Adding additional Map-Sets
Adding additional Map-Sets
With Garja's "blessing", we hope to add to the ESOC Patch additional map-sets. For now, we are considering:
1. "ESOC NTP Maps" – All ESOC-maps without a Trade Route (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC TP Maps").
2. "ESOC TP Maps" – All ESOC-maps with a Trade Route (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC 0TP Maps").
3. "ESOC Land Maps" – All ESOC-maps featuring no whales (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Water Maps").
4. "ESOC Water Maps" – All ESOC-maps featuring whales. (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Land Maps").
5. "ESOC Standard Maps" – All usual enough ESOC-maps (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Unique Maps"). Alternatively: All usual ESOC-maps with sufficient resources
6. "ESOC Unique Maps" – All not usual enough ESOC-maps (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Standard Maps"). Alternatively: All not usual enough and low-resource ESOC-maps.
7. "ESOC Competitive Maps" – All usual enough ESOC-maps with sufficient resources and a Trade Route.
In order to help determine the contents of "ESOC Competitive Maps" – a map-pool ideal for competitive play with consistent inter-civilization balance – please vote for all the ESOC maps you think meet the qualifications of the map-set according to "7" above. You must decide for yourself whether a given map is usual and sufficient in resources enough to make the cut, as it is a matter of opinion. For example, I consider Bonnie Springs to be an unusual enough map due to the layout, map-size and town feature. Likewise, I consider Iowa to be an unusual enough map due to the chokes in the center as well as the Lakota native settlement. Thus, I don't think they meet the qualifiations of "7". You may disagree, however.
1. "ESOC NTP Maps" – All ESOC-maps without a Trade Route (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC TP Maps").
2. "ESOC TP Maps" – All ESOC-maps with a Trade Route (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC 0TP Maps").
3. "ESOC Land Maps" – All ESOC-maps featuring no whales (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Water Maps").
4. "ESOC Water Maps" – All ESOC-maps featuring whales. (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Land Maps").
5. "ESOC Standard Maps" – All usual enough ESOC-maps (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Unique Maps"). Alternatively: All usual ESOC-maps with sufficient resources
6. "ESOC Unique Maps" – All not usual enough ESOC-maps (i.e all ESOC-maps not in "ESOC Standard Maps"). Alternatively: All not usual enough and low-resource ESOC-maps.
7. "ESOC Competitive Maps" – All usual enough ESOC-maps with sufficient resources and a Trade Route.
In order to help determine the contents of "ESOC Competitive Maps" – a map-pool ideal for competitive play with consistent inter-civilization balance – please vote for all the ESOC maps you think meet the qualifications of the map-set according to "7" above. You must decide for yourself whether a given map is usual and sufficient in resources enough to make the cut, as it is a matter of opinion. For example, I consider Bonnie Springs to be an unusual enough map due to the layout, map-size and town feature. Likewise, I consider Iowa to be an unusual enough map due to the chokes in the center as well as the Lakota native settlement. Thus, I don't think they meet the qualifiations of "7". You may disagree, however.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Adirondacks
Arizona
Arkansas
Baja California
Florida
High Plains
Herald Island
Hudson Bay
Kamchatka
Manchac
Manchuria
Mendocino
Although, all these maps except Klondike/Tassili/Tibet/Wadmalaw could be considered as competitive imo, I don't like Malaysia/Iowa/Colorado that's why I didn't put them in the list, but they're okish.
Arizona
Arkansas
Baja California
Florida
High Plains
Herald Island
Hudson Bay
Kamchatka
Manchac
Manchuria
Mendocino
Although, all these maps except Klondike/Tassili/Tibet/Wadmalaw could be considered as competitive imo, I don't like Malaysia/Iowa/Colorado that's why I didn't put them in the list, but they're okish.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
What's with Tassili – too scarce in resources?
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Yea, Tassili is a super low resource map.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Standard map set = Competitive map set.
Baiscally all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa.
Parallel Rivers, Manchac and perhaps Herald Island need some polishment to be on par with the rest.
Tassili has about same hunts as Manchuria and the classic, overdone, 2 mines in base. It is very much your average ESOC map but just like Manchuria it has scattered small hunt patches which is a great variation on the theme.
Baiscally all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa.
