Biased mapchecking?

Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

I think over half of the maps have spawns that are way too inconsistent for tournament games.

Its just such a poor show if a map has to be rehosted 3 times or sth on stream.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Kaiserklein »

Iirc, there was 1 rehost in my series against dicktator and also 1 rehost against prince (I know he was missing cows in game 1 and didn't want to rehost, but to be fair the rehost in game 2 wasn't needed so in the end it's still 1 rehost). I don't think that's outrageous. I'd rather have a couple rehosts than perfectly fixed/symmetrical maps. Then yeah, there is probably a perfect way to code the maps so that the spawns are always diverse and fair, but I don't think we can teach these guys how to code maps.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Biased mapchecking?

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user »

Kaiserklein wrote:but I don't think we can teach these guys how to code maps.

You may not but I can. I'm the most prolific Java programmer the world has ever seen. My skills easily translate across all coding languages and my intuition for map design is impeccable.
No Flag tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3449
Joined: Jun 8, 2015

Re: Biased mapchecking?

  • Quote

Post by tedere12 »

why I always read biased maphacking
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Garja »

Jerom wrote:I think over half of the maps have spawns that are way too inconsistent for tournament games.

Its just such a poor show if a map has to be rehosted 3 times or sth on stream.

No and no really.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

_H2O wrote:Jerom, Iā€™m sorry but your comments are here negative and wrong at the same time. They slap people in the face who have improved the state of the game significantly. They end up also providing no real solutions. What is anyone going to do with ā€œmake tournament ready versions of the mapsā€ when you know very well the maps are designed to be tournament ready. Itā€™s really not something I can watch that happen without saying anything.

Let's actually take a serious look at what I posted here:
Jerom wrote:In the end if one would try to optimize this stuff, then the maps would have to be rewritten or get tournament versions. It's just so bad for the viewer experience that you're stuck between rehosting 1-5 times or something or that you have to have competitive series played out on unfair map spawns.

Jerom wrote:Two points:
1) Garja has revisited his maps multiple times to make them more and more random. Just take a simple look at rikikipu's maps, which are at least way more consistent in terms of their spawns. He applies some coding to make the map spawn symmetrically very frequently and that gives a really nice result in terms of hunt spawns on most of them (some of the maps still face issues but thats how it is). Garja insists that unfair map spawns are more fun or something, while some sense of randomness that they used to have is completely fine too.
2) honestly, non random maps or maps with relatively consistent spawns can be more fun. It's honestly a mistake to think that fixed maps lead to boring games. I think more fixed maps can create strategies that fully account for the timings at which certain hunts run out or timing attacks at certain positions.

Anyhow, theres definitely the possibility to make maps have good spawns 100% of the time, and that possibility is definitely being ignored by that one specific person. The problem is that that person will refuse to listen to feedback so we might as well give up trying to change things.

And now tell me how this is negative and wrong. More specifically, how am I not providing real solutions? You can call me negative for giving direct criticism about something thats quite clearly problematic (the amount of map rehosts causes a direct loss of viewers and is just extremely annoying, plus add to that that in non casted games players have a legitemate chance of getting screwed over and lose because of a map), and sure thats fine. I am not the person to go all "wow you're so great" on something just because. It's not perfect right now, and direct criticism ("negativity") is required if one strives for improvement. So I'm sorry I'm not a shining sun, a pretty flower, that is sucking garja's dick. My bad.

That being said, the community in the past has wanted to preserve the random seed concept of maps while spawning fairly. Difficult to achieve both. At one point our standard of fair was saying ESOC maps sapawned fairly 9/10 Times. Over time I feel the community is demanding more and more equity in spawns which makes sense.

What would be helpful is to spawn the map 10+ times and record if it is fair or not. If it is not fair enough then why. That gives the map makers data points to understand where the code might be causing bad spawns. Not that fair is subjective. At one point fair was just do both sides have the same number of hunts and mines on your half and equally placed first three hunts and mines.

If we have those data points and then discuss it then thereā€™s a chance the maps get adjusted. Otherwise this is just a venting thread.

