Adding additional Map-Sets

Which maps should be in "ESOC Competitive Maps" according to "7"?

ESOC Adirondacks
20
7%
ESOC Arizona
16
5%
ESOC Arkansas
21
7%
ESOC Baja California
14
5%
ESOC Colorado
12
4%
ESOC Florida
19
6%
ESOC Fertile Crescent
13
4%
ESOC Great Basin
10
3%
ESOC High plains
17
6%
ESOC Herald Island
11
4%
ESOC Hudson Bay
22
7%
ESOC Iowa
7
2%
ESOC Jebel Musa
10
3%
ESOC Kamchatka
22
7%
ESOC Klondike
7
2%
ESOC Manchac
10
3%
ESOC Manchuria
22
7%
ESOC Malaysia
11
4%
ESOC Mendocino
15
5%
ESOC Tassili
6
2%
ESOC Tibet
9
3%
ESOC Wadmalaw
9
3%
 
Total votes: 303

No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by deleted_user0 »

sigh... it opens up many more options for iro.

A) They can always farm. Which means enough XP to consistently get 3 vils at 1.30. While with tp, it varies, sometimes you get it at 1.15, sometimes at 1.45. Additionally, it opens up the possibility to upgrade food gathering in the farm, which is a remedy vs the oft heard claim that iro's eco isn't good enough because they don't have steeltraps. Now they always have steeltrap+ available. And they always have the pen, which might also offer another bonus to their eco on maps with livestock. They can just get TP in transition, just like alot of other civs.
B) They could also open dock + 300w for 4 fishing boats.
C) They could even save the travois and use it for a fast stable warhut opening in age2 (though if you don't give them the random 100w, then this might not ever be viable.)

I've read your reasoning. It just doesn't hold. You contradict yourself constantly. Standardizing is bad, but that's basically what EP has been doing consistently. You don't want to standardize, but you don't want to make civs unique. You're open to changes, but in the end... not really.

considering that you have an open beta that you can change without affecting the main patch, yes. you can just try it out. but whatever. keep standing on that one side of the cliff.

sayonara.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

momuuu wrote:It would be very hard to actually balance for both TP and non-TP maps:

Reaching perfect balance where every match up is 50/50 is basically impossible without standardizing the civs. So then every civ will have some strats that work in different match ups with different winrates (lets assume between 40% and 60%). A good example would be germany; they'd have those winrates against all civs doing uhlan semi FF (which is basically their only viable strat). That strat of course is much weaker without a trading post. So then, for no TP maps, we would need to buff some german style that doesn't use a TP. That'd probably be the xbow pike rush then. So then xbow pike becomes a competitive strat (winrates between 40% and 60% aswell). The problem is that xbow pike will still be reasonably viable on the TP maps: The chances are very big however that xbow pike turns out to be a 50-60% winrate strategy in match ups where the uhlan semi FF is a 40-50% match up. So then, by having two distinct viable strategies, the added flexibility will make a civ stronger still on TP maps than on no TP maps. The result is that any civ that has a very strong TP strategy is very likely going to be stronger on TP maps than on no TP maps just because of the added flexibility (if there is a good no TP strategy at all, otherwise they're obviously also better on TP maps). I don't see how this can reliably be worked around, and given that the balance team is already struggling to get a grasp on balance as is, I think they should just ignore no TP maps entirely.

Aside from the (I assume intended) simplification of semi FF being the only viable strat this reasoning is still not correct.
First of all it's important to note that xbow pike and ulhan semi FF are mutually exsclusive. This means if you go for one can't really turn it in the other with the same power as if the latter was employed from the start.
Aside from that, the main flaw in the reasoning is to assume that a TP makes a certain strategy necessarily better without drawbacks. Taking a TP as Germans is certainly a good idea in general. However it drains some resources from the build that inevitably penalize the rush. For this reason the xbow/pike build (which by the way is already viable for example on Adirondacks) has to be turned into a timing rather than a rush. This means that, while the overall build will be stronger its nature will be changed and if rush was needed to beat a certain civ then the addition of the TP will at least come with some drawbacks.
The second inaccuracy of this reasoning is inherent to the example itself. Boosting xbow/pike most likely means just buffing xbows base damage (better than improving the multiplier vs HI). A xbow buff is something desirable in general because xbow unit is simply mediocre at the moment compared to all other RI units in colonial. So there is really no danger to make it overperforming on TP maps. On the other hand a simple buff like that can help a lot overall and specifically when Germans can't age up quickly.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by momuuu »

