New Team map set

[[Armag] diarouga]

What map would you like to see in the next map set?
You can select 23 maps.

The less voted maps, that existed in the team map set, will be removed and the 23 first will be the new team map set.

[Garja]

Actually they wont be necessarily removed and the pool wont necessary be of 23 maps

[[Armag] diarouga]

The less voted maps, that existed in the team map set, will be removed

[forgrin]

I don't play much team at all so I haven't even played team on like half of these maps. Tbh as long as deccan is out of the standard set I'm happy.

[iNcog]

just weigh them down

i'm not sure who decides on these things but i'd rather see weight in the map set rather than removing maps

[Durokan]

i'm not sure who decides on these things

i'm not sure anyone in this thread is either

[[Armag] diarouga]

just weigh them down

i'm not sure who decides on these things but i'd rather see weight in the map set rather than removing maps

GS/Buckethead.
I don't think it is good to weight the maps because my point is that team players instantly leave when they get this map, so why would you keep it?

[Mr_Bramboy]

i'm not sure who decides on these things

i'm not sure anyone in this thread is either

fixed.

[_H2O]

We already weighted sets. Team is not weighted. Also this sounds like it came up out of nowhere

[musketjr]

i'll just say for team maps you have to bear in mind the effects of one team having better early map presence. on maps like manchuria or the new pampas, that's almost instantly game winning because you simply can't access 3rd hunts/mines.

also on manchuria if you spawn on the right side you have access to less resources, a bit like how the same thing happens on yukon. that map can be fixed easily with better placed mines and hunts

high plains 3rd mines are also too far but it's not as bad as manchuria

il be positive for once and say that mendocino is a really good team map

[Garja]

lot of maps have asymmetric layout, the pocket player should move his stuff to the other side to grab more resources.
Better early map presence is in general arguable since it is part of the game. You can't add resoures to the point that map control doesnt grant an adventage anymore. 2 mines seems a reasonable amount of safe gold, 3 is already an arbitrary facilitation. The other day I could go imperial as Ports with 3 mines around my base. Btw on Pampas Sierras each player can access one side mine atleast, for a total of 3 reasonably safe mines.

Anyway I think that the team map pool is becoming too big. Should probably turn it into a selection of a selection of maps.

[musketjr]

"the pocket player should move his stuff to the other side to grab more resources."

that's just not realistic :/

the defending team is trying to timing push out or possibly ageup and then timing, right? if you gotta walk 15 vills across the map you already concede massing ability, and they're gonna get raided/idled anyway.

[zoom]

We already weighted sets. Team is not weighted. Also this sounds like it came up out of nowhere

Out of widespread discontent among EP team players with the maps and the very recent release of several new maps, rather...

[momuuu]

Interesting how diarouga was allowed to decide which maps will be included and that there will be precisely 23 maps.

[benj89]

he inherited the illuminati throne you ignorants
sad to see no texas

[[Armag] diarouga]

Interesting how diarouga was allowed to decide which maps will be included and that there will be precisely 23 maps.

I didn't?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Meh, I added Texas, unfortunately, it removed previous votes

[Mimsy for President]

Worth it :3

[zoom]

i'll just say for team maps you have to bear in mind the effects of one team having better early map presence. on maps like manchuria or the new pampas, that's almost instantly game winning because you simply can't access 3rd hunts/mines.

...

How this is different from 1v1, other than cavalry raids being more dominant due to the added importance of mobility as the map scales?

[musketjr]

i'll just say for team maps you have to bear in mind the effects of one team having better early map presence. on maps like manchuria or the new pampas, that's almost instantly game winning because you simply can't access 3rd hunts/mines.

...

How this is different from 1v1, other than cavalry raids being more dominant due to the added importance of mobility as the map scales?

it's not really, i just don't care about 1v1 any more.

but yea it's not different. on manchuria in 1v1, map control civ has access to smth like 10k in mines in the middle, whilst other player is capped at 3 or 4k. it's stupid and not playable map. the last 1v1 i played on that map, india mirror with prince, one agra is in that little middle section, the other slightly behind. in the mirror you make the same units so after a few minutes he can safely access either of the 5k mines in the middle whilst i have to move all the way to the middle/side to gather next to his units. it's just ridiculous, and i'll never 1v1 on that map again.

the pampas map seems ok in 1v1 though. the difference here with team is that map control team makes access to sides completely out of the question, so defending player is capped at 2 mines and i think 2 hunts. in 1v1 you can choose to defend on one side where there is an additional hunt, which you can't really do in team. you just get idled by russia and can't herd, obviously can't camp to the side of your town.

[zoom]

So you basically think all maps should have a gold mine and four herds adjacent to your TC?

[musketjr]

load up manchuria 1v1 and look at the map. it's a design problem

you could also fix that by making it so that an fb can't be built in the centre of the map, from where all the next mines are covered. if fb player had to build to one side that would at least enable the other player to more safely defend the other side.

[_H2O]

Hey if you want all your maps to be similar maps with different skins then just pick the maps individually. High level play always is map dependent. You pick Civs based on the map your playing on.

I really don't think the random map sets are a good choice for serious games.

[Mitoe]

Agree with Ryan. You should play to the map, and just because a map requires a different playstyle than you're used to doesn't make it a bad or "unplayable" map.

That being said I don't care at all about team games so feel free to do whatever you want with this map pool

[noissance]

Mendocino and Hispanola get my votes.