EP Map pool set Idea

[amiggo1999]

I think it is a good Idea to create a map-set for standard ESOC TP maps, and non tp maps. This makes especially since when you are trying to practice for tourney, as you won't ever pick ger on a non-tp for example. Having the option of playing on a tp-map or non-tp map set gives you the option of preparing for that kind of map-set, while still having variety in your games.

[zoom]

I think this is a good idea, too.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I've always been for that, but the map team was against it.

[amiggo1999]

Why is that? @Diarouga

[Garja]

An even better idea is to make civs such as Germany viable on no TP maps, so that people will stop complaining.

[[Armag] diarouga]

An even better idea is to make civs such as Germany viable on no TP maps, so that people will stop complaining.

But you can't do that, can you?

[amiggo1999]

But why not have these two different map-sets? @Garja I'm sure there is very high demand for it

[Garja]

Just buff xbows and Germany can be played like it has always been played prior to just making TP+clicking on fortress shipments.

But why not have these two different map-sets? @Garja I'm sure there is very high demand for it

I'm fine with that but it has no sense for the game. TP players will host on TP maps, no TP civ players will host on the other set. If they're reasonable they will compromise and alternate picks. Meanwhile the balance remains suboptimal and an artificial split consolidates.

[Goodspeed]

We tried to get this in the patch years ago. There was a ton of passionate and in some cases completely unreasonable resistance.

[amiggo1999]

Well if that's your theory, if it turns out to really be a problem it can still be reverted @Garja

[[Armag] diarouga]

If I remember correctly, a map maker said he would leave ESOC and the game if that happened.

[Peachrocks]

Given how drastically Germany and Ottomans and a few others play on non tp maps vs. TP maps, I think this is a must. Fact is if playing on standard maps as a TP reliant civ and you roll a non TP map, almost certainly a restart will be called. Civs that do ‘better’ on non TP maps won’t usually call for a restart on TP maps however.

I think it’s fairly accurate to say that the game is balanced with trade route posts being assumed into the game as otherwise Ottoman and Germany at the least would have received significant buffs ages ago and trade posts would have been nerfed heavily as so players wouldn’t rely upon their presence. If the game is not balanced around the assumption of the trade route, then that needs to be addressed.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Given how drastically Germany and Ottomans and a few others play on non tp maps vs. TP maps, I think this is a must. Fact is if playing on standard maps as a TP reliant civ and you roll a non TP map, almost certainly a restart will be called. Civs that do ‘better’ on non TP maps won’t usually call for a restart on TP maps however.

I think it’s fairly accurate to say that the game is balanced with trade route posts being assumed into the game as otherwise Ottoman and Germany at the least would have received significant buffs ages ago and trade posts would have been nerfed heavily as so players wouldn’t rely upon their presence. If the game is not balanced around the assumption of the trade route, then that needs to be addressed.

Balancing the game around TPs used to be the EP policy.

[Garja]

TP reliant civ is an artificial construct. It's not like when game came out you would see "Germans rely on TP" in the manual. 200w TP change just made them very appetible to the point all other options are now ignored. It would be much easier to slightly buff the old options than adopt the idea that those civs necessarily need a TP.

[[Armag] diarouga]

TP reliant civ is an artificial construct. It's not like when game came out you would see "Germans rely on TP" in the manual. 200w TP change just made them very appetible to the point all other options are now ignored. It would be much easier to slightly buff the old options than adopt the idea that those civs necessarily need a TP.

You don't like the TP meta, do you?

[Garja]

I like the fact that you can somehow reach later ages, but when half of your army comes from one-time unit shipments, that's simply not good for the game. Also colonial warfare is just much more action packed.

[Peachrocks]

TP reliant civ is an artificial construct. It's not like when game came out you would see "Germans rely on TP" in the manual. 200w TP change just made them very appetible to the point all other options are now ignored. It would be much easier to slightly buff the old options than adopt the idea that those civs necessarily need a TP.

And Ottoman was originally intended to be a turtle civ. No. I’m not joking. The logic was that they got ‘free’ villagers so didn’t need to contest the hunt on the map as much. The fact is balance evolves to the players and what civs are or aren’t does too. The devs only have some influence in the direction and their intentions.

The game is much closer to balanced on TP maps then it is off them. If this isn’t the direction the balance team wants then this should be addressed and trade route posts should be nerfed into to the ground but somehow I doubt this is desireable and would go against the whole ‘don’t change the base game too much’.