You literally didnt get any of my points. Its amazing.. did you read it?
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

Your point is basically "can't buff some civs on no TP because the buff will then make them too good on TP". You provide an example and then conclude that balance can't be achieved on both type of map, at least not standardizing civs.

I reply confuting the general statement and, specifically, pointing out that the German example isn't particularly helpful for your argument.
Image Image Image
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:Yes, NTP maps do favor some other civs. And things tend to compensate. That's much better than standardizing civs around TPs. That's bullshit. And honestly at this point if you can't aknowledge that I can't help. I believe you guys aren't the right people to promote any patch then.

As for the sufficient resource argument, it's just a technicality you bring it up basically showing you don't have much clue about the matter. Every EP map has sufficient resources. That's ensured by EP standards which set the entry level for any map.
No, things tend to average over the long-term, with many an unfair match-up in both directions due to the map. Civilizations aren't being standardized around TPs; balance is. If you can't acknowledge the approach of the EP which has remained constant since the start, I can't help.

As for that, indeed, the amount of safe resources varies greatly between ESOC maps, affecting balance in due course.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

lemmings121 wrote:
zoom wrote:
lemmings121 wrote: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.


then no map is competitive, thats why we dont have tournaments in random maps, it just affects the balance too much to be random
Unless of course you make a niche map-set with similar enough balance, ie "Competitive Maps" according to "7". Please read the OP.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:Changing the name, doesn't change the claim, you genius :uglylol:
Basically the rated status is the problem. If you want that map set make a custom one and call it Diarouga maps.
How is it a problem when already, anyone can pick any map and play rated on it, let alone construct any map-set at all and play rated on it without any issue whatsoever?

Considering the above facts, it is an absolute non-argument! Arguing with you involves having one's arguments constantly ignored. It's tiresome, to say the least. Please acknowledge counter-arguments instead of pretending that they don't exist.

Did you even take five minutes to read my posts from the first two pages of this thread?
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote:There are 2 issues with this:
1) I can't play rated on it
2) If I make such a set, considering it's a set of custom maps, people would have to download it first.

Anyway, I don't care about the claim either. You can call it easy maps and claim it's the set of maps a part of the community prefers.

Which raises the correlated problem of why there should be a rated pool for a specific part of the user base.
It is one set that a large part of the community prefers. There should be rated pools for all parts of the user-base. This argument is about adding one map-set among several. It is not about replacing or removing any map-sets, and it is not about forcing you to play on any map-set. Please stop pretending and wake up, already.

I repeat: The suggestion is to add several different map-sets offering good variety. The suggestion is not to remove all map-sets and replace them with a single map-set.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

Why do you repeat your arguments in bold as if I didn't read them.
Let's cut the crap and be honest. Doesn't matter how good the intentions are, the competitive map set will eventually be the standard de-facto for daily play. This is because players within a restrictred community always try coordinate toward a focal point. In the best case the Competitive set will overlap with the standard set, similar but few more maps.
The problem with this, that you fail or refuse to aknowledge, is that it will potentially promote play on a more restricted pool of maps than what it should be.
You say that's not the case, I say it is very much the case.
Then to validate your argument you proceed advocating for map-set variety, allowing player preferences to be implemented and extend the argument to the map-set in question.
I simply discard those arguments because they don't apply to that map-set or, to the extent they do, I consider those of subordinated interest, compared to granting a single standard map-set that will balance popularity, competitiveness and map variety.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

zoom wrote:No, things tend to average over the long-term, with many an unfair match-up in both directions due to the map. Civilizations aren't being standardized around TPs; balance is. If you can't acknowledge the approach of the EP which has remained constant since the start, I can't help.