Parallel Rivers, Manchac and perhaps Herald Island need some polishment to be on par with the rest.
Tassili has about same hunts as Manchuria and the classic, overdone, 2 mines in base. It is very much your average ESOC map but just like Manchuria it has scattered small hunt patches which is a great variation on the theme.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
This is actually so stupid.
Low-resource maps are not less competitive than high-resource maps, but they are less popular and require different playstyles. Obviously everyone's just going to vote for the high-resource maps and then we'll never get to see the low-resource maps outside of tournaments again.
Some are even high-resource, like Colorado, Malaysia, and Great Basin, but people just don't like it because they require you to be more on top of your herding and macro than other maps.
This map set should be renamed "Easy Maps" or "Popular Maps," and is going to be boring and promote static play.
Low-resource maps are not less competitive than high-resource maps, but they are less popular and require different playstyles. Obviously everyone's just going to vote for the high-resource maps and then we'll never get to see the low-resource maps outside of tournaments again.
Some are even high-resource, like Colorado, Malaysia, and Great Basin, but people just don't like it because they require you to be more on top of your herding and macro than other maps.
This map set should be renamed "Easy Maps" or "Popular Maps," and is going to be boring and promote static play.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
I am still waiting for a rework of Iowa, it's mmy favourite map in term of design, but it's so bugged with the passing that I can't vote for it here. Shame :(
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Mitoe wrote:This is actually so stupid.
Low-resource maps are just as competitive as high-resource maps, but less popular. Obviously everyone's just going to vote for the high-resource maps and then we'll never get to see the low-resource maps outside of tournaments again.
Some are even high-resource, like Colorado, Malaysia, and Great Basin, but people just don't like it because they require you to be more on top of your herding and macro than other maps.
This map set should be renamed "Easy Maps," and is going to be boring and promote static play.
Lol, if as you say high ressources maps are more popular, why would it be stupid to create a new set of maps?
I don't mind it being called «high resource tp maps», «competitive maps» is Zoi's idea. His idea (and I agree with it), is that all civs are viable on his resources maps, and thus competitive.
PS: Low resource maps don't require to be more on top of the macro, it's actually the opposite, and even if it's true you need to have better herding skills, I don't think we're playing this game because we want to show we have the best herding skills lol.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
It's not stupid to create a new set of maps, it's stupid to suggest that they're the only competitive maps. This is a popularity contest more than anything.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that there are high-resource maps in this poll that will be excluded because they are harder to play than other high-resource maps. I didn't say that low-resource maps were harder to macro, although sometimes they are, depending on the matchup/build.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that there are high-resource maps in this poll that will be excluded because they are harder to play than other high-resource maps. I didn't say that low-resource maps were harder to macro, although sometimes they are, depending on the matchup/build.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
The point is that this is a popularity contest indeed. Because by Zoi the only criteria for map sets is demand. Which is not.
As for high res vs low res the main difference in the current meta is that low res give relatively more weight to unit shipments, hence advantaging civs for example Iro, Sioux and FF wars. All the other high res maps favor Fre, Ger, Dutch, etc. who by that point have more eco and can spam better.
As for high res vs low res the main difference in the current meta is that low res give relatively more weight to unit shipments, hence advantaging civs for example Iro, Sioux and FF wars. All the other high res maps favor Fre, Ger, Dutch, etc. who by that point have more eco and can spam better.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Mitoe wrote:It's not stupid to create a new set of maps, it's stupid to suggest that they're the only competitive maps. This is a popularity contest more than anything.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that there are high-resource maps in this poll that will be excluded because they are harder to play than other high-resource maps. I didn't say that low-resource maps were harder to macro, although sometimes they are, depending on the matchup/build.
Hum okay.
So as long as it isn't called «competitive maps» you're fine with it? Great.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
As long it is created and never used as anything official ye, it's ok.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Adirondacks - consistent, balanced res, normal amount of tps
Arkansas - standard with hunt count on the high end
Kamchatka - very standard res distribution, might have a few to many safe hunts.
Hudson bay - both tp variants are fine, I do think the back hunt that spawns sometimes is overpowered for defensive play.
Mendocino - I like this map most of the time. 4 tps is pushing it with regards to stagecoach but the fact that they are split makes it fine.
Manchuria - I find this map is a bit low on total hunt count, which sometimes makes the map run out of hunts a bit early to my taste. The yaks can be a bit superfluous, I think I liked the fixed spawns because it simply eliminated some luck (they are random right now if Im not mistaken).
Fertile crescent - low resources done right. Favorite map for me. The berries compensate for low res very well. I would like to see more of this map.
These are my seven. On the others:
Arizona - the amount of TPs makes atp OP so not competitive enough.
Baja California - I do like this map a lot, but sometimes the sea on two sides feels very annoying and Im not sure if this map promotes water play a bit much for a standard competitive map.
Colorado - the cliffs are a bit odd, maybe the second mine is too unsafe. Its not bad though.
Florida - I have my doubts about the free market.
High plains - In many match ups this map affects the balance way too much. Its just not fun.
Iowa - Id say this map might have too many choke points
Jebel musa - 4 tps and I dont really feel this map.
Klondike - really odd and 5 TP.
Malysia - 2 TPs is maybe too few and sometimes I feel this map has 3 hunts or so which is really low.
Tibet - that 2nd hunt is just too inconsistent due to the cliffs.
Other maps are okay, but I prefer my initial 7.
Arkansas - standard with hunt count on the high end
Kamchatka - very standard res distribution, might have a few to many safe hunts.
Hudson bay - both tp variants are fine, I do think the back hunt that spawns sometimes is overpowered for defensive play.
Mendocino - I like this map most of the time. 4 tps is pushing it with regards to stagecoach but the fact that they are split makes it fine.
Manchuria - I find this map is a bit low on total hunt count, which sometimes makes the map run out of hunts a bit early to my taste. The yaks can be a bit superfluous, I think I liked the fixed spawns because it simply eliminated some luck (they are random right now if Im not mistaken).
Fertile crescent - low resources done right. Favorite map for me. The berries compensate for low res very well. I would like to see more of this map.
These are my seven. On the others:
Arizona - the amount of TPs makes atp OP so not competitive enough.
Baja California - I do like this map a lot, but sometimes the sea on two sides feels very annoying and Im not sure if this map promotes water play a bit much for a standard competitive map.
Colorado - the cliffs are a bit odd, maybe the second mine is too unsafe. Its not bad though.
Florida - I have my doubts about the free market.
High plains - In many match ups this map affects the balance way too much. Its just not fun.
Iowa - Id say this map might have too many choke points
Jebel musa - 4 tps and I dont really feel this map.
Klondike - really odd and 5 TP.
Malysia - 2 TPs is maybe too few and sometimes I feel this map has 3 hunts or so which is really low.
Tibet - that 2nd hunt is just too inconsistent due to the cliffs.
Other maps are okay, but I prefer my initial 7.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
You misunderstand. This isn't at all saying that they're the only competitive maps; it's saying that it's the most competitive map-set, with the specific map and civilizations unknown beforehand. This derives from the fact that the EP balancing approach focuses on more or less standard (in features and resources) maps with a trade route. Ergo, map-sets featuring less standard maps or maps without a trade-route are less competitive with random civilizations.Mitoe wrote:It's not stupid to create a new set of maps, it's stupid to suggest that they're the only competitive maps. This is a popularity contest more than anything.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that there are high-resource maps in this poll that will be excluded because they are harder to play than other high-resource maps. I didn't say that low-resource maps were harder to macro, although sometimes they are, depending on the matchup/build.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
That is not the case. Please see the OP. I made clear the different distinctions. A map can be standard without featuring a trade route, and with less resources than would feature in the Competitive map-set. This map-set will have a higher standard than all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa. That is the entire point of it.Garja wrote:Standard map set = Competitive map set.
Baiscally all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa.
Parallel Rivers, Manchac and perhaps Herald Island need some polishment to be on par with the rest.
Tassili has about same hunts as Manchuria and the classic, overdone, 2 mines in base. It is very much your average ESOC map but just like Manchuria it has scattered small hunt patches which is a great variation on the theme.
For the purposes of this particular map-set, it is vital that you read and understand the definitions of the OP.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Yes, you and a lot of other people missed the point entirely, clearly. I should have predicted that and explained it more than briefly in the OP. This is literally only about allowing those who wish to play on such a map-set to do so. I specifically emphasize in the OP that voters should judge maps based on two factors, neither of which is popularity.Mitoe wrote:This is actually so stupid.