I think you should get your facts straight. Garja specifically revisited maps, like arkansas, to increase the randomness in spawns. So pointing at the code, I'd point at the part where garja is deliberately making maps more random than I think is good. I'm sure it doesn't need to get more specific. But in more detail, like I already suggested, I think the way riki scripts random maps symmetrically, or just the way a map like hudson bay spawns, is much and much better for tournaments. Look at a map like Fertile crescent (absolutely my favorite map if it spawns properly). Just the other day I was playing a game without a 3rd hunt. Thats not because it bugged out once, but because the 3rd hunt is not defined clearly enough on purpose. The map is great on average, but after playing a ton of games on it, theres a distinct possibility of spawning with 2 hunts while your opponent has 3 really safe hunts and thats just not good enough for a competitive tournament. Look at arkansas, where you can spawn with 3 ultra safe hunts and then a 4th hunt in a position where it can be herded behind your TC (not at your TC but for a fourth hunt behind your TC is really great). On the other hand, a spawn where your 3rd hunt is pretty far away and in front is actually a legitemate possibility to. Think about a match up with british, say brits vs russia, where brits can either have 4 safe hunts or 2 safe hunts with a 3rd hunt less safe than the 4th (since the 3rd hunt is in front near the blockhouse). This means a finals can be decided on a random arkansas spawn.

I've outed this criticism numerous times, even in a more constructive manner than this (honest to god, I don't even begin to understand how you can call my criticism simply negative if you read the posts here). The thing is that garja doesn't take criticism. He won't even accept any spawn might be flawed. He denied arkansas would have 4 hunts, then I spawned the map once, herded for 2 minutes and delivered him a screenshot of me having 3 hunts at my TC and one slightly behind it, and Garja just ignored it.

Garja wrote:
Jerom wrote:I think over half of the maps have spawns that are way too inconsistent for tournament games.

Its just such a poor show if a map has to be rehosted 3 times or sth on stream.

No and no really.

This is how garja acts, its impossible to be positive as he literally just goes "nah you're wrong" whenever you give normal criticism. He just says nah you're wrong, even if you provide a fucking screenshot of having 4 safe hunts on arkansas and tell him thats the first time you spawned it, then he says that you'd have to spawn it like 20 times. It's impossible to deal with positively.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Garja »

Lol jerom, it obviously doesn't have to be more specific because you have no insight. Arkansas is one of those maps who were revisited over and over to be more consistent and not the opposite. And it is one of the maps with most consistent spawn in fact.
Also Hudson Bay has a larger degree of freedom in resource placement than Arkansas so I really don't know what you're talking about.
Of course 3rd hunt is not defined o Fertile Crescent. And same thing applies to about 60% of the maps actually. Very few maps currently have a specific 3rd hunt coded to the TC, and when that's the case it is for practical purposes. Different maps use different way of codings anyway, depending on layout, hunt size, other resources etc. A map like Baja California with its peculiar layout + sea + small hunts + 2 berries in base + no herdables, etc. is clearly different than Kamchatka.
Why would every map should even have a 3rd hunt coded specifically when:
1) 2nd hunt is conservative enough for balance in like 70% of cases;
2) coding 3rd hunts specifically is a noobier way of map scripting (again needed for practical purposes before anything else);
3) more freedom in hunt placement leads to different hunt patterns which then lead to different game flows and different games in general.
Also Fertile Crescent never really has 3 safe hunts for any of the player. The worst case scenario is with hunts mostly on one half of the map which is worth a rehost.

About Arkansas, it is actually supposed to be more like the 2nd scenario (3rd hunt not very clear) than the first (3 safe hunts) and the variability is what makes the map better than let's say Kamchatka. Mostly because you have to actually care scouting and herding those hunts before it becomes a problem. Also because that's the right amount of hunts for good compromise between safeness and action.

Anything else I'm just not gonna reply because it's just bs. Your screenshot doesn't even show 4 hunts lol. And as if I didn't spawn the map enough times to know the borderline cases are.
Image Image Image
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Kaiserklein »

@momuuu You basically give no real solution. You want maps to be fixed and/or symmetrical. It kills all the purpose of scouting your/your opponent's resources and adapt to the amount of resources you have/he has. That's not really a solution, it's like deciding to go with fixed crates starts (like diarouga wanted so much) instead of actually balancing the various crates starts. It's lazy and bad.

Knowing the exact timing at which your hunts run out is a skill, but not so much if it is always the exact same timing on a given map. You don't really need to use your brain to learn how many minutes you can stay in base on each map. The real skill is to scout your resources and then deduce what kind of timing you can afford to hit, and at which point your opponent will be out of resources himself. It's adaptation, aka being smart. So now, assuming we don't want fixed maps: what solution can you propose?

I feel like you're more arguing against Garja than defending your ideas. Sure, he's super stubborn and doesn't take criticism, and the maps could probably have a little more consistent spawns. But in the end there's no way to make interesting maps that would spawn fairly 100% of the time, and I think everyone realizes that.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Mitoe »

Kaiserklein wrote:...You want maps to be fixed and/or symmetrical. It kills all the purpose of scouting your/your opponent's resources and adapt to the amount of resources you have/he has. That's not really a solution, it's like deciding to go with fixed crates starts (like diarouga wanted so much) instead of actually balancing the various crates starts. It's lazy and bad.

Knowing the exact timing at which your hunts run out is a skill, but not so much if it is always the exact same timing on a given map. You don't really need to use your brain to learn how many minutes you can stay in base on each map. The real skill is to scout your resources and then deduce what kind of timing you can afford to hit, and at which point your opponent will be out of resources himself. It's adaptation, aka being smart...

To be fair, Colorado is a fixed map (I believe). I've never seen it spawn strangely or differently at least, and it's a great map IMO. It's got a great design to compensate for not needing to scout for your own resources, though, as the hunts spawn close enough to herd to your TC, but only if you control them well because the 3rd hunt (elk) doesn't have enough animals (total hp, the number of times you can shoot them without killing them) to be constantly manipulated over a long period of time. The 2nd and 3rd mines are also relatively safe usually, but your opponent can often create situations in which they become unsafe, which also requires scouting and adaptation on your part.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Kaiserklein »

It's not completely fixed I think, but I see your point. Though I still don't think it would be enjoyable if all maps were like this.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

I dont even think maps should be fixed, I think maps should be more consistent. The truth is that garja can be quoted saying he changed some maps to be less static and more random. I don't recall anyone claiming that the maps were boring because they weren't random enough. I can be quoted, in this thread, to argue for making mapps less random and more consistent. I can be quoted referring to some tricks riki uses in his maps that causes symmetric spawn as a potential solution. I have argued for defining 2nd and 3rd hunts more precisely, because a game is not playable if the 2nd and 3rd hunts are imbalanced.

Saying making maps more fixed is not a solution is somewhat biased to begin with. I actually would prefer all maps to be completely fixed, which just shows the bias in your statement. My point in this thread is that these maps are not really great for tournament standards and that their spawns (and thus basically luck) can definitely influence the outcome of a tournament series. I'm also saying that making the maps less random is quite clearly possible, I could refer to more maps that are really consistent which clearly shows it is possible to have consistent map spawns. Notice for example how Hudson Bay is a really consistent map, or Mendocino, Tassili, colorado.

Sure you could argue that it'd be less fun this way, and I could make some serious points about fixed maps. The real thing I was trying to say in my last posts, is that Ryan's post is absolutely uncalled for as showcased even in this thread, and that criticism is hard with a garja that ignores it either way. It needs to be mentioned I think that he does this, as it otherwise seems like the maps couldn't be improved. I made these posts here expressing that there is a choice, that one can make the maps way more consistent while keeping at least some random aspects. I even said that, for a tournament setting, maybe the admins should be more critical in selecting the maps as some maps are definitely pretty far off optimal in a tournament setting. I don't understand how my posts warrant a hate post by H2O. That's all I wanted to say.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Kaiserklein »

Well yeah I definitely agree that the few first hunts should be more consistent and more fair, but again I don't feel like the amount of rehosts has been outrageous.
Also I was saying that about fixed maps because I'm rather sure that a vast majority of the community (including the higher level players) wouldn't enjoy fixed maps. We can check that easily and make a poll actually.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Kaiserklein »

Btw on Mendocino, I can just decide to not scout my hunts and then send 3 villagers to herd my 2 hunts, and only one of these vils won't find a hunt, 100% of the games. On hudson I could probably do the same, and later on I can send vils on top of my base without scouting anything and find a hunt and a goldmine. On high plains or arkansas, I can go mercs and literally move my vils from goldmine to goldmine without scouting them.
So it does make it a little bit boring and removes a part of skill, if you have a bit of experience on these maps.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