As for that, indeed, the amount of safe resources varies greatly between ESOC maps, affecting balance in due course.


They tend to average in the long term, with some within-acceptability unfair MUs in both directions due to any charatestic of the map, and plenty of balanced MUs on both map types.
Balance is standardized around TPs, and that has consequences over civ standardization. The simple fact that balance and game-play is standardized around TPs is in any case sufficient to raise problems about the adopted method.
The approach hasn't been consistent from the start, or at the very least it hasn't been discussed since the start.
Image Image Image
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by deleted_user0 »

The approach hasn't been consistent from the start, or at the very least it hasn't been discussed since the start.


It definitely hasn't, twice.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:Why do you repeat your arguments in bold as if I didn't read them.
Let's cut the crap and be honest. Doesn't matter how good the intentions are, the competitive map set will eventually be the standard de-facto for daily play. This is because players within a restrictred community always try coordinate toward a focal point. In the best case the Competitive set will overlap with the standard set, similar but few more maps.
The problem with this, that you fail or refuse to aknowledge, is that it will potentially promote play on a more restricted pool of maps than what it should be.
You say that's not the case, I say it is very much the case.
Then to validate your argument you proceed advocating for map-set variety, allowing player preferences to be implemented and extend the argument to the map-set in question.
I simply discard those arguments because they don't apply to that map-set or, to the extent they do, I consider those of subordinated interest, compared to granting a single standard map-set that will balance popularity, competitiveness and map variety.
Because it appears to me that you don't, given your response. Cutting the crap is very much what I've been trying to do this entire thread.

I have no idea whether it will be the standard. It will be if players will it to. I have neither intention nor prediction as far as that is concerned. I say it's promoting only player choice, because that's the fact of the matter. I say let those who prefer to play on a more restricted pool of maps the opportunity to do so, and let those who prefer to play on different pools of maps theirs.

I'm not validating any argument; I am emphasizing facts that definitely apply to no one being forced to play on "7". you ignore these then argue against them. I don't have a single argument except improving player satisfaction. You pretend as if "7" would be the only map-set available and that you are forced to play on it, which is absolute nonsense. No one is forcing you to use any specific map-set exclusively and to pretend as if alternatives don't exist except seemingly yourself.

Same as your every reply, you ignore the fact that alternatives exist and will do so even more according to the suggestion, and you ignore your freedom not to play on any given map-set. No wonder you think you'll be forced to play on a single map-set if you discard the actual facts that alternatives aplenty exist and that you're free to choose from them. You're very much right that they don't apply to the map-set, but they apply to your one, constant, fallacious claim about it.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:
zoom wrote:No, things tend to average over the long-term, with many an unfair match-up in both directions due to the map. Civilizations aren't being standardized around TPs; balance is. If you can't acknowledge the approach of the EP which has remained constant since the start, I can't help.

As for that, indeed, the amount of safe resources varies greatly between ESOC maps, affecting balance in due course.


They tend to average in the long term, with some within-acceptability unfair MUs in both directions due to any charatestic of the map, and plenty of balanced MUs on both map types.
Balance is standardized around TPs, and that has consequences over civ standardization. The simple fact that balance and game-play is standardized around TPs is in any case sufficient to raise problems about the adopted method.
The approach hasn't been consistent from the start, or at the very least it hasn't been discussed since the start.
I don't know what "balance being standardized around TPs" is supposed to mean. Balance is achieved on trade-route maps. Like I highlighted, there are both pros and cons to this method. I trust the project lead when he says that he's balancing civilizations around average safe-resource maps with a trade route. Not that this entire argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand according to the OP; this is about adding a highly popular and highly logical map-set, given the factual balancing approach of the patch, regardless of various opinions on it. Cut the crap, indeed.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

Players need one single map set to coordinate on. That's for practical reasons (like not arguing which set should be used before every game) and also basic in the long term a narrow map set will cause distorsion on players win rates and elo. You say you have no intention nor prediction on whether the Competitive map set will be the standard de-facto. I'm telling you it will be, likely in competition with the Standard map set.
Now, because the EP clearly has an activity problem, any coordination problem is a big deal. You can't simply say "ok we don't want to play on the same map-set I will go play with someone else".
You keep saying alternatives exist but, in fact, they will only on paper for the reason I just explained. So all the arguments for promoting player choice are faulted in the first place.
Again, you intentionally or unconsciously refuse to aknowledge this problem.

Player choice is fine as long as there is only one main map set that assolves its role, balancining map variety, competitiveness and popularity. All my critiques are based on that.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

zoom wrote:I don't know what "balance being standardized around TPs" is supposed to mean. Balance is achieved on trade-route maps. Like I highlighted, there are both pros and cons to this method. I trust the project lead when he says that he's balancing civilizations around average safe-resource maps with a trade route. Not that this entire argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand according to the OP; this is about adding a highly popular and highly logical map-set, given the factual balancing approach of the patch, regardless of various opinions on it. Cut the crap, indeed.

The map set you propose as number 7 is consistent with the patch approach but the patch approach is wrong, at least according to me and some others.
Because of that the "7" map set does not good, even tho your intentions are to accomadate players' map preferences.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France Rikikipu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1679
Joined: Feb 27, 2015
ESO: p-of
Location: In your base

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Rikikipu »

"YOU CAN PLAY ALL CIVS ON ALL MAPS" ~ Augustiello 2018
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

All I want is to improve the user-experience of the EP, without affecting anyone's UE adversely. Literally the only difference between having a map set according to "7" (see OP) and not having it, is that players are forced to pick a map (making for an even less diverse map-pool). This does in no way impact anyone's UE adversely. If anything, the opposite is the case. This at best irrelevant difference sees you refusing to improve the UE of the patch. In lack of a relevant argument, you spiral into obsessing over fallacies that have nothing to do with the suggestion, wasting everyone's time even more.

It is nothing short of petty and ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. It's sickening.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:Players need one single map set to coordinate on. That's for practical reasons (like not arguing which set should be used before every game) and also basic in the long term a narrow map set will cause distorsion on players win rates and elo. You say you have no intention nor prediction on whether the Competitive map set will be the standard de-facto. I'm telling you it will be, likely in competition with the Standard map set.
Now, because the EP clearly has an activity problem, any coordination problem is a big deal. You can't simply say "ok we don't want to play on the same map-set I will go play with someone else".
You keep saying alternatives exist but, in fact, they will only on paper for the reason I just explained. So all the arguments for promoting player choice are faulted in the first place.
Again, you intentionally or unconsciously refuse to aknowledge this problem.

Player choice is fine as long as there is only one main map set that assolves its role, balancining map variety, competitiveness and popularity. All my critiques are based on that.
I disagree. I don't consider any of that a given. Again, it's very simple: If players want to play on a map-set, they will. This is no reason to anyone their map-set of choice. Apart from being speculation, it is a poor argument. Again, however, none of that even matters:

How is it a problem when already, anyone can pick any map and play rated on it, let alone construct any map-set at all and play rated on it without any issue whatsoever?

Considering the above facts, it is an absolute non-argument! Arguing with you involves having one's arguments constantly ignored. It's tiresome, to say the least. Please acknowledge counter-arguments instead of pretending that they don't exist.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:
zoom wrote:I don't know what "balance being standardized around TPs" is supposed to mean. Balance is achieved on trade-route maps. Like I highlighted, there are both pros and cons to this method. I trust the project lead when he says that he's balancing civilizations around average safe-resource maps with a trade route. Not that this entire argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand according to the OP; this is about adding a highly popular and highly logical map-set, given the factual balancing approach of the patch, regardless of various opinions on it. Cut the crap, indeed.

The map set you propose as number 7 is consistent with the patch approach but the patch approach is wrong, at least according to me and some others.
Because of that the "7" map set does not good, even tho your intentions are to accomadate players' map preferences.
Whether one agrees with the patch's balancing approach – very much a matter of opinion – is irrelevant, because the approach itself is a fact, as is the demand for the map-set in question. It is counter-productive and downright stupid not to have a map-set consistent with it. Why on Earth are you so hell-bent on making the patch user-experience (player satisfaction) worse??

Again and again; post after post, you keep ignoring facts. Please stop!
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Goodspeed »

umeu wrote:sigh... it opens up many more options for iro.

A) They can always farm. Which means enough XP to consistently get 3 vils at 1.30. While with tp, it varies, sometimes you get it at 1.15, sometimes at 1.45. Additionally, it opens up the possibility to upgrade food gathering in the farm, which is a remedy vs the oft heard claim that iro's eco isn't good enough because they don't have steeltraps. Now they always have steeltrap+ available. And they always have the pen, which might also offer another bonus to their eco on maps with livestock. They can just get TP in transition, just like alot of other civs.
B) They could also open dock + 300w for 4 fishing boats.
C) They could even save the travois and use it for a fast stable warhut opening in age2 (though if you don't give them the random 100w, then this might not ever be viable.)
More options I suppose (though I feel like in almost all games it would just be an immediate farm) but how would it fix the TP reliance? Don't say "it improves NTP options", because it improves TP options just as much. The civ is still going to be much stronger on TP maps than on NTP maps.
I've read your reasoning. It just doesn't hold. You contradict yourself constantly. Standardizing is bad, but that's basically what EP has been doing consistently.
Meh, I don't think so.
You don't want to standardize, but you don't want to make civs unique.
I do. Many of our changes encourage use of unique techs/shipments/units, and we're taking great care not to nerf civ bonuses. The problem with Otto and Sioux was that their state on RE patch was so abysmal that it was our opinion that they needed an overhaul. You can call that standardizing just because they fit into the meta better, but I would argue it's necessary to fit into the meta at least a little bit because otherwise it becomes very hard to balance.
TL;DR: there's a difference between broken and unique. This, too, is an opinion. Of course it's not black and white, it never is, so where to draw the lines is always a point of discussion. But to say I'm contradicting myself seems overstating it a little.
You're open to changes, but in the end... not really.
I'm certainly open to feedback and have always appreciated it a lot. What I am not open to is overhauling our approach to balancing the game based on 2 people arguing that we should, in my opinion unconvincingly. Our approach is the result of careful consideration, experience and a whole lot of discussion. Right now I think we're doing pretty well and see no reason for any big changes.

From another thread wrote:If we want campy in-base fortress-based styles then why did we:
- Nerf dragoons
- Nerf walls
- Nerf forbidden army
- Buff cetans
- Buff dopples

Look at our changes from RE patch (you can find that comparison if you scroll down in the patch notes). You may find surprisingly few that "promote" semi-FF or campy styles. Most notably there are the Otto changes, which are an attempt at fixing a broken civ and we're definitely not done there. There's the BR nerf, which was fixing a broken unit. The key point is this: fixing broken things often has the added effect of promoting semi-FFs because the meta naturally evolves towards them. We are doing our best to counteract that by for example buffing dopples over WW, buffing Indian house cost instead of auto-upgrading gurkha (ironically suggested by many), etc.

What our changes have done, rather than promote semi-FFs they have allowed the meta to evolve towards them. It was always going to. People get really caught up in this "EP wants everyone to semi-FF into skirm goon" rhetoric, but our changes are not causing this meta movement. The widespread adoption of TPs, balanced maps and refined build orders are. It was easy to predict as far back as 5 years ago, when EP wasn't even a thing. If RE patch would have balanced maps, you would see a lot of semi-FFs there too. Actually you already do. Because of certain design choices that were made in this game, like minutemen and snare on-hit, the style tends to be superior. It's natural to go Age2, invest in some eco, see what the opponent is doing and make defensive units if necessary and then tech up further. You see the same thing happen in pretty much every RTS. Games get longer and longer, players boom and tech faster and faster. Early aggression is supposed to be gimmicky in RTS, and due to how easy scouting is in this game it tends to be less viable than in a game like SC2. You might argue then that scouting being so easy is a serious design flaw in the game and I would actually agree with you there, but it's what we have to deal with.

And I don't even see a problem when it comes to build variety. It's definitely not like every high level game is a semi-FF war. Look at last finals:
G1: Port mirror where they both forward based into colonial inf wars
G2: Brit vs Dutch semi-FF war (would be different on RE? I think not)
G3: Russian colonial timing against Dutch fortress
G4: 23 minute colonial (some water stuff)
G5: Russian colonial timing against French fortress
G6: Jan huss rush against German colonial
G7: Spain FF against Brit colonial
G8: Cons rush against French colonial
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

zoom wrote:
Garja wrote:I disagree. I don't consider any of that a given. Again, it's very simple: If players want to play on a map-set, they will. This is no reason to anyone their map-set of choice. Apart from being speculation, it is a poor argument. Again, however, none of that even matters:

It is given and it happens everyday. And it is a great argument because it highlights a core problem.
And no it's not that simple. If players want to play a map set they can't because with multiple standard map sets there will be discussion on which should be used.


How is it a problem when already, anyone can pick any map and play rated on it, let alone construct any map-set at all and play rated on it without any issue whatsoever?

It happens already in fact to argue if one map is competitive or not. Map-sets are there also so that one cannot cherry pick a map with specific charateristic to favor his civ.

Considering the above facts, it is an absolute non-argument! Arguing with you involves having one's arguments constantly ignored. It's tiresome, to say the least. Please acknowledge counter-arguments instead of pretending that they don't exist.

It's you ignoring my arguments, not the opposite.

zoom wrote:Whether everyone agrees with the patch's balancing approach – very much a matter of opinion – is irrelevant, because the approach itself is a fact. It is counter-productive and downright stupid not to have a map-set consistent with it. Why in the world are you so hell-bent on making the patch worse??

Again and again; post after post, you keep ignoring facts. Please stop!

The approach itself is a fact, my ass. If that's the direction taken the game will be ruined and I won't let it happen.
I'm hell-bent in making the patch better.
Image Image Image
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by zoom »

zoom wrote:
Garja wrote:Players need one single map set to coordinate on. That's for practical reasons (like not arguing which set should be used before every game) and also basic in the long term a narrow map set will cause distorsion on players win rates and elo. You say you have no intention nor prediction on whether the Competitive map set will be the standard de-facto. I'm telling you it will be, likely in competition with the Standard map set.
Now, because the EP clearly has an activity problem, any coordination problem is a big deal. You can't simply say "ok we don't want to play on the same map-set I will go play with someone else".
You keep saying alternatives exist but, in fact, they will only on paper for the reason I just explained. So all the arguments for promoting player choice are faulted in the first place.
Again, you intentionally or unconsciously refuse to aknowledge this problem.

Player choice is fine as long as there is only one main map set that assolves its role, balancining map variety, competitiveness and popularity. All my critiques are based on that.
I disagree. I don't consider any of that a given. Again, it's very simple: If players want to play on a map-set, they will. This is no reason to anyone their map-set of choice. Apart from being speculation, it is a poor argument. Again, however, none of that even matters:

How is it a problem when already, anyone can pick any map and play rated on it, let alone construct any map-set at all and play rated on it without any issue whatsoever?

Considering the above facts, it is an absolute non-argument! Arguing with you involves having one's arguments constantly ignored. It's tiresome, to say the least. Please acknowledge counter-arguments instead of pretending that they don't exist.
What difference does it make whether players rehost until they achieve the map-set's purpose, or pick a map, or make their own map-set, or we actually provide what players want as a feature. Why are you trying and failing—both miserably—to ruin patch users' experience? Am I missing something?? Is there something wrong with you??? Again, this is beyond ridiculous.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by deleted_user0 »

Goodspeed wrote:
umeu wrote:sigh... it opens up many more options for iro.

A) They can always farm. Which means enough XP to consistently get 3 vils at 1.30. While with tp, it varies, sometimes you get it at 1.15, sometimes at 1.45. Additionally, it opens up the possibility to upgrade food gathering in the farm, which is a remedy vs the oft heard claim that iro's eco isn't good enough because they don't have steeltraps. Now they always have steeltrap+ available. And they always have the pen, which might also offer another bonus to their eco on maps with livestock. They can just get TP in transition, just like alot of other civs.
B) They could also open dock + 300w for 4 fishing boats.
C) They could even save the travois and use it for a fast stable warhut opening in age2 (though if you don't give them the random 100w, then this might not ever be viable.)
More options I suppose (though I feel like in almost all games it would just be an immediate farm) but how would it fix the TP reliance? Don't say "it improves NTP options", because it improves TP options just as much. The civ is still going to be much stronger on TP maps than on NTP maps.
I've read your reasoning. It just doesn't hold. You contradict yourself constantly. Standardizing is bad, but that's basically what EP has been doing consistently.
Meh, I don't think so.
You don't want to standardize, but you don't want to make civs unique.
I do. Many of our changes encourage use of unique techs/shipments/units, and we're taking great care not to nerf civ bonuses. The problem with Otto and Sioux was that their state on RE patch was so abysmal that it was our opinion that they needed an overhaul. You can call that standardizing just because they fit into the meta better, but I would argue it's necessary to fit into the meta at least a little bit because otherwise it becomes very hard to balance.
TL;DR: there's a difference between broken and unique. This, too, is an opinion. Of course it's not black and white, it never is, so where to draw the lines is always a point of discussion. But to say I'm contradicting myself seems overstating it a little.
You're open to changes, but in the end... not really.
I'm certainly open to feedback and have always appreciated it a lot. What I am not open to is overhauling our approach to balancing the game based on 2 people arguing that we should, in my opinion unconvincingly. Our approach is the result of careful consideration, experience and a whole lot of discussion. Right now I think we're doing pretty well and see no reason for any big changes.

From another thread wrote:If we want campy in-base fortress-based styles then why did we:
- Nerf dragoons
- Nerf walls
- Nerf forbidden army
- Buff cetans
- Buff dopples

Look at our changes from RE patch (you can find that comparison if you scroll down in the patch notes). You may find surprisingly few that "promote" semi-FF or campy styles. Most notably there are the Otto changes, which are an attempt at fixing a broken civ and we're definitely not done there. There's the BR nerf, which was fixing a broken unit. The key point is this: fixing broken things often has the added effect of promoting semi-FFs because the meta naturally evolves towards them. We are doing our best to counteract that by for example buffing dopples over WW, buffing Indian house cost instead of auto-upgrading gurkha (ironically suggested by many), etc.

What our changes have done, rather than promote semi-FFs they have allowed the meta to evolve towards them. It was always going to. People get really caught up in this "EP wants everyone to semi-FF into skirm goon" rhetoric, but our changes are not causing this meta movement. The widespread adoption of TPs, balanced maps and refined build orders are. It was easy to predict as far back as 5 years ago, when EP wasn't even a thing. If RE patch would have balanced maps, you would see a lot of semi-FFs there too. Actually you already do. Because of certain design choices that were made in this game, like minutemen and snare on-hit, the style tends to be superior. It's natural to go Age2, invest in some eco, see what the opponent is doing and make defensive units if necessary and then tech up further. You see the same thing happen in pretty much every RTS. Games get longer and longer, players boom and tech faster and faster. Early aggression is supposed to be gimmicky in RTS, and due to how easy scouting is in this game it tends to be less viable than in a game like SC2. You might argue then that scouting being so easy is a serious design flaw in the game and I would actually agree with you there, but it's what we have to deal with.