[Rikikipu]

I'm totally aligned with Garja.

[Rikikipu]

ESOC maps are here to provide you more consistencies between spawns and guarantees you to have a decent amount of ressources to defend from rush compared to RE.
Patch is here to tackle the balance issues there is on RE patch.
=> you problem is a patch problem. I get that it is "easier" to change a map set than to balance a civ, but the easier is not always the better. I believe it's going to be healthy for the game if we try to fix these civilisation problems on no tp maps.

Civs that suck on no tp maps have always existed (both RE and EP) and we've not tried an approach yet to solve that problem. What I've advocated for years is:
- As Garja mentionned, buffing xbow/pike should probably solved most no tp map issues.
- A TP nerf for not overbuffing civs that overperform on tp maps. On Mendocino, each TP provides 25% less exp income than other ESOC maps, and yet people are making tps there, so we got the demonstration that we could definitely nerfs tps by lowering the exp income.

By doing those 2 changes you just tighten the balance differences between tp and no tp maps for the sake of the game

[Goodspeed]

It's a very simple and understandable request and as far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with balance. People want to randomize the map but still know if it's TP or no-TP so they can practice a specific civ or build order. For example there was a time where I only FI'd every game, and with most civs that strat is not even close to viable on no-TP maps.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It's just not possible to balance all the civs on both TP and no TP maps. Buffing bow/pike wouldn't be enough, and nerfing TPs means that we'd have to rebalance all the civilisations, and that's just too much work.

[Peachrocks]

ESOC maps are here to provide you more consistencies between spawns and guarantees you to have a decent amount of ressources to defend from rush compared to RE.
Patch is here to tackle the balance issues there is on RE patch.
=> you problem is a patch problem. I get that it is "easier" to change a map set than to balance a civ, but the easier is not always the better. I believe it's going to be healthy for the game if we try to fix these civilisation problems on no tp maps.

Civs that suck on no tp maps have always existed (both RE and EP) and we've not tried an approach yet to solve that problem. What I've advocated for years is:
- As Garja mentionned, buffing xbow/pike should probably solved most no tp map issues.
- A TP nerf for not overbuffing civs that overperform on tp maps. On Mendocino, each TP provides 25% less exp income than other ESOC maps, and yet people are making tps there, so we got the demonstration that we could definitely nerfs tps by lowering the exp income.

By doing those 2 changes you just tighten the balance differences between tp and no tp maps for the sake of the game

Personally I don't mind which way we go. Whether the team balances the game around TPs existing or whether we try to balance the trade route itself so that certain civs are not significantly worse off on a non TP map. It's true the 'easiest way is not always the best way' and by basically saying 'only TP maps are competitive' we are removing a significant amount of the game.

I'm just pointing out the very real obstacles in balancing the game for both TP maps and non TP maps.

I mean admittedly part of my native boosting agenda notably the 'summer palace' style buff was to make TP civs better on non trade route maps because they could use natives as an alternative option to trade routes but this is immensely complicated, risks breaking the 'decent' balance we have on TP maps and may stray too far away from the base game. Although honestly, this may be the simplest solution given the dangers of the alternatives.

For example giving Ottomans the ability to build additional mosques at 200 wood that give similar experience (or even resource) outputs to trade routes could be dangerous because they could still build these on Trade Route Maps and the fact Trade Posts are balanced by the fact you need map control to use them, Mosques would not have such a drawback. All maps have either a trade route or natives, so boosting natives and giving their trade posts passive benefits might be the easiest route. However as said, the easiest route is not necessarily the best.

[Rikikipu]

It's a very simple and understandable request and as far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with balance. People want to randomize the map but still know if it's TP or no-TP so they can practice a specific civ or build order. For example there was a time where I only FI'd every game, and with most civs that strat is not even close to viable on no-TP maps.

Good point saying it's not a balance problem if you want to practice a particular start. Although OP made the request by saying:

won't ever pick ger on a non-tp for example.

which was more about balance issue than practicing a particular strategy, but I get your point.

[Rikikipu]

I'm just pointing out the very real obstacles in balancing the game for both TP maps and non TP maps.

I totally understand you, and I think everyone's here agree with you. This status quo is not really desirable.

[Sargsyan]

i totally agree, bow/pike buff will make germany better on non tps and tp nerf will nerf them on tp maps. dunno how this will affect other civs though