Adding additional Map-Sets

[Goodspeed]

It seems to me far more a psychological problem than one of straight up balance. Most ppl just dont want to make the changes to their playstyle that are necessary toplay on that map. They still go cav semi, get rekt, and then complain about imba map. To a certain extent its the same with civs. Ppl complain about rushia lame on low hunt, but they dont mm bh and then raid hard. Low food isnt even really in rushias favor if you deny or delay their mapcontrol

No doubt it is psychological to an extent. But it is also true that the game is more balanced on standard TP maps. That's the goal, anyway, and almost undoubtedly the reality. I'm not sure if you are really in denial about this or just trying to argue the problem is not as big as people think. Assuming it's the latter, sure, but wanting to play on a balanced map is still a completely legitimate point of view. Again, if I am playing Otto I just don't want the map to be Bengal. Sure, I might still have a good game, but I don't enjoy it as much. I started the game with probably a significant disadvantage and was forced into a very small selection of strategies, none of which appeal to me. "You were forced to adapt to the map and that's part of the fun in AoE3." No, it's part of the fun for you. For me it's testing builds and trying to get away with the most greedy one possible. For others, it's something else entirely. The point being that your idea of a fun AoE3 experience is not shared by everyone, and again, this new map pool is not at all in your way. You don't have to use it.

[deleted_user0]

Im not talking about your or my fun, nor am i talking about the mapset. If you want your tp only map set to play unrated or rated games on vs other likeminded ppl, i really couldnt give 2 fs. I was responding to the claim that balance can only be achieved on tp maps, which is simply bogus. Its no doubt easier (to balance tp pr no tp than to balance both) but its equally possible, or rather, in my opinion, equally impossible.

What you like is irrelevant to balance. The fact that you are forced to play (if you want to win) certains strats is also no argument. You are forced to do the same on tp maps. It might be the case, im not even sure if it actually is true, that you have a few more strats available on tp maps, but this still doesnt meqnt there cant be balance.

[Goodspeed]

Oh, my bad, I thought you were arguing no TP maps aren't necessarily that unbalanced and assumed you meant this as an argument against introducing this map pool.

[momuuu]

Im not talking about your or my fun, nor am i talking about the mapset. If you want your tp only map set to play unrated or rated games on vs other likeminded ppl, i really couldnt give 2 fs. I was responding to the claim that balance can only be achieved on tp maps, which is simply bogus. Its no doubt easier (to balance tp pr no tp than to balance both) but its equally possible, or rather, in my opinion, equally impossible.

I'd argue it's not equally possible to balance both types of maps without heavy standardization. Its hardly possible to properly balance one map pool anyways.

[Garja]

We can change the name if you insist and can come up with a satisfactory alternative.

But that a portion of patch users doesn't want this pool is not an argument against it. If those users are dissatisfied with the selection of map pools, and it's a large enough group with significant consensus, I'm sure they will have an opportunity to make their own pool as well. Fact remains there is demand for a pool like this one, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

It is an argument against it just as much the opposite is an argument in favor.

The problem is that two similar pools which compete to set the standard will split the users. Right now everyone plays on ESOC maps because it is the standard one. With two different sets, players will cherry pick depending on personal preference and, very likely, depending on what favors their civ choice. Besides creating unagreement and causing coordination problems, that's conceptually the opposite of competition.

I'd argue it's not equally possible to balance both types of maps without heavy standardization. Its hardly possible to properly balance one map pool anyways.

Well it's not possible to have the same civ ranking on both type of maps, but that's obvious.
What is possible, however, is that a mix of both type of maps will lead to a reasonably fair ranking of civs, providing a good dynamic balance.

[deleted_user0]

Im not talking about your or my fun, nor am i talking about the mapset. If you want your tp only map set to play unrated or rated games on vs other likeminded ppl, i really couldnt give 2 fs. I was responding to the claim that balance can only be achieved on tp maps, which is simply bogus. Its no doubt easier (to balance tp pr no tp than to balance both) but its equally possible, or rather, in my opinion, equally impossible.

I'd argue it's not equally possible to balance both types of maps without heavy standardization. Its hardly possible to properly balance one map pool anyways.

