfying.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV