"Competitive map set"

[Garja]

In a hypothetic "Competitive map set", mostly focused for 1v1 and aimed at balancing competitiveness and map variety, which maps from the current ESOC pool should not be included?

Also, do you think weighting maps within this set (some maps spawn more often than others) would be a valide option to ensure more competitiveness?

[momuuu]

There already is a thread about this?

It shouldn't be no TP or 4-5 TP line, so then this:

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

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

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

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

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

But I would argue Bonnie springs, colorado, Florida, Malysia, Iowa, Wadmalaw and possibly Tassili can be seen as too weird depending on preference. Also, mendocino is such a good map I wouldn't mind including just one TP map.

[Garja]

Link me to that thread then. As far as I am aware there are several polls but none exactly asks for this configuration of Competitive map set with the current map pool.
Also, I wanted to know about the weighing feature which is currently removed from the ESOC map set and was priorly used.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I voted for all the no TP maps (Pampa and Bengal are great maps but well, no TP) + the unstandard ones ie klondike/tibet etc

[enjoy2play]

i think for 1v1 can all maps be competitive of those, except tassili probably. also depends what u understand under competitive maps, should every civ can play on those mappool randomly vs a other civ? if yea, i dont think thats possible on tassili, thats why i voted it.

[zoom]

It doesn't make any sense to call it "Competitive Maps" if you are compromising with other factors; especially considering the name would be referring to a less competitive map-set (it's hilarious how you say the suggestion of an actually competitive map-set is misleading, then proceed to truly misuse the term). The map-set also isn't any reason at all to deny patch users a full-on "Competitive Maps" set; it isn't the same thing; this set fills a different niche. You should be seeking to add value to the patch – not take it away.

On the one hand weighting this map-set makes sense, since it would help with competitiveness. On the other hand, this fact in itself is the very definition of a less-than-competitive map-set – in a competitive map-set there is no need to weight anything because maps are less diverse. As such, it makes a lot more sense not to weight it and create an actually competitive map-set and a less competitive, more varied one.

[Garja]

Well, I don't think we didn't bring up this point already in other threads, but diversity is to some extent a dimension of competitiveness because it tests player skills under different conditions.
I find it rather agreeable that a map set should keep a certain degree of diversity, hence why it is stated in the opening question. I'm leaving it up to the voters to which degree.
As for the name, I'm totally fine with calling it Standard if you think a Competitive set necessarily requires a very narrow spectrum of map conditions. What I'm interested in is which maps do people tend to consider outside of the range of compromise between competitiveness and map diversity, under the 1v1 condition.

[zoom]

Well, I don't think we didn't bring up this point already in other threads, but diversity is to some extent a dimension of competitiveness because it tests player skills under different conditions.
I find it rather agreeable that a map set should keep a certain degree of diversity, hence why it is stated in the opening question. I'm leaving it up to the voters to which degree.
As for the name, I'm totally fine with calling it Standard if you think a Competitive set necessarily requires a very narrow spectrum of map conditions. What I'm interested in is which maps do people tend to consider outside of the range of compromise between competitiveness and map diversity, under the 1v1 condition.

I agree, which is why you don't make "Competitive Maps" and replace every map-set in the game with it, but instead make additional map-sets that feature less-standard maps, allowing relatively competitive play on them as well. Mixing vastly different kinds of maps inherently makes a map-set less competitive. Yet, yet, yet again: you add things and increase options instead of limiting them. I find it very disagreeable that a map-set should keep a degree of diversity; that may and may not be the case, depending on the map-set. Yet, yet, yet, yet again: Some map-sets should offer variety, others consistency. ALLOW. BOTH.

Standard would also be a poor choice of name, considering it explicitly features non-standard maps. Balanced (as in, there is a balance of contents), Diverse or Varied maps would make a lot more sense.

[zoom]

This is under no circumstances a replacement for "Comptitive Maps" because literally the entire point of said map-set is that it's not diverse.

[Garja]

I don't think that's the point, let alone literally. Also this set won't necessarily features non standard maps, especially since standard is not perfectly defined. Unless you consider TP a standard requirement in which case I simply don't agree and I think other won't too.

[Garja]

We need a bit more votes on this

[enjoy2play]

maybe some guys just read the topic name and voted all maps which they like for the competitive map set. it looks weird atleast.

[Garja]

Ye I tried to make it very clear it's maps not to include in a competitive set.

[momuuu]

maybe some guys just read the topic name and voted all maps which they like for the competitive map set. it looks weird atleast.

The only weird thing, to me, seems that people aren't voting against no TP maps.