why all new maps has same features?

[deleted_user]

title says all, as i can see, the new added maps, (even tp form of bayou) all of them had trading posts, and wih the new patch i think the goal should been to make minimal changes and play with it, when you add tp to all maps ofcourse it will change the meta imo.

[Rikikipu]

Nice topic, I hope we'll see constructive posts here. I prefer this rather than people complaining for free on twitch. We are a community and esoc map team goal is that people enjoy maps.

Okay, so this is what I've written in another topic :

Yeah, you are true, tps influence the balance of civs. But, I'm a fan of stratetic decision, since I think this is the main goal of this RTS game : doing the good strategic decision. And the more choices you have, the more intersting it is to do your choices. That's why I like tp maps, because you can chose to play with or without tps, going stagecoach, atp etc. Afterall, you can still play without tps there. So if i reformulate your idea, if you think tps are unbalanced then then main problem is not the map, but balancing the game.

[momuuu]

I personally think 5 TPs that are all accesible is way over the top for the balance and the fact that the team doesn't want to touch TPs tbh. Even 4 TPs might be pushing it imo. Of course things change slightly when you get an inbase TP where stagecoach isn't that great anymore. Imo 3 stagecoachable TPs is acceptable, but if all maps are 3-5 TPs that are all accessible then its still kinda lame :/

[Zutazuta]

For me personally, I find the bigger issue the difficulty in challenging the line. There are a lot of maps where a non-TP playing player has to devote excessive resources into denying the line because it's in a hard to challenge position, has a large number of sockets or both (HP, Ark, Arizona, Baja, Tibet, etc). For me, TPs are interesting, but I think their power level is a bit excessive on many of the maps listed. I'd prefer to see more maps with TP lines like Hudson, Kamchatka and Manchuria where these factors are more in check.

I definitely prefer the new maps to any of the old ones, just something I've noticed in the games I've played/casted.

[momuuu]

For me personally, I find the bigger issue the difficulty in challenging the line. There are a lot of maps where a non-TP playing player has to devote excessive resources into denying the line because it's in a hard to challenge position, has a large number of sockets or both (HP, Ark, Arizona, Baja, Tibet, etc). For me, TPs are interesting, but I think their power level is a bit excessive on many of the maps listed. I'd prefer to see more maps with TP lines like Hudson, Kamchatka and Manchuria where these factors are more in check.

I definitely prefer the new maps to any of the old ones, just something I've noticed in the games I've played/casted.

Which spawn of hudson bay are you referring to? Overall I agree with your sentiments. There's too little maps with only two accesible TPs are something along those lines.

[lordraphael]

I personally think 5 TPs that are all accesible is way over the top for the balance and the fact that the team doesn't want to touch TPs tbh. Even 4 TPs might be pushing it imo. Of course things change slightly when you get an inbase TP where stagecoach isn't that great anymore. Imo 3 stagecoachable TPs is acceptable, but if all maps are 3-5 TPs that are all accessible then its still kinda lame :/

I agree and I have been saying this forever that anymap where one player can grab 3 or more tps while the other player have none is imbalanced. There are some exceptions to this rule for example Sonora has a very well designed tp route: 5 tps but one player cannot take more than 3 tps while the opponent has 1 relatively safe tp and another rather exposed one.

[KINGofOsmane]

I personally think 5 TPs that are all accesible is way over the top for the balance and the fact that the team doesn't want to touch TPs tbh. Even 4 TPs might be pushing it imo. Of course things change slightly when you get an inbase TP where stagecoach isn't that great anymore. Imo 3 stagecoachable TPs is acceptable, but if all maps are 3-5 TPs that are all accessible then its still kinda lame :/

I agree and I have been saying this forever that anymap where one player can grab 3 or more tps while the other player have none is imbalanced. There are some exceptions to this rule for example Sonora has a very well designed tp route: 5 tps but one player cannot take more than 3 tps while the opponent has 1 relatively safe tp and another rather exposed one.

+1

[Durokan]

Hey guys, just wanted to add that I am working on improving the following three maps for potential use in the EP. They come from my map request thread. Maybe for the next round of maps we can have some without TP's (of course I am working on TP maps too, but was adding in that I have these three planned)

Fertile Crescent (Tigris + Euphrates)


my/iNcog's collaborative Guinea


Nile River Delta

[Jaeger]

Hey guys, just wanted to add that I am working on improving the following three maps for potential use in the EP. They come from my map request thread. Maybe for the next round of maps we can have some without TP's (of course I am working on TP maps too, but was adding in that I have these three planned)

Fertile Crescent (Tigris + Euphrates)


my/iNcog's collaborative Guinea


Nile River Delta

Very cool, non TP maps are very refreshing

[momuuu]

I dont think there should be many maps that dont have TPs, I just dont like the maps that are super rewarding for stagecoach play.