Low-resource maps are not less competitive than high-resource maps, but they are less popular and require different playstyles. Obviously everyone's just going to vote for the high-resource maps and then we'll never get to see the low-resource maps outside of tournaments again.
Some are even high-resource, like Colorado, Malaysia, and Great Basin, but people just don't like it because they require you to be more on top of your herding and macro than other maps.
This map set should be renamed "Easy Maps" or "Popular Maps," and is going to be boring and promote static play.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Or stop being narrow-minded.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
I made a little montage of Goodspeed explaining things in detail. This is absolutely vital information to anyone who currently misunderstands the point of this thread:
Being forced to adapt to the map is great in theory, but in practice the game is often decided before it starts and that's bad for competition.
Goodspeed wrote:Map diversity is great in tournaments. If you know the map beforehand you can pick your civ based on it.
But the standard, and this is indeed the main focus of our attempts to balance the civs, should remain TP maps with average hunts. If low hunt no-TP maps became the standard, I seem to have missed a memo and need to rethink our entire approach to balancing the civs. Obvious to anyone should be that there is no way to balance this game for both no-TP ánd TP maps, though we do what we can.
The random map pools leave much to be desired imo. I think there should be a "TP maps" pool so that you can actually pick TP civs without autolosing if the map ends up no-TP. Also there should be a "Competitive maps" pool that contains only average hunt TP maps. That these pools are still missing does show bias against this particular style of map in my opinion. A common argument for leaving them out: "Everyone would only play that."There is a reason. Including TPs adds strategic depth because it's an additional optional investment, and generates XP which increases the amount of shipments you get to send. Shipments are a core feature of this game, and the more you can send the more different options you have. Another reason TPs are great design is that they encourage map control.umeu wrote:well then thats why ep is silly. theres no reason why tp maps should be standard anyway. different maps require different meta, but there's no reason why one is more or less competitive than the other.
I think it's an easy argument to make that games on TP maps are more competitive in the same way chess is more competitive than tic tac toe: there are simply more possibilities.
I never said we don't. I'm only arguing that TP maps should be the standard.Exactly because going for tp is so much superior over not going tp, is why we need no tp maps.
Because the civs are balanced around it. TP civs shouldn't have a strong advantage against non-TP civs on TP maps. If they do, that's a problem for the balance team to fix.I also think its bs to have a tp map pool... why should tp civs get such preferential treatment that we create a seperate map pool?
I don't see why not. Currently I think there's a more urgent need for TP/competitive map pools but I don't see why we wouldn't make more pools. There is a general lack of map pools in the patch.Are we gonna make a no tp map pool for civs that pretty much auto lose vs good tp civs on tp maps?
I hope there's no such thing as a "water civ that autoloses against land civs". Even so, yes, please. A water map pool would also be great.Are we gonna make a water map pool so water civs don't auto lose on land maps vs tp civs?
A map pool consisting of TP maps with average hunts shouldn't favour any civ. Non-TP civs have good options to mitigate the TP advantage on well-designed maps. And there are plenty of those.A map pool should simply be balanced, that is, every civ excels on a certain map pool, and the maps should be equally available for all civs, in different combinations, so that every civ has about an equal chance to get a map that's favorable to them, unfavorable or neutral.
I beg to differ. Maybe we have different definitions of playable.All civs are playable on both maps, they simply require more creativity/adaptation from one civ than the other.
Yes this is why map diversity is great and important in tournaments. But if, for example, I want to practice my Otto, I need a TP map pool because I'm never going to pick them on a non-TP map anyway. I could also be refining a certain build that only works on TP maps. Or I just want a game where the winner is not decided by whichever map came out of the dice roll.Exactly the fact that you are forced to adapt, forced to play to the map as well as the mu is what imo creates a higher level of competition than simply doing the same strat on autopilot no matter which map. Because in that case we can all just play on 1 map, and there is no need to create a different map pool.
Being forced to adapt to the map is great in theory, but in practice the game is often decided before it starts and that's bad for competition.
