[Treaty] What makes a good 1v1 map?

[dicktator_]

Seems like an important discussion with the 1v1 tournament coming and all the current treaty maps being designed primarily for team. Is having decent resources and TCs a reasonable distance away from each other enough? What can be done to the layout to make for a more interesting 1v1 map? Are there any existing maps (maps designed for TR, standard maps, or esoc maps) that with a couple tweaks could make a decent 1v1 treaty map? I'll look into it but I want to hear other people's opinions as well.

[QueenOfdestiny]

Hmmm does the Nats matter?
Imo
Esoc Pampas Sierras (Inca Nats)
Esoc Arizona
Esoc Iowa (Inca Nats)
Well Tbh to be fair
As long pp play Orinoco I guess dosent matter so much.
Imo esoc Andes in 1v1 is a bit small.
Maybe Arkansa is to small for treaty. Re maps PD but to small for 1v1, hima upper, deccan, ori and GP

[dicktator_]

For nats I would either use the existing nats on the map or look through here for some interesting nats.

[dave_12]

There should be tps on the map so having map control gives you an advantage. I think having a map without any natives could be nice aswell. Personally I think a map design where both players are far away from each other, but the map is not very wide. Then there could be like 5 tps on a route reaching from the base one player to the other one. If you push further you are able to grab a tp from the enemys side. Agressive and dynamic play would be rewarded with this

[dave_12]

I think having big ressource treasures on the map is nice aswell so the boom is not that boring and being able to collect/steel treasures gives you a Little Advantage but nothing too op

[JakeyBoyTH]

The blitz maps modified for a boom could be very balanced. You could potentially get some high scores too.

[Gichtenlord]

I would suggest to try out 2vs2 map size on 1vs1 maps.
Also, there should always be nats. In my opinion, 1vs1's are supposed to be fast paced.

[Hazza54321]

one that isnt made by gichtenlord

[Darwin_]

Yeah I like the idea that @dave_12 said: a long map with a trade route running from one person's base to the other to incentivise map control, and I think it might be cool with even more trading posts (like 7 or 9 on a 2v2 sized map).

Also, I think cherokee could be a good native post, as well as klamath, cree, zen, and maybe mapuche, maya, and Zapotec as well, though those last three have some pretty OP upgrades.

[Hidddy_]

I always thought Rockies had some potential as a map. If the spawn plateau was longer and the middle of the map were smaller it'd be pretty neat

[guyshir]

Deccan is one of the most balanced map in terms of spawn, natural resources available till age 5, a tp for each player (in 1v1) and also, enough trees to get all upgrades and decent amount for the game while clearing all the forest before nr40. It also has the best treasure in game, 10% inf hp, 300 wood, 360 food, 210 coin, and numerous coin treasures, so starting treasures and scouting pattern also plays a vital role. You have safe zone for eco as you dont have to wall full circle.

The drawback still remains that there are 3 war fronts which seems to be detached from each other, units have to walk a lot of you have dedicated pop on one side. In case of desperateness runs from trade route are also seen .

As @dave_12 mentioned, tp contest is something which will keep the game interesting, and this map encourages as there are 2 routes with 3 tp each, hence will be a great map for fighting at various fronts.

Some changes that could make this map better would be removing a few starting crates, modifying cliff/plateau so units have a shorter path. Also, same nats on for both players (usually they are 2 different).

[JakeyBoyTH]

I always thought Rockies had some potential as a map. If the spawn plateau was longer and the middle of the map were smaller it'd be pretty neat

Used to be my favourite map

[QueenOfdestiny]

On some point I was thinking about high plains bc of the tps... No Nats is a nice idea imo.

[wardyb1]

Yeah I like the idea that @dave_12 said: a long map with a trade route running from one person's base to the other to incentivise map control, and I think it might be cool with even more trading posts (like 7 or 9 on a 2v2 sized map).

Also, I think cherokee could be a good native post, as well as klamath, cree, zen, and maybe mapuche, maya, and Zapotec as well, though those last three have some pretty OP upgrades.

Could just make a silk road style thing. Promotes the aggressive play, get rid of the pain of having to constantly rebuild and defend them. Much more rewarding for pushing and holding the area.

[Gichtenlord]

Yeah...
Silkroad is actually a fun treaty map with some tweaks.

[dave_12]

Don't implant unnecessary things that could cause additional lag. (e.g. Toluka)

[Gichtenlord]

Yup water sucks

[dave_12]

It also has the best treasure in game, 10% inf hp, 300 wood, 360 food, 210 coin, and numerous coin treasures, scouting pattern also plays a vital role.

I think 10% inf hp is too big of an advantage but agree on the point about scouting pattern. Having sheep on the map is another nice way to reward the player who is able to scout better. Do you guys agree or do you think the skill cap shouldnt be increased?

[martinspjuth]

I think it is important that maps (both 1v1 and other) bring variety and offer different strategies.

There are imo quite a few maps that could be good in 1v1 with just a few tweaks. I've listen some I believe have potential, but all of them could probably use a bit of work on resource distribution, some more than others.

ESOC Northern California. It is imo good to go as it is for 1v1. Both players get a tp before 40, nats are on the same distance from their bases and you have three fronts which makes for interesting decision making and strategies. Might make things a bit more interesting if there are different nats on each side (each player got one of each).

ESOC Deccan. Has the potential to be good if only the TC placement was fixed so the bases was straight opposite each other and they didn't have a trade route going right through their base.

ESOC Snowy Great Plains. Could be a good 1v1 map if only the size where fixed to what it is in 2v2. Might also be good to remove the "Snowy" since many players seem to dislike the white background.

ESOC Andes. It is a good 1v1 map, but slightly too small.

Upper Himalayas. It is an interesting map which do well as a non-tp map. Would need a few tweaks to nats placement and MAYBE to cliffs to make it fair. It’s probably the map with the most need for natural resource balance of the maps I've listed.

Treasures and Livestock. I think a few more good resource treasures could make age1 more interesting, but 10%hp, +5 max pop, vill/cdb, -5% coin cost etc give too big of an advantage in the long run. I think cows/sheep are bad too, they benefit only certain civs too much.

Other than that I also like the idea of a long map with a trade route running from base to base.

[dave_12]

Does anyone agree with me and queen about a no nats map?

[Gichtenlord]

Does anyone agree with me and queen about a no nats map?

Nah, way too slow paced. Depending on map size, they can be dragged out for quite a long time

[dave_12]

Does anyone agree with me and queen about a no nats map?

Nah, way too slow paced. Depending on map size, they can be dragged out for quite a long time

Wouldnt it be fine having one map where matches last longer and are exhausting? Yo gotta work on your endurance, lasting only 3 mins is not gonna get you far

[martinspjuth]

Does anyone agree with me and queen about a no nats map?

Nah, way too slow paced. Depending on map size, they can be dragged out for quite a long time

Wouldnt it be fine having one map where matches last longer and are exhausting? Yo gotta work on your endurance, lasting only 3 mins is not gonna get you far

First of I have to agree that 1v1's shouldn't be too slow paced. As for endurance, I do think that is an important quality for a top Treaty Player. I do however not think it is fun to watch or play a match that is an endurance competition.

I disagree with that No Nats Maps have to be slow paced. It all depends on how the map is designed. Take normal Deccan as an example, even if neither player uses nats, that map is always very fast in 1v1. That's because it is too small, but also because you can fight over strategical points on the map that can get snowball effect, just like nats do, only here they come from flanking/mortar/TP advantages instead of nats. So could be nice to see more maps where this is a thing, focus ain't on nats but on other strategical uses of the map.

Imo it would be nice to have the whole scale, from where nats play a major part to a minor part to no part at all. We have already maps where natives play a major part, Andes and GP. Even Touluca and Northen California has many nats, even though they are weaker. I would like to see some maps where natives exist, but only 1 post for each side. There natives could be a complement unit, but can't play a major part in the fight. Maps with no natives can also be nice, interesting and fast paced as I explained above, it also lets each civ be used to its fullest in different situations without the dependence on foreign units (nats).