Map Suggestion Thread

[bart331]

What''s wrong with Araucania?

Hate that map, million tps million lamas and way too long. Though idk if possible but wud be interesting to have some larger maps as well in the pool, they require other playstyle.

[deleted_user0]

Auracania is often as bad as ozarks and sometimes its just ok, usually tgats when u have lamas which favors scout civs. If u know where to go u can have like 15 lamas and ur opponent just 9

[Good ol Ivan]

I will go ahead and propose Ceylon.
Not even trolling here, it would be pretty fun to see people play non-standard games.
The map is just so non-standard and it's fun to think both sides would be forced to try out alien builds. And I would totally like to see builds for this map.

[deleted_user0]

I would like fixed bayou (just fix spawns and thats it imo)

A fixed rockies (can also be a map with same idea of scarce top, hi res center, but with chokes still and lakota for some turtle options

Fixed ozarks, with berries in base and bigger more consistent hunts it cqn be good map, maybe add more interesting nats and put tv a slightly more forward to the middle to create a safe backarea

[lemmings121]

A fixed araucania seens interesting
just reduce llama population to a third, and fix hunts..

Dont have to be araucania actually, just a long map to force some kind of adaptation.

[_venox_]

What about Texas with one trade route with 4 trading posts going through the middle and 3 bison hunts instead of 2, and maybe only 1 tower like on Siberia?
Indochina with one big entrance and fixed water resources?
Great lakes with bit of a smaller pond and more mines and towncentres further away from the water? You can't really wall and further tcs mean you can't defend it with ships all too well.

[Nymphomaniac]

What about Texas with one trade route with 4 trading posts going through the middle and 3 bison hunts instead of 2, and maybe only 1 tower like on Siberia?

that will become another siberia (a trade route across map, more hunts and only 1 tower).
imo map structures should not be changed, only map balance (hunts, mines etc) should be.

[lordcharlie131]

I would like to have New England a bit earlier, so that the map is used more often and i would love to have northwest territurium in the mappool. Both maps create the chance of more lategame action and favours a different playstyle.

[cowhax]

[quote source="/post/6119/thread" timestamp="1430274905" author="@h2o"]Yes

Garja and myself are really just looking for what you want to see in maps and if you have any really cool unique map ideas to share! The viability of water can be discussed in another thread[/quote]Seeing as most of my concerns with map balance have already been addressed (fixing Texas, removing the ponds in New England, or turning them into some other type of impassable terrain that can't spawn boats), I'll mention an idea I had just yesterday and discussed briefly while watching Aizamk's stream with a fellow viewer.

So I know that treasure spawn points and unit types are fixed, but the treasures themselves are somewhat randomized. I was thinking of some sort of alternative to treasure "guardians" that have a better incentive for fighting with them. As it seems right now, some maps have big treasures you never see players go for in high level games. Even if the treasure can give you something you really need, it seems like there isn't often an opportunity to go after those big treasures because there's a bit of a risk to using your army to go for a treasure if the other player chooses to attack you at that same time.

My idea was that instead of a map having treasure guardians, it has classic style "gaia" units that are naturally hostile to anything that walks nearby. The way it could work is if the gaia units never spawn near hunts, "natural expansions", trading posts nearest to your TC, or along paths to the other player. Also I don't know how much the map editor allows you to modify, but if the gaia units had a short line of sight so it only attacked units directly nearby, it'd reduce the chance of a random gaia attack that much more. I was thinking, for example, on a map like Mongolia, You could have 2 gaia spawn points: One above the trade route line in the middle, and the other either at bottom-mid, or 2 smaller gaia spawns at SW and SE, for 3 total on the map. This would increase chances of earning treasure that much more, and making the incentive just enough that you'd want to go for the gaia treasure at some point during a game (since there are no other treasures available except maybe the scout at the start)

So what's the point of gaia? Well since the idea is that it'd replace treasure guardians, I think it'd help fairness (cuz witnessing treasure snatches often times, seems bad mannered even if it's good strategy) and increase diversity in build orders.

Fairness: Since you're the one attacking gaia, and it doesn't discriminate between attackers, that if you're going for a gaia treasure and the other player sees it, they're at risk of being attacked also if they get too close. Also, gaia treasures should never be small enough that they can be taken out in age 1 using nothing but your explorer and cheap AI manipulation.

Diversity: Say you're getting rushed when you wanted to eco-boom. The other player is suggesting to be playing a colonial agenda and you still want to boom or semi-FF. But his pressure forced you to send a 8 pikemen card and you didn't have a TP down. Your pikemen fight off the raid, but now they're going to be pretty useless for the next 5 minutes, and you're left in recovery mode just trying to pump vills and waiting for your next shipment. One thing that could make this situation less unforgiving is if there was a gaia treasure that guarded like a 500 gold crate or something close to what you would've sent for your 2nd/3rd card if you weren't rushed. So you could still be behind the other player in terms of eco, and you could still be at risk of being attacked again. But the incentive is just enough, and the treasure is attainable enough that you go for it and mostly depend on your micro to get the treasure without suffering any/many losses. Or maybe you had 6 pikemen left over from defending, and then in getting the gaia treasure you lose 2 more, that'd still be a trade of 280 resources of units lost total for 500~ resources + XP gained.

It would further be fair if you had to use villagers to gather up the resource crate, and maybe could be able to get away with gathering up the crates while you're in the process of killing off the gaia guardians.

I'm not sure what, or how many, or what type of units would guard gaia treasure, but I think it should be designed to be easier to handle than 5 thugee riflemen, or 4 pistoleros + 2 comancheros etc.. without actually modifying their attack or hit points. I don't think gaia should ever be ranged units, or at least they shouldn't be able to outrange your most archaic ranged infantry (supposing the ranged guardian's LOS is as good as it's ranged attack distance). Even if it was something like 4 lions, or 7 wolves I think would be enough to prevent a player going for a gaia treasure before age 2 (so long as AI for gaia isn't as vulnerable for being manipulated as the standard treasure guardian).

Could even make it so your treasure guardian is a neutral enemy outpost you have to siege down to get the treasure (and maybe no XP gained from taking out the tower, but also it doesn't regenerate HP if you don't want to take it out all in one visit). I wouldn't know how to balance it, but just another idea to mention.

Mostly I want to see:
Accessible, high-yielding treasure
Enough strong guardians that can't be manipulated between attack and retreat
No quick-snatching of other player's treasure.
Requiring a villager to gather the treasure.

I used Mongolia for an example, but it could be utilized and just about any standard map. Like on Saguenay if gaia treasures replaced those Huron native sites above your starting TC, it'd ensure that you have a guaranteed gaia treasure to yourself because no other player would bother crossing the map to gather from your gaia "claim".

Oh one last thing I wanted to mention: Silk Road must be one of the worst maps ever. What could be done to fix it aside from making the TP's normal?

[Good ol Ivan]

Not really a ground breaking idea either but sounds kinda cool I guess, anything for the sake of variety.
Outlaws are rather OP and shouldn't be used.
4 lines/8 wolves sounds ok though.

[geilebeer]

fix and add yucatan, bayou, great plains, patagonia, great lakes and himalayas
also i like yellow river (but i doubt that one is competetive)

[cowhax]

Not really a ground breaking idea either but sounds kinda cool I guess, anything for the sake of variety.
Outlaws are rather OP and shouldn''t be used.
4 lines/8 wolves sounds ok though.

Yeah my suggestion wasn''t meant to be groundbreaking. Was meant to be a throwback to classic AoE, but actually getting rewarded by it. It''s meant to be more accessible, high amount but limited quantity of resources to either quicken the pace of the game, or narrow the margin between another player''s lead.

What did you mean by lines? lions? Yeah, nothing too strong, just strong enough you can''t take out in age 1. Cuz say it was a 500 food treasure, and it only took about a minute to kill all the guardians, well your age up timing would be cut in half, and that definitely effects the meta. I just haven''t been sure if certain resource crates benefit some civs over others. Like if Japan + British benefit from a 500 wood crate more than anybody else, or if all civs could find some way to utilize the wood that no civ indisputably benefits from one resource type over other civs/resources.

Also this idea could just end up effecting build orders where a person goes for some gaia treasure rather than sending resource crates, and then can send a unit shipment or upgrade card instead. I just like the idea of having an "emergency fund" for when you''re getting rushed that essentially only costs you some micro to get. And there still could be other standard treasures around on maps that players won''t have to depend on the gaia treasures to get any extra resources.

[Durokan]

I really like the original pampas, it would be nice to see some games on a remake of that.

[Good ol Ivan]

I really like the original pampas, it would be nice to see some games on a remake of that.

agreed

[Durokan]

I had a brilliant shower thought this morning after thinking about what people have been saying about maps. My favorite map in terms of aesthetics is Pampas. I really like how the blue and brown colors look together. My favorite map used to be New England, and this thread has had a lot of discussion about both New England and water booming in particular. I made these concept maps to address those issues. The outcropping into the water where the islands used to be will make it easier for a land economy to defend against a water economy, but by that notion it also makes it easier for the water player to protect their half of the water. The map would probably be called Jebel Musa, which is a mountain in Morocco near the straight of Gibaltar. This can explain the cliffs I have put into the map. I have enjoyed the resource rich basin in Rockies, and I think it makes sense to have the cliffs Garja was talking about in the original New England. The trade route can be from people landing on the beach and taking things inland. I'm not really sure what kind of natives to put on this map because African natives are not in the game. Africa was a hot seat of colonization on the later end of the AOE3 spectrum, so the map does have some historical relevance. I just have concept art and can make a bare-bones map when I have access to the game later tonight. I don't know how to script maps and am not really that good at making maps from a balance perspective, so any help would be very useful. I hope that this map can see competitive play in the next tournament, or even for Saturday Smackdown. The alternate version is an idea I had to force a water player to leave his base in order to waterboom, which is just a theory to bring more balance to a full water economy in the event that water booming is seen as unbalanced. That might be unbalanced because the water player could wall himself up on the outcropping, hence the original map that I like more. The map is not a final proposal, it is just concept art. I am not claiming this map is balanced in its current state, or even playable. The natural resources were placed in the locations they are just because I thought it would look better to be able to see a fully flushed out map rather than a hollow shell. They do not have anything to do with fair placement or even amount. I can add more alternate versions of the map if people are more interested about what I have done. I will even create a thread with voting if this map really takes off.

-Durokan
[img style="max-width:100%'" src="http://i.imgur.com/OT0Fczf.png" alt=""]

[Goodspeed]

Looks very wallable

[Jaeger]

I think this map accomplishes what most Aoe players are looking for in a water map, and makes water play really enjoying to watch.
The map is about half land, half water. Resources on land are scarce as well, maybe 1 silver mine and 2 deer herds for each player along with a few berries, and players start with 2 outposts in their base. The water doesn't contain many resoruces either, maybe like 1-3 whales and 2 patches of fish. The main feature however is a large island in the middle of the water, which has a large number of elephants (maybe 20 or so) and some gold mines (maybe 3-4). It might also be a good idea to have 2 TP's on land, so that the player who is loosing control of water can have something to rebound on.

I realize this map can heavily favor some civilizations (such as aztec) but this is not necessarily a problem. It could be the case that both players agree NOT to play say aztec, or even if it is always an aztec mirror on this map (like it's always japan mirror on siberia) it still has the advantages listed below.

This map
a) Showcases plenty of warship combat, even from civs we haven't seen this from before (such as French)
b) Makes fishing boat economy as a strategical addition to land economy (maybe if you temporarily loose control of the island, you make a few fishing boats to complement your berry gathering)
c) Promotes VERY inteactive gameplay
d) While this map might favor some civs such as aztec, it brings a lot of civs to a much more even footing (Spain, Dutch, Germany, etc.)

[Durokan]

Looks very wallable

No more than the original NE?

Edit: Would adding another pass or more passes make it more balanced?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Looks very wallable

No more than the original NE?

Edit: Would adding another pass or more passes make it more balanced?

Ne is one of my favourite map but some players think it is too wallable...

[_H2O]

There's a solid group of people who areclooking for standard maps. I don't think that map has any problems. It looks pretty cool

[benj89]

yeah because many player rage vs pond laming (which can actually be kind prevented building towers, I mean you know it will happen so just prevent it or play with it..). Otherwise one of the most interesting map imo if only herds and mine were fixed
for the walls if the guy wall the whole side its kinda alot , and always consider ships -->' pond/water side -->' transport units = wall useless

[Durokan]

Water is usually the lowest area on the map. The problem is you want this map to have an elevation difference between the players areas, the valley and the water area. So if the players areas can smoothly extend to a lower elevation area (the valley), then the difference with the water area will be quite abrupt on the sides. Unless you want the valley to be sort of flooded, but it wouldn''t make sense to have a flooded trade route.

I''ll look into it tomorrow. I didnt really think about making it from a scripting perspective, but surely there could be the same sort of transition from the cliffs to the shores that in the center. I''ll look at the new england cliff/water interaction to see how it works. The height difference doesn''t have to be that large anyways, just enough to have cliffs/impassable terrain.

On a different note, if anyone would like to make this/collaborate with me on this/point me in the right direction to making this I would be very grateful.

Edit: maybe there could be some sort of beach head to help with the transition.

[cowhax]

well that's the problem with cliff maps in general is they're so wallable. It's why you usually never see people play on Himalayas even though it's one of my favorite maps. The compromise to having a good map is finding the balance between wallable terrain and raidable terrain. IMO it's not good to have a map that is more in favor of either one. But if a map has no great reason to take on the middle, it encourages turtling.

I do like that the cliffs would prevent super aggressive Agra fort placement. And that just made me wonder why people don't put down single wall pillars to prevent Indian settlers from building any aggressive agra forts...

[Durokan]

I had some free time today so I hopped into the scenario editor to create a scenario version of what the scripted map might look like. The map is a little too big with some empty space, but conceptually it looks like it should. I am still waiting on a reply about the help/link to a map scripting tutorial, but until then I will try to make this look better so I have something to go off of once the process moves along. The guides I have found for the most part are dead links. I will try to view an archived version later when I have more time.

I will drop a link to the mediafire download below if anyone would like to view it for themselves in the scenario editor.

said download here