Goodspeed wrote:Sorry I thought it was clear: I said the first TP is often (still, definitely not always) a no brainer, the second and beyond are not.umeu wrote:you just said that taking a first tp, especially when its in base, is a no brainer, then you say it's still a choice because it requires sacrifices...None of the current top civs (except, arguably, India) are TP civs?Tp civs do have that advantage, that's why they're generally strongest,A point to illustrate that TPs are important for meta evolution. The fact that it was already worth it to build TPs with all of these civs (except maybe Japan) years ago, and it took players this long to finally start doing it, shows how TPs are one of the things that still allow for creativity and change in a 12.5 year old game.and its why top players in their civs have found way to squeeze in tps even for civs that traditionally didn't go for tp because it was considered too difficult or not worth it. (aka you/diarouga/aizamk with brits, a few players with china, lordraph with dutch, spadel with japan, bsop with russia and aizamk/h2o with india)I think that problem is overstated. On TP maps and non-TP maps alike we are seeing a lot of variety and overall great games recently. There is actually much less build order diversity on non-TP maps, due to the lack of options. But again, I am not arguing for removing non-TP maps, just for introducing a TP map pool. We are balancing the civs so that all of them are competitive on standard TP maps.This leads to the point where if the map pool would be just tp maps, we'd see the same style and the same bo repeated all the time. Not only within the civ, but basically between all civs as well.It's not a problem in tournaments but yeah it sucks when your game is decided by a roll of the dice.But ofc no problem, but when a tp civ can't play on a no tp map (usually because they've never tried to find out how to play it) then it's a huge deal.Because why would you? In a tournament, you can simply avoid picking that civ on such a map. It's, from a competitive viewpoint, a waste of time to find a way to play on non-TP maps as Otto. And if you want to play the civ on whatever map, you can still just pick the ESOC map pool. Again no one is forcing anyone to play on the pool, I just think it needs to be there for people who do want it.Ppl who rely solely on tp civs and tp maps are quite lazy when it comes to finding alternative playstyles for a map, in my experience.This is currently the only way to do it, yes. But what if I still want variety, just not so much variety that my civ autoloses? I don't understand why it is such a problem to include a standard (actual standard) map pool.If you want to practice your otto for a tournament, you can just pick the mapOr, ideally, you would pick a type of map. Because you want to play on a type of map, not on a specific one. Seriously, what's the big deal?If you want to play on a certain type of map, you can simply pick a map.
Another way to put it is that, due to competitive play becoming more refined, we need a "standarder maps" pool. ES had the right idea making a distinction between All maps and Standard maps (where all maps include maps that are very influential towards the outcome of a game), and I think we now need a distinction between standard maps and "standarder" maps.
Goodspeed wrote:I would rather have each civ be playable on the average and most common map type, and allow for outliers outside of that. There are, and will always be, outliers. That's not a problem and we don't see it as one. We aren't trying to balance every MU on every map, and are well aware this is impossible.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
I'm definitely not in this case. You simply haven't cared to understand me, it seems to me. Take five minutes and read the post prior to this one, please. If anyone is being narrow-minded, it is people who would deny others from playing on map-sets of their choice. Most people are just missing the point though. Hopefully Goodspeed's points will help make it clear.yemshi wrote:Or stop being narrow-minded.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
zoom wrote:That is not the case. Please see the OP. I made clear the different distinctions. A map can be standard without featuring a trade route, and with less resources than would feature in the Competitive map-set. This map-set will have a higher standard than all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa. That is the entire point of it.Garja wrote:Standard map set = Competitive map set.
Baiscally all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa.
Parallel Rivers, Manchac and perhaps Herald Island need some polishment to be on par with the rest.
Tassili has about same hunts as Manchuria and the classic, overdone, 2 mines in base. It is very much your average ESOC map but just like Manchuria it has scattered small hunt patches which is a great variation on the theme.
For the purposes of this particular map-set, it is vital that you read and understand the definitions of the OP.
then why don't you define the standard and ask if people agree, and if not, what they would want to see changed, instead of dis shitzzzz
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
momuuu wrote:Adirondacks - consistent, balanced res, normal amount of tps
Arkansas - standard with hunt count on the high end
Kamchatka - very standard res distribution, might have a few to many safe hunts.
Hudson bay - both tp variants are fine, I do think the back hunt that spawns sometimes is overpowered for defensive play.
Mendocino - I like this map most of the time. 4 tps is pushing it with regards to stagecoach but the fact that they are split makes it fine.
