EP Map pool set Idea

[amiggo1999]

Thing is, even if the game was balanced for both tp and non-tp maps, having these 2 map-sets gives the players the option of testing builds for either kind of map.

[Sargsyan]

i think those games should be unrated then

[amiggo1999]

@Sargsyan ?

[Kawapasaka]

I don't see any reason not to have the two pools available, but I hope they wouldn't be used too often.

[Sargsyan]

pretty sure some people never gonna play lets say otto vs india on non tp maps or some other match ups on tp maps idk
@amiggo1999

[amiggo1999]

@Sargsyan why would they have to then be unrated though? I both players know what they're clicking into.

[Sargsyan]

@Sargsyan why would they have to then be unrated though? I both players know what they're clicking into.

well it shouldn't matter much if youre going to use it for practice matches. i just think that game browser is enough of cherry picking. i wish we could use ep qs

[Garja]

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’.

Funnily enough Otto are the one civ that strongly rely on TP by design. Hence why mosque give xp.
Anyway I got your point but I dont agree with it. The game is balanced when both map types are considered and roughly woth the current no-TP:TP ratio. This is because TP also skew balance in favor of some civs. It's not lime TP is a neutral feature for balance.

[Peachrocks]

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’.

Funnily enough Otto are the one civ that strongly rely on TP by design. Hence why mosque give xp.
Anyway I got your point but I dont agree with it. The game is balanced when both map types are considered and roughly woth the current no-TP:TP ratio. This is because TP also skew balance in favor of some civs. It's not lime TP is a neutral feature for balance.

Mosques didn't give experience until later (late TAD IRC) when players evolved the Ottoman balance to rely on TPs. The idea was to give them something to build off TP maps. Needless to say, it wasn't a very complete solution because Ottoman is still much worse off on non TP maps. Ironically this sentiment sort of builds my point about players evolving balance rather than developers. Germany might not have been intended to be a TP Civ but it's evolved as one just like Otto has. Whether that evolution is something to be kept or discarded is up for debate.

I guess if you ran two tournaments, one played entirely on TP maps and one played entirely off them, it'd be interesting to see just how much each civ is picked or not picked and which one had more diversity though I think we already know the answer to this. Either way, nothing's going to get resolved until there is a clear direction from the team on this issue. 'Does the game get balanced on Trade post maps? Or does it try to balance the game for not having them and then significantly changes how trade posts function'.

For the moment though, there's literally no reason why 'no TP maps' and 'TP maps' can't be put into the game as a feature because the game balance is so drastically different in light of this. Even if your personal belief is that maps regardless of trade route should be played on (which is one I share for what's its worth), that's just not a realistic ideal at the moment, so apply the band aid until we can stop the bleeding yeah?

[Garja]

I know about the mosque but Otto are still TP reliant by design (see silk road card for example), so it was just a natural evolution.

The tourney argument is not great. If anything we should run a tourney with both type of maps and one with TP only maps and see which one has more civ variety.

[Peachrocks]

I know about the mosque but Otto are still TP reliant by design (see silk road card for example), so it was just a natural evolution.

The tourney argument is not great. If anything we should run a tourney with both type of maps and one with TP only maps and see which one has more civ variety.

The fact silk road affected the trade route was actually unintended and got nerfed later in consequence :). Really, they had no clue what they were doing when they made Ottomans. Honestly.

Also obviously the former choice is going to have more 'variety' but that's a really loaded question and wouldn't prove anything. Alternatively you could run it in a way in which you pick random maps and players don't know whether they are getting a TP map or not and see what happens with pick/win rates.

Base argument though. Game is currently not balanced on non TP maps. Ottoman at the very least is significantly weaker. Can't we just give people what they want until a better solution is reached?

[Garja]

I know about the mosque but Otto are still TP reliant by design (see silk road card for example), so it was just a natural evolution.

The tourney argument is not great. If anything we should run a tourney with both type of maps and one with TP only maps and see which one has more civ variety.

The fact silk road affected the trade route was actually unintended and got nerfed later in consequence :). Really, they had no clue what they were doing when they made Ottomans. Honestly.

Also obviously the former choice is going to have more 'variety' but that's a really loaded question and wouldn't prove anything. Alternatively you could run it in a way in which you pick random maps and players don't know whether they are getting a TP map or not and see what happens with pick/win rates.

Base argument though. Game is currently not balanced on non TP maps. Ottoman at the very least is significantly weaker. Can't we just give people what they want until a better solution is reached?

I still think the design of Otto is pretty clear. Having free vills, they don't need food crates so they have extra wood crates which are used for mosque or TP. It just makes sense. And you really think a card named "silk road" wasn't originally intended to affect TPs? Why wasn't the bug fixed then, instead of just nerfing the %?

A tourney with both types of maps would prove that with a diverse map pool you get diverse civ pick. That's enough for my argument.
Base argument is that the game is better off with both type of maps and the balance is dynamic. Balance as per win rates should be considered with the entirety of MUs and maps and should be an average of all conditions. An example of what I mean: is Arkansas really more balanced than Pampas Sierras in MUs like Ger-Japan or Otto-Japan? There is no neutral condition. Some maps help some civs, some help others.