And I don't even see a problem when it comes to build variety. It's definitely not like every high level game is a semi-FF war. Look at last finals:
G1: Port mirror where they both forward based into colonial inf wars
G2: Brit vs Dutch semi-FF war (would be different on RE? I think not)
G3: Russian colonial timing against Dutch fortress
G4: 23 minute colonial (some water stuff)
G5: Russian colonial timing against French fortress
G6: Jan huss rush against German colonial
G7: Spain FF against Brit colonial
G8: Cons rush against French colonial



they relied on tp to supplement eco. having farm to upgrade food income means they are not as reliant on tps to have a good income... it's quite obvious. With schooners no longer being a relevant card, iro can also go water, theoretically atleast. if iro sends all the cards, they can actually muster a very strong fleet, that only the best water civs can beat.

Any civ will be better if they could afford a tp. So not sure why you are even making that argument. But there's really not reason why iro would be "stronger" on ntp with this approach than on tp, except for that in some cases they might decide to use 600w for tp stagecoach. However, on ntp, they could use that 600w to upgrade the farm and market asap instead. This also provides them with an alternative on tp maps where they can do this in case they can't contest or take the tp line.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by deleted_user0 »

zoom wrote:
zoom wrote:
Garja wrote:Players need one single map set to coordinate on. That's for practical reasons (like not arguing which set should be used before every game) and also basic in the long term a narrow map set will cause distorsion on players win rates and elo. You say you have no intention nor prediction on whether the Competitive map set will be the standard de-facto. I'm telling you it will be, likely in competition with the Standard map set.
Now, because the EP clearly has an activity problem, any coordination problem is a big deal. You can't simply say "ok we don't want to play on the same map-set I will go play with someone else".
You keep saying alternatives exist but, in fact, they will only on paper for the reason I just explained. So all the arguments for promoting player choice are faulted in the first place.
Again, you intentionally or unconsciously refuse to aknowledge this problem.

Player choice is fine as long as there is only one main map set that assolves its role, balancining map variety, competitiveness and popularity. All my critiques are based on that.
I disagree. I don't consider any of that a given. Again, it's very simple: If players want to play on a map-set, they will. This is no reason to anyone their map-set of choice. Apart from being speculation, it is a poor argument. Again, however, none of that even matters:

How is it a problem when already, anyone can pick any map and play rated on it, let alone construct any map-set at all and play rated on it without any issue whatsoever?

Considering the above facts, it is an absolute non-argument! Arguing with you involves having one's arguments constantly ignored. It's tiresome, to say the least. Please acknowledge counter-arguments instead of pretending that they don't exist.
What difference does it make whether players rehost until they achieve the map-set's purpose, or pick a map, or make their own map-set, or we actually provide what players want as a feature. Why are you trying and failing—both miserably—to ruin patch users' experience? Am I missing something?? Is there something wrong with you??? Again, this is beyond ridiculous.


just go home zoom... u have really nothing useful to say. you only make empty statements or else-wise parrot other people who do have something useful to say.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Adding additional Map-Sets

Post by Garja »

Yes you are missing something. Players already don't fully agree on which map should be played sometimes. To resolve this coordination problem they agree to play on the ESOC map set which tacitly solve the problems due to randomness. In other words, players agree that randomness will give them better or worse maps.
Then sometimes you get rehosts based on map preferences, one of which admittedly is sometimes the TP issue. This is a prolem and is something not to promote because it reduces map variety.

By providing a standard map set from above, you give a chance to coordinate players around a standard. The coordination is assured is such map is one and one oly. Several map sets are no different to map picking of course.
When you put a "Standard map set" and a "Competitive map set" you potentially create coordination problems. Some players will prefer one, others will prefer the other. Players can compromise somehow or just refuse to play. Now, if the player base was large enough then yes, "to which his own". But since the community is small, this is a potential problem. Actually a very likely problem, whether you believe it or not.

Of course, calling the "Competitive map set" in a different way, using a unobtrobsive name, would probably solve the coordination problem. However in such circumstance another issue is raised: why in hell there should be a rated map set which is basically only a selection of maps that a restricted number of players want? And why everyone shouldn't then be able to advocate for their own rated map set?
Image Image 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