Garja wrote:Lol jerom, it obviously doesn't have to be more specific because you have no insight. Arkansas is one of those maps who were revisited over and over to be more consistent and not the opposite. And it is one of the maps with most consistent spawn in fact.
Also Hudson Bay has a larger degree of freedom in resource placement than Arkansas so I really don't know what you're talking about.
Of course 3rd hunt is not defined o Fertile Crescent. And same thing applies to about 60% of the maps actually. Very few maps currently have a specific 3rd hunt coded to the TC, and when that's the case it is for practical purposes. Different maps use different way of codings anyway, depending on layout, hunt size, other resources etc. A map like Baja California with its peculiar layout + sea + small hunts + 2 berries in base + no herdables, etc. is clearly different than Kamchatka.
Why would every map should even have a 3rd hunt coded specifically when:
1) 2nd hunt is conservative enough for balance in like 70% of cases;
2) coding 3rd hunts specifically is a noobier way of map scripting (again needed for practical purposes before anything else);
3) more freedom in hunt placement leads to different hunt patterns which then lead to different game flows and different games in general.
Also Fertile Crescent never really has 3 safe hunts for any of the player. The worst case scenario is with hunts mostly on one half of the map which is worth a rehost.

About Arkansas, it is actually supposed to be more like the 2nd scenario (3rd hunt not very clear) than the first (3 safe hunts) and the variability is what makes the map better than let's say Kamchatka. Mostly because you have to actually care scouting and herding those hunts before it becomes a problem. Also because that's the right amount of hunts for good compromise between safeness and action.

Anything else I'm just not gonna reply because it's just bs. Your screenshot doesn't even show 4 hunts lol. And as if I didn't spawn the map enough times to know the borderline cases are.

[spoiler=arkasas]Image[/spoiler]
Here are 4 arkansas spawns.
Spawn 1: Rehost. Red has 3 hunts that can get in TC range easily, while orange's 3rd hunt is crappy.
Spawn 2: Probably acceptable. Orange's 3rd hunt is slightly worse which sucks
Spawn 3: Rehost. Oranges 3rd hunt is much better. Its one of those thats far away, but can comfortably be herded beneath the TC which makes it safe
Spawn 4: Rehost. Red gets 4 hunts here, that are safe. Again this is very typical for Arkansas, where those 2 hunts are both behind the TC making them too safe.

This is my point. These maps could very well cause one player to lose. The possibilities go from having 2 safe hunts and a rough 3rd hunt to having 4 pretty safe hunts and it's definitely possible to spawn with 4 of these safe hunts vs someone that is struggling to control his third hunt.

[spoiler=hudson bay]Image[/spoiler]
Spawn 1: This one is probably fine, The hunt in the 5 o clock position is a bit good for orange and if it'd walk towards the orange TC that'd be problematic but a spawn like this is probably fine and unavoidable if it's even sort of random.
Spawn 2: I'd say this one is pretty much fine.
Spawn 3: Rehost. The clear hudson bay problem where it doesnt place a hunt for orange at the 2-3 o clock position. I believe that hunt is not necessarily fixed there but it spawns there really often, and it makes for a great 4th hunt mostly so if it doesn't spawn like that it's a rehost.
Spawn 4: Fine.

You can see I do know what I'm talking about. After 4 spawns I called it a day partially because they matched my experience nicely. Hudson bay has 3 hunts that are very consistent and honestly it almost always has that 4th hunt location at the top near the lake. If it doesn't have that one it almost always need to be rehosted. I could see this map being greatly improved if you would look at this inconsistently and fix that 4th hunt, because the map is never tournament viable if it doesn't spawn. And clearly the Arkansas spawns are really volatile. I think it could be possible to limit the hunt spawns in those "behind the TC" zones or maybe move the TC's back a little bit. I think these maps spawns perfectly depict my earlier posts and I think the feedback I'm given is called for.

