"Team Maps" Cuts

[deleted_user0]

Seriously dude, you handle all feedback/critic like a 9-year-old schoolgirl. The right way would be saying "Thanks, I will look into that when I'll have time/motivation/whatever (because you do it for free)". That's the only problem here.

Something is really wrong with the half of the French population....

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah let's flame each other's countries, based on our experience with 5-10 individuals!
You losers from Finland must be so frustrated to live in a useless shithole, is that why you're so bitter??!?

[Kaiserklein]

a feedback to rikipupu from a top player, fix ur shit maps or let them be removed from the pool. and don't take your pity frustration out on the guy who is opening conversations about esoc team map issues which are well known.

And don't take your frustration on the guy who's spending his free time making maps...

He asked players opinion in one of his previous posts. I gave it.

There's giving a constructive opinion, and then there's just calling his maps "shit"

[princeofkabul]

imagine riki in charge of a job based on customer service

[princeofkabul]

Show hidden quotes

a feedback to rikipupu from a top player, fix ur shit maps or let them be removed from the pool. and don't take your pity frustration out on the guy who is opening conversations about esoc team map issues which are well known.

And don't take your frustration on the guy who's spending his free time making maps...

He asked players opinion in one of his previous posts. I gave it.

There's giving a constructive opinion, and then there's just calling his maps "shit"

and it seems neither works

[Rikikipu]

I've said sorry for being rude to zoom 2 times already. How many times do I need to say it again ?

First, it's not even a criticism topic since it's just a request about which maps should be in a team set, and not about what should be improved per map (except the bug which obviously has to be fixed). So I don't really see how would I be hurt.

Second, I've accepted all the requests made in this topic about the maps that I did, I don't know what can I do more really.

[Durokan]

I'll play around with some changes tomorrow 5/4.

Maybe it's eligator eyesight, but also, I keep mistaking all the birds in the water for fish.

The decorations (grass, birds, logs, current waterline trees, etc) are an artifact of using the Texas Ponds water type. If that was to be remedied I'd either need to know a command to stop the water from beautifying or switch to another type entirely.
If you have any suggestions they are welcome.

Edit: Changed water type to London (which has no decorations) and manually added in the grass pattern on my own after hunting down the object's name in the groupings folder. Here is a screenie

[Darwin_]

Idk why people are voting out Andes and Silk Road, they're both some of the best maps in the set. Silk road does need a few more mines, sure, but beyond that it is really balanced.

[zoom]

Show hidden quotes

Based on this couple of threads, I suggest removing Andes, Colorado, Deccan, Iowa, Malaysia, Silk Road and Tassili from the map-set, readding Colorado and Malaysia once they're fixed by @Garja and @Rikikipu (please consider also looking at Jebel Musa tree spawns).

Nice suggestions, I'll wait until I get the feedbacks of your 52 threads about team maps until we change it. Until then, feel free to improve the balance in the patch, there is a lot to do there.

We've got plenty of feedback already. These maps seemingly aren't wanted in the Team Maps set, and a few of them are bugged beyond being playable, apparently. I understand you intend to keep it that way, for whatever reason. It's a pity you aren't interested in improving the map-sets. I never realized you're so non-constructive. The good news is the maps can simply be removed, in this the worst case.

As for civilization balance, we're working on it, thanks!

The thing is that we have never chosen sets like that, and you randomly pop here with a total lack of methodology. Overall, the guidelines for maps and sets is a combination of these parameters :

• Is the map strategically intersting
• Feedbacks from top players
• Feedbacks from common players
• Feedbacks from viewers
• Does the map contribute to the diversity in the set
• Is the map clean/buggy, accurate resources, etc

Sorry for the harsh words, but it just isn't simply as you think, and we are already in touch and receive continuous feedbacks from other sources than this poll. It's like if I do a poll about a feature in the patch, and at the end I say, ok zoom let's change this because of this poll. It doesn't work like that. For now, the main concern is that Iowa should be removed from team set and colorado and malaysia should be fixed.

I don't think that example is comparable at all, though, because balance changes aren't primarily made on the basis of popularity (although I consider it important, personally). On this note, I also disagree with your elaborate criteria. In them, what you seem to be thinking of are criteria for making individual maps; not ones for map-sets. By and large, map-sets should cater to simply what people wish to play. There should be ones of your ideals, and ones of others'.

No worries. Don't think I'm trying to antagonize you; I'm only trying to improve EP user-experience.

[zoom]

Well adapt too map or simply select one map and play on it if you want standard

On top of what SirCallen points out, simply select Tassili if you want to play on it, I'd argue. A random map-pool should contain the most wanted maps for a specific purpose. It's fine to have map-sets with outlier maps, and fine to have those with both outlier and non-outlier maps (if anyone wants them), but the point is there should also (at least, in this case since there is only one team map-set) be one with the most popular maps.

[zoom]

Team map subset is peculiar because basically is a set created just to please team players. There is basically no methodology in how the maps are chosen and it's totally based on players prefereces. Unlike other sets where objective parameters are in place and they are the only criteria adopted to formulate the pool.
I don't mind removing maps from the team set but I suggest making it even smaller then because this midground solution is somewhat a joke.

About map fixing: we are currently on top of that already. And please use the dedicated thread.

Objective parameters that serve to satisfy player demand; for instance, some players want to play on map-pools with only land maps – others only water maps. It only makes sense to create such map-sets so as to allow players to do so.

Great, and good point!

[Garja]

No, objective parameters that enhance competitiveness and diversity, e.g. using all type of maps but weighting them according to the perceived fairness.