Manchuria - I find this map is a bit low on total hunt count, which sometimes makes the map run out of hunts a bit early to my taste. The yaks can be a bit superfluous, I think I liked the fixed spawns because it simply eliminated some luck (they are random right now if Im not mistaken).
Fertile crescent - low resources done right. Favorite map for me. The berries compensate for low res very well. I would like to see more of this map.
These are my seven. On the others:
Arizona - the amount of TPs makes atp OP so not competitive enough.
Baja California - I do like this map a lot, but sometimes the sea on two sides feels very annoying and Im not sure if this map promotes water play a bit much for a standard competitive map.
Colorado - the cliffs are a bit odd, maybe the second mine is too unsafe. Its not bad though.
Florida - I have my doubts about the free market.
High plains - In many match ups this map affects the balance way too much. Its just not fun.
Iowa - Id say this map might have too many choke points
Jebel musa - 4 tps and I dont really feel this map.
Klondike - really odd and 5 TP.
Malysia - 2 TPs is maybe too few and sometimes I feel this map has 3 hunts or so which is really low.
Tibet - that 2nd hunt is just too inconsistent due to the cliffs.
Other maps are okay, but I prefer my initial 7.
You don't have to pick only seven.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
zoom wrote:That is not the case. Please see the OP. I made clear the different distinctions. A map can be standard without featuring a trade route, and with less resources than would feature in the Competitive map-set. This map-set will have a higher standard than all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa. That is the entire point of it.Garja wrote:Standard map set = Competitive map set.
Baiscally all ESOC maps except Indonesia, Wadmalaw, Jebel Musa and Iowa.
Parallel Rivers, Manchac and perhaps Herald Island need some polishment to be on par with the rest.
Tassili has about same hunts as Manchuria and the classic, overdone, 2 mines in base. It is very much your average ESOC map but just like Manchuria it has scattered small hunt patches which is a great variation on the theme.
For the purposes of this particular map-set, it is vital that you read and understand the definitions of the OP.
I just don't agree with the definition of the OP.
Here is my definition: all maps except those four, weighted, possibly.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Can the people arguing that it shouldn't be called "Competitive maps" come up with more alternatives?
I saw "Easy maps" and "Popular maps" but I think we can do better than that.
I saw "Easy maps" and "Popular maps" but I think we can do better than that.
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
Mitoe wrote:This is actually so stupid.
Low-resource maps are not less competitive than high-resource maps, but they are less popular and require different playstyles. Obviously everyone's just going to vote for the high-resource maps and then we'll never get to see the low-resource maps outside of tournaments again.
Some are even high-resource, like Colorado, Malaysia, and Great Basin, but people just don't like it because they require you to be more on top of your herding and macro than other maps.
This map set should be renamed "Easy Maps" or "Popular Maps," and is going to be boring and promote static play.
A few more points, regardless of what I stated before:Mitoe wrote:It's not stupid to create a new set of maps, it's stupid to suggest that they're the only competitive maps. This is a popularity contest more than anything.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that there are high-resource maps in this poll that will be excluded because they are harder to play than other high-resource maps. I didn't say that low-resource maps were harder to macro, although sometimes they are, depending on the matchup/build.
1. Low-resource maps are less competitive than high-resource maps if the game has been balanced for the latter. For the purposes of this particular map-set, people should not be voting for low-resource maps, so yes inadverently you're correct; "everyone" is obviously going to vote for the higher-resource maps. Again, I think you've missed the point here.
2. We will get to see low-resource maps outside of tournaments because a lot of players don't mind them as long as they know roughly what type of map is being drawn and can choose their civilization accordingly. Please note the other map sets suggested. Furthermore, including these maps in tournaments will lead to players practicing them.
3. Such a name would be misleading, since the alleged ease and popularity is inconsequential; the fact is that they are the most competitive maps on EP.
4. It won't promote anything; it will allow those who prefer to play on it to do so. Options will be equally available.
5. I agree. Suggesting that a set of maps contains the only competitive maps is stupid. That is not at all the case here.
6. Note how your perceived "popularity contest" has solid correlation with usual, non-low resource trade route maps. Note further how it's not the sole source of the finalized map-set's contents.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Adding additional Map-Sets
1. Normal maps
2. Riki maps
PLEASE
2. Riki maps
PLEASE
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests