momuuu wrote:Kaiser means that apperantly the same maps were used for the first, second, third etc. map of the series. So game one was always on some map (tibet??) and then game two on another map (manchuria?) and then game 3 on some fixed map and so on.
I would call that "fixed map order" or "fixed map set". What I mean with fixed maps is static maps that have 0 (except for maybe treasures or walking hunts) randomness in them, and are generated the same every time. Basically like a scenario map.
momuuu wrote:Kaiser means that apperantly the same maps were used for the first, second, third etc. map of the series. So game one was always on some map (tibet??) and then game two on another map (manchuria?) and then game 3 on some fixed map and so on.
then he didnt even read the OP and missunderstood the whole thread and is just randomly arguing?
momuuu wrote:In the end I feel like aoe3 is not flexible enough for all civs to actually play around the maps (or the specific map layout). Instead, people will just pick the civs that aren't handicapped by the maps and will feel like they can't play some civs on that map. Instead of promoting diversity, I feel like many maps actually feel restrictive instead. Instead of being able to pick all civs and use all strats, you can now just use a limited selection of civs/strats competitively. I've never really felt like there was much other adaptation to the maps at all.
That holds lots of truth. Who would readily choose to play Iroquois on Thar Dessert, or Germans in Indonesia? Some civs dont show their full potential on every map type. India or Brits for example appear as strong civs because they do well in most map types. I don't know how would a map work where all options are viable, probably such is ESOC Hudson Bay or maybe ESOC Florida[sic?]
momuuu wrote:In the end I feel like aoe3 is not flexible enough for all civs to actually play around the maps (or the specific map layout). Instead, people will just pick the civs that aren't handicapped by the maps and will feel like they can't play some civs on that map. Instead of promoting diversity, I feel like many maps actually feel restrictive instead. Instead of being able to pick all civs and use all strats, you can now just use a limited selection of civs/strats competitively. I've never really felt like there was much other adaptation to the maps at all.
That holds lots of truth. Who would readily choose to play Iroquois on Thar Dessert, or Germans in Indonesia? Some civs dont show their full potential on every map type. India or Brits for example appear as strong civs because they do well in most map types. I don't know how would a map work where all options are viable, probably such is ESOC Hudson Bay or maybe ESOC Florida[sic?]
I believe balancing has been done around maps like Kamchatka and Arkansas. I don't think water play has been considered much in terms of balance so far, and the same is true for no TP. @Goodspeed @zoom could maybe confirm this, but I recall something along these lines being said (also, the balance for water gameplay and no TP gameplay is terrible right now anyways).
momuuu wrote:Kaiser means that apperantly the same maps were used for the first, second, third etc. map of the series. So game one was always on some map (tibet??) and then game two on another map (manchuria?) and then game 3 on some fixed map and so on.
then he didnt even read the OP and missunderstood the whole thread and is just randomly arguing?
Yeah I think there was a confusion between fixed-map pool and fixed map-pool.
momuuu wrote: ↑theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
momuuu wrote:In the end I feel like aoe3 is not flexible enough for all civs to actually play around the maps (or the specific map layout). Instead, people will just pick the civs that aren't handicapped by the maps and will feel like they can't play some civs on that map. Instead of promoting diversity, I feel like many maps actually feel restrictive instead. Instead of being able to pick all civs and use all strats, you can now just use a limited selection of civs/strats competitively. I've never really felt like there was much other adaptation to the maps at all.
That holds lots of truth. Who would readily choose to play Iroquois on Thar Dessert, or Germans in Indonesia? Some civs dont show their full potential on every map type. India or Brits for example appear as strong civs because they do well in most map types. I don't know how would a map work where all options are viable, probably such is ESOC Hudson Bay or maybe ESOC Florida[sic?]
I believe balancing has been done around maps like Kamchatka and Arkansas. I don't think water play has been considered much in terms of balance so far, and the same is true for no TP. @Goodspeed @zoom could maybe confirm this, but I recall something along these lines being said (also, the balance for water gameplay and no TP gameplay is terrible right now anyways).
As is evident from patch notes, efforts have definitely been made to improve balance on NTP and water maps. Nevertheless, it remains the case that EP is primarily balanced around land TP-maps, and that balance is never expected to be ideal on other map-types. It's simply unrealistic.
momuuu wrote:In the end I feel like aoe3 is not flexible enough for all civs to actually play around the maps (or the specific map layout). Instead, people will just pick the civs that aren't handicapped by the maps and will feel like they can't play some civs on that map. Instead of promoting diversity, I feel like many maps actually feel restrictive instead. Instead of being able to pick all civs and use all strats, you can now just use a limited selection of civs/strats competitively. I've never really felt like there was much other adaptation to the maps at all.
That holds lots of truth. Who would readily choose to play Iroquois on Thar Dessert, or Germans in Indonesia? Some civs dont show their full potential on every map type. India or Brits for example appear as strong civs because they do well in most map types. I don't know how would a map work where all options are viable, probably such is ESOC Hudson Bay or maybe ESOC Florida[sic?]
It holds some truth for sure, but not a lot. The perception of one civ not being able to be competitive on a certain map is correlated with how good you are at the game, how good at the civ in question and how good you know the map and make creative use of it. In fact, given the EP process of standardization, every civ can be played on most maps, even at high level. When this isn't the case the map is an extreme one (indonesia) or it can just be peacefully accepted as an exception and counted as one of the weaknesses of such civ. E.g. French and Germans on Indonesia could in fact water boom just like 80% of other civs with current 70w fishing boats. Iroquois are only at disavantage on Thar Desert vs Civs that are particularly good on that map and civ vs which they tend to struggle anyway (e.g. India and Japan). Hudson Bay and Florida completely cut off aggressive strats so it's not true that all options are viable. In fact very few maps have all option viable.
momuuu wrote:In the end I feel like aoe3 is not flexible enough for all civs to actually play around the maps (or the specific map layout). Instead, people will just pick the civs that aren't handicapped by the maps and will feel like they can't play some civs on that map. Instead of promoting diversity, I feel like many maps actually feel restrictive instead. Instead of being able to pick all civs and use all strats, you can now just use a limited selection of civs/strats competitively. I've never really felt like there was much other adaptation to the maps at all.
That holds lots of truth. Who would readily choose to play Iroquois on Thar Dessert, or Germans in Indonesia? Some civs dont show their full potential on every map type. India or Brits for example appear as strong civs because they do well in most map types. I don't know how would a map work where all options are viable, probably such is ESOC Hudson Bay or maybe ESOC Florida[sic?]
It holds some truth for sure, but not a lot. The perception of one civ not being able to be competitive on a certain map is correlated with how good you are at the game, how good at the civ in question and how good you know the map and make creative use of it. In fact, given the EP process of standardization, every civ can be played on most maps, even at high level. When this isn't the case the map is an extreme one (indonesia) or it can just be peacefully accepted as an exception and counted as one of the weaknesses of such civ. E.g. French and Germans on Indonesia could in fact water boom just like 80% of other civs with current 70w fishing boats. Iroquois are only at disavantage on Thar Desert vs Civs that are particularly good on that map and civ vs which they tend to struggle anyway (e.g. India and Japan). Hudson Bay and Florida completely cut off aggressive strats so it's not true that all options are viable. In fact very few maps have all option viable.
I think there's still many maps that simply cut into the strength of some civs while not reducing the strength of some others. For casual gameplay it's still fine and the civs are definitely all playable. However from a competitive point of view that's not true. And even still, in practise it just feels limiting if you want a balanced game and otherwise mostly feels negative because the balance becomes worse.
I don't see it that way. I don't feels it limiting or worse. The challenge to play around the map features is exactly what makes the game interesting, even at competitive/high level. If anything, the concept of having more or less favorable maps has to be combinated with repeated games, which is something lacking in tourney format and in rulesets in general.
@lemmings121 @edeholland I said fixed map pool, not fixed maps. My point was that people already argued before this autumn tourney that "with always the same map pool for every round we gonna see insane tailored strats etc", and it didn't happen. Just like now it's "with fixed resources of the map we gonna see insane tailored strats", which also won't happen.
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 ..
Garja wrote:I don't see it that way. I don't feels it limiting or worse. The challenge to play around the map features is exactly what makes the game interesting, even at competitive/high level. If anything, the concept of having more or less favorable maps has to be combinated with repeated games, which is something lacking in tourney format and in rulesets in general.
The examples where players actually play around the map features (except for water) are scarce..
Kaiserklein wrote:@lemmings121 @edeholland I said fixed map pool, not fixed maps. My point was that people already argued before this autumn tourney that "with always the same map pool for every round we gonna see insane tailored strats etc", and it didn't happen. Just like now it's "with fixed resources of the map we gonna see insane tailored strats", which also won't happen.
yeah but..... have you really read the op? thats not really whats this is about. i dont see why people are getting angry with the remote idea of creating a new map/scenario.
the ideia of the thread is discussing the possible good or bad effects fixed maps would have in this game..
For instance: no more rehosting, and no more "my 2nd hunt was on the other side of the hill in tibet and I couldnt heard it. lost because map, blame garja", and at the same time, no more "scouted 95w treasure then decided on the fly to adapt the strat xyz nice!"
Kaiserklein wrote:@lemmings121 @edeholland I said fixed map pool, not fixed maps. My point was that people already argued before this autumn tourney that "with always the same map pool for every round we gonna see insane tailored strats etc", and it didn't happen. Just like now it's "with fixed resources of the map we gonna see insane tailored strats", which also won't happen.
yeah but..... have you really read the op? thats not really whats this is about. i dont see why people are getting angry with the remote idea of creating a new map/scenario.
the ideia of the thread is discussing the possible good or bad effects fixed maps would have in this game..
For instance: no more rehosting, and no more "my 2nd hunt was on the other side of the hill in tibet and I couldnt heard it. lost because map, blame garja", and at the same time, no more "scouted 95w treasure then decided on the fly to adapt the strat xyz nice!"
Dude I did read the OP lol. I posted idk how many posts in this thread already. I was just answering edeholland who said that having fixed maps would mean people can refine their build orders more.
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 ..
Garja wrote:Fixed map pool was good for the last tourney. We did see some more consistency in players' strats.
Yeah cause everyone picked india and did the same shit everytime...
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 ..
Ofc india is too strong, but having manchuria, tibet, gran chaco, and to a lesser extent kamchatka and alaska in the map pool didn't help?!? Not sure what you mean with ger and japs, these weren't so much picked. And when they were, it was mostly as a comfort pick, e.g ger for snowww and me or jap for kynesie.
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 ..
Garja wrote:Well India is one of those civs which can do anything so every map is good for India
Of course, the 2 first maps having like 12 yaks each and big wood treasures doesn't matter at all
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 ..
Thanks for the tag @momuuu good thread, I actually agree with you that Age1 is pretty boring. But you can't really cut it, either, because there are important long-term strategic decisions being made in Age1 relating to TPs and water. I would still like to see a fun event where games start in colonial though. In general we need to do much more to keep this game fresh for the players as well as the viewers. Maps, weird rules, etc. Force people to get creative.
On topic, I actually made a mirrored map once. It was just boring.
Goodspeed wrote:Thanks for the tag @momuuu good thread, I actually agree with you that Age1 is pretty boring. But you can't really cut it, either, because there are important long-term strategic decisions being made in Age1 relating to TPs and water. I would still like to see a fun event where games start in colonial though. In general we need to do much more to keep this game fresh for the players as well as the viewers. Maps, weird rules, etc. Force people to get creative.
On topic, I actually made a mirrored map once. It was just boring.
'removing' age 1 would be part of a huge redesign of the game I guess. Maybe it would create more dynamic gameplay if age 1 was a baby version of age 3, like what is sort of the case in aoe2.
Btw I'd like to point out that some riki maps are pretty much mirrored, and no one seemed to notice it, let alone call it boring. For example Malaysia or Tassili. Hunts and gold mines on both sides are linked by a symmetry through the center of the map
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 ..