The problem is that being able to get all TPs of a line and then stagecoach is so strong that it almost becomes all you can do strategically. Even arkansas is extreme compared to most RE maps, where there are usually in base TPs (note that stagecoach isnt as strong when your opponent can snatch a TP). Im not saying Arkansas has too many accessible TPs, but for being on of least tp favoring maps its pretty intense.

Id like to see more maps like Tassili or Colorado whem it comes to TPs.

[deleted_user]

Hey guys, just wanted to add that I am working on improving the following three maps for potential use in the EP. They come from my map request thread. Maybe for the next round of maps we can have some without TP's (of course I am working on TP maps too, but was adding in that I have these three planned)

Fertile Crescent (Tigris + Euphrates)


my/iNcog's collaborative Guinea


Nile River Delta

i never mean't that new maps shouldn't have trading posts, i just wanted say that the amount of tp number should like in re patch, thats said, there should be a few non tp maps, like in RE patch, there is bayou,painted desert and some others, atleast a few number of map without tp would be good for players, if all maps has tp ofcourse everyone would play france+german everygame and expect easy win imo.

btw, well done with those maps it looks pretty good!,

[iNcog]

Nile River delta looks really cool. I like the Fertile Crescent concept as well, looking forward to those in the map pool. Same with Guinea, ofc. Nice stuff, look forward to it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I think that having no tp maps is bad for the balance, my concerns about the new maps tho is that they have too many tps, we should allow people to take one or two tps to semi ff or boost their bo but we shouldn't allow every civs to go for a stage coach boom.
The std should be 3 tps, 1 for each player and the third in the middle, even 4 tps in the middle is too much.

[iNcog]

Well some civs are going to be naturally better on some maps than others.

Some civs will be the best on 3 TP maps, some civs will be the best on no-TP maps and then other civs will love the maps with lots of TPs.

Same thing with water, same thing with high-resource maps, same thing with maps with choke-points.

Better to have lots of diversity, so that way all civs have their own "good" map. I agree that one map configuration should not be over-represented over other map configurations.

[momuuu]

If the standard is 3 tps that everyone can get then its honestly not problematic that there are 3 (i think?) maps with more tps than that. The problem is that 3 TPs, even arkansas style, is pushing it imo. A stagecoach TP being worth 4 villagers is probably already over the top when you can get 3 TPs.

[forgrin]

I'd definitely agree with Zuta that maps with an isolated midmap TP line are too strong for the civs that can exploit them. That's partially a symptom of no-tp-in-base and also that 3+ TP stagecoach is too strong right now. Something I think was good about the new Riki maps is the splitting of some lines in 2 so that stagecoach isn't so viable but TPs are still available for civs that need them.

IMO the only OP thing about stagecoach is when it's on wood though. It might be worth testing a 20% reduction in wood passes or something (bring it more in line with say gold). When they're on gold or food they're not nearly as strong so I think leaving the level there is better; you can still get your houses for free or whatever from stagecoach wood with that amount I think but it stops it from being ridiculous.

[iNcog]

I proposed TP nerfs in the ESOC patch forums before in the form of slightly slowing down the speed at which the stage-coach moves (actually it was Musketeer925's idea).

That should be enough to slightly nerf the stage-coach meta, whilst keeping builds nice and sharp with discovery TPs.

But it wasn't well received. I'm too far ahead of my tiem.

[zoom]

I think nerfing Stagecoach in particular might be good, but perhaps the base Trade Travois speed should be somewhat decreased as well.

[Goodspeed]

I'm not a fan of the abundance of long TP routes on the new maps either, it makes our job balancing a lot harder.
As for stagecoach I don't think it's a problem, it only becomes worth it in the midgame+. Speaking of exciting changes, instead let's remove stagecoach and make the resource income available from the start, but lower than it currently is.

[Rikikipu]

but perhaps the base Trade Travois speed should be somewhat decreased as well.

The idea is good in theory but don't forget that when we create a map, we take care of the "a la grandes plaines" issue, where taking the middle tp at the begining brings a really advantage. At this point, if you nerf travois speed, then Manchac for instance may have this issue, because at the moment you build the middle tp too late for taking the travois.

[Garja]

By the way, I think that most people are ignoring the fact that the most competitive maps on the RE patch also have 3 or more TPs (Siberia, Yukon, NE, Mongolia, Andes, Patagonia, Saguenya, etc.) but none ever complained about that. None literally considered it being a balance factor until now. That says something about people making balance calls.

[iNcog]

Well, that's because the meta evolved to incorporate TPs, right?

I'm fine with possibly a little nerf, but doing what gs says is nuts.

[Garja]

Well TP meta is a thing since like 2013 atleast. Now it became more obvious, of course.
But my point is the comparison with previous maps, RE maps in particular. Nothing has really changed so there is no reason to complain about TP lines now.
Also stagecoach meta is just good for the game.

[Atomiswave]

@Garja

notification

What do you think about idea that 4 tp's per map should be max?

[Garja]

Well that's the case already, except for 2 maps, one of which is meant to be that way. The other one was more about a coincidence, admittedly.