PS: The pictures are not OCD approved. I was lazy when painting them.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

Kaiserklein wrote:Btw on Mendocino, I can just decide to not scout my hunts and then send 3 villagers to herd my 2 hunts, and only one of these vils won't find a hunt, 100% of the games. On hudson I could probably do the same, and later on I can send vils on top of my base without scouting anything and find a hunt and a goldmine. On high plains or arkansas, I can go mercs and literally move my vils from goldmine to goldmine without scouting them.
So it does make it a little bit boring and removes a part of skill, if you have a bit of experience on these maps.

Truth be told, normally you just have the entire map scouted. I honestly don't like it, as a gameplay element, to have not scouted a little area and then randomly it turns out to have a very random but crucial mine there. In the end, most of our early game scouting is just trying to locate treasures and as the game goes on the only truly influential thing is where the safe resources are and more importantly how many of those there are. I think you could create interesting micro dynamics if you could fix a crucial hunt at an interesting location. I also do not think the scouting factor, which admittedly does exist to a small extend, is fun enough to warrant for the map screws.

Also note that in this thread I mostly called for consistency adjustments in random spawns, not fixed maps. I'd personally probably argue for fixed maps but that's more a hypothetical discussion as that'd be too radical of a change. But like in my previous post, fixing that 4th hunt would probably be a straight up improvement to hudson bay as hudson bay just spawns unfairly (and thus in an unfun manner) if that 4th hunt isn't there.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Kaiserklein »

Well, spending some apm on your explorer scouting those little black parts in age 2 on RE can actually make a difference, and I like it. On most EP maps, it doesn't matter.
I really don't like the idea of fixing anything, and I believe most people share that point of view. I like when there are constraints to make sure that the 3-4 first hunts are at a similar range of tc for both players, without being necessarily symmetrical or fixed. But I don't wanna blame the mapmakers for not doing that, because it's probably really hard.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

Kaiserklein wrote:Well, spending some apm on your explorer scouting those little black parts in age 2 on RE can actually make a difference, and I like it. On most EP maps, it doesn't matter.
I really don't like the idea of fixing anything, and I believe most people share that point of view. I like when there are constraints to make sure that the 3-4 first hunts are at a similar range of tc for both players, without being necessarily symmetrical or fixed. But I don't wanna blame the mapmakers for not doing that, because it's probably really hard.

Look we basically agree. The fixed hunt stuff discussion is a different discussion. I completely agree with the constraints on the 3rd and 4th hunt so that you get a consistent result. Either that or fixed/symmetrical, because I don't think the bad spawns are worth it. I wouldn't blame mapmakers for not doing that. But at least they could look at that sort of criticism, and say something like "well it's technically impossible to fix this" at which point I do think it's fair to stop using that map as tournament map or use it less frequently. What I do blame garja for is that, whenever you come up with real criticism or put in effort to write a big post, he'll ignore it. It just sucks. Like I said, I told him before that Arkansas can get 4 safe hunts vs 2, and showed him a screenshot. Even after that he just denies it, just look at this thread. That's the point where I do get a little bit cynical yes, but still I'm trying to be constructive.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Garja »

Those 4 arkansas spawns are nearly perfect. Both players get enough hunts and they do at pretty much the same distance even. If anything is not perfectly even it's the mines, which again is totally acceptable.
Hudson spawns are also totally fine. In the 3rd spawn the top part spawns with 3 hunt out of 4 (intended) but they are all slightly moved to the left so orange player misses the top corner hunt (not intended). However, bottom hunts exactly compensate that being moved on the right instead. That spawn is also totally fine.

Thinking that those spawns can cause one player to lose is ridicolous. I mean if you can't bear those spawns which are super conservative you might as well go play something else.

Kaiserklein wrote: I like when there are constraints to make sure that the 3-4 first hunts are at a similar range of tc for both players, without being necessarily symmetrical or fixed. But I don't wanna blame the mapmakers for not doing that, because it's probably really hard.