Hence i said equally impossible. At least, the kinda balance gs is after where every mu is viable on every map, and i guess preferably without being forced adapt strats too much. Dynamic balance as garja called it, is probably achievable. Or close enough

[Goodspeed]

Hence i said equally impossible. At least, the kinda balance gs is after where every mu is viable on every map,

Not at all what I'm after. Did you honestly think that? Because my recent direct replies to your posts state otherwise.

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.

[deleted_user0]

Hence i said equally impossible. At least, the kinda balance gs is after where every mu is viable on every map,

Not at all what I'm after. Did you honestly think that? Because my recent direct replies to your posts state otherwise.

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.

Sorry on phone. I worded myself poorly. I meant all tp maps that meet certain criteria.

You want each civ to be playable on those type of map. But what does that mean if not in every or atleast most mu? Ofc the odds dont have to be 50/50. But if thats the case, then i dont see why u cant balance for no tp maps, as its the same there. Literally the only civ that cant play no tp is otto, and thats only on no tp land, and theyre not even as bad as most ppl think. Which they would know if they ever played otto.

[Goodspeed]

You want each civ to be playable on those type of map. But what does that mean if not in every or atleast most mu?

In short, on the average TP map, I want all civs to have (relatively) balanced MUs and some MUs that they clearly win and some that they clearly lose. Preferably most MUs are balanced. Balancing all of them is impossible and not the pursuit.

But if thats the case, then i dont see why u cant balance for no tp maps, as its the same there.

You can. What you can't do is balance for both TP maps and NTP maps without significantly standardizing the civs. The civs all rely on TPs to varying degrees, and with a refined metagame this can, in most cases, easily be taken advantage of on NTP maps by the civ that least relies on them. It's that simple. Without equalizing the reliance on TPs, which can only be achieved by heavily standardizing, balance on both map types is unachievable.

We do what we can for as many map types as possible, but for reasons I explained in the other thread the approach we chose is to balance the game around TPs. Arguments against Garja's utopian idea of "dynamic balance" can be found there. A quote:

Compare differences in map with differences in game mode. If you don't balance the game from 1 standard (we chose 1v1 supremacy) you will never achieve balance because the game modes are too different. The only way to then achieve balance is to standardize every civ, or accept that most of them are unplayable in every one game mode. What you then end up with is civs that are highly specialized towards the one or two game modes that they are good at.

By your definition of dynamic balance, in the context of game modes, we would ignore that Japan is unplayable in Deathmatch and that Ports are unplayable in supremacy. That's okay, because they are good at other things. As a result, Ports would never be played in sup and Japan never played in DM.

The same would happen if you allow civs to be bad on TP maps because, similar to different game modes, the balance on a non-TP map is just too different from the balance on a TP map. Another similarity is the difference between team and 1v1. You can never balance both: you have to choose one that takes priority while doing what you can about the other. If there is no unifying standard, every civ becomes too specialized. On top of losing civ diversity on most types of maps, it's impossible to achieve any kind of balance that way.

So while we do what we can to balance the outliers, they remain outliers.

[Garja]

Whether it is utopian or not is completely up to debate. For one, we were far to test changes in this direction at any point.

[deleted_user0]

You want each civ to be playable on those type of map. But what does that mean if not in every or atleast most mu?

In short, on the average TP map, I want all civs to have (relatively) balanced MUs and some MUs that they clearly win and some that they clearly lose. Preferably most MUs are balanced. Balancing all of them is impossible and not the pursuit.

But if thats the case, then i dont see why u cant balance for no tp maps, as its the same there.

You can. What you can't do is balance for both TP maps and NTP maps without significantly standardizing the civs. The civs all rely on TPs to varying degrees, and with a refined metagame this can, in most cases, easily be taken advantage of on NTP maps by the civ that least relies on them. It's that simple. Without equalizing the reliance on TPs, which can only be achieved by heavily standardizing, balance on both map types is unachievable.

We do what we can for as many map types as possible, but for reasons I explained in the other thread the approach we chose is to balancqe the game around TPs. Arguments against Garja's utopian idea of "dynamic balance" can be found there. A quote:

Compare differences in map with differences in game mode. If you don't balance the game from 1 standard (we chose 1v1 supremacy) you will never achieve balance because the game modes are too different. The only way to then achieve balance is to standardize every civ, or accept that most of them are unplayable in every one game mode. What you then end up with is civs that are highly specialized towards the one or two game modes that they are good at.

By your definition of dynamic balance, in the context of game modes, we would ignore that Japan is unplayable in Deathmatch and that Ports are unplayable in supremacy. That's okay, because they are good at other things. As a result, Ports would never be played in sup and Japan never played in DM.

The same would happen if you allow civs to be bad on TP maps because, similar to different game modes, the balance on a non-TP map is just too different from the balance on a TP map. Another similarity is the difference between team and 1v1. You can never balance both: you have to choose one that takes priority while doing what you can about the other. If there is no unifying standard, every civ becomes too specialized. On top of losing civ diversity on most types of maps, it's impossible to achieve any kind of balance that way.

So while we do what we can to balance the outliers, they remain outliers.

You can balance for both no to and tp in the way you say, which is basically the dynamic civ balance garja mentioned, where all civs have a majority of mus that are balanced, some clear wins and losses. Theres totally no need for standardizing. In fact, i would say that its probably easiest, and perhaps best achieved by making civs more unique.

Your arguments also miss garjas point. Its not that the dynamic balance is spain wins 10 mus on tp, and loses 10 on no tp, but rather, that mus are mostly balanced on both types, but that the distribution of mus remains anout equal, even though the mus they win might change. For example lets say spain beats fre, ties dutch and loses to russia on no tp maps, but then on tp maps, spain beats dutch, ties russia and loses to fre. Theres still balance, even though it depends on the maps as well as the mu. Which is basically how it works now for many mus as well. In your scenario, it would depend only on the mu, cause all"competitive maps" have the same parameters for balance.

[lemmings121]

Imo as long as players arent forced into blindpick, everything is a "competitive map".

8tp line? amazona? honshu? sure, its competitive, maybe only a couple civs are viable, but its competitive.

I think the question here is "what map promotes a style that you dont like in tournament setting"? then I can vote in Iowa for super small chokes, in the hypotetical 8tp map for beeing just insane, etc.

[Goodspeed]

@deleted_user
I know that's not what "dynamic balance" is, or rather what Garja meant by this seemingly new term. My point is that's how it would end up. Civs would become too specialized.

In order to achieve this kind of balance, you are accepting that some civs are bad on no TP maps and good on TP maps, and the other way around. You are accepting that they lose most match ups on one kind of map and win most match ups on the other kind. If you think it is possible to balance the civs around that problem, then you are living in a fantasy world. It's not possible, because the reliance on TPs is (rather obviously) negatively correlated with a civ's strength on non-TP maps. There are exceptions of course, but generally what you will see is each civ will become either viable on TP maps or viable on non-TP maps. Many match ups you will never see again, because most civs are only going to be picked on one of the map types.

A scenario:
Russia is dominant on non-TP maps, but they are not good on TP maps. Because we want to achieve balance on non-TP maps as well as TP maps, we have to accept that Russia is bad on TP maps and nerf them so that other civs have a chance against them on non-TP maps.
Russia is now unplayable on TP maps.

Something similar will happen to every civ with a clear preference for map type, which, as it happens, is most civs. TP civs will have to suck on non-TP maps in order to not be OP on TP maps, and the other way around. You gain better balance on non-TP maps, but you will lose civ diversity on both map types and end up with 2 separate metagames.

I refer you again to the game mode analogy, which paints a clearer picture.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I think the game mode analogy is very relevant.
It emphasises the issue while clearly showing it. One civ being op in DM wouldn't make it for being bad in sup lol.

[Garja]

I know that's not what "dynamic balance" is, or rather what Garja meant by this seemingly new term. My point is that's how it would end up. Civs would become too specialized.

In order to achieve this kind of balance, you are accepting that some civs are bad on no TP maps and good on TP maps, and the other way around. You are accepting that they lose most match ups on one kind of map and win most match ups on the other kind. If you think it is possible to balance the civs around that problem, then you are living in a fantasy world. It's not possible, because the reliance on TPs is (rather obviously) negatively correlated with a civ's strength on non-TP maps. There are exceptions of course, but generally what you will see is each civ will become either viable on TP maps or viable on non-TP maps. Many match ups you will never see again, because most civs are only going to be picked on one of the map types.

A scenario:
Russia is dominant on non-TP maps, but they are not good on TP maps. Because we want to achieve balance on non-TP maps as well as TP maps, we have to accept that Russia is bad on TP maps and nerf them so that other civs have a chance against them on non-TP maps.
Russia is now unplayable on TP maps.

Something similar will happen to every civ with a clear preference for map type, which, as it happens, is most civs. TP civs will have to suck on non-TP maps in order to not be OP on TP maps, and the other way around. You gain better balance on non-TP maps, but you will lose civ diversity on both map types and end up with 2 separate metagames.

I refer you again to the game mode analogy, which paints a clearer picture.

When you say "too specialized" you're basically talking about being unique.
As for your correlation between TP and civ rater is all to prove. There are so many simplification with your balance approach that I don't know where to start with.
I guess one example is exactly the one you provide for Russia. Russia can do TP play just like other civs if not better. They can even TP start no problem as long as they go 17v. Alternatively they can bring it in transition to colo with 14v instead of mid map BH which is useless in some MUs.
Game mode analogy is not good at all to describe the situation. Neither treaty or deatchmatch take into account the continuum of eco and army progression.
With a dynamic approach you simply accept that civ have advantage and disavantage that come from the map features (again, not just TP-NTP). They will naturally struggle under some circumstances and will be favored in others. Whether this leads to one sided MUs is all to prove and it's ultimately dependant on player creativity and in-game skills. By removing elements from the game you're crippling player's ability to find ways to deal with problematic situations and this already bugs me a lot in the current state of balance. Quite frankly, there are lot of mid-tier players that play all identical and that's not intelligent at all, just like it's not intelligent pushing the balance to let that happen.

[deleted_user0]

@Goodspeed first you say that garjas idea can only be achieved by standardization. Then you say they will become too specialized (which is a bad thing why, even if it was true?)

I dont think civs are viable only on one type of map and not on the other. I began posting here that this problem is overstated because people refuse to adapt to the map. I admitted that the only civ that might be beyond saving on no tp maps (land only btw) is otto. Every other civ is viable and its possible to balance them in the way you said on both maptypes. Each civ will have mostly fair mus, and a few outliers up and down. But the fair mus and outliers wont remain the same on both maptypes, even though the distribution should.

Your russia analogy doesnt follow, abd i fail to see why you would even reach that conclusion. But i find it curious u raise this as criticism against what garja proposes, even though its more clearly a consequence of your approach than of his. In your attampt to make each civ balanced on standardized tp maps, and by not attempting to do the same on no tp or other dominant map features, you are getting exactly that situation where because iro was too strong on tp but fine on ntp you nerfed it, but the now iro is bad to ok on tp, and just terrible on ntp. Because you failed or refused to consider how the crate nerf was going to affect iro play on ntp and water maps, despite my repeated warmings. First iro on ntp could always open farm + first farm up, and sometimes market as well. Now they can only sometimes start farm, and you can just forget about the rest.

Sure you would have different metas, but thats already the case. And i dont see why that is a problem. But the fact that people either fail to understand or fail to accept this, is why ppl say oh, this civ isnt viable on tp, or so bad blabla. But thats because they try to play on no tp maps the same way as on tp maps, which isnt possible for most civs. Then they fail to win and think its because their civ is bad on that map, while instead their strat is bad on that map. Thats a huge difference. And its why your gamemode analogy doesnt hold. Its not about japan being op in treaty and useless in dm, and just accepting that. Its about ppl trying to play japan the same way in dm as they would in treaty, and then complain that japan sux in dm... (I mean apparantly japan does suck in dm, but the differences between the game modes are so much bigger that your analogy fails just cuz of that.)

[zoom]

That we shouldn't call it "Competitive Maps" because other maps are also competitive (albeit factually less so)?

How would they be "factually less" competitive than popular maps?

They aren't less competitive than popular maps; they are less competitive than maps with a trade route, sufficient resources and usual enough features. Again, I believe you are missing the actual point. Did you actually read the bold part of the OP?

[zoom]

"Very standard maps" would fit quite well but I'm not sure everyone would catch the meaning of the name.
"Popular maps" is probably the best description for such set.

Not at all. The criteria have nothing to do with popularity. The mapset happens to be popular.

Still, I wouldn't mind calling it "Beyond Standard Maps", since at least it wouldn't be misleading.

[zoom]

Ye he has made it clear. Doesnt mean its any less of a fantasy.

Also brits can easily compete with india on a low hunt map. As long as u have hunts to last you to around 9 min, which should be normal

Russia is a bit different. But brit struggles in that mu on most maps anyway

It is fact, not fantasy. Balance is, on average, better on the type of map specified as "7" in the OP, since the prioritization of EP is to balance for that map-type, given that civilization strength varies greatly with map features. Apart from denial of that reality, this breeds in some the delusion of a claim that other maps cannot be competitive.

[zoom]

That we should prevent the majority from playing on such a map-set because a minority of people don't want to play on it?

As far as I know does ESOC not know whether you are actually a majority.

So, I guess, you can make a 2nd and 3rd poll asking whether people want such map pools and asking what name we should give those pools, specifically that pool we are talking about.
So far I've heard easy, popular, boring, competitive, very standard.

First of all, I am not arguing in favor of such a map-set because I want to play on it. It just makes basic sense to me that it should exist, for reasons of popularity and suitability alike.

Second, you are being petty if you deny others their wish to play on such a mapset, whether they make up a majority or not.

Third, how is it that you apparently still believe this is about deleting all current mapsets and replacing them? This is about adding map-sets that are popular at the expense of absolutely no-one.

Tell me again who's being narrow-minded, will you? While you're at it, please also tell me what your argument even is, because I've still no idea. Please enlighten me.

[zoom]

We can change the name if you insist and can come up with a satisfactory alternative.

But that a portion of patch users doesn't want this pool is not an argument against it. If those users are dissatisfied with the selection of map pools, and it's a large enough group with significant consensus, I'm sure they will have an opportunity to make their own pool as well. Fact remains there is demand for a pool like this one, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

It is an argument against it just as much the opposite is an argument in favor.

The problem is that two similar pools which compete to set the standard will split the users. Right now everyone plays on ESOC maps because it is the standard one. With two different sets, players will cherry pick depending on personal preference and, very likely, depending on what favors their civ choice. Besides creating unagreement and causing coordination problems, that's conceptually the opposite of competition.

I'd argue it's not equally possible to balance both types of maps without heavy standardization. Its hardly possible to properly balance one map pool anyways.

Well it's not possible to have the same civ ranking on both type of maps, but that's obvious.
What is possible, however, is that a mix of both type of maps will lead to a reasonably fair ranking of civs, providing a good dynamic balance.

Good thing then that for the map-set in question there would be no favored civilization.

[zoom]

Imo as long as players arent forced into blindpick, everything is a "competitive map".

8tp line? amazona? honshu? sure, its competitive, maybe only a couple civs are viable, but its competitive.

I think the question here is "what map promotes a style that you dont like in tournament setting"? then I can vote in Iowa for super small chokes, in the hypotetical 8tp map for beeing just insane, etc.

Every map is relatively competitive, if you know beforehand what map it will be. With map-sets, you do not know that, hence far from all maps are competitive in a map-set.

[zoom]

The inherent problem with a selection of TP only, high resources maps is.. well is that we don't want that set.
Every other set is fine.

That is by definition absolutely not an inherent problem; it's inherently your opinion.

[deleted_user0]

Ye he has made it clear. Doesnt mean its any less of a fantasy.

Also brits can easily compete with india on a low hunt map. As long as u have hunts to last you to around 9 min, which should be normal

Russia is a bit different. But brit struggles in that mu on most maps anyway

It is fact, not fantasy. Balance is, on average, better on the type of map specified as "7" in the OP, since the prioritization of EP is to balance for that map-type, given that civilization strength varies greatly with map features. Apart from denial of that reality, this breeds in some the delusion of a claim that other maps cannot be competitive.

it's not a fact. It's merely your opinion, which is limited by a lack of imagination. No amount of fancy words will change that.

Besides, you misunderstood what I said anyway. Because I didn't mean that the current balance is not better on that map type you specify as 7 (which is still vague, but whatever). Obviously it is, because you have engineered it that way. I meant your claim that balance overall can't be achieved on all map types. It can be. It's simply that you guys aren't willing to consider the changes necessary to achieve that.

[Rikikipu]

It seems that you have changed your mind in the wrong way compared to the original philosphy intended at the begining of the patch. If I recall correctly, the challenge was to try to balance the civs, and not balancing the civs on TP maps. Saying that "balancing all civs on every map style is impossible" and instead transfering a balance problem to a map problem is the easiest and a wrong approach. Saying "it will not work" will of course not work. Thing is that the experience shows that the successive patches of Microsoft have always improved the balance in every aspect of the game. It isn't finished with RE, and the idea is that with iteration and tweaks you will end up with a solid compromise toward all map and game style.