It's not even hard. that would actually be a rather nooby approach to coding a map. Would require additional code and wouldn't even work that well for team spawns, where the increased map size would expose how resources tend to polarize near TCs rather than being distributed evenly all around the map.
Most maps have that kind of conservative approach but not in terms of max distance from TC.
The main measures to ensure that hunts spawn evenly are the minimum distance from TC and the minimum distance among hunts. Those constraints combined with hunts spawning after mines and trees is already enough in 90% of cases to ensure good spawns for both 1v1 and team. Then if that's not enough, more specific constraints can be added.
For example Arkansas only have one deer hunt coded to each player. All other deer hunts (7 or 8 in 1v1, depending on how much room they find) are placed randomly below the river and they spawn evenly 9 times out of 10.
I think anyone can see the huge advantage of using just a couple constraints instead of more tight constraints up to the 4th hunt or so. It is both more elegant (less and leaner code) and also more effective in allowing different hunt patterns. This better approch transfers to team spawns without requiring extra code.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

And this is why its pointless to give feedback.
User avatar
Serbia sirmusket
Jaeger
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sep 11, 2015
ESO: ModernDayWarri0r
Location: SRBIJA

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by sirmusket »

Garja wrote:Those 4 arkansas spawns are nearly perfect. Both players get enough hunts and they do at pretty much the same distance even. If anything is not perfectly even it's the mines, which again is totally acceptable.
Hudson spawns are also totally fine. In the 3rd spawn the top part spawns with 3 hunt out of 4 (intended) but they are slightly moved to the left so orange player misses the top corner hunt. However, bottom hunts exactly compensate that being moved on the right instead. That spawn is also totally fine.

Thinking that those spawns can cause one player to lose is ridicolous. I mean if you can't bear those spawns which are super conservative you might as well go play something else.

Kaiserklein wrote: I like when there are constraints to make sure that the 3-4 first hunts are at a similar range of tc for both players, without being necessarily symmetrical or fixed. But I don't wanna blame the mapmakers for not doing that, because it's probably really hard.

It's not even hard. that would actually be a rather nooby approach to coding a map. Would require additional code and wouldn't even work that well for team spawns, where the increased map size would expose how resources tend to polarize near TCs rather than being distributed evenly all around the map.
Most maps have that kind of conservative approach but not in terms of max distance from TC.
The main measures to ensure that hunts spawn evenly are the minimum distance from TC and the minimum distance among hunts. Those constraints combined with hunts spawning after mines and trees is already enough in 90% of cases to ensure good spawns for both 1v1 and team. Then if that's not enough, more specific constraints can be added.
For example Arkansas only have one deer hunt coded to each player. All other deer hunts (7 or 8 in 1v1, depending on how much room they find) are placed randomly below the river and they spawn evenly 9 times out of 10.
I think anyone can see the huge advantage of using just a couple constraints instead of more tight constraints up to the 4th hunt or so. It is both more elegant (less and leaner code) and also more effective in allowing different hunt patterns. This better approch transfers to team spawns without requiring extra code.

Don't worry Garja I appreciate your time in writing this even if noone else does. :flowers:
User avatar
Argentina AraGun
Lancer
Posts: 516
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: AraGun_OP
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by AraGun »

Why do ppl still even listen to Jerom?? Its obvious he has no life posting over 12k times on this forum just ignore him and life is easier.

Garja maps sometimes spawn unfair for some players but they are way more balanced than re maps and have made basically all of esoc tournaments enjoyable. The guy works hard for free so thats something not to take for granted.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Gichtenlord »

Yeah, I have to agree. Atleast his older maps like Hudson Bay and Arkansas are arguably one of the best maps you can play on.
He is also right in his code segment about arkansas. The approach on arkansas is how you should approach hunt patterns, but it doesnt work on all maps due to map design.
r]
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by momuuu »

Gichtenlord wrote:Yeah, I have to agree. Atleast his older maps like Hudson Bay and Arkansas are arguably one of the best maps you can play on.
He is also right in his code segment about arkansas. The approach on arkansas is how you should approach hunt patterns, but it doesnt work on all maps due to map design.

Theyre both better maps but still theres flaws clearly. Arkansas has this iffy dead zone that screws over the map and the same with hudson bay. Arkansas should restrict spawning hunts in that deadzone and hudson bay should probably fix the fourth hunt. But garja wont even agree the spawns can be flawed.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Garja »

What are you even talking about Jerom lol.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: Biased mapchecking?

Post by Dsy »

I think maps are totally fine. There are usually always fixed amount of safe hunts for both players. For example in arkansas and hudson bay both player has a big and a normal pack of animals. Thats good how it is.

Crates start a totally different story. For example Japan who decided by rng to will be good or be doomed by a rush. Thats really Not a competitve envirement though.

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